Scientists develop GM 'protato'

[sbs]

The Indian government raised the global biotechnology stakes yesterday by saying it intended to feed "nutritionally enhanced" GM potatoes to poor children as early as next year. Yesterday the head of the biotechnology department, Manju Sharma, said the protato would be given free to millions of poor children to try to reduce malnutrition in the country. Dr Sharma said she planned to incorporate the vegetable into the government's free, midday meal programme for schools. "There has been a serious concern that malnutrition is one of the reasons for the blindness, the vitamin A deficiency, the protein deficiency. So it is really a very important global concern, particularly in the developing world," she told the BBC yesterday.

Sounds great at first glance doesn't it, however..............

Leading Indian food analyst Devinder Sharma dismissed the GM potato as "another magic bullet from the trashcan of biotechnology industry". He argued that protein could be better provided by the pulses used traditionally in India. "What this country needs is pulses. They contain 20%-26% proteins... this potato has 2.5% protein. Please tell me which one is better."
Greenpeace campaigners dismissed the protato as an advertisement for biotechnology. "Years were spent in a lab trying to lever protein into potatoes, while cheap, protein-rich pulses grow abundantly all over India," one said. "It makes you wonder what problem the scientists were trying to solve."

So GM food - good or bad?

[gofes]

Originally posted by sbs
Leading Indian food analyst Devinder Sharma dismissed the GM potato as "another magic bullet from the trashcan of biotechnology


What do they mean by a magic bullet.
What I understand as a magic bullet is an early type of inoculation. Do you have a link to the article?

[sbs]

Here you go:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,975619,00.html

[socialist cook]

I think one of the main points against GM foods comes in the registration of patents and how some companies can force other countries to only buy their crops as they have the patent for it. Yes, I'm thinking of Monsanto and I'm glad the EU still have a morotorium against the enforcing of one companies patents. The most interesting books I've read that have helped put a mainly anti GM view across have been "Captive State" by George Monbiot and "Fast Food Nation" which i think had a bit about it.

If i've spelt morotorium wrongly please tell me:)

I think its moratorium now:D

[sbs]

that whole patenting genes thing is really, really scary too, how can we let companies patent genes for feck's sake?

[Takk]

I don't think it's a good thing, without seeing more information. An enriched potato, sounds like a bad thing. The trouble with enriching fruit/veg with vitamins/drugs/protein whatever is that you have no idea of a dose. If it combats hunger and malnutrition, then i guess it would be good - but surely there are better, less high profile, ways to do it?

Although there are a number of different levels of genetic modification, and it's unfair to bundle them all together.

On a basic level, selective breeding itself is genetic modification and we've been doing that for yours. There's no apparent harm in it.

Next there's genetic modification where we take a gene from a plant already in the food chain and give it to another plant, an example would be for a rice plant to be given the gene from a wheat plant to make it tall. This is useful, and will be in the developing world. Yes we've changed the genes, but we've used ones that would be in the food chain anyway, there should not be any real problem.

Now we get to the potentially problematic. Taking a gene from an animal or bacteria, that isn't in the food chain, or even making genes ourself and putting them into food. Like making a banana plant make antibiotics or putting in termination genes or making plants resistant to pests. This can be very useful but imo it needs a greater amount of research and testing before we should even start using it. It's not a matter of scaremongering, it's a matter of principle that we should know what something does, not just assume it's safe.

This is why i don't think it's a good idea for the US to grow GM crops, or ship them as aid. If we really wanted to send aid i'm sure we could send non GM crops, as it's hardly as if we are short of food in this country. I'm not saying GM is dangerous in this comparison, but everyone thought smoking was good for you when it came out, look at it now. Something should be established as safe before it gets widespread use. And some GM crops haven't. America grow a lot of GM food, and i'm not really sure that they've done anywhere near like the number of studies they should have done. Admittdly with oil, very little of the DNA goes into the food, but there's still a lot of GM protein, and the fact is we don't know what it could do.

Although there's been some good ideas recently so the plant has two genes, and when it produces pollen, only one of these genes can go into any pollen grain. Both genes are needed for the GM qualities to be transferred to an offspring, and so they never can. I can't remember the science, but it was rather clever and i hope it will make GM crops better and solve a lot of problems with genetic transfer.

Like socialist cook has said, another big problem is the big companies. But if they've made a gene, like a terminator gene, they have effectively created it, and so are allowed to copyright it. But the way they use terminator genes is disgusting. What I really have a problem with is people trying to patent actual human genes, i mean wtf? How can you patent something hat's been around possibly for millions of years. It's ludicrous.

[sbs]

Good points Tim, I meant patenting human genes btw, should have made it clearer.

[CardiacHeartache]

Originally posted by sbs
Good points Tim, I meant patenting human genes btw, should have made it clearer.


Even though there was a big rush on it a few years ago, many of those patents don't actually stand up in court. I was discussing it with the director of a biotech company and she said that there aren't many judges who'd rule in favour of a company who were holding back medical research to make money out of a region of DNA.


Another danger of modifying crops is that inserting a new gene which expresses a certain protein (maybe one from an inedible species) into an edible crop may lead to problems if the protein is toxic, or causes allergic reactions.

[Tim]

I don't like the idea of GM food, where does the line get drawn about how much food gets modified and what about the effects of contamination with other crops? They just don't know the long term implications do they? If the world creates enough food to feed everyone but it doesn't get distributed equally then how will GM food change that?

[sbs]

Originally posted by Tim
If the world creates enough food to feed everyone but it doesn't get distributed equally then how will GM food change that?

Since we already produces enough food to feed everyone and it is a question of distribution perhaps those clever scientists should be working on enhancing the "let's share" gene that so many people obviously lack!

[CardiacHeartache]

Originally posted by sbs
perhaps those clever scientists should be working on enhancing the "let's share" gene that so many people obviously lack!


Yeah, well, they could, but there's gotta be something for the politicians to do hey?:p