David Suzuki on GE trees

[pipelineaudio]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSEVzwdjjWw

David Suzuki seems to be quite concerned about genetic engineering in this video. Is he alone in this or has he got a consensus going that agrees with what he has to say here?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not many people are going to be interested in watching a 46 minute video produced with an anti-GMF agenda to find some single supporting statement by David Suzuki. You at least need to cite the minute in the video the claim can be found.

Thanks.

[Skeptic Ginger]

In looking up Suzuki's position on GMF, he seems to be cited as against it in all sorts of anti-GMF sources. But when you look at his original stuff, his issue seems to be generally concerned with all sorts of rapid changes (as opposed to slow ones evolution can address) in food production and distribution, claiming not enough studies are done on the effects of all these changes in the food supply.

The Big Picture: Reflections on Science, Humanity, and a Quickly Changing Planet By David T. Suzuki, David Taylor

From naked ape to superspecies: humanity and the global eco-crisis By David T. Suzuki, Holly Dressel, Holly Jewell Dressel, David Suzuki Foundation


While he may not be alone, there are plenty of biologists who think the trade off of producing food for 6 billion people needs to be weighed against all the potential problems. Feeding the planet is a real concern. Humans have been eating GMF since we first evolved the use of agriculture. It's absurd to see GMF as some generic boogyman. It's more reasonable to address the issues of a safe food supply on a case by case basis.

[pipelineaudio]

In the video, he starts making some pretty serious claims as soon as the credits finish. This just doesn't seem to be the same David Suzuki from all the science specials I watched, he seems very different in this one. I'll watch it again and try and list the first few claims he makes

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

In the video, he starts making some pretty serious claims as soon as the credits finish. This just doesn't seem to be the same David Suzuki from all the science specials I watched, he seems very different in this one. I'll watch it again and try and list the first few claims he makes

Dave seems to have taken to extreme positions on environment over the last 20 years. I'd say it's a result of him being an ardent activist. Take the extreme and hopefully end up at some middle ground.

As a geneticist I suppose his views on GMO's have always been extreme. Just saying.

[macdoc]

DOCTOR Suzuki generally starts programs with some provocative questions then lays out the various aspect of the issues.
Rarely do I see him provide a pat answer or position or conclusion..rather he raises the questions and digs into the finer details of a given problem.

The Nature of Things has been running for 30 years +
It is an invaluable resource.
Full versions are available online.
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/natureofthings/

and well regarded
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/natu...gs/awards.html

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by macdoc

DOCTOR Suzuki

Why did you capitalize the word doctor and put it in bold? Lots of people are doctors but don't make a big fuss about honorifics. Many of those who do make a fuss about it are cranks or aren't even real doctors (not suggesting that's the case here).

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Humans have been eating GMF since we first evolved the use of agriculture. It's absurd to see GMF as some generic boogyman. It's more reasonable to address the issues of a safe food supply on a case by case basis.

Although I agree with you, when convincing people GMF is OK, it does not help to gloss over the fact that we are adding gene from completely different taxa, fish into plant, plant into animals, gene which would not have come in with classical cross breeding. Just sayin'.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

The only reason we can do that though is because horizontal gene transfer, ie transferring genes between species, is a perfectly natural phenomenon that has existed in nature for probably not much shorter than the current genetic code.

The only difference in scientific GMF rather than the agricultural one, is that using the scientific method we know what we're putting in, where and what it's supposed to do. The 'natural' way is just throwing things together via grafts and whatnot and hoping something sticks that does what we want, without having a clue what other stuff is transferred.

Why is doing something quicker and more careful such a problem?

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

The only reason we can do that though is because horizontal gene transfer, ie transferring genes between species, is a perfectly natural phenomenon that has existed in nature for probably not much shorter than the current genetic code.

The only difference in scientific GMF rather than the agricultural one, is that using the scientific method we know what we're putting in, where and what it's supposed to do. The 'natural' way is just throwing things together via grafts and whatnot and hoping something sticks that does what we want, without having a clue what other stuff is transferred.

Why is doing something quicker and more careful such a problem?

Well, for one things, if an horizontal gene transfer occurs from a fish to a plant, passing intermediate species, it usually take a bit longer than a few years. So the species eating the plant has time to evolve, and it happen within an ecosystem changing it. We are actually making such a phenomenon much more preponderant, and much more speedy.
Is it bad ? Probably not. But glossing over that and making it identical to agriculture when it is not, give an openning for people to spread FUD. "see they compare it to agriculture, but in reality it isn't like that ! you can't cross a fish and a wheat ! They are all lying !".

PS: more careful, I am not so sure I agree with you there.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Horizontal gene transfer directly between species already occurs. Even with plants. This can either be two different plants trough a virus or plants with fungi and the like.
Even though emotionally we see a difference between a fungus gene being inserted naturally or a fish gene trough engineering that doesnt mean there really is such a difference.
The main reason the public is wary of such things is because of doom and gloom organizations that somehow assume that introducing a single gene or even a few genes will cause an organism to drastically change. Or that such genes can now invade you! Any information to the contrary is handwaved off as the government trying to mislead the public.
'Improved flavor' beer? Genetic manipulation
All fruits,vegetables and most animals we eat? Genetic manipulation.
ANd not all of it ancient either. The new yellow kiwi's and flat peaches are out and out genetic selection and crossing. But because it was done randomly and uncontrolled its 'good'
But introducing a gene so less pesticides are needed or plants can survive adverse conditions better.
And people who are worried such genes would suddenly invade them had better never eat anything not cooked for hours, lest they suddenly become plants or animals. After all those genes are just as likely to transfer as any others trough digestion.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Although I agree with you, when convincing people GMF is OK, it does not help to gloss over the fact that we are adding gene from completely different taxa, fish into plant, plant into animals, gene which would not have come in with classical cross breeding. Just sayin'.

If you ever get a spare hour, you might find this program interesting:

Genetically Engineered Food: The Science Behind the Controversy

It might just surprise even the most GMF skeptic to learn just how modified the foods we think are natural really aren't.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Well, for one things, if an horizontal gene transfer occurs from a fish to a plant, passing intermediate species, it usually take a bit longer than a few years. So the species eating the plant has time to evolve, and it happen within an ecosystem changing it. We are actually making such a phenomenon much more preponderant, and much more speedy.
Is it bad ? Probably not. But glossing over that and making it identical to agriculture when it is not, give an openning for people to spread FUD. "see they compare it to agriculture, but in reality it isn't like that ! you can't cross a fish and a wheat ! They are all lying !".

PS: more careful, I am not so sure I agree with you there.

Ummm, not necessarily. The foods we grow are incredibly modified, not just gradually modified by thousands of years of humans sorting seeds. Have you ever noticed there are no seeds in your bananas? Did you know that microorganisms regularly exchange genes between different species? Were you aware we have various viral genes fully established within our human DNA?

[Dragonrock]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It might just surprise even the most GMF skeptic to learn just how modified the foods we think are natural really aren't.

I'm not being smart, I'm just not sure exactly how to parse out this sentence. Does the "really aren't" apply to "modified the food" or "natural"?

[manofthesea]

One concern here in Hawaii about GMF is the transfer of 'terminator' genes to the native endangered flaura. There's a nature preserve approximately one mile away from a rather large Monsato test field that is being monitored by a few groups here. Sorry, no links.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by manofthesea

One concern here in Hawaii about GMF is the transfer of 'terminator' genes to the native endangered flaura. There's a nature preserve approximately one mile away from a rather large Monsato test field that is being monitored by a few groups here. Sorry, no links.

But such things can happen anyway. If a random plant virus picks up a gene that is bad for local flora and transfers it.
The chances of that happening however do not increase when something is genetically modified.
Inserting a single gene into a plant genome in such a way that it works as we want and is stable can take several years in a lab, using techniques not available in nature.
Ie, we can take single cells and expose them to massive amounts of DNA tailored to insert where we want. In nature a virus has to randomly pick a piece and then it can randomly insert it somewhere else.
And even when we skew the statistics this way, the majority of insertions will fail. However, you only need a single stable insertion to then be able to grow the plant naturally and reproduce it that way.

Such inserted genes are then no more and no less mobile than any other gene in the plant. Except in a few rare cases the inserted genes would not give the GM plants an advantage over natural plants without human intervention. They do allow the plants to be better for agriculture however, allowing better yield per acre which means less land is needed cleared for the agriculture.
Since the agriculture will take place anyway and if farmers need more land than they'll clear the local fauna, GM plants actually help protect this.

[ThunderChunky]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

But such things can happen anyway. If a random plant virus picks up a gene that is bad for local flora and transfers it.
The chances of that happening however do not increase when something is genetically modified.

Adding a gene to a plant will increase the chances that wild populations of that plant species will get the gene. However, the chances of that gene going to local fauna will only increase if the local fauna can be pollinated by the specific GM plant. Terminator genes probably wont be much of an issue, because they transfer such a selective disadvantage. In fact, terminator genes may be a good way to keep GM genes out of the wild populations if they can be linked to the transgenes.