simian

Corn can and will transfer genes to corn. Rice can and will transfer genes to rice. We are not talking about different species with somewhat limited interfertility. We are talking about crops which (each within its own crop) is completely fertile.

Quote:

If you look at the articles Ive posted, you'll see the distance is hardly the only strategy for containment, and not the most significant one. And obviously corn is not the only 'vehicle' crop that can be used. And, again, by far most of the proteins that are being discussed would not be toxic to humans even if they did come into contact them.

Yes, one is a gene for male sterility. However, how do you ensure that each and every seed for each and every generation has a functional male sterility gene?

Corn is a likely vehicle crop due to high yeilds, hence higher production per unit land area. While corn may not be the ultimate vehicle crop, it is extremely likely a food crop (or tobacco) would be used due to our knowledge of crops of economic value (both growth conditions and actual genetic knowledge). And it seems you do recongize that economics would drive at least part of the decision: (from an earlier posting in asking about swine as the production unit)

Quote:

Did you read the review article in question? The reasons are that production costs are high, production timescale is very long, and there are risks of contamination (of the product).

Quote:

I understand. However, what scares the bejesus out of me is that lots of people will die or suffer needlessly because we do not take advantage of all the tools at our disposal. Certainly there may be risks, as I've said, but I definitely have the impression that to ban all pharm crops would be a case of straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. Patrick

Introducing a known allergen to a food crop will cause needless suffering as well as prevent some. I don't think it is worth sacrificing some people in order to save others for cheaper medications.

I certainly do not advocate banning all pharm crops. I oppose intoducing known allergins into a food crop that may escape into the food system, thereby injuring or killing unsuspecting people.

If the protein in question is a non-allergin, then I have no objection to it on the basis of danger to those with allergies. If the protein in question is an allergin (or potential allergin, using the same standards as are used for GMOs going into food production), then the crop must be completely isolated from all possibility of contaminating food crops.

Simian

contracycle

And as I said, you are merely citing your nominal motivation. Intent counts for very little.

OK. Then that concedes the vast majority of my claim: as I metioned earlier, I think this is a realm in which the precautionary principle has to rule unchallenged. Unless there is an overwhelming and immediate need to do it, I think the risks are far to substantial to take.

In principle, but this describes only the current state of legislation, not a permanent state. Drug companies have lobbied to have facotires producing knock-off drugs shut down, despite international agreements allowing their production, on the basis that they consitituted a competitive threat. As I said, it has taken a decade to get the licensing of AIDS drugs carried through to the point that third world production can begin significantly - and as mentioned previously, even then there is no guarantee that such drugs will be consumed in the third world, becuase cheap production can be retailed at higher prioces to the First world.

Yes, thats trivially easy to agree on. What is not so trivial is whether those production costs constitute a significant barrier in an Industrial society. I say not, on the basis that we can and do already opverproduce food and yet have starving people. Lowered production costs do not appear not appear to have beneffitted the poor signifcantly in terms of food - why would they benefit from medicine? I say our problem is one of distribution, not production, and thus the quest to drive down production costs is essentially a red herring: even if that goal is achieved, access will not increase. Only profits will incease.

I didn't say MORE worried about one than the other. I am saying, why increase the potential incidence and the potential significance of those incidents? That is not a risk worth taking for such trivial benefits.

I have not failed to make the case for "trivial benefits" at all: you need to demonstrate some reason to think that, against existing precedent, such work would have ANY befeits for the people it is alledged to benefit. What will happen this time, that will be different from Monsanto's attempts to own terminator crops, or the failure of the Green Revololution to significantly reduce global hunger. Purely technical limitaitons are simply not the problem.

But my point is, evolution is a wild process, and we simply cannot rule out the possibility that such will be produced. Furthermore, by aiming such interventions at our biology spcifically, we are allowing unprecedented opportunity for processes not normally exposed to human biology to become adapted to it. If we introduce a gene to a plant, then that gene becomes a potential subject for competitive advantage - and as we can see from biological diversity now, we simply cannot predict that This Will Never Happen. And if we cannot predict that This Will Never Happen, then we should apply the precautionary principle and carry out our experiments no in the wild, but in highly controlled experimental conditions over the long term. Only then, when we have a large body of experimental data detailing the generational effects oni outr modifications, would I consider it to be worthwhile to carry out such an intervention in the external ecosystem.

As I said: I am not against the idea in principle, but I think that rushing this technology forward is an excellent example of hubris. If the existing trials had been carried out in better faith, and not performed so badly, I would have greater confidence. As it stands, this is far too high a risk for essentially fictional benefits.

If you want to solve malnutrition and hunger in the first world, I suggest you start by tackling the Wests agricultural subsidies and trade protectionism. This would introduce a massive profit motive to primary agriculture in the thid world, and the problem would relieve itself. An appeal to "magic technology" merely seeks to avoid addressing the real and practical existing problems.

contracycle

Well, Monsanto claimed that its round-up ready rape seed stock would improve productivity by making the massive use of weedkiller safe; thus productivity would improve as natural predators of such crops had a harder barrier to climb. In practice, the seed stocks do not self-propogate, and so many Indian farmers, where this has been deployed, have been driven to bankruptcy and suicide. This is of course due to the fact that these terminator crops must be re-purchased from Monsanto - as must the weedkiller - every harvest.

What basis do you have for expecting that such a modified crop, even if determined to be wholly safe in every respect, would actually be released, essentially for free, to the third world farmers who actually need it? Do you not think it likely that the companies that carry out this work, and great erxpense, will insist that these technologies be paid for, either by the end user or some state organ?

If the former, its a non-starter, as these people are on the borderline, primary agricultural producers in the face of massive Western agricultural subsidies: they are poor and cannot afford to recompense a western company in western money. And this is absolutiely necessary due to the "moral hazard" as specifically realted to intellectual property.

If the latter, the idea is also a non-starter, as those governing bodies are heavinly limited by world trade treaties on the degree of pro bono spending they can carry out; furthermore, most Western governments are more interested in forcing purchases in the perennial arms trade as part of a quid pro quo. So it is highly unlikely that third world states will be able to take up the offer.

How then is anyone to benefit? What exactly is the proposed methodology of roll-out such that real human beings actually benefit? It seems to me this is pie-in-the-sky idealism, not a practical analysis of the realities of starvation and malnutrition as they actually exist.