Talk:Genetically modified organism
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Talk:Genetically_modified_organism".

	This article is part of WikiProject Genetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this page, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating.

MCB portal This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Cholesterol. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. This page has been marked as needing immediate attention. Comments:  · history  · watch  · purge Rated "top" as controversial topic with media coverage. Article may need to be looked over for NPOV. - tameeria 01:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Can Someone upload a single frame gif instead of that 1MB, there ARE 56k'rs out there...

Controversies over genetic modification

Link 5 in this section appears broken. I don't what the original link was to, but this: http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php#n1 seems the probable article. Garble 11:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Who would like to investigate the background of the following news and to incorporate it into the article? http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1535428,00.html mms 20:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Just a note of interest: Mendocino County, California has recently banned the production of all GMOs within it's borders. The measure passed with a 57% majority. Thought you would be interested. DryGrain 18:40, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(confused comment)

LDC's response to confused comment:
Monsanto's "terminator" seeds were merely seeds engineered to produce seedless plants so that farmers would have to keep buying seed from Monsanto. Farmers figured out pretty quick that this was a bad idea and the business model failed, as it should have, in the free market. The Monarch story was about corn engineered to be worm-resitant, so it wouldn't need to be grown with pesticides. A study showed that its pollen was also toxic to monarch caterpillars, who feed exclusively on milkweed. Milkweed often grows near corn fields, but the study failed to show that any significant amount of pollen actually gets onto milkweed leaves where any caterpillars might be harmed, and of course it entirely ignored the fact that without the gene mod, the fields would have been sprayed with pesticide that kills them all without question, so the gene can only be the benefit of the butterflies. --LDC

Recent evidence shows that genetically-modified plants may "escape" from fields in which they were planted and out-compete unmodified plants in surrounding fields. (Provide references)

This is very unclear what "escape" mean here. This would gain between explained. Is the plant escaping by moving itself (:-)), is it the pollen that is "escaping" and could maybe fertilize plants of the same family, or is it that new modified seeds are produced, and could be left, and colonize surroundings ?

In the second case, it does not matter maybe that the pollen escape if they are no plants of same family around (for exemple, there is no "native" corn in europe).

The "escaping" that was observed was that genetically-modified plants were found in fields (in which they had not been planted) surrounding the test fields. "Escape" is a standard term in the field of biotechnology. Various means of emigration may be posited, including pollen capable of fertilizing unmodified plants and the broadcast of the seeds of modified plants. Whatever the mechanism, the findings are important because it was not previously thought that these particular modified plants could escape. The findings are therefore worthy of mention in the article. As time allows, I plan to look up the references. David 17:13 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)

ah, the "escape" word is the standard one !
Well, that's a pb such a word is not more precise.
I think a link to the mexican corn contamination would be nice
More on the terminator gene would be nice too, for use of sterile pollen is a way to avoid contamination through pollen dissemination.
I also think that article is not balanced at all. Far too much cons compared to pros. As time allows, I could plan to give it a more proper aspect :-)

I moved the link below, for it appears to be broken

• Allison Snow, an Ohio State University professor who received Scientific American1s first annual Research Leader in Agriculture award, has reported (http://www.osu.edu/researchnews/archive/sungene.htm) on several studies showing the strengthening of weeds due to genetic escape of the Bt variant.

I looked at the discussion page, and I see nothing. I suppose the reader is expected to look by himself in the search box for the Allison Snow; if so, that could be notified, rather than leading to a page where it is written in big large letters " The page you are looking for has moved or is outdated."

Second, I put back the "possible" word. You can change it into any other word you like, but reading the article slowly again and again, I must insist it is only a "possible" that is discussed here. I don't consider a BBC article with a caption stating "Pollen from GM rapeseed crops has certainly escaped" to be proof enough that pollen escaped. I think that here the "certainly" expresses a personal conviction of the writer, not a fact. When reading the text, I see

• But before that happens, some pollen will escape from the crop and be carried into nearby fields by the wind, or by bees.
• But in any case, the chances of the GM pollen establishing a foothold in British plants seem vanishingly small.
• The GM pollen will certainly escape into the surrounding countryside.
• It may land on the stigmas of native plants like wild mustard or wild radish, and it may pollinate them.
• there could be a problem with "volunteer" rapeseed growing the following year, plants originating from seed which went astray at the time of sowing.
• So they could perpetuate the gene flow
• etc...

could, would, may...
All I see here is fair evidence that it is likely to happen, not fact it did.

There is "certainly" (personnal conviction) somewhere an article with facts. This is not fact. And this is not clearly discussing the fact it happened.

Or...it is that the word "escape" is definitly not the good one. I look again at your above comment and my question is

• does "escape" means pollen go away from the perimeter we could expect it to limit itself (ie, on the other surrounding fields) or
• does "escape" means the above + success in contamination of the surroundings crops

In the first case, escape is a evidence, in the second, it is not (at least in this article).

There are now three articles with closely related content:

genetically modified organism which is a laundry list of current concerns. As an article, this one is weakest, partially because it has no point of view (not the same as having a neutral point of view).

genetic modification which is about the process and potentials, long-term, of gene manipulation. It is not restricted to current technologies, nor to current industries, and is not afraid to go off into science fiction territory with the Raelians. Nor should it be, as at least one article has to talk about the long term potentials without getting bogged down in Monsanto and the left-right arguments.

genetic engineering which is about the field the way the gene hackers themselves see it - with some limited lip service paid to the objections of those who deny it's engineering. Presently genetic manipulation links here, which might be appropriate if that term is explained as a more neutral replacement for 'genetic engineering' - presently in the 'modification' article.

All three articles contain content worth saving, and one article could probably not do what the three do. Probably it's important to confine speculation to a couple of lines and a link to one article that is mostly about those potentials and ethical dilemmas and politics, that presently being genetic modification.

Is it really correct to have two separate articles for genetic engineering and genetically modified organism, however? The issue seems to be that an 'engineering' process that outputs an 'organism' is totally new ground for the professions, and so it may be appropriate to discuss these in one article, but leave the speculations (as they are) off in another article.

"For instance, a bell pepper may have DNA from a fish added to it to make it more drought-tolerant." - Was this meant to be a joke or something? -Jedi Dan 16:55 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

I can't tell from the history where this statement came from, but it appears to either be an error, a joke, or reference to something very obscure. -º¡º

sigh...yes...a tiny gene copy for frost tolerance from a fish, the Arctic flounder, has been transferred to plants (strawberries initially, other perhaps, I havenot checked).

It is neither a joke, nor an error, nor anything obscure. This said, it is certainly not the best example that could be given...the majority of the initial generations are more about resistance to herbicides, salinity/drought/cold/frost (but from one plant resistant to another non resistant usually), disease or pest resistance, enhanced developement or final quality. user:anthere

Read the above carefully and you will see where the error in the text is. The text says the DNA is to make the plant more drought-tolerant, which could be seen as a joke (a drought-tolerant fish?). The fact was the gene was to make the plant more frost-tolerant, which is a completely different thing. As I said, it was either a joke, an error, or an obscure reference. You have simply provided evidence towards the error scenario. -º¡º

Depends on the fish. Mudskippers do have a number of unusual genetic adaptations that allow them to survive extended periods of dehydration (although most of these adaptations are more likely to be useful to animals than plants). The major genetic modification that might make plants more drought-tolerant would probably be the addition of genes (say, from a fungus) for the enhanced production of the sugar trehalose, which seems to offer some protection to the internal structure of dehydrating cells. Trehalose is already supposed to be produced by some plants. But one can imagine that if someone isolated a gene that boosted tehalose production in response to early dehydration, that that gene might be a candidate for transfer. I don't know if trehalose production is part of the mudskipper's armory of tricks or not. ErkDemon (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: Trehalose happens to give improved protection against cell damage from dehydration (perhaps by forming a protective supporting gel around cell organelles), and also from freezing (it seems to suppress ice crystal formation). Both features may relate to "glassification" -- a dehydrated solution of the sugar may form a protective glassy gel over internal cell structures, and the sugar may also encourage supercooled water to say in a noncrystalline "glassy" state, preventing the disruption and destruction of of cell organelles by ice crystals. So the idea that a single substance might protect from both drought and freezing isn't necessarily dumb. ErkDemon (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

bah. Frost is certainly much much more correct. But, when a cell suffers from frost, one of the impact of frost is lack of water, for the water in the cell is in a non-available form (since frozen, he ?). Hence, the usage of "drought". Similarly, in tundra, the soil is very humid, but the climate is dry for most of the water is unavailable. I agree this might sound like a bad joke though. This example is not very good anyway, as it was used as a "pinpoint" (is that word correct?) by anti-gmos people, to insist on how un-natural gmo were. Hence, it is an example with "very heavy" history. Using this example in the introduction is imho pov. It certainly might be inside the text though. Besides, it sound so incredible that many would believe we are joking.

I changed it. I couldn't find verification either. Koyaanis Qatsi 04:37 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks kq (hi btw :-)). Just type words like fish gmo strawberry tomato and should find it, all over the place. Hard to find scientific ref though. ant

about the fish/frost example: If you know of an example with less cultural baggage, maybe you could put that in instead. I'm certainly not an expert on GMOs. Koyaanis Qatsi

well, will see. We should perhaps give an example on cotton in China. It will have less cultural baggage than citing a Monsanto example :-)

What "cultural baggage" does the current example have? Why would we replace it? -º¡º

Oh Anthere, saying that the frost causes internal drought is really stretching things. Maybe this is something that comes from a difference between French and English, but we don't use the word "drought" in that way. Perhaps "dehydration" is a better fit, but drought, no that had to be an error. -º¡º

ah, possibly. Well...that was a fun error anyway :) Imagination allow geneticians to stretch reality pretty far away. I will always dream of my blue roses...

Hopefully you won't have to wait very long. Florigene has already patented the blue gene and is working on splicing it into roses. Maybe next year? -º¡º

some years ago, I tried to breed blue roses. And hoped to see new colors and new features appear with some biotech techniques. Not with foreign gene insertion though. Some experiments worked. But, not the blue roses :-(

that article is totally messy PomPom 19:47, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Though 'totally messy' is a bit obscure, I would certainly say this article has problems. The radiation-treatment of wheat strikes me (as a layman) as entirely different from the deliberate modification of a DNA strain to give a specific, designed capability; yet the 'wheat point' is brought up several times thrugh the text as a counter-argument. As I said, I'm no biologist, but I think someone more qualified should take a good hard look at this article (and fix it). Radagast 23:14, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

From the article:

Losses of Biodiversity

...Local governments and industry since have been pushing hybridization with such zeal that several of the wild and indigenous breeds evolved locally over thousands of years having high resistance to local extremes in climate and immunity to diseases etc. have already become extinct or are in grave danger of becoming so in the near future.

Is this a fact or an oppinion? Why isn't it refferenced by some scientific article? I would realy like to see a partial list of specieses extinct "thanks" to that practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.176.114 (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved POV paragraphs

Moved from the page:

Opponents often falsely present research conducted by scientists at the Imperial College London and the Universidad Simon Rodriguez in Caracas, Venezuela as revealing that the diamondback moth grew 56% faster when fed cabbage genetically modified to contain Bt than it did when fed cabbage without the Bt. This is not very honest, as the moths were fed on leaf discs treated with Bt, not transgenic plants. Therefore, the research has just as much potential relevance to organic farming, in which Bt is a commonly used pesticide, as it does to transgenic plants. The 56% figure is disingenuously picked because it is the largest number that can be derived from the data; the differences in pupal weight, development time, and pupal weight/developmental time are much, much smaller.

And:

Compare a news article falsely claiming that diamondback moths grow faster on cabbage engineered to contain Bt than they do on cabbage without it, [1] with the actual published scientific manuscript, [2] , in which it is clearly stated that the moths were fed cabbage treated with several doses of Bt.

While the issue is certainly relevant, discussing it in such POV language is entirely unacceptable ("falsely present .. not very honest .. disingenuously picked .."). Furthermore, this smells like a straw man unless there are citations for the claims that are rebutted -- who says this? Reputable anti-GMO organizations, or some personal website? Furthermore, it neglects that the whole point of the paper is to present a hypothesis, not to test it (that's why the title ends with a question mark).

This whole article is an example of what NPOV shouldn't be, but these two paragraphs were especially egregious.--Eloquence* 22:06, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

I removed several paragraphs of material which were inherently biased; those issues are already covered better elsewhere. This article should focus simply on what a GMO is and what it isn't. As it is, it remains heavily focused on transgenic plants. While this is an application of genetics which is highly visible to the public, it is by no means the extent of applications of gene technology.

Some of the material I eliminated should be considered for integration into the other articles on genetics. Also, I think we should add some more paragraphs on the lesser-known uses of GMOs in the research community, e.g. oncology, immunology. Jeeves 23:07, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is possible to distinguish between the two because classical genetic techniques involve looking into the family history of the life form you are studying, and modern genetic techniques involve gene knockout or gene replacement

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeesguy45 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the "Genetic modification of bacteria" part is all wrong.
I. The discussion is not about how the "genetic composition of bacteria can be altered...", but how the genetic composition of bacteria can be artificially altered. Or how the genetic composition is altered in practice. The only method used in the laboratories is transformation. The other two are the ways for the exchange of genetic material in nature.

transformation, conjugation and transduction.

People who are opposed to GMOs remind me of the following line of thought:

THE EARTH IS FLAT!!!

There is no proof that GMOs are bad, just rumors spread by people opposed to scientific advancement.

Its not "bad", but there are problems... 209.148.144.171 06:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would question the neutrality of the final portion (controversies) of this article. Some parts in this section need editing for a less biased, more scientifically sound source of information. For example, the pollen spread concern is widely discredited in the case of the two largest transgenic crops, corn and soybean. For soybean, it is obvious reasons (does not cross-pollinate). For corn, while pollen grains may travel great distances, the viability of corn pollen grains is very short (around 10 minutes), therefore it is not a major concern. Many studies have taken place to address this, and farmers do plant "buffer zones" to prevent cross-contamination of adjacent fields following the findings of these scientific studies. For more information, check the list of references at the end.

Also, on the previous paragraph, there is no correlation between increased Bt resistance in insects with the opening sentence (being harmful to humans)

References:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/corn.html http://www.umaine.edu/waterquality/Agriculture/GE_Corn.htm

Burris JS (2001) Adventitious pollen intrusion into hybrid maize seed production fields. Proc. 56th Annual Corn and Sorghum Research Conference 2001. American Seed Trade Association, Inc. Washington, D.C.

Westgate ME, Lizaso J & Batchelor W (2003) Quantitative relationship between pollen-shed density and grain yield in maize. Crop Sci. 43, 934-942

Ma BL, Subedi KD & Reid LM (2004) Extent of cross-fertilization in maize by pollens from neighboring transgenic hybrid. Crop Sci. 44, 1273-1282

Stewart DW, Ma BL & Dwyer LM (2001) A mathematical model of pollen dispersion in a maize canopy. 2001 Annual Meeting Abstracts, The ASA-CSSA-SSSA Headquarters, Madison, WI.

Here is one evidence of transgene flow, from a canola field to another: Pollen flow between herbicide-resistant Brassica napus is the cause of multiple-resistant B. napus volunteers Hall etal. 2000

Merge

I think genetic engineering should be merged with genetically modified organism for the following reasons:

1. Genetic engineering is a term that isn't used within science anymore.
2. The mix of terminology is confusing for people outside the field, especially when they are basically describing the same thing.
3. The concept of genetic modification would be better explained if these pages were merged.
4. I think ethics/safely discussions need to be specified in terms of organism and either page is a bad place for extended discussion on the topic.

Opinions? I would like to merge sooner rather than later.--nixie 01:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe they should both be merged into Genetic modification? I have no real opinion either way. --brian0918™ 01:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I considered that too, its probably the best option.--nixie 02:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it'd be best if the articles were merged to Genetic modification as well. On a slightly related note, would the merged article also cover breeding, should breeding be covered as a type of genetic modification? Thunderbolt16 02:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I was going to add a discussion of non-recombinant methods of genetic modification, including mating and the various chemical ways to induce genetic modifications, but I'd leave the page breeding where it is.--nixie 02:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
      • That sounds perfect to me. Thunderbolt16 01:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this proposed merger for a number of reasons. Whilst the two articles are undoubtedly similar in content I'm not sure that they are seeking to describe the same thing. Genetic engineering should ideally refer to the process and genetically modified organism should ideally refer to the product, both of which are slightly different things. I agree that both of the articles require some attention and co-ordination but I'm not sure that merger is the answer.--Nicholas 10:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Has this matter been resolved? Maybe we should remove the merger tag?--Nicholas 10:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the comments (above) from Nicholas. Even a casual look at the scientific literature shows that the term "genetic engineering" continues to be used by scientists. I suggest that when coverage of a topic exists in a distributed fashion spread over many wikipedia articles, what can be done is to carefully link the related articles by means of a navigation box that contains links to all of the relevant pages. There could even be a summary article that serves as a guide to the topic and describes which aspects of the topic are found on the various wikipedia pages that touch on the topic. We have to learn to use hypertext to manage distributed information. Wikipedia is not paper and we have to learn to avoid the temptation to behave as if we are still restricted to the options that govern print. --JWSchmidt 16:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nicholas and have a little more to add. Genetic engineering is a broad term applied to any process that utilizes genes to engineer something. The something can be an entire organism, as in the case of a genetically modified organism, but it is much more common in genetic enginering that what is altered are individual cells from an organism that reproduce in a bioreactor. These are genetically modified cells (as in the Chinese Hamster Ovary cell). Not only is genetic engineering a process and GMOs a product, but GMOs are a subset of the products made by the process. I am removing the merger tag Flying Jazz 05:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The definition of GMO is not correct.

At the basis of any regulation, there are concepts, needs, purposes, requirements, and words. A regulation has a scope hopefully applying to a specific object. Such an object is usually defined. The very accurate meaning and the whole ontology of a regulation, their connection to other regulations rely upon such definition. Alike the stones of a building, the definition used by a regulation are the basis of their robustness and architectural or aesthetic coherence. Would the definition then not correctly reflect the object(s) it is supposed to describe and the purposes (ethical, economical, environmental) of the regulation, then the whole regulation, at the time of its application, will raise "problems". If not leading the market and the regulators to non sense, surrealistic, non scientific, non consistent, and, of course, to opportunistic consequences.

The definition of "genetically modified organism" is an historical example of inappropriate and inaccurate definition. Such a definition does not result from scientific or technological contexts but factually from regulators of the European Union (see further). These words were historically invented by lawyers. For this reason documented further, the merge of the GMO problematic and genetic engineering does not appear very useful. Even if it is true that biosafety issues related to genetic engineering were historically motivating the creation of both American and European regulation of "Biotech" products.

The first publication of an official document mentioning "genetically modified organism" is neither a scientific paper nor quoted from the jargon of genetic engineers. It appeared in 1990 in the very Official Journal of the European Union publishing the Directive 90/220/EEC "on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms" (Official Journal of the European Communities - 8.5.90 - Page No L 117/15). In its article 2, a GMO is meant as "an organism in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination".

Compared to the definition of the Article, the important thing is not that "the genetic material has been altered" but that 1) it has been altered by a way that does not occur naturally" (One of the above comment mentions "artificial genetic alteration") and 2) that the only processes deemed to be "natural" are mating and natural recombination.

The regulation sinks deeper in the genetical mat while precising further in the same article which genetic modification is covered by the regulation and which one is not. This happens in April 1990 when the European Union involved 9 Member States. Eleven years later, with an enlarged Union of 25 members, the definition has been maintained word by word in Directive 2001/18 abrogating the previously quoted one. This directive is considered as the "Reference directive" for all kind of sectors: medicinal, food/feed, additives and very soon seeds. This a detail that better explain the weight of the mentioned definition.

All those familiar with the debates around GMO and GM food and feed could feed their understanding about the source of the "problems".

For those biologists and geneticist familiar of genome plasticity and the urge variety of mutagenic processes and gene fluxes found in nature and in experimental transformation, the legal definition of GMO documented here has very weak -if any- biological or genetical basis and could consequently well be non sense.

While the words "natural" and "naturally" are quite dificult to define, "GMO" as one of the most sensitive definition of biotechnology refers to an hypothetical common understanding of "nature" and to a very limited and specific technologies.

(Cclone 00:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

WTO about GM food

The article mentions: " This issue has been brought before the World Trade Organization, which determined that not allowing modified food into the country creates an unnecessary obstacle to international trade."

Thw WTO has not yet settled the dispute about GM food/feed between the EU, Argentina, USA and Canada. In August 2005, the WTO has consequently not yet determined anything.

(Cclone 00:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

Copyvio

The almost-cut-and-paste (see the recent page history) came from the second paragraph at this url. It's been altered very slightly but not enough, IMO, not to be considered a direct lift, so I suggest it be removed again. --Whouk (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)~

Mutualism

I know mutualism has nothing to do with cross-breeding, but i've heard somewhere that mutualism could also involve, in some particular (rare) cases, some kind of genes transfer. Could anybody verify this? The mutualism article, being a biological concept that was used in a very interesting way by Gilles Deleuze, is a perfect example of what a rhizomatic encyclopedia like Wikipedia can do... (it just has to changes it's arborescent way of categorizing things though :) Lapaz 01:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert from edits by 62.123.204.178

I reverted the page back from the state this user left it in. Upon reading the changes after that, and the changes he made, it seems clear that user's objective was to eliminate the citations and otherwise damage the article, and everything after that was just repairing it or reverting vandalism. I apologize if I missed some valid edits and clobbered them, but I didn't really see a good reason to correct all the individual bits of damage this anon user did. --FreelanceWizard 21:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Small error

In Genetic modification of animals:

"By selecting mice whose germ cells (sperm- or egg-producing cells) developed from the modified cell and interbreeding them, pups that contain the genetic modification in all of their cells will be born. Baylor College of Medicine currently has one of the largest transgenic mice facilities in the country."

Which country? The U.S? Elamere 12:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone changed a subheading to "Gay Rights." Can someone fix the correct subheading?

Bloody rox 16:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Bloody Rox

genetic crossings

Cut from article:

despite many known examples of natural genetic crossings occurring throughout history (see for example horizontal gene transfer)

If this is one side's argument in favor of GM - or a rebuttal of an anti-GMO argument, let's source it. Who says it's "natural" or "un-natural"?

In fact, who are the primary proponents and opponents of GM, GMO's and genetically modified crops? I heard that some European countries won't allow imports from poor African countries of GM food crops. Free market advocates call this unfair. Can someone identify the disputing sides a little better? And outline their arguments more clearly? --Uncle Ed 19:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone has vandalised this article, replacing a line which should say 'There has also been the genetically manipulated bull Herman with 55 offspring' with 'There has also been the genetically manipulated your mom with 55 offspring', under the section Genetic Modification of Organisms. Please revert this. 85.12.80.128 14:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Unregistered user

Transgenic Organisms

Should the page "Transgenics" really redirect to this page? According to Winter et al (2002) "Transgenic organisms (incorrectly termed genetically modified organisms, GMOs)...". If this is the case then surely a separate article should be started? I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, just wondered what the general consensus was?

[Winter, Hickley & Fletcher (2002) Genetics 2nd Edition (BIOS)]

Alex 17:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Biologists' and doctors' opinion

I've ever wondered why is there a controversy about this, if everybody knows that genes do mute naturally. Are natural crops under a stricter control than GM ones? I would say it's the other way... Yes, I know natural mutations do occur far less often (further less considering the organism must survive + spread its genes). But I would say there are no controls about the possible toxicity of natural crops (maybe inspections or something, but no scientist feeding rats with every product which is sold). As if Mother Nature looked after us poor humans and didn't produce venoms and toxics by Herself...

This sounds to me like when my gf told me she didn't want to eat food heated with microwave ovens since, "microwaves are radiation!". Uuuhh chernobyl microwaves... (Uuuhh plants with genes... Uuuhh mutant plants...).

Additionally, since I don't know a word about medicine: Can a product be toxic without containing toxic substances? And if the assumption is that GMO can contain (produce) toxic substances, couldn't those toxic substances be detected with an easy chemical analysis? I mean, is it real, the need to feed rats/monkeys/wathever with a product for 5/10/20 years to be sure that that product isn't toxic?

PS: My gf didn't believe me initially when I told her light=radiation and microwaves=light lol --euyyn 01:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Horizontal gene transfer

Horizontal gene transfer should me mensioned someware in the article.--87.64.0.216 18:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Other forms of change

Besides changing DNA, it is also possible to treat seeds with colchicene. The result is an organism with double the normal number of chromosomes. I do not know whether this line of study has been much pursued lately. It was quite active around 1960.P0M 04:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno how much this is used at the moment either. There is a good bit of info on this at the Colchicine article. The reason why this stuff is not really discused on the GMO page is that the definition of GMO is arbitrarly set so that it only includes organisms that are the result of direct manipulation of DNA using the techniques of molecular biology. So induction of chromosome doubling counts as classical plant breeding and does not result in a GMO. This definition of GMO is apparently legislated around the world. But it is a pretty arbitrary distinction when you consider all the other "unatural" techniques used to produce crops that have had their genetics modified. You can use mutatagenisis or cochicene to modify the genome but you don't end up with a GMO!!! Such is the way of govenment regultations on this issue.Ttguy 01:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Genetic Engineering

Have there been a case of a human gmo?

Sort of. With viruses new functional genes have been inserted into human cells. A good example is for cyctic fibrosis, a nasal spray with the virus infects the lung cells to help them restore a more normal function. But this should be considered treatment rather than genetically modifying in the GMO sense. No germline transmission has been attempted. I'd imagine it is illegal for one. David D. (Talk) 17:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

GMOs Affects on the Environment sections added by Karoline2006

The edits made to add the sections on GMOs Affects on the Environment contain some useful info but are problematic. They seem to be a cut and paste from somewhere else as the text does not really intergrate into the rest of the article.

The section headings are not section headings so they appear to part of the "Government support for and ban of GMOs" section.

The references are not formated properly.

There are factual in accuracies. Eg Tasmania is not a country but a state in Australia. BTW If you want to talk about states in Australia, NSW and Victoria have just lifted their bans on GM Canola crops.

This line from Ho and Cummings is such a scaremoungering lie as to be funny - if you know it is a lie.

"To make matters worse, the agrobacterium that was being used to genetically modify these trees is capable of producing tumors in the infected species, which can pass tumors onto both animals and humans (Ho and Cummins 2004). "

Agrobacteria can never cause tumors in animals. Agrobacterium is a plant pathogen. The wild form of it can cause tumours in plants. But the form used in GE plant production is "disarmed" and can not cause tumors in plants. Such a claim is typical of Mae-Wan Ho. Note the source of the quote is not a peer reviewed scientific paper but a publication of a environmental activist NGO.

I am not sure that the text can easily be re-habilitated so I am going to delete it. But if Karoline2006 wants to try an rehabilititate it by better integrating the information then she should give it a go. Ttguy (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This statement is factually inacurate "the generational system fails to consider environmental impacts" since regulations governing the release of GMOs around the world explicity consider possible impacts on the envionment. For example it is considered if the crop plant being released has wild relatives that it might cross breed with. It is considered whether the release is to be near a center of diversity for where the crop originated. It is considered as to whether the traits of the GMO are likely to increase its weedyness or invasiveness. There are many things that are considered to do with the environment when applying for a general release of a GMO to the environment. Ttguy (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This statement is an overly simplistic analysis

"[GMO trees] also soak up quite a bit more water than non-GMO trees because of their rapid growth. "

What is important is not how much water a tree uses but how much water per tonne of wood a tree uses. If a GM tree uses more water per day but produces wood faster then we have not lost anything.Ttguy (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ttguy: YOu are describing the impact on wood production, not on the groundwater table. If GMO trees lower the groundwater table it could be very significant. See current problems with invasive exotics in fynbos ecosystesm in South Africa. The effects would be similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primacag (talk • contribs) 21:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence for the claim that Salmon were genetically modified so they can be "grown on a farm in fresh water". It is my understanding that the genetic modification of salmon has happened much later in the history of salmon farming - ie salmon farms have existed long before GM salmon came into existance. Until such evidence is presented it is not fair to claim that GM salmon is reponsible for sea louse problems. Ttguy (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence for the commmerical release of any GM fish. I am under the impression that they are still only in research phase with this. But I could be wrong. Ttguy (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The stuff about a genetically modified plant from the brassica family invading New Zealand is highly dubious since no GM plant has ever been released in New Zealand. According you the Karoline2006 text this GM plant "has moved through New Zealand mixing in with wild species within the family." "The GM hybrid was created six years ago, and once introduced to wild species, spread quickly." Scoop 2007 is quoted. It turns out that Scoop 2007 talks about a Candan study on the introgression of hebicide tolerance traits from Canola to weedy relatives of Canola. Scoop reports that is sigificant for NZ because a "GE brassica [is] being developed and trialled by Crop and Food Research in New Zealand". How more misleading can you get? A study in Canada is converted to a frankenweed invading and taking over NZ. Ttguy (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The argument which states that we should not use Herbicide tolerant HT crops because this will hasten the arrival of herbicide resistant weeds is very silly. The use of herbicides causes the arrival of herbicide resistant weeds irrespective of the presence or absence of HT crops. (The first examples of roundup resistant weeds came well before round resistant crops were made.) But to say we should not use herbicides now because they may become useless in the future is stupid. What use is a herbicide if you do not use it? The argument is like being sick with a bacterial infection but refusing antibiotics because in the future the disease that is killing you may become resistant to the drug. Yes you only take the antibiotic if you are sick. No you don't take it if you have a viral infection. Yes you finish the cource. But you don't refuse the antibiotic if is effective right now.

What is one way to speed up resistance to herbicide? - use too low of a dose on the plants. But with HT crops you can use a higher does because you know the crop will be safe. So HT crops may not actually be a cause of weed resistance to herbicides. Ttguy (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fearless mouse

The mouse that does not fear cats. A very cool application of GM technology. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

german language citations

We have some german language citations for some rather radical claims. According to Wikipedia:Citing_sources

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.

So as per this policy I am deleting the unsourced claims - they have been fact tagged since July —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttguy (talk • contribs) 08:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

External Links / General

I was wondering that somebody erased my external link (Pinky Show interview, version from: 18:11, 26 January 2008 83.25.147.194 ) to an interview about GMO with Jeffrey Smith. Would please tell me the reason, cause in my oppinion this is a quite good and informative conversation.

A cartoon that advocates non-mainstream ideas seems to fail our Wikipedia:External links guidelines in two separate ways. This really didn't seem a very helpful addition. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Swiss "Dignity of Plants"

Based on material such as this and the official page, I was hoping that someone might be a little more familiar with this material to weigh in on it. I'm looking through the materials right now over the question of relevance to the Transhumanism‎ entry, and would certainly like to hear any responses. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Globalise "Government support for and ban of GMOs section"

Fanx added the Globalise template to the Government support for and ban of GMOs section 2 May 2008. Ie they added the "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."

Probably a fair call. I will try and add Australian perspective.Ttguy (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It would really be helpful to me if this topic included links to GMO plant articles

It would really be helpful to me if this topic included links to GMO plant articles. Could someone put in a list for plants, animals, microbes, and any other categories. Or tell me where the list exists if I am too ignorant to find it. Thanks in advance Primacag