What can be done to stop genetic engineering?

I’m afraid it’s almost hopeless at this point. Too much of that genetic engineering is profit based. Greed is something human beings will never conquer. All you can do is hope they don’t start getting fiction-book crazy with the human genetic engineering.

I disagree that it’s a problem.

Genetic engineering has been going on for millions of years. Human involvement in genetic engineering has been going on for thousands of years, ever since ancient man figured out that mating two different types of cows made for better milk and beef, and that mixing one seed with another makes for stronger crops.

Even more recently, think of the work that Gregor Mendel did in terms of developing hybrids of different crops (cotton, corn,etc.) which make better and more productive plants based on the strengths of each of the donors.

Or are you saying that you would like to pick which experiments and which cross breeding should be done based on some criteria of your own? What makes you an expert?

Frankly, genetic engineering of plants and animals is a very positive thing and assist the world in feeding a growing population. Without it people would starve. Is that your preference? Let people die instead of having the benefits of more productive crops?

I see genetic engineering as a positive thing and it should continue and grow.

Why would we want to stop it? Yes, we should regulate it to make sure our food supply is safe (we all know that corporate greed drives this sort of thing, so we need to monitor it closely), but if science can increase food production in a way that’s safe for people and safe/safer for the environment, it’s a benefit to civilization.

Nothing will stop it short of an environmental disaster.

I wonder what exactly is the definition of genetic engineering of food? I love love love honey crisp apples, which were created at the University of Minnesota. I am however against genetically altering animals, especially if it harms the animal. I don’t mind trying to breed a certain type of animal that produces desired meat or milk, but I don’t like the females being artifically impregnanted, I rather it happen naturally, which I know is very unrealistic on a commercial farm.

It’s not a problem.

In fact, if you think that industrialized, fossil-fuel based agriculture is a huge problem and believe that our food system should be sustainable, GMO’s are going to need to be part of the solution.

GMO’s, like any other food product, should be regulated to ensure they don’t cause health problems. We also need to reform the patent system surrounding GMO’s—I don’t think a company like Monsanto should be able to patent an organism.

But there is nothing unique to GMO’s that would make health a concern, and it’s a shame that so many environmentally-minded people have such a knee-jerk reaction against GMO’s.

Easy. We need to cull some of the humans (2–3 billion or so would be a good start) so we can live on less productive crops.

(I figured cull was more… tasteful? term than mass genecide)

@Lightlyseared – I don’t think of myself as cullible, thanks.

Hmmm. This is a really tough question. I think if you bombed humanity back into… well, way, way back—maybe to the point where there are only a few thousand of us, then you might get rid of genetic engineering. But it’s more likely you would just have to eliminate humanity entirely. I’m assuming you mean human-purposed genetic engineering. You do realize, of course, they every time one human chooses a mate, that is an effort to engineer the genes of the next generation, right?

If you want to get rid of all genetic engineering, you’re going to have to wipe out all life. I don’t think you can do that. Maybe if you find a way to drive the Earth into the sun.

But where there’s life, there’s genetic engineering. That’s what life is: the attempt to create ever more survivable sets of genetic instructions.

Why do you want to do anything about genetic engineering? Are you anti-life?

Meddling in genetics has been going on for ages, navel oranges are a product of grafting which is still genetic engineering.

It’s a bit of first world arrogance to assume that GM products are automatically bad. Because of GM products that are designed to be stronger and more resistant to enviromental factors, countless many other mouths can now be fed who would otherwise go hungry using old tech.

Grafting isn’t technically the same as genetic engineering.

@qingu, of course it is. The only difference is the sophistication of the tool.

Whether the genes get there via a graft or a test tube, genes are genes.

I imagine there are some plants that have not been changed to fit human life better. Things we call weeds, mostly. Plants sold in stores like tomatoes, carrots, corn, wheat, potatoes, apples, and bananas are so far from their “natural” state as to be barely recognizable. Likewise, cattle, chickens, turkeys, pigs and other domesticated animals have been changed to the point that they could not live in the wild. So you’d have to give up meat.

I think your best bet would be cactus. Although some cactus is harvested as food, I suspect it is not strongly modified at this point. Granted, you’re going to have to eat a lot of it. And you’re not going to get a very broad range of minerals, vitamins and phytochemicals. No idea where you’ll get protein. Still. It might work.

I agree with @elbanditoroso. Reviews at amazon are fairly positive for the book The Frankenfood Myth (2004). There’s plenty of hype and hysteria surrounding biotechnology. Not to mention religious fanatics protesting the hubris of “playing god.” I still worry, however, about the ability of profit-driven corporations to properly attend to safety before global disaster strikes. But I think that’s a relatively low risk outweighed by the benefits.

@6rant6 – I think weeds are a great example of unintentional genetic engineering. They get exposed to herbicides and weed killers (to say nothing of the pollen and genetic material that makes up non-weeds) and hybridize themselves,

In fact they are probably the purest of example of genetic engineering precisely because they have NOT been extensively studies and analyzed.

@elbanditoroso, grafting is just cloning!

To be clear, I agree with your general point. I’m just being pedantic. GMO’s are, by definition, different from plants that have been bred over centuries and then grown by grafting. The definitional difference involves the technique used. But the effects are largely the same.

@elbanditoroso I’m sure that’s true if we take our yards as the universe. But more representative (read “original”) populations exist in “the wild.” Still, I see your point. But cactus…

@elbanditoroso: Monsanto makes a pile of money on Round-Up, a weed killer that wipes out everything in its path. Monsanto has also genetically engineered the corn plant (maize) to be resistant to Round-Up. They sell this seed to farmers. But first Monsanto makes sure the modified corn can’t bear useful seed, so you have to buy their seed forever, season after season, to continue having herbicide-resistant crop. Nice!

@gasman – so what’s the point of your statement? Monsanto is acting unethically. Fine, i agree.

But that doesn’t indict all of genetic modification. If you have a gripe, it is with their business practices. Not with the science of genetic modification.

Not to cast Monsanto in a hero’s role, but if they created a crop which perpetuated itself and was immune to chemical control, I think that would be (rightfully) seen as socially irresponsible. If they are going to create a plant which is immune to herbicides, by god it better not seed itself!

Imagine corn spreading as a weed and pushing out all other plants. Quick, someone write a movie!

@elbanditoroso Right, I favor the GM industry in general, but the case I mentioned seems to be in a gray zone between what’s smart business practice and what’s unethical.

@6rant6 I think the corn’s resistance is fairly specific to Round-Up (I doubt all herbicides) & won’t grow any faster than it did before!

I hope Kudzu never manages to get one of those immune to pesticide or herbicide genes.

Ethics committees and laws and the collaborative power of consumers.

The ethics of Monsanto’s corporate practices regarding GM crops are orthogonal to the discussion of the efficacy and danger of GM crops.

I’m probably too late to get in on this question, but I’ll do it anyway. A reason one might want to stop genetic manipulation (as opposed to hybridization) is the same reason that atomic fission and fusion should not be pursued. While most discoveries and inventions are double edged swords (i.e., desirable and undesirable consequences), nuclear and genetic sciences carry the potential to destroy civilization as we know it. However I believe that the potential good that can be achieved with these sciences outweighs the potential risks.