FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Genetically modified

Jump to newest
 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Should any human induced modification below the cellular level, where genetic material is adjusted, including removal or addition etc, be categorised as genetically modified, where it's not been achieved via natural means, including pollination and mutation?

Some organisations are complaining after having spent money on alterations at gene level, where they presumably had assumed that they could get away with it being classified as non-GM material.

In the past, organisations would expose living things to radiation, in order to encourage genetic mutation - and this didn't get classified as GM.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *alking HeadMan
over a year ago

Bolton

Surely if a gene has been altered, removed or a new one added to an organisms make-up, then by definition its "genetically modified"?

Not that I have a problem with it, far from it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral


"Should any human induced modification below the cellular level, where genetic material is adjusted, including removal or addition etc, be categorised as genetically modified, where it's not been achieved via natural means, including pollination and mutation?

Some organisations are complaining after having spent money on alterations at gene level, where they presumably had assumed that they could get away with it being classified as non-GM material.

In the past, organisations would expose living things to radiation, in order to encourage genetic mutation - and this didn't get classified as GM. "
your spooky

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"Should any human induced modification below the cellular level, where genetic material is adjusted, including removal or addition etc, be categorised as genetically modified, where it's not been achieved via natural means, including pollination and mutation?

Some organisations are complaining after having spent money on alterations at gene level, where they presumably had assumed that they could get away with it being classified as non-GM material.

In the past, organisations would expose living things to radiation, in order to encourage genetic mutation - and this didn't get classified as GM.

your spooky"

Thanks

I think it was from about the 1950's/60's that some organisations influenced genetic mutation using such things as radiation: and then they could further explore what those organisms offspring were like and what they produced - perhaps after further or different 'modification'.

A range of organisations are disappointed that that the genome modifications that they've been undertaking are likely to result in produce that would be certified as genetically modified. They'll probably want to argue this and complain of wasting their investments - but then nobody had ever invited them to tinker with the genes.

Do you all have any limits on what you'd like in the environment or in your body, as well as what you'd prefer stayed inside a contained environment, never to let loose on the world?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This about crispr a gene editing technique that has revolutionised the possibility of gene therapy and gene editing.The EU has decided to label these plants that have been edited by the crisper method to be labelled GM.

I think there is an irrational fear of genetic modification and gene editing.The technique used here is very precise and could have great benefit to mankind.I think smart people will have no fear for GM crops that yield more and are resistant to pests and droughts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oxychick35Couple
over a year ago

thornaby

Well said bob 100% agree

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We've been editing the gene pool of edible crops on this planet since the invention of farming.Weve altered the animals we eat and mans best friend was once a wolf and today I can be a poodle or shitzu or any variation .

Altering stuff for our benefit is what we do.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford

I think there is a distinction to be made between "transgenic" and "genetcally modified" as the latter covers all farmed organisms.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The scientist involved in altering plant biology hoped the crispr technique wouldn't come under GM because no new DNA is added instead like scissors it snips out existing DNA in the genome.

US regulators say gene-edited crops don’t pose a problem because they are identical to ones developed through traditional cross-breeding

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 28/07/18 08:23:25]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"...

US regulators say gene-edited crops don’t pose a problem because they are identical to ones developed through traditional cross-breeding "

That is their opinion but not fact though Bob. I think there is a world of difference between selective natural mating of animals or pollination and hybridization of plants compared to genome editing. I'm inclined to agree with the recent legal ruling on this.

The containment of the genetically modified cells wholly within a crop variety, without straying into wildlife, is a concern. The use by the right's holders of the modified organisms, of higher levels of environmentally harmful practices is also a concern. Such technologies can also lead to deprivation, where right's owners create barriers for others to sustain their farms, crop production and livelihoods. Corporations like Monsanto are some of the least trustworthy that I'd let loose on our natural world.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ary_ArgyllMan
over a year ago

Argyll


"The scientist involved in altering plant biology hoped the crispr technique wouldn't come under GM because no new DNA is added instead like scissors it snips out existing DNA in the genome.

US regulators say gene-edited crops don’t pose a problem because they are identical to ones developed through traditional cross-breeding "

There is a new paper out looking at whether Crispr can cause gene edits away from the target site - the researchers did find evidence for non-target effects suggesting Crispr is not always as specific as has been made out. It's difficult to say whether every Crispr edited plant is 'identical' to cross-bred plants without fully sequencing every single seed and showing there are no un-wanted edits - that is not going to happen. Based on these results I'd suggest we do need to proceed with caution.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's going to be devastating for plant research at universities as all the top universities involved have said.The EU have just handed the research to the very multi national bio tech firms that are so reviled by campaigners.

Research into cursor as as good as stopped at university and small research labs .Hopefully now we are leaving .Our universities may continue this worthwhile work .

Unfortunately fir the EU they will now fall behind the rest of the world in biotech research .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"I think there is a distinction to be made between "transgenic" and "genetcally modified" as the latter covers all farmed organisms."

On the button. The difference between splicing genetic material in from an unrelated organism and expressing those that already exist in one.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"The scientist involved in altering plant biology hoped the crispr technique wouldn't come under GM because no new DNA is added instead like scissors it snips out existing DNA in the genome.

US regulators say gene-edited crops don’t pose a problem because they are identical to ones developed through traditional cross-breeding

There is a new paper out looking at whether Crispr can cause gene edits away from the target site - the researchers did find evidence for non-target effects suggesting Crispr is not always as specific as has been made out. It's difficult to say whether every Crispr edited plant is 'identical' to cross-bred plants without fully sequencing every single seed and showing there are no un-wanted edits - that is not going to happen. Based on these results I'd suggest we do need to proceed with caution."

New technology in a new field. It takes time to see the true effects especially considering hoe complex genes are.

Slowly, slowly catchy monkey

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top