[GPSCC-chat] 100% Gene Expression Is The Next Disaster On The GMO Front

Sun Aug 3 17:20:54 PDT 2014

Good questions. The article gives the example of wiping out mosquitos by
creating an imbalance in the sex ratio between male and female. That gene
is not supposed to be transmitted to any other species, but that is only in
theory. I can imagine a nightmare scenario where some bacteria gets ahold
of this gene and spreads it who knows where. It won't affect the bacteria,
but it could get implanted in other species that reproduce sexually.

I'm also against the genetic engineering of a super race of humans. This
topic was covered in the Star Trek TV series in the episode where Kahn was
leading a colony of genetically enhanced humans, tried to take over the
Enterprise and was marooned on a desert planet which he escaped from once
again in Star Trek II the Wrath of Kahn the movie.

As to the second question, I'm not sure if I was using the exactly correct
terms when describing gene expression vs propagation. I think what I'm
talking about with the 100% thing is more properly referred to as
propagation.

Thanks for sharing your concerns.

John Thielking

On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Mehmasarja <mehmasarja at gmail.com> wrote:

> Not knowing much about this I'm asking a question. If this can apply to
> the human race, here is the sequence of events I can see.
>
> First, we try to breed in disease resistance. Then we go for performance
> enhancement for the military, athletes, farm workers etc. Eventually we
> look at making people sterile to control certain populations in a war or as
> population control.
>
> The second point - isn't the control of diseases epi genetics I.e. Gene
> expression and not just genetics?
>
> Yudhvir
>
> On Aug 2, 2014, at 8:03 PM, John Thielking <peacemovies at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I hope people get the significance of the difference (mathematically)
> between how much a particular gene is likely to proliferate in the wild
> with 50% expression per generation vs 100% expression per generation. In
> the case of 50% expression it is even possible that undesireable GMO traits
> will die out within a few generations due to natural selection and
> dilution. With the 100% expression method, there is no more dilution and
> the process of natural selection may not be as effective any longer. The
> difference is exponential, increasing by a factor of 2 every generation,
> until 10 years (10 generations) later you have 2 to the 10th power (1024
> x) bigger a problem to deal with when 100% expression happens than with 50%
> expression. I hope people get that and also realize that if this new method
> becomes standardized for creating gmos it means game over for Organics.
>
> John Thielking
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Caroline Yacoub <carolineyacoub at att.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hey John, this went through.
>>
>>
>>   On Saturday, August 2, 2014 8:44 AM, John Thielking <
>> peacemovies at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Things are going well for me in Eugene right now, if I don't include the
>> latest tidbits from the Eugene Facebook group "GMOs: Separating the Hybrid
>> Wheat from the rhetorical chaff".  Below I have included some tidbits
>> gleened from the discussion in that FB group. It doesn't look good for the
>> home team.
>>
>> It all starts with an article published on the pbs web site, located here:
>>
>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/evolution/crispr-gene-drives/
>>
>> In this article the authors are saying that the developers of a new
>> fangled GMO technology are asking for input from stakeholders before they
>> let their latest GMO technology escape into the wild. Unfortunately, there
>> doesn't seem to be an easy way to give feedback. There is no comments
>> section on the pbs web site, no e-mail addresses for the authors and no
>> specific institute mentioned that is promoting this new technology.
>>
>> Below I have pasted my comments about this article taken from my FB wall,
>> along with a link to an article that talks about a letter that over 800
>> scientists have signed onto asking for a 5 year moratorium on the
>> proliferation of GMOs.  I'm sure that these scientists would also object to
>> the 100% gene expression technique.
>>
>> Comments from FB:
>>
>> The people who want this and who want GMOs to proliferate think that this
>> latest technique, which will cause 100% gene expression in subsequent
>> generations instead of the current technology's 50% gene expression, is the
>> ultimate solution. While the believers of Organics and labeling/banning
>> of GMOs think that this technique is the ultimate problem, spelling
>> disaster for Organics if it ever gets out into the wild and spreads GMO
>> traits in the wild.
>>
>> The proponents of GMOs say that if Organics get contaminated with GMO
>> gene expression (which they freely admit is possible through the mechanism
>> of transferring say BT expression from a GMO crop to wild weeds and then
>> back through the same mechanism in reverse to contaminate Organic crops)
>> that they can simply do the reverse engineering process that is mentioned
>> in the article and cancel out any proliferation of GMO traits in
>> contaminated Organic crops. Well I say, that's BS. The Organic crop would
>> not be genetically identical to the original after the contamination
>> followed by the reversal, because the reversal would leave the Organic crop
>> with a 100% expression of the "non-GMO" trait, something which up to that
>> point had not occurred in nature. So I'm so sorry, but you just can't have
>> it both ways. Either GMOs have to be banned worldwide or Organic crops will
>> eventually (after 20-30 years or more) become cross-contaminated with GMO
>> traits imported from wild weeds and the show will be over for the Organic
>> movement.
>>
>> And, by the way, that 20-30 year estimate assumes that the current 50%
>> gene expression technology is being used. If the 100% technique is used
>> instead, then the time frame shrinks to 10 years or less, worldwide.
>>
>> Link to article about the 800 scientists (click on the "letter" link in
>> the article to see the letter and the series of reports put out by the
>> scientists).
>>
>> http://www.getholistichealth.com/40153/800-scientists-demand-global-gmo-experiment-end/
>>
>> Good luck!
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> John Thielking
>>
>> PS And a further slip down the GMO/label it ladder is revealed when
>> reviewing the discussion I had with people in the FB group (which can be
>> viewed by non members).  It seems that some of the label it crowd (myself
>> included) want to ban/destroy GMOs. But it is also true that the pro GMO
>> side appears to have a few people who are against labeling who also want to
>> destroy Organics. They are saying things like "some of the pesticides used
>> on Organic crops are more hazardous to bees than Roundup" and things like
>> that. It would be one thing if they were just being scientific like that
>> statement suggests and railing against Organics. But they also say "so
>> what" to the problem of cross contamination of Organics with GMO traits,
>> saying that the Organic crops can be made whole by reversing the genetic
>> engineering process that was mentioned above.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sosfbay-discuss mailing list
>> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
>> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> sosfbay-discuss mailing list
> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20140803/8dc5159e/attachment.html>