GM industry puts human gene into rice
If you want to be notified the next time I write something, sign up for FREE email alerts or subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Scientists have begun putting genes from human beings into food crops in a dramatic extension of genetic modification. The move, which is causing disgust and revulsion among critics, is bound to strengthen accusations that GM technology is creating “Frankenstein foods” and drive the controversy surrounding it to new heights.
Even before this development, many people, including Prince Charles, have opposed the technology on the grounds that it is playing God by creating unnatural combinations of living things.
Environmentalists say that no one will want to eat the partially human-derived food because it will smack of cannibalism.
But supporters say that the controversial new departure presents no ethical problems and could bring environmental benefits.
In the first modification of its kind, Japanese researchers have inserted a gene from the human liver into rice to enable it to digest pesticides and industrial chemicals. The gene makes an enzyme, code-named CPY2B6, which is particularly good at breaking down harmful chemicals in the body.
There is concern that eating rice modified with a human gene will be akin to anthropophagy, which although not strictly true, is spooky more for the symbolic act of eating ourselves, and causes worry about the future development of such foods.
I’m going to have to side with the environmentalists on this one. Human genetic information should not be incorporated into our foodstuffs. I don’t think the corn will come alive and start walking and talking or anything, but has anyone bothered to really investigate what could happen when humans start eating their own genetic material on a really large scale? What if it’s contaminated in some way?
Remember mad cow disease. It started when the cattle industry decided to save a few bucks and feed their stock with ground beef.
Enjoy this post? Get future updates sent to you for free! Join by 
10 Comments on “GM industry puts human gene into rice”
Adding human genes to plants does not make them “part human”, all this scare-mongering is either ignorance of the technology or politically motivated (Europe hates the fact that the U.S. is so far ahead in this technology, and fears that the American agricultural companies would now dominate the world market even more). And what qualifies Prince Charles to judge this technology - other than being inbred himself
GM plants are much less harmful than the chemical pesticides that they can replace; and things like rice modified to contain vitamin A (so called “golden rice”) can improve the health of hundreds of millions of vitamin A-deficient children in China and India. Last, GM has nothing to do with mad cow, completely different issue!
Ziad, Excuse my ignorance. I’m not a GM expert, but looking at it from a very simple logic lenses. Putting “human genes” with “none human genes” makes it partly “human” or partly “none human”. Both ways, it’s not natural.
Now, what’s behind this propaganda, politics motivated, Prince Charles comments, etc… actually they don’t credit much to me as a consumer. What matters is the possible side effect of such technology or science on human beings. Yes it might have some benefits in fighting back chemicals or pollution, but I’d rather find a solution for the cause before the effect.
On the other hand, no body said that mad cow has anything to do with GM, but no body can deny the fact that the cause was “ground beef” feed to these cows. Now, because it was grounded beef and not a beef genes, is not of a big difference for a humble consumer. At the end of the day, it was eating part of “itself”. This new rice will look to me the same. I’ll be eating “part of ME.” That idea only makes me feel disgusted.
Anyway, as I said, I’m not a GM expert, but I don’t think any sales man on earth can make me buy and eat this staff. Period!
I’m trying so hard to think of a way to explain this without filling several pages with background information. This is actually a large part of the problem: it’s very difficult for the society to make good informed decisions on a subject when the level of public understanding of the science behind it is so low. It is much easier for things related to IT technology for example, because most people understand the basics and have had personal experience with IT based applications.
Anyway, here goes my attempt at a relatively brief answer: When a “human” gene is inserted into a plant, what is being added is functional information content, not a physical component. In fact, the actual physical DNA that is added is not human, but synthesized in bacteria or by enzymes based on an original human gene “sequence”. Think of it like software code. If putting a human gene into a plant makes it part human, then I have a surprise for you: you’re 90% mouse! Over 90% of human functional genes are shared with mice, and are interchangeable. So if you take those 90% of genes and switch the human genes with mouse genes what you will get is a human who is indistinguishable from any other human and is no more like a mouse than anyone else. It’s the “whole package” that counts: how all these genes are regulated, and orchestrated together that makes a human.
For example: The insulin that is used by diabetics is produced in bacteria with the human insulin gene in them. What those bacteria now have is the information to make insulin, not a human organ that makes insulin. The physical material of “genes” is DNA, and human DNA is the same as plant or mouse or ant DNA (like the letters of the alphabet), what is different is the information encoded in the DNA (like arranging letters to make words and phrases). Getting a blood transfusion or a kidney transplant may be considered “consuming” something human, not eating a GM plant.
On a personal note, I’ve put human and worm genes into Chinese hamster ovary cells and I can assure you that did not make them part human or part worm
I hope that was useful and not too long or boring.
That was very interesting and useful.
Thanks Zaid
It strikes me as ironic that the scientific achievements of the genetic engineering
field have not been matched by the educational efforts of the GM folks. It should
never be said that “human genes are being spliced into” a food crop (even you used
the phrase above) — it’s inaccurate and tends to freak out those who are skeptical
of (or even frightened by) the whole GM concept in the first place. It would be more
accurate to say that a genome sequence has been discovered that will allow a rice
plant to digest and destroy insecticides. Another analogy might go as follows:
suppose a metallurgist concludes that, since magnesium makes human bones stronger,
perhaps adding magnesium to steel would make it stronger. So an alloy is created and
tested — lo and behold, the steel is stronger. Does this mean that we would then be
making steel out of humans? Of course not. Perhaps a bad analogy scientifically or
metallurgically, but totally accurate in demonstrating that the original source of
the substance leading to the discovery of the characteristic is irrelevant. It seems
to me that the GM industry is constantly shooting itself in the foot by failing to
correct these misconceptions among the general public. Including Princes :^)
Why monkey with mother nature and the work of God, unless you do not understand, or unless you are doing the work of satan. Are they trying to feed the World, or destroy the people whe they do not need? Nothing is an accident. EtJ
It seems to me that there are some great things that could come from this. I am sure God does not want us killing babies to harvest stem cells, but maybe he would encourage some of the other areas of research. In other words, maybe we can not generalize here.
Pretty good “lay man” explanation there, Ziad.
Genes are part of an organism’s genetic “code” - the source information that defines the processes and materials which shape up an organism.
All organisms on this planet have evolved from one another, and this can be seen clearly in the gradual progression of the genetic code over hundreds of millions of years, in different evolutionary stages; the more complex life forms’ DNA contains EVERYTHING, pretty much, that the simpler forms have, as the basic processes are essential and need to be retained. Higher level functions are built upon those over a very long period of time by introducing and evaluating slight variations here and there - they add up over billions of years.
As a result, whenever we eat anything - whether a banana or a beef steak - a significant part of the genetic code of that organism is shared with the human DNA. Bananas are something like 35% or 45% while apes have 97% or 98% identical genetic code to humans.
To confuse you a bit more, it’s perfectly possible to mix and match genes from different organisms. As Ziad mentioned, genes that are responsible for insulin or HGH (human growth hormone) production are routinely added to bacterial DNA in order to make it easier and cheaper to produce those medically important hormones. But it goes further: the genes in the spider DNA responsible for the production of spider silk have been added to goats and as a result the “cloned” goats with that new DNA produce spider silk instead of goat milk.
Let me finally add an interesting thought here: if you have an organism’s DNA code you can create as many “instances” (individuals) of that organism as you want. That’s what cloning is about. DNA contains all the “programming” necessary to produce a whole being, in as many copies as one desires. DNAs are also finite things, they’re not infinite. It is thus easy to see how the differences between two different DNAs (say, ape and human) can be identified - and they are also guaranteed to be finite. It is thus possible to start with an ape DNA, and by making the 2% of necessary changed to end up with a human DNA which can then be used to create as many copies of a human as one wants.
Just some “food” for thought there…
Ziad explains very well why incorporating human genes into plants does not make them ?part human?. But, the correction of this absurd notion in no way touched upon the true concerns regarding GM foods.
I will not go into these. I merely wish to respond, point by point, to Ziad?s claims:
First, regarding the jealous ?one-upmanship? that Europe is attempting on the poor U.S. Agricultural Mega-Corps; Ziad is unaware of, or chooses to ignore, the long standing, well organized and out spoken grassroots movement that has worked to put fair ambits on this technology. It is by the efforts of concerned individuals, who believe they have a right to know if they are eating GM, that has pressured European politicians and legislators into making, what I would call, decent restrictions: such as mandatory labeling. This gives the consumer the simple option of choice.
In the U.S., where politicians are much more under the thrall of the incredibly wealthy Agri-businesses and Pharmaceutical corporations, consumers are not so empowered.
But, ask yourself, why would American Agricultural companies hesitate to label their benign and wonderful product?
Well, (as Ziad would informs us): our ?low understanding.?
You see, the public, given the opportunity, may needlessly avoid GM - in their ignorance ? so the better informed Agri-business prevents this silliness by simply not giving us the choice!
Thankfully for us, eager Ziad can set us on the straight path:
?GM plants are much less harmful than the chemical pesticides that they can replace?.?
But what exactly are the harmful consequences of GM plants?
What are the effects of a long term GM diet?
What will be the long term ecological impact of an unleashed GM species?
Don?t bother asking Ziad ? he doesn?t know! No-one does, and that is the point!
Finally, his implying that GM technology is here to benefit the impoverished millions is, at best, na? ? at worse, a pernicious marketing tool.
The purpose of GM products, the sole purpose, like all products, is PROFIT. Look up ?Traitor? and ?Terminator? traits in GM crop plants if you?re really worried about the hungry children of China and India.