GMOs and DNA changing viruses and bacteria

From the Live Stream: :purple_heart: What are your policies on Genetic modification. re: viruses and bacteria can change your dna, but our health care dept cant change it back to the original code.

Josh Rich Tue 18 Jul 2017 6:49AM
@bruceking I'm not saying anything about the quality of such a thing just saying we have been doing it for a while.
@simonjackson Yeah I am aware of the decline of bees but fail to see its relevance to GM tech?
@taneharre Yeah I'm not saying GMOs are an end all to save the planet, but its a really useful tool. I also realize there are problems with agriculture which is what you're getting at, this is not a problem with the tech but more of our farming practices.
You imply that using GMOs is a negative thing? What do you base this off?

Tane Harre Tue 18 Jul 2017 7:09AM
I am not implying that GM is a negative thing insomuch as saying the problem people are trying to solve with it is actually the result of other things.
As an analogy, there are heart surgeons. Very highly qualified. Extremely good at their job. And yes they can fix heart problems, but that isn't actually the cause of the problem in most cases. Generally the cause is bad diet.
I think we should identify causes as well as fix problems but that fixing causes is a better and long term solution.
I am not saying we shouldn't have heart surgeons. I am saying that they should fix when things do go wrong as opposed to fixing everything that does go wrong.

Suzie Dawson Tue 18 Jul 2017 6:38PM
I think you meant to tag me :P One word: Monsanto

Josh Rich Tue 18 Jul 2017 7:18AM
Well sure, but thats unrelated to the legality of the tech itself.

Tane Harre Tue 18 Jul 2017 7:23AM
I would say the legality of something is a moral decision. Not a tech decision.

Josh Rich Wed 19 Jul 2017 5:56AM
@suziedawson That still doesn't explain anything?
@taneharre Well isn't it both, if you don't understand the tech how can you make a fully justified position on it?

Tane Harre Wed 19 Jul 2017 6:51AM
Preferably you should have both. But law (legality) doesn't deal directly with reality, it deals with the human societal constructs surrounding it. That is why I think legality is a moral position.
We can fundamentally alter organisms and we should. We need as much knowledge as possible. But, like in all things, there should be restrictions and legal restrictions tend to be of a moral nature due to politicians making the decisions.
I don't know you if can make fully justified positions on anything especially in today's climate of interest groups. We just do the best we can.

Suzie Dawson Wed 19 Jul 2017 6:41PM
Monsanto are behind both the GM and the pesticides AND the resulting mass bee die off, which is why their name is dirt (pun unintended) worldwide and there are mass movements, lawsuits, and activism efforts to out their poor practices
Oh, and they're also responsible for Roundup, which is now proven to be cancer-causing/carcinogenic

Josh Rich Thu 20 Jul 2017 12:39AM
I'm aware of what Monsanto does. I don't see how they're linked to the bees dying though. Or how this relates back to the tech?
Also it doesn't, if you're referring to the WHO report on Roundup: It got redacted pretty quickly because it had a number of holes in it and overall pretty shitty. If you're willing to sit through 20~ mins this vid goes through the reports errors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkxS7BHjHVk
Do you have some links to things you were referring?

Colin England Thu 20 Jul 2017 8:32PM
I'm aware of what Monsanto does. I don't see how they're linked to the bees dying though.
It's fairly simple:
Biologists have found more than 150 different chemical residues in bee pollen, a deadly “pesticide cocktail” according to University of California apiculturist Eric Mussen. The chemical companies Bayer, Syngenta, BASF, Dow, DuPont and Monsanto shrug their shoulders at the systemic complexity, as if the mystery were too complicated. They advocate no change in pesticide policy. After all, selling poisons to the world’s farmers is profitable.
They don't want to change their ways despite their ways being detrimental to the environment.

Josh Rich Thu 20 Jul 2017 11:38PM
Sorry I should of rephrased that.
"I'm aware of what Monsanto does. I don't see how they're linked to the bees dying though." + its relevance to GMOs.
What you're talking about @colinengland is bad farming practice. GM tech is not responsible for such use. If anything it has helped the burden by reducing the amount of pesticide use.
http://www.acsh.org/news/2014/11/06/meta-analysis-shows-gm-crops-reduce-pesticide-use-37-percent
Bad farming practice happens here to a degree too. I have done work on Auditing such sprays to make sure they don't effect the bees on site. Sure the Americans are lagging in this aspect but they don't ignore this issue. Once again this isn't relevant to the use of GM tech.

Mathew Innes Fri 21 Jul 2017 11:30PM
i study Molecular Biology, not officially but privately at my own cost. for over 8 years i've been designing proteins via the University of Washington / Baker Labs. Using fold.it app. I co founded one of the top teams in the field. i have seen a lot of virus and bacteria proteins over that time. worked on h1n1, ebola and hundreds more etc etc. If any biologist believes that genetically modified plants or otherwise are ok, i think they are deluded. Sure something might be ok, but nature has to be able to break down the "man made" component somewhere in the system. I dont any man, that can create a stand alone living object without copying some part of that from nature and embedding it back into some cellular system already found in nature. So I say, NO, DO not bring anything into new zealand that could cross pollinate our precious native fauna and flora. as smart as the people are that design such genetically modified things, they do not have an understanding on the whole system used to recycle these things. we should apply a natural law on all our products. do not manufacture anything of the sorts. introducing these genetically modified things into our environment gives things like viruses and bacteria the ability to mutate or develop new ways of evolving to transfer themselves easier and wider than before. these things are smart, not dumb. the effects may not be seen immediatly but for sure in the future, if our bodies have absorbed or cannot cleanse these things (gmo) then we store them and we start having effects or diseases emerge like alzheimers or dementia becasue of the build up within our sensitive living system. even Darwin said introduced species would ruin new zealand and he was right, we shoudl treasure our native environment and protect it at all costs. we dont need am2201 when we have natural plants that dont overdose our peoples bodies so .. lets deal with the pests we have already, that change our dna without morals or ethics. While we are not legally allowed to change our dna back to before it was infected by these things. can any biologist put their life on their gmo products or chemicals ? no, even we cannot find the matrix grid to create a new tree, that flowers, grows fruit, seeds that propagate themselves and filters minerals and things to survive within the law the universe has given us (or to restrict us) so no to glysophate and things that kill the natural living things within our soil or atmosphere... sorry for my english and grammer.

Suzie Dawson Sat 22 Jul 2017 10:34AM
Thank you for this very informative post @mathewinnes

Mathew Innes Sat 22 Jul 2017 10:55AM
ive been watching the pharma and us governments operation around this and their whole country right now is gearing up to control this topic. (the drive and funding has been very interesting and what they are investing in. ) im speaking pre trump, although the wheels are already in motion and they are taking the rights off designers and giving them to tppa industry... kinda like, saying to you, everything you write using microsoft word, belongs to microsoft. maybe bad example, but at some stage i would like to talk with you. respectfully, Renton Innes

Josh Rich Sun 23 Jul 2017 2:30AM
Okay a bit to get through here but I'll do my best :)
Sure something might be ok, but nature has to be able to break down the "man made" component somewhere in the system.
Are you talking strictly in a philosophical sense here?
So I say, NO, DO not bring anything into new zealand that could cross pollinate our precious native fauna and flora. as smart as the people are that design such genetically modified things, they do not have an understanding on the whole system used to recycle these things.
Two things here. I'm not sure if you understand pollination and how it works, things are a bit more complex than that. Plants to cross pollinate from different species does happen but requires a close relative which our native fauna would not fall into for commercial applications.
The other is 15-20 years go into developing a new cultivar which looks into the bigger questions like this. There is a large amount of regulation in the states that requires decades of research. What do you mean recycle these things?
introducing these genetically modified things into our environment gives things like viruses and bacteria the ability to mutate or develop new ways of evolving to transfer themselves easier and wider than before.
Once again I don't think you understand the tech like CRISPR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR
We have genetically modified organisms in NZ already, kumara.
Where did you get this position from? I don't think its scientifically valid.
these things are smart, not dumb. the effects may not be seen immediatly but for sure in the future, if our bodies have absorbed or cannot cleanse these things (gmo) then we store them and we start having effects or diseases emerge like alzheimers or dementia becasue of the build up within our sensitive living system.
This is a broad misunderstanding of what and how GM tech works... Are you saying GM organisms carry something poisonous within them or something?
even Darwin said introduced species would ruin new zealand and he was right, we shoudl treasure our native environment and protect it at all costs.
This is not directly related to GM tech and this tool can actually be of use to protect our native species and has been done before to protect our species. (But wasn't entirely considered GM because they only changed 1BP.)
While we are not legally allowed to change our dna back to before it was infected by these things. can any biologist put their life on their gmo products or chemicals ? no, even we cannot find the matrix grid to create a new tree, that flowers, grows fruit, seeds that propagate themselves and filters minerals and things to survive within the law the universe has given us (or to restrict us) so no to glysophate and things that kill the natural living things within our soil or atmosphere... sorry for my english and grammer.
This is a naturalist fallacy which I don't buy. We already use Glyphosate in NZ btw.
Are you saying GM food genetically change our own DNA? Cause the science says no on that.
GM is a tool which we should use alongside the others we currently use. As a primary producer for many things we are loosing our competitive edge by banning something for no good reason whatsoever. There are no health risks, GMO food isn't inherently poisonous in anyway.
I apologize if I come across as abrasive here I do not intend it to be, but I do think your position is made from misinformation/misunderstandings. Could you provide me with some sources to read if I'm missing something?

Colin England Sun 23 Jul 2017 7:54AM
As a primary producer for many things we are loosing our competitive edge by banning something for no good reason whatsoever.
We'll only remain a primary producer if we want to remain poor. Diversification away from farming is what we need to do.
If we remain as farmers (which we're not actually doing) then we will lose our competitive edge even if we allowed GM crops because we're too far away from any market.

Josh Rich Sun 23 Jul 2017 8:11AM
We'll only remain a primary producer if we want to remain poor. Diversification away from farming is what we need to do.
Well currently is our largest exports... and sure I never said we should invest everything in it... thats not my position...?
If we remain as farmers (which we're not actually doing) then we will lose our competitive edge even if we allowed GM crops because we're too far away from any market.
Too far away? Say that to dairy, lamb, beef, wine and kiwifruit. We trade half way across the globe for most things and it makes us the most in exports.

Colin England Sun 23 Jul 2017 1:35PM
Well currently is our largest exports
True but on a per person basis I believe our tech sector does far better, i.e, more productive.
Too far away?
Yep, once others are as efficient as us (and they will - we're not special) then distance becomes the major factor in price at the retailer.

Josh Rich Sun 23 Jul 2017 10:27PM
Yep, once others are as efficient as us (and they will - we're not special) then distance becomes the major factor in price at the retailer.
Our primary goods are not sold because we're cheaper. They're sold because we produce high quality goods. I work with primary industries, they're all growing well. I'm not arguing against diversification, I just think its silly to ban a tool that there is no real downside to.

Josh Rich Sun 23 Jul 2017 10:31PM
Too far away?
Yep, once others are as efficient as us (and they will - we're not special) then distance becomes the major factor in price at the retailer.
But we are "special", we don't make good exports because we sell things cheap. Its rather the other way around, we sell mainly high quality products that have the NZ brand attached to it. This still doesn't give a good reason for why this tool should be banned.

Bruce King Mon 24 Jul 2017 12:49AM
Agree on the value of NZ branding. Surely that brings the opposite conclusion though. That is, our goods command a higher price because they are from 100% pure GE-free NZ.
Even if you aren't personally creeped out by GE, others are and they will pay more if NZ exports remain free from GE contamination. In my view, that's already a good reason for NZ produce to stay GE-free.

Colin England Tue 25 Jul 2017 1:14AM
Its rather the other way around, we sell mainly high quality products that have the NZ brand attached to it.
No, it's actually because it's cheap. On the market it doesn't sell for any more than the going rate which is whatever is the cheapest. We don't get more just because it's NZ.
And all other countries can make the same claim on quality. That's basically the nature of primary produce - it can be grown to the same quality and productivity anywhere. That's what I mean when I say that we're not special.
And with our destructive farming techniques becoming well known throughout the world many other countries can claim better environmental protections which is also a good marketing strategy.
We should be scaling back out farming and going full organic for the marketing and then diversifying the remainder of the economy into other fields.

Josh Rich Mon 24 Jul 2017 6:25AM
Oops double posted!
Agree on the value of NZ branding. Surely that brings the opposite conclusion though. That is, our goods command a higher price because they are from 100% pure GE-free NZ.
Well marketing suggests that its because they believe it to be high quality, marketing says that GE isn't that significant for exports.
Even if you aren't personally creeped out by GE, others are and they will pay more if NZ exports remain free from GE contamination. In my view, that's already a good reason for NZ produce to stay GE-free.
As above marketing disagrees.
Also what do you mean by GE contamination?

Suzie Dawson Mon 24 Jul 2017 8:02AM
There is data that says goods labelled non-GMO can command higher prices, and there is also an increasing number of countries going GMO free (its even on the table for the entire EU to go GE free)

Josh Rich Mon 24 Jul 2017 8:23AM
Yes I didn't say there is a marketing advantage to it, but its not as strong as the quality.
Countries ban things due to public pressure and the mainstream understanding of GM tech is so misunderstood that they're willing to ban such things.

Mathew Innes Mon 24 Jul 2017 11:44PM
Should new zealand be taking DNA samples of its citizens to Heal them or Incriminate them ? why are the police using it to incriminate us rather than use it to heal us? who gets access to these databases filled with our unique DNA code that we "personally own" and why is pharma using DNA of nature to patent it to profit instead of to remove disease from it through infection by V and B

Josh Rich Tue 25 Jul 2017 8:13AM
No, it's actually because it's cheap. On the market it doesn't sell for any more than the going rate which is whatever is the cheapest. We don't get more just because it's NZ.
As someone who works in primary industries I can tell you that this is categorically wrong.
This still isn't a valid argument against GM tech.
Full organic to ruin our environment? and require to cut down more trees to do so? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479712004264 <- Organic farming may be slightly better per m2 but its objectively worse per yield unit.
Still this shouldn't be an argument of farming practices. This was about the tech?

Colin England Thu 27 Jul 2017 12:51AM
Organic farming may be slightly better per m2 but its objectively worse per yield unit.
One of the problems with GMOs is that they need far more inputs than traditional farming. All that extra growth needs to be fed after all. And that makes it fully unsustainable.
http://www.kahikateafarm.co.nz/food-forests.html
https://thestandard.org.nz/regenerative-agriculture/
https://thestandard.org.nz/rain-doesnt-cause-most-floods-humans-do/
We actually can't do any better than nature.

Mathew Innes Wed 26 Jul 2017 6:49AM
ok, if nature has created everything thus far, why would we want to re engineer whats evolved over time, with things(man made design) that they can't back up, like nature can? Otherwise, let see them make new fruits and vegetables that were once available but became extinct, or that is compatible with nature. otherwise these things that protect our environment will be mutating and making the future harder to live within. we are finding all these weeds and thing monsanto are killing have some proteins or functions within the other areas of nature still be be researched, its not here for nothing. how can a scientist back up their modifications with facts when we cant possible know that effect on the whole ? ( whole of nature ) why are we making these gm things anyway? companies are patenting everything living already or modifying them to own them, profit from them and control them rather than doing it for, the right reasons. health and fitness.

Josh Rich Thu 27 Jul 2017 7:52AM
One of the problems with GMOs is that they need far more inputs than traditional farming. All that extra growth needs to be fed after all. And that makes it fully unsustainable.
Source?
Cause depending on what GM tech you're growing its usually less. Better uptake of nitrogen or less pesticide use etc.

Colin England Thu 27 Jul 2017 11:06PM
It's an article I read a few years ago. Haven't been able to find it since.
Suzie Dawson · Tue 18 Jul 2017 1:17AM
@joshrich re bees dying: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bees+dying&t=hq&nvexp=b&ia=news