MyNews24 is a user-generated section of The stories here come from users.

Comments: 58
Article views: 610
Latest Badges:

View all ProfAndyZulu's badges.

GMO Foodstuffs: Questions for Geneticists

25 April 2014, 07:15

At the moment in the world, there are many countries that are banning and restricting GMO foodstuffs and crops. Quite notably, China has refused a number of American shipments of GM corn due to the fact that they were genetically modified. The companies that promote GM products are facing a rear-guard battle the world over. Many nations are rejecting GM technology (as practiced by these large multi-nationals) due to the problems that arise through the use of these technologies. Increased herbicide, pesticide and fertilizer usage, pest resistance and lower yields after a few years make the promises made by Monsanto, Du Pont, et al particularly hollow for most farmers who are locked into GM contracts.

That GM seeds, crops and technology are proving failures is hard for some people to acknowledge but the empirical evidence is quite clear: GM technology causes more problems than it solves: GM crops start to show worse agricultural symptoms after around 3 years, GM foods are not good for animals that consume them. Animals die young and show more tumours and physical ailments when they eat GMO feed. The scientists are not even sure as to why this is the case.

And I am not sure either, but I plan to explain why GM technology is severely flawed: firstly, modern observations in epigenetics show that methods for GM modification of seeds and crops are very suspect. Secondly, many of the under-pinning “theorems” of modern genetics are not necessarily true.

In Watson’s book “DNA: The Secret of Life” he talks about genes and says that, on our total genetic code (that is passed on from parents to children), the useful sequences are very sparse and are surrounded by “junk DNA” or, as he tells it, “introns”. In fact, we are later to discover, the non-useful makeup of our genetic code is around 98% of the total number of base pairs!

Watson points this out himself: organisms (animals) do not use more energy to achieve an end than they absolutely have to. It is kind of like the Occam’s Razor of Biology or Newton’s Laws of Conservation of Energy at a molecular, organic level. Why, therefore, I ask you, would ALL animals studied, pass on this “useless” DNA? I think that the answer is simpler (and therefore, more complex) than we would want to believe: the DNA being passed on is not useless or junk.

But then, what is its purpose?

That question, I think, will be answered in the future as they dig deeper into the Human Genome and discover a lot more mechanisms whereby Nature achieves her ends with complexity that will startle anyone with its simplicity and elegance… But I digress.

We can say a few things about that “junk” DNA… If it is useful, maybe it contains information that is “compressed” or “zipped” and won’t look “useful” to us until we understand what and how the information is “encoded”. We have found sequences that cause blocking or enhancing of molecular processes. It is not inconceivable to think that the “junk” DNA surrounding known genes has a higher or transcendent function.

To this end, epigenetics (a very recent science) shows us that a particular expression of our molecular DNA does not necessarily stay the same over time… We have genes that are “switched on” and “switched off” depending on environmental as well as cellular concerns. One of the immediate consequences of this is that if an observed genetic expression is present, it need not be at a later point in time. Practically, I would say, an organism always changes genetically and organically in response to environmental stimuli.

This is not such a leap of faith when one considers it: why should any organism stay the same if something in its environment changes? Typically, they don’t. They try to adjust to the new conditions to be more “comfortable” or “survivable” (to bastardise a Darwinian term)… How do they do this? I think that a lot of the answer has to lie in the so-called “junk” or “useless” DNA that we pass on, generation to generation via slow-ending cellular diligence. Watson and his colleagues would have us believe that these “introns” are a vestige of the past and that our cells blindly copy what they have been given.

Given the fact that a sequence of genes codes for a particular expressed characteristic, and, given that these expressed genetic codes require the “folding” and “unfolding” of DNA to work correctly, it seems to me that the genetic scientists are copying too selectively. They will find a set of base pairs that makes a jellyfish phosphoresce but when they copy it into another organism, say, a carrot, it will also phosphoresce but cannot do anything else. They are missing the “code” DNA that lies on either side of the “useful” DNA and allows the carrot to function normally in the face of environment changes! They are only partially transferring the necessary genetic information, the gene for phosphoresce but nothing else. They are “hard-wiring” that organism to only function with that particular gene switched on! It cannot do anything else because it doesn’t “know” how to fold or unfold as its environment changes!

Watson tells us that we have been “genetically modifying” plants and animals all our known civilisation because we selectively bred animals and plants to suit our needs. This is true. But, and this is the huge BUT that is missing from his work. We did not MODIFY any of the spermal fluids of the organisms that we selected for. We did not actively splice and dice the actual genetic code of the animals or plants we were propagating, We allowed natural reproductive processes to occur. And I think that that is the crux of the matter. We want cows that produce more milk, disease-resistant beef, chickens that produce more eggs, crops that don’t get trashed by pests… But to do it, we should rely on the slower-but-surer techniques of our forebears instead of playing God with our petri-dishes and modern sequencing techniques to modify organisms we have a scarce idea of.

The way to do it is not by using “cut and paste” techniques! To modernise genetics we have to pay much more attention to the information around the actual protein-encoding sequences. Borrowing from modern scientific systems analysis, it seems that there is probably a lot more information surrounding the actual “valuable” gene base-pair sequence than our current geneticists understand. To make use of the Preventative Principle, we should not even be researching some areas of this scientific avenue, let alone forcing these methodologies down people’s throats!  Most of our efforts at modifying Nature have ended up in failure: this adventure is likely to prove the same.

Why continue defying Mother Nature at all?
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received. publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Read more from our Users

Submitted by
Sibulele Lurewana
MY STORY: Cancer can be cured


0 comments 731 views
Submitted by
Jenny Hides
The SPCA responds too hasty

I was appalled to learn that the pets belonging to a single tenant of our retirement complex were recently removed by the SPCA as a result of a complaint of barking!  Read more...

0 comments 1074 views
Submitted by
Frank Coetzee283
A compliment for SAPS Linden

There are indeed still more good than bad officers otherwise SA would be in a much worse state so maybe it's also time we start to give compliments when due. Read more...

0 comments 228 views
Submitted by
Bang, you're dead: Do we need new...

Most criminals don’t care that you need a license to own a gun. They didn’t buy them legally so why would they bother getting a license for it. Read more...

0 comments 292 views
Submitted by
Ruth Logie
Harvey Weinstein: the other side ...

It is not right to blame the victims of abuse for being abused. But in this particular case, there was complicity. Read more...

0 comments 659 views
Submitted by
Mandla Mbekwa Dlomo
Where did we go wrong?

We are all part of the reason why we are where we are today. The power is really in our hands we are the deciders of our future generation. Read more...

0 comments 127 views


RSS feeds News delivered really simply.

E-mail Newsletters You choose what you want

News24 on Android Get the latest from News24 on your Android device.

SMS Alerts Get breaking news stories via SMS.

Interactive Advertising Bureau
© 2017 All rights reserved.
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.