Process of making GMO is not safe
Yes, this is real: GMO Mice glowing in the dark.
We need to change the way how we discuss GMO. Instead of evaluating the kind of genetic change, we as a society need to become more aware of the harmful consequences of the genetic modification process in general.
In order to understand the dangers of the general Genetic Modification process, I have to explain some of the technical details of how it works.
The science of Genetics was created in mid-19th century by the Austrian biologist Gregor Mendel. He demonstrated that inheritance of the certain traits in the pea plants follows specific patterns, known today as Mendelian Inheritance.
Fast forward 100 years to the middle of 20th century. In 1945 George Beadle, American geneticist and Nobel Prize Laureate, proposed the famous one-gene-one-protein hypothesis, which held that each gene involved in biosynthetic pathways controls the synthesis of a single protein. (From: NIH)
Genes, however, do not just produce proteins all the time. When an organism needs a certain protein, a special unique particle, called “Promoter” is created. Promoter activates the required gene and desired protein is created. There is also a feedback mechanism, so when enough of the needed protein is created, no new promoters for this gene are produced and the the protein production stops.
Welcome modern GMO technology. Technology has evolved to the point where we can take a gene from one organism and insert it into another. A difficulty, however, lies in activating the foreign gene in the new host organism. To accomplish that, Promoter-producing genes are spliced into the host organism along with a new gene. The most effective Promoter is the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S (From: NIH) – it activates very high number of genes in plants.
The human genome contains about 21,000 protein-encoding genes, but the total number of proteins in human cells is estimated to be between 250,000 to one million. One gene can encode more than one protein (even up to 1,000) (From: Cancer.gov)
Therefore, when a gene is spliced into another organism’s DNA and activated by the promoter, several things happen.
1) Target gene begins to produce all 1000s of proteins it is responsible for – not just the one the researcher is trying to activate.
2) Very aggressive Promoters, such as the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus, activate not only the target new gene – but many of the genes of the plant itself. In potato, for example, only tubers are edible – and the rest of the plant is toxic to people. If wrong protein is produced in the wrong part of the plant – plant may produce the toxin in the tubers. While any protein with an acute toxicity, like potato flowers or leafs, is identified rapidly, anything that is toxic over time will go unnoticed.
3) There are many idle genes in every organism. There is no knowledge of what these genes may produce if activated.
4) Since the Promoter is always on in the GM Organism, the host organism is investing disproportionate percentage of resources into production of unnecessary proteins, so the nutrient content of the plant drops.
One well known example of GMO manipulation producing unexpected toxicity is 1989 outbreak of previously unknown eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome. Amino acid supplement L-tryptophan was being manufactured by modifying the e-coli bacteria to produce it (From: NIH) Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome was linked to GM-bacteria produced L-tryptophan (From: NIH)
Once the GMO researcher archives the desired goal, the project is over. Currently there is no research being done on what byproduct proteins are produced in the GMO food and what is their influence on the people who eat it. (From: NIH)
So this is just a courtesy note to let you know that I quoted you in a book which I recently authored entitled, “GMO Food Poison Handbook,” and referenced you with a link.
Should you choose to acquire a copy at some point I hope you find it to be a useful reference tool in your endeavors.
Best wishes,
Charles Sutherland
As a molecular biologist, I can state with certainty that in this article, the number of shamelessly wrong statements presented as fact is utterly embarassing. It claims to ‘explain some of the technical details of how it works’. But at least every other sentence in this article is mis-stated, oversimplified, or just plain wrong in a way that is absolutely atrocious to anyone who has an advanced education in biology.
The article claims that promoters are “a special unique particle… Promoter activates the required gene and desired protein is created”.
The central points of the article are:
Promoters are a separate thing required to turn on a gene,
Promoters are responsible for activating thousands and thousands of genes, including off-target effects,
We don’t know what other genes could be activated by these promoters,
Promoters cause disproportionate translation of genes, impacting nutrition.
Let’s take these one by one, separate out the article’s misconceptions from its shameless lies, and drop some actual biological science into this discussion.
First, some basic background. A GENE is a region of DNA which, when translated by a cell’s protein-producing machinery, makes a PROTEIN, a chain of amino acids that folds into a shape and performs a function within the cell.
‘Promoters are a special unique particle…’. No, they are not. A Promoter is a region of DNA immediately upstream of the gene-encoding DNA, which serves as a “Start reading the DNA here” flag for the protein-producing machinery.
It is true, as claimed by the article, that ‘Promoter activates the required gene and desired protein is created’. When splicing a gene into an organism’s genome, one needs to include a promoter so that the gene gets read. But the promoter that a genetic engineer adds to the organism, is not, as the article claims, a separate particle that can hit many genes. The promoter is the stretch of DNA immediately in front of that added gene, which says “There is a gene here, start here when reading”.
And at this point, you can easily see how the rest of the article falls apart.
‘Promoters are responsible for activating thousands and thousands of genes, including off-target effects’. They state that “The human genome contains about 21,000 protein-encoding genes, but the total number of proteins in human cells is estimated to be between 250,000 to one million.” This is misleading: each gene allows for the production of one or more types of protein, but you can’t compare # of genes with # of total proteins present. The actin gene, for example, codes for an actin particle, of which each cell has hundreds of thousands of, forming an internal structural mesh that provides cellular organization and shape. The hemoglobin gene codes for the hemoglobin protein, which most cells have exactly zero of but blood cells have thousands of, since that’s the molecule that allows it to carry oxygen around the body.
The article would have you believe that when you add one gene, you alter the entire organism’s balance of gene regulation, catastrophically activating other idle genes, disrupting the plant’s ability to regulate its own nutrient profiles and activity, and causing other plant proteins to be made in the wrong regions.
Again, not true. Based on mass-spectrometry, which analyses the profile of molecules present in a sample, these authors conclude “that the metabolome of a GM line had no significant deviation from natural variation within the soybean metabolome, with the exception of changes in the targeted engineered pathway.”
Shall I continue listing the ways that they’re wrong? The authors state “One well known example of GMO manipulation producing unexpected toxicity is 1989 outbreak of previously unknown eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome. Amino acid supplement L-tryptophan was being manufactured by modifying the e-coli bacteria to produce it (From: NIH) Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome was linked to GM-bacteria produced L-tryptophan (From: NIH)”.
This reads like “the genetic modification of these bacteria caused this previously unknown disease, ooooo!” But if you follow the NIH paper cited by THE SAME AUTHOR, [Here, 'An investigation of the cause of the eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome associated with tryptophan use](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2370887, you find that this paper says,
“The outbreak of the eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome in 1989 resulted from the ingestion of a chemical constituent that was associated with specific tryptophan-manufacturing conditions at one company. The chemical constituent represented by peak E may contribute to the pathogenesis of the eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome, or it may be a surrogate for another chemical that induces the syndrome.”.
In other words, the author’s own example of unanticipated sickness arising from genetically modified organisms was a case of impurities in the product purification process that happened among a set number of batches of product. Which doesn’t support the author’s point at all.
This is too long as it is, and I’m exhausted at the task of expressing exactly how ignorant and wrong this article is. One final dig: The picture of glowing mice in the top left?
Author’s caption: “Yes, this is real: GMO Mice glowing in the dark.”.
The message seems to be “look at how horrible and freaky genetic modification technology is, it actually makes mutant glowing mice”.
What it actually means is “If we take the gene for Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) and insert it into mice, we get mice that are still mice in every way except that they’ll produce this glowing protein everywhere in their bodies”.
These mice do have problems, for example, they have extremely impaired vision, because their eyes and retinas glow which kinda fucks up your ability to see, and they experience more oxidative damage since GFP is a molecule that absorbs and emits large amounts of energy, causing increased production of free-radicals.
But the take-home message of this is the exact opposite of what the authors imply. The authors want to say that “GMOs are horrible and freaky”. What it really means is “If we use genetic engineering to insert one modification, for example, green fluorescent protein, into an organism, the organism remains whole and normal in every single way, except for the modification we have introduced, and the differences that having this modification creates”. With GFP in mice, this is a proof-of-concept. With GM plants, nobody’s trying to make them glow in the dark. The modifications we introduce are things like “produces vitamins the plant normally wouldn’t”, “is okay around our pesticide that would kill any other plant”, “takes less damage from cold or freezing temperatures” or “produces a protein that’s poisonous to insect digestive systems because of an enzyme only insects have”. The chances of a plant spontaneously and unexpectedly glowing in the dark or something like it because of these manipulations is, to borrow an analogy from Young Earth Creationists, like the chance of a tornado assembling a 747 from a scrapyard.
Hi, just a quick note from a biologist. This page appears to have somewhat of a misunderstanding of what a promoter is. See, a promoter isn’t a particle at all. It’s a stretch of DNA, usually linked to the gene of interest. Transcription factors (which are protein particles that act sort of how you’re describing promoters) bind to the DNA promoters and bring over the DNA-reading machinery to start the process that makes protein.
So when a GMO food includes a powerful promoter, what that really means is that the gene of interest includes an upstream promoter that easily binds DNA-reading proteins. This will lead to the added gene being expressed at a high level, making lots of the desired protein.
HOWEVER, what is fundamentally important is that the DNA promoter will only enhance copying of the gene that it’s bound to. It will not activate other genes. If scientists added in new transcription factors, perhaps there would be cause for concern, but that isn’t being done.
I just quoted this article for my doctoral thesis thanks!
I really hope your doctoral thesis is on ‘ways that scientific illiteracy gets dressed up in false authority to promote bullshit’.
The title is “Why people are so stupid”….its mostly been an autobiography, but I’m trying to site other examples of misguided and misinformed stupid people.