Scientists Sequence Complete Barley Genome

I can see this opening new possibilities for barley specific beers.

 

So basically gmo barely now? Or is that what we have been using? I am not for altering genetics like this. I am sure it will produce better crops but let's get real. Something is causing cancer to run rampant... Pretty good chance altering basic genetics of things like this (and corn) are at lest partially responsible. Am I misunderstanding the article? Doesn't specifically say gmo anywhere but unless they are just breeding different varieties to bring out the desired traits, not sure it could be anything else.??

 

GMO barley is not grown commercially. Brewers don't want it. The barley varieties used are all the result of breeding programs.

 

There is no food you eat that is not genetically modified. Learn science.

 

As I read the article they're talking about selective breeding rather than laboratory modification. Of course selective breeding has been carried out by hop farmers for all the centuries hops have been grown and it seems to me improved mapping of desirable characteristics will be of great benefit in the future.

 

Gotta giggle a little... This has been a philosophical argument among the science types at my work for years - a breeding program is GMO at a much, much lower pace is one side of the discussion. The other side, of course, says nonsense there is nothing at all common between the two. Truth lies in the middle, I reckon. The company officially decided to avoid the issue altogether and stick with GMO-free, albeit after a brief flirtation with GMO sugar.

Not important for our actual crop which is absolutely non-GMO, but things we use for ingredients and processing aids arguably make a difference, at least thru the lens of public perception. Sugar (and I mean sucrose as in table sugar, not corn syrup) - lots and lots of dirt cheap GMO sugar out there. An enzyme I use as a process aid - can get GMO versions that are much cheaper (and ironically less effective than the "wild type") but we don't use them even though we'd still save money despite having to use more. Regulations and public perceptions vary quite extremely on this topic, some almost whimsically so, and we've chosen to try and steer clear.

In the "did you know" category (and despite the snark, actually a half decent article about rennet and why it is predominantly GMO-derived these days).

"In fact, almost all the hard cheeses made in the United States, and in much of the West, use a genetically engineered protein that is made from genetically engineered yeast and bacteria. That includes cheese made in Vermont, which has passed a mandatory GMO labeling bill–that curiously exempts its iconic Vermont cheese from carrying a GMO label. So much for the consumer’s ‘right to know.’" https://geneticliteracyproject.org/...rd-gmo-opponents-love-and-oppose-a-label-for/

What strikes me as odd is the battle cry that "the cheese is GMO". Well, not really - it uses a process aid that is GMO. Even this article leans that way a little. If rennet were being naturally harvested, it would be "save the un-weaned calves" because we know how some people feel about veal...catch-22.

I do think there is a distinction with things like I have described versus manipulating crops genetically - I don't know that it is a huge distinction. I do know this is a real black hole of a topic with more than ample misrepresentation from both sides.

 

TL/DNR: GMOs are safe. As long as the breeders are absolutely 100% sure they know for what the genes that they're changing are responsible. Cross-breeding can be just as dangerous (and is definitely more unpredictable, more laborious, and less efficient) as modifying genes.

 

The definition I use for is the lab gene i.e. Recombinant DNA. Cross breeding looking for certain qualities is how it is done for grains and hops, even in places like Germany that do not allow "GMO".

Edit - the difference between barley being 6 row or 2 row is due to one gene. All of the other desireable two row traits are contained in other genes.

 

I doubt anybody here will disagree with you but I must ask the question, why was the snark necessary?

 

I probably could have said it with less snark. I was simply trying to drive the point home that science disagrees with his statements.

 

I hear you. I also probably should have said simply "was it necessary" not "why". To each their own. Cheers

 

GMOs are safe? Prove it, because the FDA, USDA & EPA certainly have done nothing to prove safety and everything to promote GMOs.

 

While I certainly agree with your skepticism, especially of the FDA who are little more than a signature of approval for sale, your concern about GMOs is misplaced. Since safety has to be determined on a case by case, organism by organism, basis, listing them would be rather exhaustive.

That said, genetic modification has been done by humans for hundreds of years via cross-breeding, which can have quite unexpected results and is usually a rather prolonged experimental process depending upon the generational spacing of said organism. Since the advent of direct genetic manipulation, the safety and speed of said procedure has increased tremendously, again, if, and only IF, the genetics of the organism in question are properly understood.

If you'd like specific scientific papers, I can locate some for you.

 

No thank you. I'm a grown man very capable of making my own dietary decisions. I would possibly read them if I knew who paid for these "scientific papers"? The FDA broke their own law in declaring GMO's as GRAS (generally regarded as safe). GRAS was applied rigorously by the FDA to foods pre-existing the GRAS rule. Proven long term safety of a food substance with no harmful effects reported was a major qualification in applying GRAS. (NOT OPINION)
There are no long term food safety tests on animals or humans proving their safety.

I find it odd the dramatic increase in obesity, allergies & countless other diseases has coincided with the unlawful introduction of GMO foods in the '90's. I suppose a biologist could explain this away as well. I do contract work in medical buildings, even the majority of nurses & staff are obese. Look around you, some people are so big they resemble trolls.

Cross-breeding and Genetic Engineering are vastly different. GE foods caused so many unintended consequences it took over 10 years for the recipient plant to not die. It is still causing them. Has it ever been proven the astronomical amount of side effects in prescription drugs are not caused by GMO ingredients?

 

Important points there. The FDA, in my opinion, is not to be trusted, as the papers that I mentioned are, very probably, funded and carried out by the companies producing the GMOs, not a neutral third party. A conflict of interest of monumental proportions.

You can't blame the SAD on GMOs. People are fat and have lifestyle related disease because of poor dietary choices and lack of activity. Might GMOs be part of those poor dietary choices? Sure, but organic white sugar and white flour are no better for you than their GMO versions.

Can you point to one side effect of a specific GMO?

And the side effects of prescription drugs have very little, if anything, to do with GMO ingredients. They have to do with humans not being meant, from a physiological perspective, to metabolize the compounds in said drugs. Whether they are active ingredients or "inert" ones.

 

And GMO ingredients in prescription drugs have nothing to do with side effects?
I can't debate anyone who has way more intelligence than me. I was not aware you have undertaken all these studies on FDA approved drugs and the causes of their side effects.
In your own words, please enlighten me

 

Again, which GMOs and which side effects?

I won't argue with you there, but if you want to stop being patronizing, then we can certainly talk.

 

Of course you won't. A good part of my experience in Telecom and Datacom involves troubleshooting issues. The first rule of intelligent troubleshooting is to eliminate possibilities. I have seen no evidence of this with GMO foods.
Showa Denko L-tryptophan was GMO and it caused an epidemic of illness and even several deaths. Of course, it was buried and never reported on by the USA corporate owned media. Same with Calgenes Flavr Savr tomatoes causing gross lesions in 20% of the rats used in an independent controlled study.
You may keep being naive or maybe you are in the industry, but reading self serving innuendos & corporation safety studies doesn't mean anything to me.

 

So, you're going to use a case of gross irresponsibility (Showa Denko) and a case of media sensationalism (Flavr Savr) to demonstrate your point?

You can do better.