The Future of GM Technology...

The bald eagle was hunted extensively, so was the brown pelican...that doesn't change the fact that DDT caused them to not be able to reproduce...

The DDT ban caused the brown pelican to rebound quite nicely-I can go get panhandled for fish guts by them at local fishing docks if I want to take close-ups...

(They are funny birds and I have a good deal of affection for them)

http://topnews.us/content/28327-bro...extinction-removed-us-endangered-species-list

It's the not-reversible part that I find really worrisome about GMO's
POP's may not break down in most cases for a generation or two, but they don't self-replicate...

And since I happened to go to school near one of the top superfund sites in the country, I know they can be bioremediated. With what? you guessed it-GM bacteria!
I approve heartily of GM bacteria that can break down really toxic sludge into harmless stuff!

But GM food, the way we are currently using it, is a continent-wide, uncontrolled, barely-monitored experiment with our food supply.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you beat me over the the head with this "peer reviewed" stuff then you come off with this ? ?

sorry, isn't going to work.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

leopold

Good data is good data. If you reject good data, you are rejecting science.

I would not have posted a reference from ISAAA if I did not believe they published good data. The crap that I have had from people like Ultra as references is not good data.

I would also like to add that I have been totally honest, like a good scientist, over the ISAAA data. If I had not told you they were biased, you would not know. However, the bias only shows in the interpretation. Unlike crackpots like Mae Wan Ho, whom Ultra seems to like to reference, ISAAA do not post lies. Just a slightly biased interpretation. And as I said, that is something we can easily compensate for.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope,
Start with the lab rats.
We KNOW they do extensive blood work on the lab rats because we have seen the results that prove that they do.
So do you have ANY study on lab rats that shows GM gene transfer to their blood after being fed GM corn?

Arthur

 

(Well, I did link that study showing blood, kidney, and heart problems with rats fed three currently-used brands of corn...but you're not asking for that...)

 

Well I did post the rebuttal to that:

There is no corroborating evidence that would lead independently to the conclusion that there were effects of toxicological significance ... The FSANZ assessment concluded that food derived from MON 863 corn is as safe and wholesome as food derived from other commercial corn varieties.

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/sci...s/factsheets2009/fsanzresponsetoseral4647.cfm

Arthur

 

putzai provided good data too.

on that note answer the following:
1. why didn't the 6 reviewers question the results of putzai experiment.
and
2. what potato would keep his control from developing the symptoms found.

 

i have repeatedly told you i cannot find any studies of any kind.
what i HAVE found says the studies that have been done are not independent.
the information on monsantos website confirms that observation.

 

Hi Chimpkin, you might find this interesting, I doubt Skeptic/Arthur will though..

I have concerns not only of the reduction of natural biodiversity, the reduction of natural soya in the US to virtually the point of extinction I think is evidence enough of that; Not even of the lack of labelling which was poor, and is not improving; Not even the lack of transparency of (in my opinion) untrustworthy pharma companies, but one of the known characteristics of existing organisms. Horizontal Transfer ~ and the modified viruses specifically designed to make their transition into a foreign genome not just possible but desirable.

This is called the Horizontal transfer of GM nuclear material into a genome. This is no miracle of science, and is not in any scientific doubt.
It is the mechanism whereby one eucaryoyic cell passes on drug resistence to another by incorperating the dna of a resistant one into its own genome.
It is believed GM dna can be passed through the gut wall either whole or in part, and thence into the bloodstream exactly the same way. There is a great deal of documentary evidence of this process, this is a link describing the term: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Horizontal_gene_transfer
I for one don't want any of my cells reprogrammed to produce BT toxin or any of the redundant unknown sequences known to exist which could be fungal, bacterial or viral, fish, plant or animal.
The bacteria in the gut are particularly well adapted and readily pass on drug resistance. They readily express relavant DNA so that it can be adopted by any other bacteria, pass through cell walls or be adopted by a variety of methods.
I find it extroadinary that people don't know this.

This is a fun little presentation of how it's usually done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtM8C3VeBO0&feature=player_detailpage
Or more simply,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wa16MZBTDA&feature=player_detailpage

As far as I know, nobody has tested positive for BT toxin, but then, nobody's testing for it as far as I know. BT toxin being commonly implanted into cerials and other plants to impart pest resistance.
Studies showed that during 10 years of crop use BT was responsible for the reduction of 35.6million kg of insecticide, no mean feat. Though some species such as the diamondback moth have already gotten immune to it. ~ wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis They also cite trials possibly linking BT to liver damage in rats, and infertility in mice though the mechanism by which this happens was not known.

But GM companies could easily allay such fears as recombinant virus dna such as BT toxin, plasmid dna, stray dna and non-coded (unknown) dna being expressed by implementing a few relatively easy steps to the vector dna encoding pathway as put forward in this extract:

"To reduce HGT, non-viral promoters could be used, transgene sizes reduced, replication origins removed, protein expression prevented and gene sequences disabled.

These improvements would probably not impact on transgene effectiveness.
By not requiring applicants to incorporate these safety features, or to justify why they have not done so, regulators are exposing third parties to unnecessary risks."

http://www.econexus.info/publication/gm-gene-flow-b

The specific level of risk cannot be known until GMOs containing pathogenic dna actually interact with humans, food crops, domesticated animals and/or wildlife. Once released, a crop has to be entirely destroyed in the event of recall. This alone might not prevent transgenic pollen cross breeding with native varieties, or seeds dispersed by birds or rodents, or their infection via HT transmisson. And if it got into Humans, well, it would be too late by then.
So, while I'm not saying there is a specific risk beyond BT toxin that I'm looking at at this time, there is every reason to be cautious in my view.

Non-specific dna in cloned animals has led to inappropriate expression of proteins, particularly in animals bred to produce medicines in their milk resulting in a high mortality rate of around 65% to 95%. Whilst this does not directly affect humans, it shows that non-specific gene expression can have harmful effects not previously accounted for.
In my view it is something biotech companies could eliminate from transgenic viruses by eliminating non-specific parts of code or "junk code" as it's often called. This link expands on the problem: http://www.gm.org/gm-organisms/tiny-genetic-differences-have-huge-consequences/

Death rates in cloned sheep higher/lower
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/alarm-raised-at-mortality-rates-in-cloned-sheep-1139599.html
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2001/Nov/msg00097.html

Of course this is all aside from all of the many claimed deaths and diseases of cloned animals or animals that have just grazed on BT cotton or been fed GM foodstuffs, but I'm just thinking about consequences for humans at the moment. If we're going to have this stuff snuck into our food, as looks likely, I reckon I'll just let those that want to eat it do so, and stick to my local farm produce. And anyway, I know it's fresh and not been given a gene to act as an artificial preservative such as in the Flavr Savr tomatoes. I wonder what ever happened to them? I've not thought of those in years.

 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/vs/iregs/products/downloads/tu_gmo.pdf

heh, wouldn't you know it?
on the following site i searched for "GMO safety" and it returned one hit, the very page i was looking at.
http://fsrio.nal.usda.gov/nal_web/fsrio/fsheet.php?id=232

 

leopold

I hope you noted the following from your usda reference.

"Labeling Guidelines for GE Foods

Regulatory authorities in most countries, including FDA, agree that GE foods allowed in the market after rigorous safety assessment are as safe as conventional foods"

Since FDA do not permit GE foods in the market till after such safety assessment, that means all the GE foods in the USA are regarded as safe.

Re horizontal gene transfer.
If the genes used in GM foods could become part of human cells, then so could any other gene in the food. Since GM corn, for example, has only one or a few GM genes, and 60,000 natural genes, that means you have up to 60,000 times the chance of being 'infected' by a natural gene as found in unmodified corn, than you have of being infected by a GM gene.

It is all bulldust anyway. There is no good scientific evidence that any gene in food, whether coming from a GM source or not, can transfer into living human cells.

The only alien gene transfer I am aware of, entering human cells, is that carried by retroviruses - not from food.

 

and i hope you noted that employees of FDA, USDA, monsanto, are one and the same.
you also failed to answer the questions in post 187.
putzais experiment wasn't pulled because of the results.
the results weren't questioned by the reviewers.
the experiment was pulled because he went public before his paper was peer reviewed.
upon the review it was determined he used the wrong potato in his control.
so i again ask, what potato would prevent the control from developing the illness/ symptoms of the experiment?

 

Scientific testing is usually done out of context. No ones fault, no conspiracy, just cost too much to test properly. Anyone can test a single substance by simply varying the percentage of total consumption. The following numbers are for illustration purposes only. 0 percent, 1 percent, 10 percent, 50 percent, 100 percent of total consumption. You got 5 levels covering the consumption spectrum, easy to test. Since few people eat only one item, you need to throw in a few other substances for your testing. Even if you only include 3 or 4 additional substances, you go from 5 tests to hundreds of tests by varying the percentages of combinations. Then some of the substances can be ingested in varying combinations, then waiting predetermined time intervals to ingest additional substances. That is true testing, and no company will ever test like this because it simply costs too much money. So is testing useful? Of course it is, but the results cover only a very limited range of possibilities. You can quote reputable test results all day long, but they are valid for a very specific set of circumstances and can not be used to cover vast segments of the global population.

There are people who can smoke like a chimney for 90 years and never get cancer, and then there are people who die at 40 from lung cancer. There are people drinking booze every night with few ill effects living balanced lives and then you get people who touch the booze and end up in the street, sick, waiting to expire. Until all groups are represented in the testing process, test results will be little more than a just another money making proposition.

The neutrality of scientific research went to the dark side via the highest bidder When the bulk of the science industry went from pursuing research that uncovered the secrets of the universe without initial regards to profit to research that was done strictly to market products to the global population.

Contrary to popular opinion money is a double edged sword, not the root of all evil. How many times has money enabled the down trodden to improve their lot in life and go on to live a life where they can make their own choices good or bad. I don't mean winning the lottery, sometimes just a couple of dollars is all it takes.

As far as ddt and bird eggs go, are people saying that the hunters changed the structural aspects of the eggs, making them too thin and brittle to survive? Or are people saying the while the ddt destroyed the bird eggs, that was a minor problem compared to the deaths caused by hunters? The fact that a product could be sprayed far and wide and appear in the general environment in such small quantities as to escape notice and only be seen when it is concentrated by the food chain into a few birds where it destroys their ability to reproduce by screwing up their calcium body chemistry is suppose to be a non event?

Contrary to human belief, mankind is not the ultimate predator on this planet. Mankind is a predator, but at the end of the day, everything that dies, and everything that is thrown away is consumed by micro organisms. These micro organisms have been concentrating every substance man has extracted from the earth since day one, plus all the other substances the earth has provided them with. Substances can cause genetic changes to occur either by design or by accident. In effect their life has been an on going GM process running for a heck of a long time. Amongst the crap the micro organisms produce, that stuff called dirt, that has been the mainstay of existence for quite a few creatures, including man.

GM is just speeding up the natural process. As the under developed areas of the world become scientifically aware of what can be done, they will do what they want to do, same as we have done in the modernized world, so no matter what laws are passed now, what can and can't be done will continue to be redefined.

 

there are 3 major problems i see with GM foods.
first is the virtual monopoly this industry has.
this may change as the future unfolds depending on the success of the venture.
i also see the need of such a monopoly during the initial development of this technology due to its very nature.

second and more importantly is the almost virtual lack of independent tests.
almost everything i have found in this area pertains to "guidelines".

third is how the GM industry managed to get a law passed stating GM foods are safe until proven otherwise. all they need to do is show that the GMO is "substantially equivalent" to the natural variety.

 

One of Monsanto's execs is now in a top position in the FDA.
Surprised at the results?

 

so, GM foods are considered safe as long as they meet the criteria of "substantial equivalence".
let's look at this.
from wiki:

it should be pointed out that in this case the FDA is not an independent regulatory body.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2725061&postcount=106
what happens when there is a concern?
from wiki:

and wouldn't you know it?
the reference in [26] cannot be found.

wiki source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies

 

@ ULTRA:

Um...I thought only those slutty prokaryotes could really engage in genetic uptake? Since they have no nucleus protecting their DNA from being spliced.
I dunno-you're the guy who ran a lab...

But I was taught only the most primitive eukaryotic bacteria engaged in DNA uptake.

So it would seem like you'd less have to worry about your eukaryotic cells taking up DNA.
Now, as for the natural flora of your gut?

Oh, THEY could easily take up that stuff!

When we did our little lab kits to make glow in the dark e-coli bacteria...there were the e-coli starters, the agar plates, and the p-glo plasmid tubes with the jellyfish gene in sterile solution.

So e-coli will happily take up all sorts of things-why they get used to produce a lot of pharma, right?

So...your e-coli or other gut bacteria would then be producing BT toxin? This might cause a problem.

You'd think thorough cooking would get rid of that in some cases...oop, raw salad veggies...

 

leopold

I have responded to the Pusztai question twice already this thread. Here it is again. Pusztai was not a martyr. He was sacked for incompetence. With the help of the anti-GM movement, he has tried to make himself into a victim, but he is just too old to do a good day's work as a researcher and is incompetent.

The British Royal Society evaluated his work independently, and concluded that his work on GM potatoes was a load of incompetent garbage. Since the BRS is perhaps the world's most respected scientific body, I am inclined to believe them rather than an embittered old man with a few crackpot supporters.

Chimpkin

You are correct that only prokaryotes engage in horizontal gene transfer, except that retroviruses can do the trick in eukaryotes. Simply eating food cannot pass genes into a eukaryote such as Homo sapiens. It takes a retrovirus infection. Even then, it is very rare.

Giambattista

On a Monsanto man being in the FDA.
So what? Here in New Zealand, evaluations are done by the NZ Food Safety Authority. Are you suggesting that Monsanto has put someone in there also? And what about every other relevent regulatory authority in the 80 odd countries that grow GM crops. Do they all have Monsanto people?

Of course not. The claim that the FDA is corrupt is just another red herring.

 

And that's where your fear becomes IRRATIONAL.

There is no set of cells in your body that, even if they could ingest and then incorporate a new DNA gene horizontally, would then produce huge numbers of new cells expressing the protein that gene encodes for.

Cell reproduction in our body simply doesn't work that way.

Arthur

 

No it doesn't.

Putting in the genes is tricky and messes with the embryo.

The mortality is during gestation or at birth.

Not that the animals that are born healthy don't live as long.

You're like a drowning man grasping on every little scrap that floats by trying to keep your fear of all things GM afloat, so you don't even read these reports with a critical eye.

But let's presume that there is a case, where we do what they are doing with these sheep and inserting a gene to create say a blood clotting factor that is very hard to get safely nowadays because of the occasional occurance of AIDS virus in our blood supply, and let's say that expressing the protein does have deleterious impact on the sheep so that they only live half as long.

SO WHAT?

How is that in anyway supporting your argument that GM is bad?

The purpose of this insertion would NOT be to make healthy sheep but to get this hard to make blood factor.

Arthur