People are a part of nature too. Maybe nature gave us the intelligence to GE food on purpose so we could produce better food? Think about it, someone produces veggies that taste like bacon, butter, salt.. etc.. We'd all live forever. Of course, the way you are talking about nature kicking our ass it kind of sounds like God talk to me. You're not going fundy on us are you?
People are a part of nature too. Maybe nature gave us the intelligence to GE food on purpose so we could produce better food? Think about it, someone produces veggies that taste like bacon, butter, salt.. etc.. We'd all live forever. Of course, the way you are talking about nature kicking our ass it kind of sounds like God talk to me. You're not going fundy on us are you?
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
Seriously, this is DNA from fish and mammals, since when did they genetically breed plants with fish or mammals?
You do realise that these combinations could NEVER occure in nature or by simply breeding?
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
You are so fucked in your head that you are beyond all forms of rational discusssion, go away or at least get off the massive amount of meth and LSD combo you are on.
Nothing in your post makes any sense what so ever.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
Son, we've been over this before, i don't give a fuck about what some fucking queen or prince says, in reality, they have NO say.
Not to mention that nanotech has nothing to do with this, just because you cannot stand up for the irresponsable breeding of plants and viruses that have caused mass death you can't just say "omg i'm soooo horny for your prince and ya kno what he says" and think that is the end of that discussion.
Let's stick to the discussion at hand, shall we? This is nothing like nanotech.
It's basically the same anti-science arguments as nanotech. Yet again we see the luddite-like nature of Europeans here in this forum.
he's just extrapolating what might happen. he doesn't realize his extrapolations that he's detailed in previous posts (like getting AIDS from plants) are ludicrous; they simply stem from a combination of his ignorance and imagination.
edit: i dont think what he says has anything to do with being european
Umm, do you know what they put in the soil for crops? Yep - fish and animal matter.
OH NOES! The plants are taking up fish and animal DNA!
It might have something with him being British though...their state supported inbred monarchy has come out against scientific progress. It's part of their culture, really. I'm not sure if many of the queen/prince's subjects would be willing to challenge the royal stupidity.
Will British people really be willing to risk treason and go against the anti-scientific principles of their monarchy? I'm not sure and I think that this may be one of several reasons why so many British people are anti-science.
admittedly there is a big difference between absorbing matter as nutrition and utilizing DNA from other species--...
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
You actually believe that using molecules from specific compounds (which nano is all about) to provide better protection for certain metals and paints along with non stick surfaces is the same thing as mating a fish and ragweed?
Honestly?
You think that using nervetoxins from viruses coupled with wheat is the same?
You really don't have a clue what this discussion is about, do you? You just saw my name and wanted to say something stupid about the UK being a kingdom, didn't you you stupid arse troll.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
Are you a complete retard, do you believe that if you eat beef the cattle DNA gets coupled with your human DNA? You really don't get how this works AT ALL? It is fused forcibly into the DNA, i'm sure we could do it to human offspring too, to create a sane spidey (just need a sheitload of genes to compensate for your loaf of bread intelligence).
This is something that everyone who ever finished grade school should know.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
There you go again, it's all you ever have in every single discussion, monarchy, i don't give a fuck about it but you are obsessed with our queen.
If i arrange a fucking date, will you let it go then you reatarded piece of shit?
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
It seems to me that the initial gist of this thread was about telling the consumer what is contained in the food they are buying. That seems a reasonable expectation for one to have.
I don't have a Ph.D in micro genetics or double major in chemistry this and that so I can't argue what good or ungood Might occur from messing with the natural order of things... Nor can I buy into the notion that the natural order of things should contain our human intervention cuz we can do it and be reasonably certain that nothing too bad can occur. IT MAY!
I also fail to understand the Nexus twixt Elizabeth, Queen of England, et. seq. omitted and anything relevant to this thread.
I figure that we can never know what we don't know and it seems to me there is a natural order to stuff that in its wisdom balances stuff out and from time to time creates monsters... like Ebola and other nifty little thingi... IF nature can do this all by its lonesome... mankind is sure to be able to eradicate the population with its propensity to oooopppps...
I don't have a Ph.D in micro genetics or double major in chemistry this and that so I can't argue what good or ungood Might occur from messing with the natural order of things... Nor can I buy into the notion that the natural order of things should contain our human intervention cuz we can do it and be reasonably certain that nothing too bad can occur. IT MAY!
I also fail to understand the Nexus twixt Elizabeth, Queen of England, et. seq. omitted and anything relevant to this thread.
I figure that we can never know what we don't know and it seems to me there is a natural order to stuff that in its wisdom balances stuff out and from time to time creates monsters... like Ebola and other nifty little thingi... IF nature can do this all by its lonesome... mankind is sure to be able to eradicate the population with its propensity to oooopppps...
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,835
- 6,380
- 126
- May 11, 2008
- 23,087
- 1,546
- 126
Well, you have not read what i was worried about. As such, your response is typical because you do not know what could happen either. I can brag with my education as well but that does not make me omniscient. You know what happens in a petridish in an environment you control. But you ignore what happens when those plants get put in the field. You ignore the diversity of nature.
In anyway, this thread is about multiple subjects :
The refusal of labeling of gm food.
The research that is not been done about stuffing yourself with cry toxins while also eating other gm food and getting the normal infections.
The research that is not been done about stuffing yourself with reverse transcriptase while also eating other gm food and getting the normal infections.
The bt -cotton that does not work at all.
It seems bt-cotton needs more water then the natural cotton plants.
What does expressing a protein nonstop mean ? Yes energy consumption.
Now there is bt-cotton 2 with 2 active proteins, where does it end.
The political power of the US government backed monsanto.
The feeding of cows and pigs with slaughterproducts in the US increasing once again the chance for madcow disease making the jump to people in the US or in to countries (Korea / Japan) where the meat is shipped too.
Alzheimer at a very young age.
Overal, ignoring the safety and health of the customer/consumer.
Last edited:
no, you obviously know little to nothing about molecular biology or even its basic precepts.
the sentiments you've expressed in this thread are very telling, because they are the same ignorant tripe that people who are in the dark constantly opine about. Although as a big proponent of critical thinking I think that skepticism and asking questions is important, it needs to be done with a bit of background knowledge. Trying to be inquisitive while not even understanding where you stand is ultimately foolish and no different from someone who is ignorant and incurious.
I will not comment on bt-cotton, because I don't know anything about bt-cotton. My knowledge about monsanto is that it seems to be a company desperate to gain a stranglehold on the market for GE foods, intent to enslave farmers to their seeds, and willing to commit unsavory tactics to reach those ends. I don't like monsanto.
I don't see an issue feeding cows and pigs slaughterproducts if the animals beforehand didnt have TSE. Also I don't know why you're whining about pigs because there's been no outbreak of TSE between pigs and humans. I'd like to also note that there seems to be a pretty strong link between BSE and vCJD in humans, but there has been no evidence of an actual mechanism of what occurs.
I don't know why you think there's this big conspiracy over beef. The beef industry knows how crucial it is to keep mad cow disease out of the food chain, because they're going to go bankrupt overnight if people find out food may be contaminated.
Finally, I can see why companies would refuse to label GM food, although I think they should. I think it stems from the fact that people are less willing to eat GM food, because they have this idea that the food is 'frankenfood' and other crap spread by idiots who don't have a clue. The refusal to label GM food is not out of fear that the food will hurt people, but out of fear from marketing departments that it will suffer in sales if done so. I personally think foods that are genetically modified should be labeled as such, and that they should be supported by the populace.
And.. thanks for the comment about the petridish? We use the 'petri dish' as a way to attenuate any factors that may unduly influence our experiment. You need a controlled environment if you want to see how a set number of factors affect your outcome...
Why does it matter if we put a GM organism out in the field? Oh right, it depends on what is modified and how its modified. Nevermind that this has nothing to do with GM foods and everything to do with regulation. So what the fuck was your statement for? Oh right.. just more FUD and ignorance.
cry toxins? you are totally incoherent
reverse transcriptase? this guy can't be serious. its just a fucking enzyme dude. if you eat it it will degrade in your stomach because your stomach has a PH of 3.
-.-
What did you think it did? You don't even make any sense.. this is science, these big words you use actually have meaning, you can't just throw them out there and not expect people to laugh at you if you don't mak any sense.
Last edited:
- May 11, 2008
- 23,087
- 1,546
- 126
Go back to your books and start learning again. Because you missed a lot.
The saliva and stomach acid does not disintegrate material. We have bowls for a reason.
Come back with a better explanation because your rants are useless for me.
You ignore what i said. When you or anybody else can answer my questions to my satisfaction, then i will admit there is nothing to worry about and buy some gmfood when i see it. But you cannot. Because when i make a statement, you say it is impossible. I ask why. And you tell me i do not know what i am talking about. That is proof enough for me. Science is about able to proof and verify. And that is the whole thing, there is no proof it is safe and it is not verified.
I call it crytoxin because it is called that way. It is what the plasmids of the bt bacillus produce.
acids tend to degrade most proteins because proteins hold their normal conformations in certain conditions. So, most proteins will either end up misfolding, breaking apart, or, in the case of protein complexes, completely fall apart.
you are misinterpreting what I say much as the average person with only a superficial understanding of the life sciences would, because that's about as much as you know.. which is pretty much nothing. It's obvious you have no background in the formal biological sciences, which is what you would need if you want to have an opinion that was different from blowing gas from your asshole, which you are doing quite well right now.
and plasmids hold genetic information, your statement that 'plasmids' make this magical toxin is nonsensical.. it would be better to say the bacteria make the toxins, since the entirety of the bacteria is used for making the toxins
its obvious that you're getting this information from some sort of looney third-hand source. mind posting us the link? you manage to rattle off words not from the common man's lexicon and in one sentence show us that you do not have any idea what you're talking about, so there must be some idiot slightly smarter than you filling your head with this gobbledygook.
Last edited:
- May 11, 2008
- 23,087
- 1,546
- 126
Duh. Standard stuff...
Exactly this text is why i hold you on low regard. You assumed something without reading or going into the subject by use of your arrogance and your lack of understanding. Remember my petridish comment a few posts back, you described exactly what one can do with a petridish which was exactly my point. You only view and think from a controlled environment. And perfectly describes all your responses so far. That and your arrogance.
But the world and the body is not a petridish. Think of multiple infections by multiple pathogens for once.
I never wrote that plasmids make toxins directly. What i meant because i assumed you where a real biochemist (and as such would understand) is that the toxins produced are encoded in the plasmid genetic information of the bacteria. (You really have not done any background reading , you just rant.) And that this genetic information is inserted into the plant and for as far as i can tell, every cell in the plant produces this toxin. No where can the research papers be found that only the leafs that will not be eaten produce these toxins. No these toxins are everywhere also in the part of the plants that do get eaten. And that is my concern. How will my body react if i get a daily doses of these "spores and crystalline insecticidal proteins " produced by the plant. That is one concern. Now bacteria can acquire new tricks to survive as for example resistance through plasmid exchange. The insertion of genetic information is rather crude with how monsanto does it. What tells me that this protein is not going to mutate. What tells me this genetic information will not be exchanged when infected by a virus exchanging dna with the plant ? There is no proof nothing . There is however proof that every time these research projects failed. Bigger fish, bigger mouse, more muscled cows. All end up sick and diseased, weaker then the original. bt cotton plants that are weaker then their natural cousins. Again, if there is no proper and thorough understanding which you also do not seem to have. this is not wise.
You can just limit that lack of intelligence of yours for once. Because you really are the most dumbest person i have ever met. I might just as well have a conversation with a turd. You have totally no understanding of the matter. You do not know what you are talking about. You show me you home chemistry set and tell me your a biochemist.
EDIT:
Another thing to ask is, is the plasmid entirely placed in the plant cell or not ? Or just a gene fragment ? I doubt that it is the case with the gm food but it is even possible to have an plasmid in an eukaryotic cell. Can this mutation occur ? These are valid questions which it seems i am not allowed to ask .
Last edited:
- May 11, 2008
- 23,087
- 1,546
- 126
I know all to well how secretive the beef industry is. Because a lot of malpractices have taken place with respects to procedures. It has come so far that an government official cannot make documents public or publicly available stating the hazardous practices being performed. This has got me worried.
This has already been confirmed in the UK. Almost no cases of variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease where existing. Being very rare. Right following the BSE disease a sharp increase of variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease occurred. Both prion diseases. Both transmissible. No family histories of CJd. No growth hormone supplements. But all victims where very fond of beef.
And afcourse there is no direct evidence, what do you want to do, infect an innocent human and see what is happening ? With these kind of diseases it is difficult to follow the entire route from beginning to end.
And i brought up pigs as well, since scrapie from sheep transferred to cows.
And it is not proven but up to now also not proven impossible.
EDIT:
Forgot to mention one thing, cows are not meat eaters or carnivores. Cows are herbivores and the whole digestive system of a cow is not setup to process meat.
Besides, self regulation of companies does not work.
Last edited:
I know all to well how secretive the beef industry is. Because a lot of malpractices have taken place with respects to procedures. It has come so far that an government official cannot make documents public or publicly available stating the hazardous practices being performed. This has got me worried.
This has already been confirmed in the UK. Almost no cases of variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease where existing. Being very rare. Right following the BSE disease a sharp increase of variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease occurred. Both prion diseases. Both transmissible. No family histories of CJd. No growth hormone supplements. But all victims where very fond of beef.
And afcourse there is no direct evidence, what do you want to do, infect an innocent human and see what is happening ? With these kind of diseases it is difficult to follow the entire route from beginning to end.
And i brought up pigs as well, since scrapie from sheep transferred to cows.
And it is not proven but up to now also not proven impossible.
EDIT:
Forgot to mention one thing, cows are not meat eaters or carnivores. Cows are herbivores and the whole digestive system of a cow is not setup to process meat.
Besides, self regulation of companies does not work.
It's always important to note the difference between correlation and causation. It doesn't matter if people are convinced that BSE induces vCJD in humans, because without DIRECT EVIDENCE of a scientific study that either replicates the mechanism or shows statistical significance in inducing it in humans (which is unethical and should not happen) it is at best an educated guess. The furor over BSE is due to epidemiological evidence (which, considering epidemiology is pretty spotty) and more importantly, studies done on monkeys which show vCJD-like symptoms. I'd say the studies on the monkeys are as good as we're going to get, short of infecting a human on purpose. Either way, the distinction between correlation and causation can be blurry sometimes, but you are being pretty cavalier by dismissing that.
And I still don't know why you brought up pigs, because pigs are not sheep nor are they cows.. Seems like a total non sequitur to me.
Cows aren't meat eaters? Thanks for the heads up. I guess if they can't eat meat they would be dying over the processed meat remnants fed to them, right? Oh wait.. apparently not. I suspect the variants of beef grown by humans are themselves being adjusted over time naturally to better absorb the selected feed humans provide. Your little blurb about cows not being meat-eaters seems to pale in the face of reality.
And finally, I never said that self-regulation worked. What I said was that the beef industry has a powerful incentive to keep BSE out of the market, because if there wasn't a total moratorium of beef sales by the government, the people would see to it that beef was not sold. You are answering to remarks made by nobody except by the crazies in your head dude. l2read? idk.
Your previous post is just full of crap. I don't even know where to begin to respond.. spores and insecticidal proteins? You put this in quotes, and since you decided to not answer my question about where you were getting your random ass material I decided to google it. Lo and behold, I got a wikipedia page..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis
Here is an excerpt:
So 'Bt' refers to plants that have been genetically modified to produce small amounts of the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin.
They even say this later,
I did some more digging at wiki's sources, since wikipedia itself is not good enough to be taken at face value. They link they provided is an article from PNAS, which is a legitimate scientific journal:
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/41/15196.long
Here they talk about the specificity of the insecticide, and the known mechanisms of how/why it works:
There, I even bolded the important part for you. If you can't understand what the difference is between these insects and humans then I'm done explaining. Look, in 10 minutes (10 minutes I probably should not have spent explaining this to you) I managed to placate your insane fears. You can go on and be a more normal human being now. If you choose to cast doubt on even this then it's pretty obvious you can't be reasoned with as a thinking human being, and that you will choose to see shadows regardless of what anyone else says or shows you otherwise.
You assert that how monsanto inserts the genetic information is crude. Please enlighten me on what Monsanto does to modify its crops. I personally have never worked in a lab modifying plants genetically to get them to express genes, so I don't know what this 'crude' is with respect to that. Only labwork I've done is with bacteria and immortal mammalian cells. It's obvious you have way more understanding and personal experience than I do, so I'd like an explanation please.
Finally, what's with the random 'omg this is going to mutate' comments? This is why I keep talking shit to you, because you express the fears and concerns of someone who hasn't studied this AT ALL. You have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Only the uneducated worry about what will happen if a protein mutates. You are an idiot dude. If the protein mutates it will OVERWHELMINGLY lose efficacy and just not work at all. It doesn't magically become some sort of human killing drug because of one change. Have you even SEEN the structure of the cry toxin? Any gene change will either do NOTHING or cause the protein to completely misfold and become worthless.
Last edited:
- May 11, 2008
- 23,087
- 1,546
- 126
It is not very nice of you to selectively qoute wikipedia :
I knew you would do that ^_^
From the same page the text with the parts you so conveniently left out :
EDIT:
Furthermore, the use of bt as external pesticide are spread out over the ground where the sunlight and natural process decay bt very fast. All these test tell nothing about large quantities of consumption in humans which happens with gm food with bt added. Once again quoting wikipedia does not help you.
I knew you would do that ^_^
From the same page the text with the parts you so conveniently left out :
EDIT:
Furthermore, the use of bt as external pesticide are spread out over the ground where the sunlight and natural process decay bt very fast. All these test tell nothing about large quantities of consumption in humans which happens with gm food with bt added. Once again quoting wikipedia does not help you.
Last edited:
- May 11, 2008
- 23,087
- 1,546
- 126
I find you insane. It is the same prion, yet you still say it has nothing to do with each other.
I have given you enough information. But you act like a lawyer on trial. Because there is no hard evidence (slicing up and sacrificing living humans after giving them a prion diet) you say it is possible that it has nothing to do with each other. I think that you must eat some bse meat then. Because you are obviously convinced it has nothing to do with each other. But you will not take that risk will you in such a hypothetical situation. You are pathetic.
When it comes to meat eating herbivors, but because cows normally do not eat meat, this is a very good barrier between species. We eat cows, cows eat plants. That is very hard to cross for pathogens. A barrier that has been removed as can be seen with BSE and vCJD. Another such example is that these animals must be fed massive amounts of antibiotics, now why should that be ? Because these animals are sick all the time, while the customer eats these animals. Healthy cows do not need antibiotics. It is the meat diet, which is economically chosen and has nothing to do with what is good for the animal.
When it comes to BSE, the prion disease has been shown as you mention as well to infect certain monkeys. But in laboratory tests add: Pigs, chickens, mice, any monkeys and rabbits. That is crossing species very easy and the chance is increased significantly when putting herbivors on a meat diet which is comprised of slaughter waste. Prions fall apart at 600 degrees celcius. No electrical power saw to cut up the cadavers can withstand such heat without being damaged. As such these saws are not cleaned properly. Yeah washing with a little water, that is what is happening. If there is a rise of vCJD to happen expect it in Japan and South Korea as well. Where most of the meat is exported too.
If it is so desirable to keep BSE out, why take such enormous risk with feeding slaughter remains ? Why does the beef industry keep insisting that rapports are not allowed to be made public. Why is there so much secrecy ? I can answer that for you, because it will cost money. And as such high risks are preferred and lobbying has been done that all regulations are voluntary not mandatory. You really are brainwashed are you...
That is what i said on the same post you so selectively use as your "evidence".
Well, i know that part from pnas( I like pnas and look around there often ^_^) as well before you posted it.
And i know what it does with the insects. But before you so boldy and amazing started farting out of your mouth, it says nothing about high concentrations in humans. Which i am interested in. Which is the only thing i am interested in. Yet again you provide me with nothing that i already know.
You only continue to be the useless piece of manure that you are.
Last edited:
- May 11, 2008
- 23,087
- 1,546
- 126
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Let me make clear that what i post here i already knew before i posted or even read this text.
I have some text here i copied :
-------------------------------
There are four scientific reasons to exclude Bt maize from Europe.
We will first introduce all of these briefly and then elucidate each in more detail in subsequent sections.
#1
There is a virtual certainty that the importation of this product will lead to the generation of pathogenic bacteria that are resistant to the antibiotic ampicillin.
#2
Bt maize constitutes a significant risk to the health of consumers because it has not been tested thoroughly enough to assure
(a) that it does not contain unanticipated allergens or toxins, and
(b) that its nutritional value has not been reduced in unexpected ways.
#3
The US government and the US biotechnology industry are demanding to import this maize unlabeled and mixed with non-genetically modified maize.
#4
This deprives consumers of the information needed to choose for themselves whether to accept the health risks associated with eating these inadequately tested foods. This also deprives consumers of their fundamental right to make informed purchasing choices.
Scientific evidence indicates that the cultivation of Bt maize will lead to the emergence of insect pests that are resistant to the Bt toxin. This disruption of the ecosystem is inherently undesireable, and it is also detremental to agriculture in the long run. It will not only make Ciba-Geigy's Bt corn variety obsolete, but it will also deprive organic and biological farmers of a valuable tool for pest control-Bt toxin extracted from natural Bacillus thuringiensis. Allowing Ciba-Geigy's Maize to be imported into Europe sends a green light to industry that it is acceptable to ignore serious environmental, ecological, and agricultural threats in the development and commercialization of genetically engineered products.
Antibiotic Resistance
Not only has the gene for ampicillin resistance been introduced into Ciba-Geigy's Bt maize, but in this maize variety, the ampicillin resistance gene is still linked to bacterial regulatory sequences, called promoter sequences. These promoter sequences make this gene highly active in bacteria. It is well known that many kinds of bacteria readily pick up genes present in their environment and incorporate them into their own DNA. Due to the presence of these promoter sequences, it is highly likely that any bacterium that happens to pick up this gene will express ampicillin resistance. Thus it is virtually certain that the use of Ciba-Geigy's Bt corn will generate ampicillin resistant bacteria.
The digestive tracts of both humans and livestock contain large populations of benign bacteria. Transfer of the ampicillin gene to any one of those bacterial strains will secondarily generate ampicillin resistant pathogenic bacteria, as well. When humans or livestock eat Bt maize the ampicillin resistance gene will be present in the digestive tract. This gene will be picked up by intestinal bacteria, conferring on them resistance to that antibiotic. Then, when at some later time that person or animal becomes infected with pathogenic bacteria, the ampicillin resistance gene can readily be transferred to that pathogen from the benign intestinal bacteria that initially picked it up.
The result will be an ampicillin-resistant pathogen, which physicians will be unable to combat with ampicillin. Already the over-use and misuse of antibiotics has generated superbugs, pathogens resistant to a wide range of antibiotics. Commercialization of Bt maize will accelerate this process, making the problem even worse.
Proponents of Bt maize do not dispute that its use can contribute to antibiotic resistance in pathogens. Instead, they attempt to justify this by claiming that antibiotic resistant microorganisms are already being generated by other mechanisms, such as incorrect use of antibiotics, and therefore the added contribution of Bt maize need not be taken seriously.
We hold to the old adage that two wrongs do not make a right. It is true that antibiotic resistant pathogens are being generated by other mechanisms. However, we seriously question the wisdom of contributing to this trend by introducing widely a new mechanism that will surely generate antibiotic resistance.
Furthermore, claims that Bt maize will make only a small contribution to the process of creating antibiotic resistant pathogens, compared to other mechanisms, is pure speculation. There is no quantitative evidence that this is the case. Especially if genetically engineered Bt crops become widely used as animal feed, the contribution could be very large.
Health Risks of Bt Maize
Ciba-Geigy's Bt maize has met the current requirements for safety testing required by the US government and by the European Union. However, a careful scientific evaluation of the tests actually performed indicates that these tests have not been sufficient to assure that Bt maize is safe to eat. In the US, all testing of genetically engineered foods is voluntary. Manufacturers are not required by law to test these foods before placing them on the market. In Europe, testing is not voluntary. However, the tests required are never-the-less inadequate to detect all potential hazards in genetically engineered foods.
Two interrelated factors contribute to these inadequacies. First, the process of genetic engineering is not completely reliable and controlled. It can, therefore introduce unforeseen genetic changes into the food-producing organism, which can, in turn, lead to changes in the characteristics of the food that cause it to contain unexpected allergens or toxins, or be reduced in nutritional value. In light of this scientific fact, one might expect that regulatory agencies would have already established a highly rigorous system for testing these novel foods that is designed to detect those that could jeopardize health. Yet, the safety testing currently required falls far short of this standard. It is not capable of detecting the full range of unforeseen hazards that could occur. This problem and alternative approaches are discussed in detail in the paper Assessing the Safety and Nutritional Quality of Genetically Engineered Foods (Attached).
The second factor contributing to the inadequacy of current regulations is that these regulations are based on the principle of substantial equivalence. Testing based on this principle focuses on potential risks that can be anticipated on the basis of the known characteristics of the food-producing organism that has undergone genetic modification or on the basis of the known characteristics of the genes introduced into that organism. However, testing based on this principle ignores the unexpected hazards that are an unavoidable risk when an organism has been altered using the process of genetic engineering.
In a testing program based on the principle of substantial equivalence, selected characteristics of the genetically engineered food are compared to those of its non-genetically engineered counterpart. If those selected characteristics are found to be "substantially equivalent" in the genetically engineered food and its non-genetically engineered counterpart, it is concluded that, since the non-genetically engineered food has been shown to be safe through long use, the genetically engineered food must be equally safe.
http://www.netlink.de/gen/BTCorn.htm
Let me make clear that what i post here i already knew before i posted or even read this text.
I have some text here i copied :
-------------------------------
There are four scientific reasons to exclude Bt maize from Europe.
We will first introduce all of these briefly and then elucidate each in more detail in subsequent sections.
#1
There is a virtual certainty that the importation of this product will lead to the generation of pathogenic bacteria that are resistant to the antibiotic ampicillin.
#2
Bt maize constitutes a significant risk to the health of consumers because it has not been tested thoroughly enough to assure
(a) that it does not contain unanticipated allergens or toxins, and
(b) that its nutritional value has not been reduced in unexpected ways.
#3
The US government and the US biotechnology industry are demanding to import this maize unlabeled and mixed with non-genetically modified maize.
#4
This deprives consumers of the information needed to choose for themselves whether to accept the health risks associated with eating these inadequately tested foods. This also deprives consumers of their fundamental right to make informed purchasing choices.
Scientific evidence indicates that the cultivation of Bt maize will lead to the emergence of insect pests that are resistant to the Bt toxin. This disruption of the ecosystem is inherently undesireable, and it is also detremental to agriculture in the long run. It will not only make Ciba-Geigy's Bt corn variety obsolete, but it will also deprive organic and biological farmers of a valuable tool for pest control-Bt toxin extracted from natural Bacillus thuringiensis. Allowing Ciba-Geigy's Maize to be imported into Europe sends a green light to industry that it is acceptable to ignore serious environmental, ecological, and agricultural threats in the development and commercialization of genetically engineered products.
Antibiotic Resistance
Not only has the gene for ampicillin resistance been introduced into Ciba-Geigy's Bt maize, but in this maize variety, the ampicillin resistance gene is still linked to bacterial regulatory sequences, called promoter sequences. These promoter sequences make this gene highly active in bacteria. It is well known that many kinds of bacteria readily pick up genes present in their environment and incorporate them into their own DNA. Due to the presence of these promoter sequences, it is highly likely that any bacterium that happens to pick up this gene will express ampicillin resistance. Thus it is virtually certain that the use of Ciba-Geigy's Bt corn will generate ampicillin resistant bacteria.
The digestive tracts of both humans and livestock contain large populations of benign bacteria. Transfer of the ampicillin gene to any one of those bacterial strains will secondarily generate ampicillin resistant pathogenic bacteria, as well. When humans or livestock eat Bt maize the ampicillin resistance gene will be present in the digestive tract. This gene will be picked up by intestinal bacteria, conferring on them resistance to that antibiotic. Then, when at some later time that person or animal becomes infected with pathogenic bacteria, the ampicillin resistance gene can readily be transferred to that pathogen from the benign intestinal bacteria that initially picked it up.
The result will be an ampicillin-resistant pathogen, which physicians will be unable to combat with ampicillin. Already the over-use and misuse of antibiotics has generated superbugs, pathogens resistant to a wide range of antibiotics. Commercialization of Bt maize will accelerate this process, making the problem even worse.
Proponents of Bt maize do not dispute that its use can contribute to antibiotic resistance in pathogens. Instead, they attempt to justify this by claiming that antibiotic resistant microorganisms are already being generated by other mechanisms, such as incorrect use of antibiotics, and therefore the added contribution of Bt maize need not be taken seriously.
We hold to the old adage that two wrongs do not make a right. It is true that antibiotic resistant pathogens are being generated by other mechanisms. However, we seriously question the wisdom of contributing to this trend by introducing widely a new mechanism that will surely generate antibiotic resistance.
Furthermore, claims that Bt maize will make only a small contribution to the process of creating antibiotic resistant pathogens, compared to other mechanisms, is pure speculation. There is no quantitative evidence that this is the case. Especially if genetically engineered Bt crops become widely used as animal feed, the contribution could be very large.
Health Risks of Bt Maize
Ciba-Geigy's Bt maize has met the current requirements for safety testing required by the US government and by the European Union. However, a careful scientific evaluation of the tests actually performed indicates that these tests have not been sufficient to assure that Bt maize is safe to eat. In the US, all testing of genetically engineered foods is voluntary. Manufacturers are not required by law to test these foods before placing them on the market. In Europe, testing is not voluntary. However, the tests required are never-the-less inadequate to detect all potential hazards in genetically engineered foods.
Two interrelated factors contribute to these inadequacies. First, the process of genetic engineering is not completely reliable and controlled. It can, therefore introduce unforeseen genetic changes into the food-producing organism, which can, in turn, lead to changes in the characteristics of the food that cause it to contain unexpected allergens or toxins, or be reduced in nutritional value. In light of this scientific fact, one might expect that regulatory agencies would have already established a highly rigorous system for testing these novel foods that is designed to detect those that could jeopardize health. Yet, the safety testing currently required falls far short of this standard. It is not capable of detecting the full range of unforeseen hazards that could occur. This problem and alternative approaches are discussed in detail in the paper Assessing the Safety and Nutritional Quality of Genetically Engineered Foods (Attached).
The second factor contributing to the inadequacy of current regulations is that these regulations are based on the principle of substantial equivalence. Testing based on this principle focuses on potential risks that can be anticipated on the basis of the known characteristics of the food-producing organism that has undergone genetic modification or on the basis of the known characteristics of the genes introduced into that organism. However, testing based on this principle ignores the unexpected hazards that are an unavoidable risk when an organism has been altered using the process of genetic engineering.
In a testing program based on the principle of substantial equivalence, selected characteristics of the genetically engineered food are compared to those of its non-genetically engineered counterpart. If those selected characteristics are found to be "substantially equivalent" in the genetically engineered food and its non-genetically engineered counterpart, it is concluded that, since the non-genetically engineered food has been shown to be safe through long use, the genetically engineered food must be equally safe.
http://www.netlink.de/gen/BTCorn.htm
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter