So... what's the deal with GM food?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
All the above are quite unlikely. If you put water into a milk jug, you get milk out? No, you get water. If you have a gene (say one for human insulin) and put it into bacteria (which is not human) you get human insulin. Why? Because the machinery that makes proteins in living things makes the same proteins in living things if given the same instructions. It just is.

I agree that there's no special reason to be afraid of transferring genes from one organism to another. However, even computers aren't as digital and predictable as you make our protein generation machinery out to be, and we can't always ignore the details below the simple picture of the protein generation. Yes, both the computer and the protein generation process will generally perform the correct, identical procedure given identical instructions/DNA. However, both also perform multiple actions simultaneously (in a simulated fashion for a single processor machine, in reality for the cell or multiprocessor machine) and thus are dependent on what else is happening. Race conditions are a type of bug arising from such dependencies in computer programs, where the program functions correctly 99.9999% of the time, but fails at apparent random times. Cellular machinery is less precise and more complex, leading to more and worse such problems.

However, that doesn't mean that I think we should avoid all GM foods, but it does mean that we should acknowledge that there are risks and we should evaluate whether those risks are worth the benefits. I think the current benefits for third world farmers, many of whom live in areas where it is difficult to regularly grow crops, could be tremendous (especially if Monsanto's Terminator technology was eliminated), but I'm less convinced of the possible benefits for first world farmers, who have fewer problems growing food and thus have less need for hardier plants, which often comes at the expense of lower yields, thus reducing the amount of food they produce. Unfortunately, first world farmers have much more money to spend, unlike the people who most need the crops.

There is a certain amount of genetic "creep" in species. Random mutations are bound to occur without genetic manipulation. Finding mutations in wild type is something researchers do all the time. It produces some interesting effects.

Remember though that most mutations are self correcting. When doing a screen we often wind up with dead things. Fausto can attest to that. What you do not see in any biological is a stunning change in well studied systems. Heaven knows many a grad student wishes there were.

Bottom line is that the baseline mutation rate in a transgenic organism ought to be similar to wild type (that means the original unmutated or unmanipulated organism).

Needs further study, which is all I have been advocating. Faustos link is interesting.

Maybe this old boy has just grabbed too many snakes by the wrong end. I am a traditionalist in science. I need to be shown a thing, and convinced before I accept on faith.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: chess9
cquark:

But, do we have ONE documented case of health problems from GM crops? The radical fringe is raising these draconian concerns about health safety, so I wonder if there is any KNOWN health safety risk this far out.

Monsanto may have sued someone but I doubt they would or will win. That's a big stretch. The Terminator gene could be a big, big problem though if it turns out to be a REAL problem. Can you imagine Monsanto getting to decide who gets to eat corn or wheat? Good grief, scary that....

Helpful post, yours.
-Robert

I don't believe there is any documented cases Robert. The concerns being Draconian, hardly.

Do you remember

tryptophan in the late 80's ?
Not a crop but a food suplement where GM was done to increase output. Hundreds of deaths and thousands of disabilities and still not sure if gm or profit was the culprit.


GM should not be taken at face value for the benefits only. To much at stake..:clock:

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: chess9
cquark:

But, do we have ONE documented case of health problems from GM crops? The radical fringe is raising these draconian concerns about health safety, so I wonder if there is any KNOWN health safety risk this far out.

Monsanto may have sued someone but I doubt they would or will win. That's a big stretch. The Terminator gene could be a big, big problem though if it turns out to be a REAL problem. Can you imagine Monsanto getting to decide who gets to eat corn or wheat? Good grief, scary that....

Helpful post, yours.
-Robert

I don't believe there is any documented cases Robert. The concerns being Draconian, hardly.

Do you remember

tryptophan in the late 80's ?
Not a crop but a food suplement where GM was done to increase output. Hundreds of deaths and thousands of disabilities and still not sure if gm or profit was the culprit.


GM should not be taken at face value for the benefits only. To much at stake..:clock:

Whoa . . . don't bring tryptophan into this argument. Although it is indicative of how profit motive may harm the public interest it isn't really a case of GM gone bad . . . it's just bad corporate citizenship. There was absolutely NOTHING wrong with the tryptophan being produced by engineered bacteria. What happened is the manufacturer wanted to boost yield and profit by eliminating one or more purification steps to remove bacteria (and other impurities) from the finished product.

It's quite clear that GM was not the culprit. But would you trust such a company to execute GM judiciously?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: chess9
cquark:

But, do we have ONE documented case of health problems from GM crops? The radical fringe is raising these draconian concerns about health safety, so I wonder if there is any KNOWN health safety risk this far out.

Monsanto may have sued someone but I doubt they would or will win. That's a big stretch. The Terminator gene could be a big, big problem though if it turns out to be a REAL problem. Can you imagine Monsanto getting to decide who gets to eat corn or wheat? Good grief, scary that....

Helpful post, yours.
-Robert

I don't believe there is any documented cases Robert. The concerns being Draconian, hardly.

Do you remember

tryptophan in the late 80's ?
Not a crop but a food suplement where GM was done to increase output. Hundreds of deaths and thousands of disabilities and still not sure if gm or profit was the culprit.


GM should not be taken at face value for the benefits only. To much at stake..:clock:

Whoa . . . don't bring tryptophan into this argument. Although it is indicative of how profit motive may harm the public interest it isn't really a case of GM gone bad . . . it's just bad corporate citizenship. There was absolutely NOTHING wrong with the tryptophan being produced by engineered bacteria. What happened is the manufacturer wanted to boost yield and profit by eliminating one or more purification steps to remove bacteria (and other impurities) from the finished product.

It's quite clear that GM was not the culprit. But would you trust such a company to execute GM judiciously?

I was not aware that this was conclusive.????????? This is precedent and should be brought into the discussion. It is the only basis of actual gm involvement that resulted in documented deaths that I am aware of..
If there is information that can prove that improper purification was the culprit, then it would also point to the need for perfection in gm product control being a risk that outweighs the benefits.

GM should not be taken at face value for the benefits only....

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I'll cut through the crap for ya


GM foods aren't going to cause problems when eaten. There is no real magic here. The food is safe

BUT

The real problem IMO is that no one knows precisely how the pollen from GM plants will interact with wild type. You are introducing a whole new unknown element, and once the genie is out of the bottle you can't get it back.

A few other political and business concerns, however they are trivial compared to the above.

OK, neither was any meat from calves fed on crunched up bone meal, were they?

How long did it take to discover what would happen?

How do YOU know that one of the chains of proteins that have been genetically altered will not act the same way CJD does? Can you prove that? No? Cool if they find out five years from now that GM corn actually carries a similar amino acid chain that will create the same result, huh?

I won't eat it unless it is proven to be safe, remember how long it took for the bone meal to actually have an effect, 10-20 years.

Well, I showed this post to my wife who's field is molecular genetics as well as the one regarding "attracting bacteria".

She works with genetic transformations every day, and it has been a good long while since I had any hands on with this so I asked just in case. To say the least she considers your specific points novel.

I suppose we really don't "know" what you suggest, no more than if we "know" the Sun will rise tomorrow, or if Earth's gravity will suddenly reverse flinging us all into space. Likewise there is a non-zero probability that the entire universe just popped into existence, with all our memories being created in the same instant and they all coincide to produce the illusion of continuity.

All the above are quite unlikely. If you put water into a milk jug, you get milk out? No, you get water. If you have a gene (say one for human insulin) and put it into bacteria (which is not human) you get human insulin. Why? Because the machinery that makes proteins in living things makes the same proteins in living things if given the same instructions. It just is.

I have concerns about GM, but not for the reasons you state.

Eli Lilly is not worried about getting a prion into it's Humulin insulin, and really you don't need to either.

So it is tested? I mean tested for a full lifetime on humans so you KNOW what the effects will be?

Synthetic Insulin compares to genetically altered amino acid chains in what way? Was that just to prove you have no idea what you are talking about?

I'll give you a simple example just to show you how wrong you are, take ethanol, replace one atom, what have you got and would you drink it? No, the chemical balance is not the same anymore, now take a plant and alter it, prepare it and the result may be very different from what you had expected.

You can take a carrot as an example, now alter it's genetic code, test it and look at the results, no problem, now someone fries that and as we all know heat changes amino acid formations, what have you got? Do you know? Because nobody else does, it could be a fast acting toxin and it could be something that will kill your kidneys given enough time, the point is that this is an amino acid formation that doesn't look like any other created by nature and neither you nor i know if it is actually safe to eat it.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
All the above are quite unlikely. If you put water into a milk jug, you get milk out? No, you get water. If you have a gene (say one for human insulin) and put it into bacteria (which is not human) you get human insulin. Why? Because the machinery that makes proteins in living things makes the same proteins in living things if given the same instructions. It just is.

I agree that there's no special reason to be afraid of transferring genes from one organism to another. However, even computers aren't as digital and predictable as you make our protein generation machinery out to be, and we can't always ignore the details below the simple picture of the protein generation. Yes, both the computer and the protein generation process will generally perform the correct, identical procedure given identical instructions/DNA. However, both also perform multiple actions simultaneously (in a simulated fashion for a single processor machine, in reality for the cell or multiprocessor machine) and thus are dependent on what else is happening. Race conditions are a type of bug arising from such dependencies in computer programs, where the program functions correctly 99.9999% of the time, but fails at apparent random times. Cellular machinery is less precise and more complex, leading to more and worse such problems.

However, that doesn't mean that I think we should avoid all GM foods, but it does mean that we should acknowledge that there are risks and we should evaluate whether those risks are worth the benefits. I think the current benefits for third world farmers, many of whom live in areas where it is difficult to regularly grow crops, could be tremendous (especially if Monsanto's Terminator technology was eliminated), but I'm less convinced of the possible benefits for first world farmers, who have fewer problems growing food and thus have less need for hardier plants, which often comes at the expense of lower yields, thus reducing the amount of food they produce. Unfortunately, first world farmers have much more money to spend, unlike the people who most need the crops.

There is a certain amount of genetic "creep" in species. Random mutations are bound to occur without genetic manipulation. Finding mutations in wild type is something researchers do all the time. It produces some interesting effects.

Remember though that most mutations are self correcting. When doing a screen we often wind up with dead things. Fausto can attest to that. What you do not see in any biological is a stunning change in well studied systems. Heaven knows many a grad student wishes there were.

Bottom line is that the baseline mutation rate in a transgenic organism ought to be similar to wild type (that means the original unmutated or unmanipulated organism).

Needs further study, which is all I have been advocating. Faustos link is interesting.

Maybe this old boy has just grabbed too many snakes by the wrong end. I am a traditionalist in science. I need to be shown a thing, and convinced before I accept on faith.

A real scientist needs a collection of tests and for them all to be negative, that has not been done with GM foods because this issue is so extremely complex.

It involves everything from genetic altering of a plant to how it will affect a human body during a lifetime, different forms of preparations may cause different results for different people, you know how there are diseases that only occur in a specific race? Well, that is another factor, or combination of foods, how about frying it in real butter compared to olive oil, the combination could very well cause different results.

In other words, we just don't know and until it is clinically proven to be safe by doing every test and have a double blind peer reviewed study that lasts for at least 20 years i will not eat it.

Remember how neurosedyn was safe to take for pregnant women? Well, the medical community has made it's mistakes throughout the years, while medicine is doing something to your body, any scientist worth his phd or whatever you got would know that macronutrients affect the body even more.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Remember though that most mutations are self correcting. When doing a screen we often wind up with dead things. Fausto can attest to that. What you do not see in any biological is a stunning change in well studied systems. Heaven knows many a grad student wishes there were.

I wasn't referring to mutations. I was referring to the effects of different environments on the synthesis of your transferred gene's protein and the effects of that new synthesis process on the cell's machinery. If proteins were inert objects like bricks, this wouldn't be a problem, but proteins interact with each other and are also take part in controlling the synthesis of complex organic fat and sugar molecules used by the cell.

Needs further study, which is all I have been advocating. Faustos link is interesting.

Maybe this old boy has just grabbed too many snakes by the wrong end. I am a traditionalist in science. I need to be shown a thing, and convinced before I accept on faith.

That depends on where you put the burden of proof--on the producer to show that it's safe, or the critic to show that it might be unsafe--and how high you set the burden. I think Klixxer sets the burden too high, but I'm more skeptical than you about our understanding of cellular machinery.

Perhaps that's a result of being a physicist and having drilled down through layer of abstraction after layer of abstraction, looking at atoms as elementary particles, then nucleons and electrons, and then piercing the nucleon to see a world that we still don't understand very well. We do have a theory (QCD), but we can't solve its equations for bound particles like neutrons and protons. Biology's an exciting, young science, which has barely scratched the surface of understanding cells. The DNA:RNArotein model is a nice simple abstraction, but they're further away from fully understanding cellular machinery than physicists are from using QCD to understand the inside of a proton.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I'll cut through the crap for ya


GM foods aren't going to cause problems when eaten. There is no real magic here. The food is safe

BUT

The real problem IMO is that no one knows precisely how the pollen from GM plants will interact with wild type. You are introducing a whole new unknown element, and once the genie is out of the bottle you can't get it back.

A few other political and business concerns, however they are trivial compared to the above.

OK, neither was any meat from calves fed on crunched up bone meal, were they?

How long did it take to discover what would happen?

How do YOU know that one of the chains of proteins that have been genetically altered will not act the same way CJD does? Can you prove that? No? Cool if they find out five years from now that GM corn actually carries a similar amino acid chain that will create the same result, huh?

I won't eat it unless it is proven to be safe, remember how long it took for the bone meal to actually have an effect, 10-20 years.

Well, I showed this post to my wife who's field is molecular genetics as well as the one regarding "attracting bacteria".

She works with genetic transformations every day, and it has been a good long while since I had any hands on with this so I asked just in case. To say the least she considers your specific points novel.

I suppose we really don't "know" what you suggest, no more than if we "know" the Sun will rise tomorrow, or if Earth's gravity will suddenly reverse flinging us all into space. Likewise there is a non-zero probability that the entire universe just popped into existence, with all our memories being created in the same instant and they all coincide to produce the illusion of continuity.

All the above are quite unlikely. If you put water into a milk jug, you get milk out? No, you get water. If you have a gene (say one for human insulin) and put it into bacteria (which is not human) you get human insulin. Why? Because the machinery that makes proteins in living things makes the same proteins in living things if given the same instructions. It just is.

I have concerns about GM, but not for the reasons you state.

Eli Lilly is not worried about getting a prion into it's Humulin insulin, and really you don't need to either.

So it is tested? I mean tested for a full lifetime on humans so you KNOW what the effects will be?

Synthetic Insulin compares to genetically altered amino acid chains in what way? Was that just to prove you have no idea what you are talking about?

I'll give you a simple example just to show you how wrong you are, take ethanol, replace one atom, what have you got and would you drink it? No, the chemical balance is not the same anymore, now take a plant and alter it, prepare it and the result may be very different from what you had expected.

You can take a carrot as an example, now alter it's genetic code, test it and look at the results, no problem, now someone fries that and as we all know heat changes amino acid formations, what have you got? Do you know? Because nobody else does, it could be a fast acting toxin and it could be something that will kill your kidneys given enough time, the point is that this is an amino acid formation that doesn't look like any other created by nature and neither you nor i know if it is actually safe to eat it.

Dude, at the risk of being rude, you are really out of your depth. If you have two identical (and yes that is an easy thing to check) amino acids, how does it matter how it is produced? I want to know about this magical property you describe.

This became something than rocket science years and years ago.

As I said, more research needs to be done about releasing such genetic material in the wild PRECISELY BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY STUDIED.
That is a separate issue from analysis of genetic products.

We are not talking random mutations here, but precise insertions of known genes. We have been doing that for decades.

I suggest you follow up on this because if you suddenly find that a complete and unaltered gene for producing X mysteriously produces Y, you can claim that Nobel.

Checking this stuff is elementary. Your desire to invoke magical thinking does not alter that fact.

BTW, do you know what genes DO?

Why don't you read
this and do a little homework. It's pretty elementary stuff, and it gets you started. Once you have a knowlege base we can address your concerns at a useful level other than in a "Yes it does, no it doesn't" one.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I'll cut through the crap for ya


GM foods aren't going to cause problems when eaten. There is no real magic here. The food is safe

BUT

The real problem IMO is that no one knows precisely how the pollen from GM plants will interact with wild type. You are introducing a whole new unknown element, and once the genie is out of the bottle you can't get it back.

A few other political and business concerns, however they are trivial compared to the above.

OK, neither was any meat from calves fed on crunched up bone meal, were they?

How long did it take to discover what would happen?

How do YOU know that one of the chains of proteins that have been genetically altered will not act the same way CJD does? Can you prove that? No? Cool if they find out five years from now that GM corn actually carries a similar amino acid chain that will create the same result, huh?

I won't eat it unless it is proven to be safe, remember how long it took for the bone meal to actually have an effect, 10-20 years.

Well, I showed this post to my wife who's field is molecular genetics as well as the one regarding "attracting bacteria".

She works with genetic transformations every day, and it has been a good long while since I had any hands on with this so I asked just in case. To say the least she considers your specific points novel.

I suppose we really don't "know" what you suggest, no more than if we "know" the Sun will rise tomorrow, or if Earth's gravity will suddenly reverse flinging us all into space. Likewise there is a non-zero probability that the entire universe just popped into existence, with all our memories being created in the same instant and they all coincide to produce the illusion of continuity.

All the above are quite unlikely. If you put water into a milk jug, you get milk out? No, you get water. If you have a gene (say one for human insulin) and put it into bacteria (which is not human) you get human insulin. Why? Because the machinery that makes proteins in living things makes the same proteins in living things if given the same instructions. It just is.

I have concerns about GM, but not for the reasons you state.

Eli Lilly is not worried about getting a prion into it's Humulin insulin, and really you don't need to either.

So it is tested? I mean tested for a full lifetime on humans so you KNOW what the effects will be?

Synthetic Insulin compares to genetically altered amino acid chains in what way? Was that just to prove you have no idea what you are talking about?

I'll give you a simple example just to show you how wrong you are, take ethanol, replace one atom, what have you got and would you drink it? No, the chemical balance is not the same anymore, now take a plant and alter it, prepare it and the result may be very different from what you had expected.

You can take a carrot as an example, now alter it's genetic code, test it and look at the results, no problem, now someone fries that and as we all know heat changes amino acid formations, what have you got? Do you know? Because nobody else does, it could be a fast acting toxin and it could be something that will kill your kidneys given enough time, the point is that this is an amino acid formation that doesn't look like any other created by nature and neither you nor i know if it is actually safe to eat it.

Dude, at the risk of being rude, but you are really out of your depth. If you have two identical (and yes that is an easy thing to check) amino acids, how does it matter how it is produced? I want to know about this magical property you describe.

This became something than rocket science years and years ago.

As I said, more research needs to be done about releasing such genetic material in the wild PRECISELY BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY STUDIED.
That is a separate issue from analysis of genetic products.

We are not talking random mutations here, but precise insertions of known genes. We have been doing that for decades.

I suggest you follow up on this because if you suddenly find that a complete and unaltered gene for producing X mysteriously produces Y, you can claim that Nobel.

Checking this stuff is elementary. Your desire to invoke magical thinking does not alter that fact.

BTW, do you know what genes DO?

Why don't you read
this and do a little homework. It's pretty elementary stuff, and it gets you started. Once you have a knowlege base we can address your concerns at a useful level other than in a "Yes it does, no it doesn't" one.

Well, that was worthless, especially since you don't even recognize the fact that genetic mutations occur in the wild, what will a gentetically altered mutation do? Do you know, then YOU claim the nobel prize.

If i can claim that? Can you positively claim that it will not? No, of course you cannot because you really do not know what crossbreeding and genetic mutations will do to the food. Unless you have studied every possible combination you simply do not know, it will take centuries to do that so you haven't.

The protein fractions that causes CJD are combinations of altered amino acids, that would be my point in this whole discussion, if you change the setup and let it run free in the wild, introduce it to heat and then eat it, there is no way you can possibly say you KNOW what it will do.

Just like scientists KNEW what neurosedyn would do to a pregnant woman you claim to KNOW what genetically altered food will do to humans, and you are as wrong as they were.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You said---

Well, that was worthless, especially since you don't even recognize the fact that genetic mutations occur in the wild, what will a gentetically altered mutation do? Do you know, then YOU claim the nobel prize.

In a prior post I said--

"There is a certain amount of genetic "creep" in species. Random mutations are bound to occur without genetic manipulation. Finding mutations in wild type is something researchers do all the time. It produces some interesting effects.

Remember though that most mutations are self correcting. When doing a screen we often wind up with dead things. Fausto can attest to that. What you do not see in any biological is a stunning change in well studied systems. Heaven knows many a grad student wishes there were.

Bottom line is that the baseline mutation rate in a transgenic organism ought to be similar to wild type (that means the original unmutated or unmanipulated organism).

Needs further study, which is all I have been advocating. Faustos link is interesting.

Maybe this old boy has just grabbed too many snakes by the wrong end. I am a traditionalist in science. I need to be shown a thing, and convinced before I accept on faith"


Now what about my not recognizing that mutations occur?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
You said---

Well, that was worthless, especially since you don't even recognize the fact that genetic mutations occur in the wild, what will a gentetically altered mutation do? Do you know, then YOU claim the nobel prize.

In a prior post I said--

"There is a certain amount of genetic "creep" in species. Random mutations are bound to occur without genetic manipulation. Finding mutations in wild type is something researchers do all the time. It produces some interesting effects.

Remember though that most mutations are self correcting. When doing a screen we often wind up with dead things. Fausto can attest to that. What you do not see in any biological is a stunning change in well studied systems. Heaven knows many a grad student wishes there were.

Bottom line is that the baseline mutation rate in a transgenic organism ought to be similar to wild type (that means the original unmutated or unmanipulated organism).

Needs further study, which is all I have been advocating. Faustos link is interesting.

Maybe this old boy has just grabbed too many snakes by the wrong end. I am a traditionalist in science. I need to be shown a thing, and convinced before I accept on faith"


Now what about my not recognizing that mutations occur?

Sorry about that, i guess i missed it in your post and i apologize for that.

What i am trying to say is that until it can be scientifically proven that none of the GM foods created or the ones that will be created can make men, women, pregnant women etc sick i don't think anyone can say it is safe.

I disagree with your theory that the baseline development would be the same on the grounds that this is not something created by nature and we just don't know.

That is really my point, we just do not know, yes, we do know about the individual chemical setups, but as these are altered we really do not know what the long term effects will be, not on humans and not on the environment.

Add environmental factors like radiation, toxins and other things, do you know for a fact that these plants do not store toxins that other plants do not even pick up, there are a wide range of questions that need to be asked and answered before i will feed my kids any of the GM foods.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
You said---

Well, that was worthless, especially since you don't even recognize the fact that genetic mutations occur in the wild, what will a gentetically altered mutation do? Do you know, then YOU claim the nobel prize.

In a prior post I said--

"There is a certain amount of genetic "creep" in species. Random mutations are bound to occur without genetic manipulation. Finding mutations in wild type is something researchers do all the time. It produces some interesting effects.

Remember though that most mutations are self correcting. When doing a screen we often wind up with dead things. Fausto can attest to that. What you do not see in any biological is a stunning change in well studied systems. Heaven knows many a grad student wishes there were.

Bottom line is that the baseline mutation rate in a transgenic organism ought to be similar to wild type (that means the original unmutated or unmanipulated organism).

Needs further study, which is all I have been advocating. Faustos link is interesting.

Maybe this old boy has just grabbed too many snakes by the wrong end. I am a traditionalist in science. I need to be shown a thing, and convinced before I accept on faith"


Now what about my not recognizing that mutations occur?

Sorry about that, i guess i missed it in your post and i apologize for that.

What i am trying to say is that until it can be scientifically proven that none of the GM foods created or the ones that will be created can make men, women, pregnant women etc sick i don't think anyone can say it is safe.

I disagree with your theory that the baseline development would be the same on the grounds that this is not something created by nature and we just don't know.

That is really my point, we just do not know, yes, we do know about the individual chemical setups, but as these are altered we really do not know what the long term effects will be, not on humans and not on the environment.

Add environmental factors like radiation, toxins and other things, do you know for a fact that these plants do not store toxins that other plants do not even pick up, there are a wide range of questions that need to be asked and answered before i will feed my kids any of the GM foods.

Fair enough. Perhaps we can get back on track with a more constructive dialogue .

I have been posting all along that there needs to be more study on this. At no point have I said there isn't. I can respect your decision not to use GM foods. I can also see how difficult a topic this is, not just technically, but where the best route for the greatest good lies.

One problem with this form of communication is that it is slow and cumbersome and hard to get a feel for who knows what.

So, if you know this stuff, just bear with me for a bit.

Let's try to define the concerns about GM in a more precise way.

As I see it here are the major issues.

1) Health:
There are competing "goods" which cannot fully be resolved. One is that the world is hungry. Glenn1's article did a good job of explaining how GM can help people grow food in conditions which otherwise would be impossible. On the other hand we have concerns about food safety the environment.

NOTE*** Fausto suggested an alternative, but for this purpose let's include any genetic manipulation whether GM in a traditional sense or not to be one issue, at least for the time being for sake of simplification.

2) Economic:
Again competing forces. The company has a right to a profit, however how may economics be permitted to influence the science?

That brings us to the third issue

Ethics:

How does the interaction of profit vs health play out? Who does in fact get to determine what is safe? There are potential risks for any human activity. How is the judgement of risk vs. benefit made? Who gets to make it and by what means?

What are the limits of Monsanto's rights (or any other company)? Can they claim the exclusive right to the gene? What happens when (not if) that gene gets carried to other crops by natural means? Does Monsanto then own them too? On the other hand, if Monsanto lets loose a gene which incorporates itself into another type of corn, is Monsanto liable for damages by the owner of those crops?

If people do become dependent on a self terminating plant, and have to buy it every year, what prevents any company from increasing the cost ten fold? Yes people will say that a corporation has the right to a profit (it does) but ANY profit? Can people be led to adopt a technology vital for survival but then be denied it because they cannot give the level of profit a board decided the stockholders want?


These are some of the issues, and it will take quite a long time for me to address them in any meaningful sense.

When I have time, I will come back to them, but I thought I would toss this out for your and other's consideration.

 

[geecee]

I'd tend to agree with WinstonSmith in that the interaction of engineered and "natural" material in the wild must be studied thoroughly before GM is put into any sort of widespread use. Corporations and people in general are just a bit too irresponsible to trust that the material will be handled carefully. I'm admittedly a bit naive on the subject of genetics (outside of what I learned in Bio 101) but there's enough precedent to warrant concern, perhaps not food related , but certainly relevant in terms of ecological balance.

Here's a recent forum posting that seems relevant to this:
Snakes in Florida

Or the recent discoveries of Snakeheads in Maryland:
Snakehead discoveries

Introduction of a new variable into a balanced ecosystem always has consequences.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
You said---

Well, that was worthless, especially since you don't even recognize the fact that genetic mutations occur in the wild, what will a gentetically altered mutation do? Do you know, then YOU claim the nobel prize.

In a prior post I said--

"There is a certain amount of genetic "creep" in species. Random mutations are bound to occur without genetic manipulation. Finding mutations in wild type is something researchers do all the time. It produces some interesting effects.

Remember though that most mutations are self correcting. When doing a screen we often wind up with dead things. Fausto can attest to that. What you do not see in any biological is a stunning change in well studied systems. Heaven knows many a grad student wishes there were.

Bottom line is that the baseline mutation rate in a transgenic organism ought to be similar to wild type (that means the original unmutated or unmanipulated organism).

Needs further study, which is all I have been advocating. Faustos link is interesting.

Maybe this old boy has just grabbed too many snakes by the wrong end. I am a traditionalist in science. I need to be shown a thing, and convinced before I accept on faith"


Now what about my not recognizing that mutations occur?

Sorry about that, i guess i missed it in your post and i apologize for that.

What i am trying to say is that until it can be scientifically proven that none of the GM foods created or the ones that will be created can make men, women, pregnant women etc sick i don't think anyone can say it is safe.

I disagree with your theory that the baseline development would be the same on the grounds that this is not something created by nature and we just don't know.

That is really my point, we just do not know, yes, we do know about the individual chemical setups, but as these are altered we really do not know what the long term effects will be, not on humans and not on the environment.

Add environmental factors like radiation, toxins and other things, do you know for a fact that these plants do not store toxins that other plants do not even pick up, there are a wide range of questions that need to be asked and answered before i will feed my kids any of the GM foods.

Fair enough. Perhaps we can get back on track with a more constructive dialogue .

I have been posting all along that there needs to be more study on this. At no point have I said there isn't. I can respect your decision not to use GM foods. I can also see how difficult a topic this is, not just technically, but where the best route for the greatest good lies.

One problem with this form of communication is that it is slow and cumbersome and hard to get a feel for who knows what.

So, if you know this stuff, just bear with me for a bit.

Let's try to define the concerns about GM in a more precise way.

As I see it here are the major issues.

1) Health:
There are competing "goods" which cannot fully be resolved. One is that the world is hungry. Glenn1's article did a good job of explaining how GM can help people grow food in conditions which otherwise would be impossible. On the other hand we have concerns about food safety the environment.

NOTE*** Fausto suggested an alternative, but for this purpose let's include any genetic manipulation whether GM in a traditional sense or not to be one issue, at least for the time being for sake of simplification.

2) Economic:
Again competing forces. The company has a right to a profit, however how may economics be permitted to influence the science?

That brings us to the third issue

Ethics:

How does the interaction of profit vs health play out? Who does in fact get to determine what is safe? There are potential risks for any human activity. How is the judgement of risk vs. benefit made? Who gets to make it and by what means?

What are the limits of Monsanto's rights (or any other company)? Can they claim the exclusive right to the gene? What happens when (not if) that gene gets carried to other crops by natural means? Does Monsanto then own them too? On the other hand, if Monsanto lets loose a gene which incorporates itself into another type of corn, is Monsanto liable for damages by the owner of those crops?

If people do become dependent on a self terminating plant, and have to buy it every year, what prevents any company from increasing the cost ten fold? Yes people will say that a corporation has the right to a profit (it does) but ANY profit? Can people be led to adopt a technology vital for survival but then be denied it because they cannot give the level of profit a board decided the stockholders want?


These are some of the issues, and it will take quite a long time for me to address them in any meaningful sense.

When I have time, I will come back to them, but I thought I would toss this out for your and other's consideration.

I am not neccessarily against GM foods as long as they are grown in a controlled environment and are clearly marked so that the consumer can see that they are GM foods.

We do not really disagree, both of us believe that more studies need to be done and we both see both the good sides and the bad sides of GM foods.

Your questions are very good, unfortunantly i have no good answers for you, until i do i cannot really say that i trust GM foods to be safe for human consumption, but i do believe that consumers could make that choice themselves, cheap and GM or a bit more costly and organic, your choice.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Winston is really hitting the high points. Unfortunately, the people responsible for making the most significant decisions (FDA/USDA) are not having a debate. They are basically colluding with US patent holders.

The GRAS (generally regarded as safe) is a pretty good standard as long as the people making the decision care ONLY about the science NOT the politics/economics.

Billions of people suffer from malnutrition in the developing world. Engineered staples with additional Vit A, Vit C, Vit D, Vit E, selenium, idodine, or zinc could literally change the world. But it requires an extremely well controlled program of dissemination to reduce the very real likelihood of negative unintended consequences. For instance, Vit A (retinoic acid) is a potent teratogen (causes malformation during development). Beta-carotene is composed of two retinoic acid molecules. Beta-carotene has no known toxicity. A pregnant woman could almost eat gram doses of beta-carotene and the worst outcome would likely be a little orange tint to her skin. To the contrary, 1/100 of that dose of Vit A could adversely affect her unborn children. Who is responsible for regulating release of such products in the environment?

Boosting calcium intake is a great idea particularly in countries with low dairy intake. But boosting calcium will dramatically reduce the absorption of most vital divalent cations (magnesium, zinc, etc).

The above examples are clear and present dangers of GM . . . and they assume that everything goes as the designer planned! Don't even get me started about using crops like tobacco, soybeans, and potatos to make pharmaceuticals.

I largely agree with Winston. The potential for GM is great but so are the pitfalls. It is incumbent upon science to prevail. Which means extensive study by non-corporate scientists (which will either confirm or refute what industry has to say . . . but often industry doesn't say anything b/c it's a secret), a deliberate, concise, and accurate dissemination of information to the public about what we really know, don't know, and need to know about GM foods, and finally the resolve to avoid conflating sociopolitical agendas with the science.

 

[glenn1]

I won't eat it unless it is proven to be safe, remember how long it took for the bone meal to actually have an effect, 10-20 years.

That's fine, so long as you realize there are people literally starving to death who don't have the same luxury. There's a historical precedent of people with a similar disconnect, and even a famous phrase associated with that philosophy, "The peasants have no bread? Then let them eat cake."

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: glenn1

I won't eat it unless it is proven to be safe, remember how long it took for the bone meal to actually have an effect, 10-20 years.

That's fine, so long as you realize there are people literally starving to death who don't have the same luxury. There's a historical precedent of people with a similar disconnect, and even a famous phrase associated with that philosophy, "The peasants have no bread? Then let them eat cake."

Read my last post.

I am not neccessarily against GM foods as long as they are grown in a controlled environment and are clearly marked so that the consumer can see that they are GM foods.

Ok with you?

 

[chess9]

BBD:

Great additions to an already superior thread (for the most part).

Does calcium interfere with the absorption of most minerals, e.g. iron for instance? So, wouldn't drinking a lot of milk do the same thing? (As a bit of an aside, my training partner, a world class power lifter, says drinking milk is the dumbest thing I do. He says it robs my body of nutrients and inhibits the growth of muscle. I'm sure you're aware that a lot of weight lifters/body builders think the same thing.)

Anyway, I'm not too clear on your calcium example.

-Robert

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: chess9
BBD:

Great additions to an already superior thread (for the most part).

Does calcium interfere with the absorption of most minerals, e.g. iron for instance? So, wouldn't drinking a lot of milk do the same thing? (As a bit of an aside, my training partner, a world class power lifter, says drinking milk is the dumbest thing I do. He says it robs my body of nutrients and inhibits the growth of muscle. I'm sure you're aware that a lot of weight lifters/body builders think the same thing.)

Anyway, I'm not too clear on your calcium example.

-Robert

Calcium's most prominent effects are on divalent cations that are already relatively spartan in the US diet (magnesium, zinc) due to poor variety and low bioavailability (cooking the good crap out of stuff). IIRC, the best iron is heme iron (Atkins-sized T-bone) which has significantly higher bioavailability than non-heme iron (spinach). The mechanisms for nutrient absorption are relatively selective but Mother Nature never intended you to challenge them with huge amounts of a single micronutrient (calcium).

Decent article on iron bioavailability

For their first application of the model, they found that adding vitamin C to infant rice cereal increased the amount of available iron. At current levels of iron fortification, the team found that a 2-to-1 ratio of vitamin C to iron was necessary to maximize availability of iron from the cereal.

In a related study, they determined that mixing the infant rice cereal with water fortified with vitamin C increased iron availability more than mixing it with vitamin C-fortified apple juice. "Our findings suggest apple juice contains one or more substances that offset the vitamin's beneficial effects on iron uptake," Glahn says.

As for milk the best answer I would give . . . "it depends." Between my wife and myself we knock off about 2 gallons of skim milk a week. She polishes off a quart of ice cream a week while I do the same with yogurt. That's a whole lot of calcium, vit A, and vit D but I think it's still reasonable. In the absence of a diverse diet the margin for error is much smaller. For the elite competitive athlete (and likely pregnant woman), the rules are somewhat different. You need a lot of just about everything but it is vitally important to maintain proper ratios of micronutrients. That's basically what BALCO does (oops did) . . . well amongst other activities . . .

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: glenn1

I won't eat it unless it is proven to be safe, remember how long it took for the bone meal to actually have an effect, 10-20 years.

That's fine, so long as you realize there are people literally starving to death who don't have the same luxury. There's a historical precedent of people with a similar disconnect, and even a famous phrase associated with that philosophy, "The peasants have no bread? Then let them eat cake."

Dude people are not starving primarily due to an absence of sufficient GM. There are a myriad of locales and occasions where food goes bad due to an inability to transport or properly store. In a subsistence environment, a single flood or growing season drought could usher in famine. That's not a GM problem . . . that's life as we know it.

Our government often pays farmers NOT to grow crops. That's not a GM problem . . . that's a geopolitical problem. Hell we are currently negotiating a deal to pay tobacco farmers not to grow anymore tobacco.

Haitians go hungry b/c their government sux not the lack of market penetrance by ArcherDanielsMidland.

While I disagree with the naysayers denying any potential benefit of GM, I vigorously disagree with those that would apply it without proper evaluation and safeguards.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: chess9
Fausto:

So, Monsanto's little dream may evaporate like FlavrSavrs? Interesting.

I just don't keep up with my reading in biology like I should. Thank God for you guys. You find everything.

Isn't this place the cat's mee-ow?

-Robert

If the SuperOrganics thing pans out like the researchers in the article are hoping, that will basically be the case. Imagine what Linux would do to MS if it were totally user-friendly (and still free).

They would legislate it illegal? They would apply and recieve bogus patents that locked it up in litigation for a decade? They would pay a company secretly to launch a very public lawsuit claiming theft of IP or trade secrets to sow FUD?

 

[chess9]

BBD:

Yeah, I'm about in the same category. All skim too. About two gallons a week, plus iron supplements 'cause I've got low serum ferritin. (now up to 18). Lots of yogurt with my whey shakes too. I'm from the Midwest so milk has been hard to give up. I drink a little oj with my iron pill, but my iron levels have been very slow to rise.

BALCO? Bwuahahahaha! Oh, god, I knew I should have flown out there last year before the **** hit the fan.

That stuff wouldn't do me any, or much, good anyway.

Thanks for the information.

-Robert