Genetically modified foods at the Food Coop
Comments
-
Carnivore wrote: [quote=greg]
Hyperbole aside, you've missed the point again. DNA integrated into the plant genome is not the same as the free vector. The researchers were trying to suggest that because rats and human tissue exposed to the free vector results in insertion of CaMV DNA, it is unsafe to eat plants that carry that DNA within their genome. If that was their hypothesis, they should have fed the rats the GM plant and tested it for the DNA, instead of feeding them the vector. They studied one thing, then jumped to a conclusion that wasn't based on their data. It's intellectually dishonest.
Comparing cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV)to lye is like comparing gunpowder to a tactical nuke. Lye was probably used by native Americans to prepare hominy for thousands of year before Europeans arrived on the continent Cauliflower mosiac virus? Do you really want to know?
More importantly however, the analolgy is not correct. It appears that the CaMV travels with the GM plant and is integrated into the genome.
Interestingly, this point is made in the review article you attached (it's not a study, by the way, since it contains no hypothesis, methods section or data, just a discussion and conclusion):It is simply unreasonable to maintain that the the integrated CaMV promoter in transgenic crops behaves the same way in the virus replication cycle as it does in the chromosome of the transgenic crop.
The study you describe was exactly the study done by Pusztai and is pretty obvious. He fed good ol' rats (they've got to love this stuff!} a mixture of genetically modified potatoes and biopsed them. Pretty straight forward, n'est pas? That's when he observed the lesions and stunted organs.
So, let's lay our cards on the table: are you a GM scientist? Do you profess to know why exactly the research procedure was modified from the straight-forward approach? 'Cause it sure isn't obvious and I'm sure that professionals in the field who do this stuff for a living are quick to point out a fraud when they see it. The likes of Dr. Hanson and Dr. Cummins have given Smith's book warm reviews. Both are trained in biology and specialize in genetic modification. Whatever the research methodology used in the aforementioned study, I'm sure it had a good basis or Hanson, Cummins et al would have not endorsed the book.
Meanwhile I'm reaching out to the chemist on our committee to get his two cents (or two dollars) worth on this topic. -
doctorj wrote: [quote=Carnivore]
The Carnivore is correct.
DNA integrated into the plant genome is not the same as the free vector. The researchers were trying to suggest that because rats and human tissue exposed to the free vector results in insertion of CaMV DNA, it is unsafe to eat plants that carry that DNA within their genome. If that was their hypothesis, they should have fed the rats the GM plant and tested it for the DNA, instead of feeding them the vector. They studied one thing, then jumped to a conclusion that wasn't based on their data. It's intellectually dishonest.
The promoter is integrated into the nuclear material of the plant. In general, it doesn't jump out again and become a vector. If it did that as readily as implied (but not shown) and then recombined with other genetic material, then I doubt that the plant or the technology would be viable.
Think of it like making soup. The promoter gene is pepper, the vector is a pepper grinder, the soup is the plant. A tiny amount of pepper is added to draw attention to the flavor. You could sift through the soup and find grains of pepper. You could even dry it out and put it back in the pepper grinder if you really wanted, to show that it was still peppery. True, it's very hard to prove that peppery soup is as safe as soup without pepper -- proving anything to be truly safe is a tall order -- but force feeding someone pepper grinders until they choke is no way to show that peppered soup is dangerous. As for virus, it's like a peppercorn. The fact that you can chew a few of those and live to tell the tale doesn't prove conclusively that peppered soup is safe either, though it would suggest to a reasonable person that pepper is behaving more like a spice and less like a high explosive. Nope, the only way to know beyond reasonable doubt is to taste the soup.
Before you so quickly side with the protector of the corporate status quo, I'd suggest you review the study. It's exactly the instability of the virus and its unintended effects on the genome that are being examined.
Try reading the study, not Carnivore's interpretation of it. I think you'll find that the CaMV promoter is not exactly like pepper either. It might perhaps be better likened to steriods and the host plant to Barry Bonds. -
greg wrote: The study you describe was exactly the study done by Pusztai and is pretty obvious. He fed good ol' rats (they've got to love this stuff!} a mixture of genetically modified potatoes and biopsed them. Pretty straight forward, n'est pas? That's when he observed the lesions and stunted organs.
You're going back to the unpublished un-peer-reviewed study again? I think I already discussed this. Were there controls? Was there a dose-response relationship? Sorry, but when he convinces a journal to publish this, I'll read it. Until then, it's hearsay. And don't tell me the vast conspiracy of medical journals is conspiring to bury this important work, because that's really the end of any rational discussion here.So, let's lay our cards on the table: are you a GM scientist?
I was hoping we could just stick to discussing the facts rather than comparing credentials, but the fact is that I am an MD and a board-certified medical toxicologist. I don't currently do bench work, but I have, and I'm well-equipped to evaluate research like this. You on the other hand, are obviously in over your head.The likes of Dr. Hanson and Dr. Cummins have given Smith's book warm reviews. Both are trained in biology and specialize in genetic modification.
Yada yada yada. You're back to opinions. Sorry, but some basic epistemology: empiric data trumps opinion. -
I've rarely seen anyone destroy anyone else so thoroughly in a debate as Carnivore has done to Greg over the course of these ~90 posts. :shock:
-
......and yet, greg keeps coming back for more. impressive.
-
greg wrote: Before you so quickly side with the protector of the corporate status quo
funniest description of Carnivore EVER! this guy is so NOT the protector of the corporate status quo. I mean, he may mock my obsessive adoration of emergen-c, but still - sometimes he's more liberal than ME! :shock: :shock: :shock: -
greg wrote: Before you so quickly side with the protector of the corporate status quo, I'd suggest you review the study.
"Protector of the corporate status quo"? Are you kidding? I have no vested interest in this, financial or otherwise, and I've never worked for any of the companies implicated. I simply find it irritating in the extreme when someone without even the basic elements of scientific understanding (such as the difference between a study and an editorial) pontificates about how little other people know about how the vast conspiracy of all corporations, scientists and publishers is keeping people in the dark in order to feed them GM food.
For people reading this who haven't made up their mind yet: it is impossible to prove a negative. After a certain point however, when millions have eaten these products (some daily) with still no evidence of human harm, you have to accept that the chances of significant effects are very small. I am perfectly willing to be convinced by a good study that shows otherwise, which is why I am so interested in specific evidence supporting greg's claims. However, no amount of research will ever convince greg that GM foods are safe because his underlying supposition is that they are not. It's the antithesis of science. -
alafairnadia wrote: funniest description of Carnivore EVER! this guy is so NOT the protector of the corporate status quo. I mean, he may mock my obsessive adoration of emergen-c, but still - sometimes he's more liberal than ME! :shock: :shock: :shock:
Thanks! :oops:
My old boss used to repeatedly mock me for "being a socialist." -
greg wrote:
And if you cooked and ate Barry Bonds, gonads and all, would it have the same effect as injecting non orally-active steroids?
Before you so quickly side with the protector of the corporate status quo, I'd suggest you review the study. It's exactly the instability of the virus and its unintended effects on the genome that are being examined.
Try reading the study, not Carnivore's interpretation of it. I think you'll find that the CaMV promoter is not exactly like pepper either. It might perhaps be better likened to steriods and the host plant to Barry Bonds.
I read the 'study' carefully. If CaMV+gene incorporated into plant DNA (not virus) is as unstable as the website suggests, it's more of a danger to the plant and the biotech industry than it is to someone consuming the plant. It has to be stable enough to be useful.
If someone shows (in a serious journal) that digesting the plant, raw or cooked, causes CaMV to be released in such a form and in such amounts as to recombine with the genetic material of mammalian cells it comes into contact with, and able to promote random mammalian genes, that would be serious news. I'd be the first to buy a put option on Monsanto. But I see nothing here to support that. -
Carnivore wrote: [quote=greg]The study you describe was exactly the study done by Pusztai and is pretty obvious. He fed good ol' rats (they've got to love this stuff!} a mixture of genetically modified potatoes and biopsed them. Pretty straight forward, n'est pas? That's when he observed the lesions and stunted organs.
You're going back to the unpublished un-peer-reviewed study again? I think I already discussed this. Were there controls? Was there a dose-response relationship? Sorry, but when he convinces a journal to publish this, I'll read it. Until then, it's hearsay. And don't tell me the vast conspiracy of medical journals is conspiring to bury this important work, because that's really the end of any rational discussion here.So, let's lay our cards on the table: are you a GM scientist?
I was hoping we could just stick to discussing the facts rather than comparing credentials, but the fact is that I am an MD and a board-certified medical toxicologist. I don't currently do bench work, but I have, and I'm well-equipped to evaluate research like this. You on the other hand, are obviously in over your head.The likes of Dr. Hanson and Dr. Cummins have given Smith's book warm reviews. Both are trained in biology and specialize in genetic modification.
Yada yada yada. You're back to opinions. Sorry, but some basic epistemology: empiric data trumps opinion.
Well, well, well, isn't that interesting. So you've been sandbagging us all along. An expert in medical toxicology debating a guy with an MBA about genetically engineered foods. Kind of sounds like Paul Newman in the Color of Money the local pool shark.
What I'd rather suggest, being that you're the expert here, is that you pick on someone your own size, e.g. Dr. Michael Hanson, for example. I'll see if I can track down his email address and get him to comment on your responses.
I've also asked our committee's chemist to chime in. His name is Gregg Bromberg. -
greg wrote: Well, well, well, isn't that interesting. So you've been sandbagging us all along. An expert in medical toxicology debating a guy with an MBA about genetically engineered foods. Kind of sounds like Paul Newman in the Color of Money the local pool shark.
Bring it! :twisted:
What I'd rather suggest, being that you're the expert here, is that you pick on someone your own size, e.g. Dr. Michael Hanson, for example. I'll see if I can track down his email address and get him to comment on your responses.
I've also asked our committee's chemist to chime in. His name is Gregg Bromberg.
FWIW, If the guy with the MBA hadn't taken it upon himself to lecture me about this, I wouldn't have debated him. -
greg wrote:
That was several years and several mouthfulls of cheerios ago. His work seems to have dumped peer review and you can read why on his own website. Scientists are humans motivated by various factors beyond curiosity, including money and recognition. When they fail to get respect from their peers, they sometimes resort to populism and playing to the public's fear of the unknown to get attention. The mainstream scientific process tends to be very good at correcting itself. I see no reproduction of Pusztai's claims in the intervening years. Quite the contrary:
The study you describe was exactly the study done by Pusztai and is pretty obvious. He fed good ol' rats (they've got to love this stuff!} a mixture of genetically modified potatoes and biopsed them. Pretty straight forward, n'est pas? That's when he observed the lesions and stunted organs.
In 2005, a group did a thorough job in a reputable independent journal with the potatos and found no effects:
Medline 16326439
"In the multigeneration animal study, there were no GM potato-related changes in body weight, food consumption, reproductive performance, and organ weight."
However medline does turn up this interesting tidbit:
Medline 16546293
"GM attitudes were best predicted by natural science education and magical food and health beliefs, which mediated the influence of thinking styles."
So which are you, natural science education or magical food and health belief?greg wrote:
Just out of curiosity: what kind of chemist do you have? Industrial, medicinal, analytical, physical, theoretical, spectroscopist, natural products, synthetic organic, inorganic, organometallic, materials, polymers...
Meanwhile I'm reaching out to the chemist on our committee to get his two cents (or two dollars) worth on this topic. -
greg wrote:
It appears there are three Michael Hansons, 1 at Scripps (2 papers), 1 in Maryland (1 paper), 1 at Duke (3 papers) .
What I'd rather suggest, being that you're the expert here, is that you pick on someone your own size, e.g. Dr. Michael Hanson, for example. I'll see if I can track down his email address and get him to comment on your responses.
Items 1 - 6 of 6
1. Ge X, Hanson M, Shen H, Kostov Y, Brorson KA, Frey DD, Moreira AR, Rao G.
Abstract Validation of an optical sensor-based high-throughput bioreactor system for mammalian cell culture.
J Biotechnol. 2006 Apr 10;122(3):293-306. Epub 2006 Jan 19.
PMID: 16423420 [PubMed - in process]
2: Arndt JW, Gu J, Jaroszewski L, Schwarzenbacher R, Hanson MA, Lebeda FJ, Stevens RC.
Abstract The structure of the neurotoxin-associated protein HA33/A from Clostridium botulinum suggests a reoccurring beta-trefoil fold in the progenitor toxin complex.
J Mol Biol. 2005 Mar 4;346(4):1083-93. Epub 2005 Jan 20.
PMID: 15701519 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
3: Meine TJ, Hanson MW, Borges-Neto S.
Abstract The additive value of combined assessment of myocardial perfusion and ventricular function studies.
J Nucl Med. 2004 Oct;45(10):1721-4. Review.
PMID: 15471840 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
4: Jiang W, Babyak MA, Rozanski A, Sherwood A, O'Connor CM, Waugh RA, Coleman RE, Hanson MW, Morris JJ, Blumenthal JA.
Abstract Depression and increased myocardial ischemic activity in patients with ischemic heart disease.
Am Heart J. 2003 Jul;146(1):55-61.
PMID: 12851608 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5: Bracey MH, Hanson MA, Masuda KR, Stevens RC, Cravatt BF. Abstract Structural adaptations in a membrane enzyme that terminates endocannabinoid signaling.
Science. 2002 Nov 29;298(5599):1793-6.
PMID: 12459591 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6: Pagnanelli RA, Hanson MW, Turkington T, Coleman RE, Borges-Neto S. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Gated 99mTc-tetrofosmin and 18F-FDG studies: a comparison of single-acquisition and separate-acquisition protocols.
J Nucl Med Technol. 2002 Dec;30(4):175-8.
PMID: 12446750 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]greg wrote:
Query Translation:
I've also asked our committee's chemist to chime in. His name is Gregg Bromberg.
Gregg[All Fields] AND Bromberg[All Fields]
Result:
0
Database:
PubMed
-- if we're down to the scientific equivalent of phallus size comparison, you'll need to do better than that. -
This is silly. Let's discuss the studies, not the CVs.
-
Greg, you have an MBA? You've got to be joking. What school did you go to where they taught you to believe that corporations are conspiring to kill us all? Or did you just go as a way of finding out the "enemy's" secrets?
-
escap wrote: Greg, you have an MBA? You've got to be joking. What school did you go to where they taught you to believe that corporations are conspiring to kill us all? Or did you just go as a way of finding out the "enemy's" secrets?
University of Michigan. But incredible they didn't have a class on questioning authority. I learned that on my own. -
The name of the Consumer Union scientist is Michael Hansen, not Hanson. He is quoted extensively on the Consumer Union website.
As for what type of chemist Greg Bromberg is, as I mentioned earlier, he works for a flavoring company and identifies non-GMO flavorings for companies that care about these things, like Ben and Jerry.
They don't get a lot of work from General Mills or Kellogg. Go figure. -
By the way, Michael Hansen's email address at Consumer Union is [email protected]. In case you want to vent your ruminations on a scientist who actually specializes in biotechnology. I've emailed him and asked him to take a peek at this forum. It should be entertaining.
-
Well, well, well, isn't that interesting. So you've been sandbagging us all along. An expert in medical toxicology debating a guy with an MBA about genetically engineered foods. Kind of sounds like Paul Newman in the Color of Money the local pool shark.
Nice, dude. You demand to know his qualifications, and then get surly when he tells you. I rather think Carnivore refrained from mentioning his occupation so that nothing he said would come across as an appeal to authority, i.e. "Take my word for it - I'm a doctor." While I have no doubt he is more familiar with the finer points of scientific method than I am, his arguments really haven't needed to go that far because of the fundamental problems with the research/studies you have cited. I hardly think you have been treated unfairly in this matter. -
Drano wrote:
If you don't think disclosure of one's credentials is important, imagine yourself knocked in a barfight, by a dude who happens to be a professional prize fighter. I believe that figthers must register their hands as lethal weapons, and are held accountable accordingly.Well, well, well, isn't that interesting. So you've been sandbagging us all along. An expert in medical toxicology debating a guy with an MBA about genetically engineered foods. Kind of sounds like Paul Newman in the Color of Money the local pool shark.
Nice, dude. You demand to know his qualifications, and then get surly when he tells you. I rather think Carnivore refrained from mentioning his occupation so that nothing he said would come across as an appeal to authority, i.e. "Take my word for it - I'm a doctor." While I have no doubt he is more familiar with the finer points of scientific method than I am, his arguments really haven't needed to go that far because of the fundamental problems with the research/studies you have cited. I hardly think you have been treated unfairly in this matter. -
imagine walking into a dark bar, announcing you'll take all comers, and then being surprised when one of them is bigger than you....
but do carry on. this is quite entertaining. -
greg wrote: The name of the Consumer Union scientist is Michael Hansen, not Hanson. He is quoted extensively on the Consumer Union website.
Ahh. That would be Michael K. Hansen,
http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/1568
Author of "Biotechnology and Milk: Benefit or Threat?".
I haven't identified much in the way of primary literature or reviews from him, but his qualifications look sound. It would be great to have him here discussing the evidence.
Except that we run the risk of falling back to ideology since most of it I've seen so far is either null or peripheral to the fundamental questions of safety. Under such circumstances, scientists tend to fall into two classes: a larger group profitting from the use of technology assumed to be safe when used as directed for a lack of evidence of danger; that's where the money, fame, and success tend to be clustered. And a smaller group profitting from warning against potential danger of technology not proven to be safe, essentially preaching to the luddites. Historically speaking, technologies are adopted and abandoned far more often for economic reasons than safety reasons (e.g. analogue media) though everyone remembers the occasional high profile failures (e.g. thalidomide). More common would be to modify use to make things safer in light of new evidence (e.g. seatbelts; e.g. thalidomide is back). In the scientific ideological marketplace, the minority ends up being right a minority of the time, though their ranks swell very quickly when solid evidence is presented (e.g. chlorofluorocarbons).greg wrote:
That's an admirable job. There's definitely a boutique market for certified non-GMO flavorings. Consumers who can afford it should have the choice -- they should have access to accurate information about what's in the products and access to an accurate risk assessment. Just like I should have easier access to organic smoked whale meat. If the market is efficient, it can sort out whether particular GM technologies are worthwhile. As for the big guys, mass producing products for the mainstream, understandably they will source by price and consistency of supply and quality, not genetic purity, and ultimately pass any savings on to the consumer.
As for what type of chemist Greg Bromberg is, as I mentioned earlier, he works for a flavoring company and identifies non-GMO flavorings for companies that care about these things, like Ben and Jerry.
They don't get a lot of work from General Mills or Kellogg. Go figure. -
If you don't think disclosure of one's credentials is important, imagine yourself knocked in a barfight, by a dude who happens to be a professional prize fighter. I believe that figthers must register their hands as lethal weapons, and are held accountable accordingly.
My point was that the debate hadn't reached the point where Carnivore's medical training would give him any particular advantage over you. His objections - in my opinion - were common sense in nature and stated in plain language. Science-wise, nothing has been said here that should trouble anyone who has taken high-school biology. -
Drano wrote:
Cauliflower mosaic virus? Vectors? Promoters? Insertion of genetic material? If you find these common place terms, I'd like to know who you hang out with.If you don't think disclosure of one's credentials is important, imagine yourself knocked in a barfight, by a dude who happens to be a professional prize fighter. I believe that figthers must register their hands as lethal weapons, and are held accountable accordingly.
My point was that the debate hadn't reached the point where Carnivore's medical training would give him any particular advantage over you. His objections - in my opinion - were common sense in nature and stated in plain language. Science-wise, nothing has been said here that should trouble anyone who has taken high-school biology.
I know I've discussed genetic modification at General Meetings of the Coop at least four times and never have I gotten much beyond "you mean they actually put antibiotics in each and every cell of GM food?" Geesh!
Fortunately, the former head of our sister commitee at the Coop, now named the Safe Food committee, is also an MD, who specialized in environment medicine.
I've also emailed him to get involved in this fracas. This should be interesting. -
This thread is headed to "Park Slope Gender Ambiguous Head Covering" status. Gawker? Can you give it some love?
-
sweet tea wrote: imagine walking into a dark bar, announcing you'll take all comers, and then being surprised when one of them is bigger than you....
What sort of dark bar one has walked into plays into this scenario as well. -
greg wrote: Cauliflower mosaic virus? Vectors? Promoters? Insertion of genetic material? If you find these common place terms, I'd like to know who you hang out with.
I guess it depends on how long it's been since you went to high school. :twisted:
All razzing aside, it's only been a little over 50 years since the structure of DNA has even been described. The progress especially over the last 20 years has been exponential. I was in high school bio in 1986 and even then, I think I learned much of the stuff that's come up in this discussion. I bet you'd be surprised by what is taught in high school bio these days.
And really, Greg, you shouldn't cite the study if you don't understand it. If you do understand it, then I don't see what your beef is. It seems like you're used to playing the "expert" and snowing the scientifically unsophisticated with jargon. Don't sulk just because someone is calling you on it. I don't claim to have all the answers; if your experts have some evidence, I would love to read it because like I've said, I have an open mind. It just seems to me like you'd already made up your mind and no amount of evidence could convince you. -
Just no one come crying to me when all we have left on this planet is one potato and a bunch of guys in lab coats trying to eat each other. It'll happen. Mark. My. Words.
-
Isa wrote: Just no one come crying to me when all we have left on this planet is one potato and a bunch of guys in lab coats trying to eat each other. It'll happen. Mark. My. Words.
You're right. And that's exactly what all the evil corporations and scientists and publishers are working towards. But shhhhhhhhh..... don't tell anyone. :twisted: -
metulj wrote: [quote=sweet tea]imagine walking into a dark bar, announcing you'll take all comers, and then being surprised when one of them is bigger than you....
What sort of dark bar one has walked into plays into this scenario as well.
Does anyone know where I can find a midget bar in Brooklyn?
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds