Genetically modified foods at the Food Coop
Comments
-
You tell everybody. Listen to me, Carnivore. You've gotta tell them! Cheerios is people! We've gotta stop them somehow!
Sorry, I couldn't resist. I request forgiveness in this matter. -
Drano wrote: You tell everybody. Listen to me, Carnivore. You've gotta tell them! Cheerios is people! We've gotta stop them somehow!
-
Carnivore wrote: [quote=greg]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.
As I've mentioned, I've asked three "experts" to weigh in on this colloguy. So far, none have bothered. Hang tight, justice is coming. It just works on its own time frame, not ours.
As far as genetic engineering being in the mainstream, as I've also mentioned, I talked about these topics a several general meetings of the Food Coop. Now I would hardly consider Coopers a backward group, yet it was only as a result of a lot of education in our Coop newsletter that folks are now able to say that they at least know what GM food is.
But as far as knowing much about the process of how it's created.... forget about it. I'm willing to wager very few of the responders to this thread have much knowledge of the process.
In fact, why don't you, in your own words, describe for the fans here how genetic engineers go about created say, Round-up Ready soy, for example. This might be edifying. -
greg wrote: Hang tight, justice is coming.
Most unintentionally funny statement made on these boards in some time!greg wrote: In fact, why don't you, in your own words, describe for the fans here...
Carnivore can obviously fight his own fights, but come on - you're the one with the point to prove and the axe to grind, my friend. The onus is on you, despite the fact that your grinding hasn't gone so well thus far. -
greg wrote: As far as genetic engineering being in the mainstream, as I've also mentioned, I talked about these topics a several general meetings of the Food Coop. Now I would hardly consider Coopers a backward group, yet it was only as a result of a lot of education in our Coop newsletter that folks are now able to say that they at least know what GM food is.
I think my point will be more elegantly demonstrated if I wait and let one of my non-expert neighbors explain it to you. Hang tight, justice is coming!
But as far as knowing much about the process of how it's created.... forget about it. I'm willing to wager very few of the responders to this thread have much knowledge of the process.
In fact, why don't you, in your own words, describe for the fans here how genetic engineers go about created say, Round-up Ready soy, for example. This might be edifying. -
Carnivore wrote: [quote=greg]As far as genetic engineering being in the mainstream, as I've also mentioned, I talked about these topics a several general meetings of the Food Coop. Now I would hardly consider Coopers a backward group, yet it was only as a result of a lot of education in our Coop newsletter that folks are now able to say that they at least know what GM food is.
I think my point will be more elegantly demonstrated if I wait and let one of my non-expert neighbors explain it to you. Hang tight, justice is coming!
But as far as knowing much about the process of how it's created.... forget about it. I'm willing to wager very few of the responders to this thread have much knowledge of the process.
In fact, why don't you, in your own words, describe for the fans here how genetic engineers go about created say, Round-up Ready soy, for example. This might be edifying.
I got my ears on, good buddy. I just thought you might want to wow us with your expertise.
Frankly, I think if folks had any ideal the crap that went into their food, they'd start growing it themselves, or at least join the Prospect Heights CSA, the next best thing.
10- 4 -
greg wrote:
Plants, fungi, and bacteria but not animals contain an enzyme called EPSPS. The enzyme is a machine for making amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. Roundup blocks this enzyme making it harder for most plants to grow, which is the basis of its use as a herbicide with low animal toxicity. Scientists found that some bacteria had learnt resistance to Roundup by making a tiny change in EPSPS. They taught this trick to Soy by copying the code for the resistant EPSPS into Soy's genetic database, alongside it's own EPSPS. After many tests to determine that the Soy had incorporated the bacterial EPSPS as if it were its own, and that it behaved like regular Soy apart from being able to handle Roundup, the product was ready for wider testing and then sale. And after the regulatory authorities were satisfied that it was safe enough for human consumption, it was released to sink or swim on the market. And they all lived happily ever after. The end.
In fact, why don't you, in your own words, describe for the fans here how genetic engineers go about created say, Round-up Ready soy, for example. This might be edifying. -
WhyFi wrote: [quote=greg]Hang tight, justice is coming.
Most unintentionally funny statement made on these boards in some time!greg wrote: In fact, why don't you, in your own words, describe for the fans here...
Carnivore can obviously fight his own fights, but come on - you're the one with the point to prove and the axe to grind, my friend. The onus is on you, despite the fact that your grinding hasn't gone so well thus far.
While we're on the topic of humor, consider this:
He who laughs last, laughs best! -
doctorj wrote: [quote=greg]
Plants, fungi, and bacteria but not animals contain an enzyme called EPSPS. The enzyme is a machine for making amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. Roundup blocks this enzyme making it harder for most plants to grow, which is the basis of its use as a herbicide with low animal toxicity. Scientists found that some bacteria had learnt resistance to Roundup by making a tiny change in EPSPS. They taught this trick to Soy by copying the code for the resistant EPSPS into Soy's genetic database, alongside it's own EPSPS. After many tests to determine that the Soy had incorporated the bacterial EPSPS as if it were its own, and that it behaved like regular Soy apart from being able to handle Roundup, the product was ready for wider testing and then sale. And after the regulatory authorities were satisfied that it was safe enough for human consumption, it was released to sink or swim on the market. And they all lived happily ever after. The end.
In fact, why don't you, in your own words, describe for the fans here how genetic engineers go about created say, Round-up Ready soy, for example. This might be edifying.
A nice generic description, but hardly a recipe.
Can't anyone tell how I can go in to my local bio-lab and cook up some Round-up Ready soy?
Anyone? -
You need a gene gun and a patent first. Because obviously food should be patented.
-
greg wrote:
Who cares? The technical details of how it was achieved are irrelevant to the nature and safety of the product. "Recipe" is misleading because it implies that all the ingredients remain at the end; "Route" would be closer to the truth. Prospect Heights is still Prospect Heights whether you took the BQE or Atlantic from JFK.
A nice generic description, but hardly a recipe.
Can't anyone tell how I can go in to my local bio-lab and cook up some Round-up Ready soy?
Anyone?
But if you're curious, here's a good description:
http://dragon.zoo.utoronto.ca/~jlm-gmf/T0201D/production.html -
greg wrote: Frankly, I think if folks had any ideal the crap that went into their food, they'd start growing it themselves, or at least join the Prospect Heights CSA, the next best thing.
Sorry, all sold out... but you can join the waiting list if you'd like. -
greg wrote: A nice generic description, but hardly a recipe.
He’s probably worried you’ll call him a “sandbagger†if he makes it too detailed. :twisted:
Can't anyone tell how I can go in to my local bio-lab and cook up some Round-up Ready soy?
Anyone?
OK, I’ll put it real simple-like for ya. Let’s say you have a gene that you know codes for a certain protein that you want to put into another plant (such as the glyphosate resistance gene above that codes for the enzyme that isn’t inhibited by glyphosate). Nature in her endless bounty has provided us with a tool called an endonuclease. This is an enzyme derived from deep-sea bacteria that can cut DNA chains in very specific spots leaving ends that are sort of like Lego in that they can stick together with other DNA that was also cut by this enzyme. Once we’ve done that, we still need a way to get it into the cell. Luckily, nature has provided for us again (you’d almost think it was part of her master plan) with two means of getting foreign DNA into a cell (called vectors). One of these is a virus, and the other is a plasmid, which is a circular piece of DNA that bacteria use to transfer genes to each other. If you cut the plasmid or virus with the same endonuclease you used to cut out the gene you want, the ends of the gene will stick to the ends of the vector. One more thing though; once you get the gene into the cell, you want to make sure that that cell’s molecular machinery will recognize it and actually use the plans to make the protein you want. To do this, you have to tag the gene with a “promotor†which is a short piece of DNA that flags a gene for active use. Man, it sure is lucky that these things were already in nature, because otherwise this would never work! If you insert the promotor into the vector the same way you put the gene there but with a different endonuclease, you’re ready for business. You can then use your vector to insert the promotor-primed gene into the cell you want. If you do that with a soy-bean, the plant that grows out of that seed will make the protein that the gene you put in coded for.
This is obviously an over-simplification that leaves out a bunch of steps that are necessary for technical reasons, but it’s the nuts and bolts of it (the high school bio version).
For the record, as I've already said, I think that using GM to make plants that allow you to use more pesticides is a bad idea. But that doesn't make the technology itself unsafe. -
Carnivore wrote:
One reason for not overusing Roundup is that weeds can learn the same trick that the bacteria learnt, and wind up as resistant as the GM-soy. Nature can produce the same outcome in plants as the GM technology. Roundup is useful because it's less toxic to animals than some alternatives; it would be a shame to lose it due to overuse.
For the record, as I've already said, I think that using GM to make plants that allow you to use more pesticides is a bad idea. But that doesn't make the technology itself unsafe.
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Horseweed-RR-Resistant.htm -
doctorj wrote: [quote=greg]
Who cares? The technical details of how it was achieved are irrelevant to the nature and safety of the product. "Recipe" is misleading because it implies that all the ingredients remain at the end; "Route" would be closer to the truth. Prospect Heights is still Prospect Heights whether you took the BQE or Atlantic from JFK.
A nice generic description, but hardly a recipe.
Can't anyone tell how I can go in to my local bio-lab and cook up some Round-up Ready soy?
Anyone?
But if you're curious, here's a good description:
http://dragon.zoo.utoronto.ca/~jlm-gmf/T0201D/production.html
Whoa. Seriously technical. Not ready for Betty Crocker.
Try this link out. Equally technical but provides a few more "layman" terms so non-scientist types can actually comprehend it.
http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/TransgenicCrops/how.html
Let's not forget: ultimately it our planet and our bodies. Scientists in their arrogance often in my experience get frustrated talking with non-scientists, finally resort to: just trust us!
Which is how we got all of the afore-mentioned fun stuff like Agent Orange, DDT, toxic GM L-trytophane, etc. -
greg wrote: Whoa. Seriously technical. Not ready for Betty Crocker.
You're ignoring his main point, which was that all this irrelevant to our discussion of GM safety.greg wrote: Try this link out. Equally technical but provides a few more "layman" terms so non-scientist types can actually comprehend it.
I think if you read any of my posts above, you'll see that I never did that. The closest anyone's come to saying "just trust us" is your appeal to your own authority based on years of following the lay press on the topic. I've used plain language throughout to clearly explain my points in a way that laypeople can understand. In fact, all the terms that you complained about being "too technical for the layperson" were first used in this thread by you! Most of my arguments have been about about the basic premise of the scientific method (meaning you have a hypothesis, you test it, and then accept or reject it based on the data and adjust your model accordingly). And when forced to explain terms that you brought up, I think I was very clear and never resorted to "just trust me."
http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/TransgenicCrops/how.html
Let's not forget: ultimately it our planet and our bodies. Scientists in their arrogance often in my experience get frustrated talking with non-scientists, finally resort to: just trust us!greg wrote: Which is how we got all of the afore-mentioned fun stuff like Agent Orange, DDT, toxic GM L-trytophane, etc.
Interestingly, L-tryptophan was promoted by the alternative/herbal medicine community, not by traditional scientists. I'm not a co-op member, but I'd bet that although you're fighting tooth and nail to remove GM products from the shelve, even though they've been reviewed by the FDA, you probably carry a number of herbal supplement products. Thanks to Orrin Hatch's DSHEA law (unbelievably, passed 5 years after the FDA recalled L-tryptophan supplements because of problems with the eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome), these supplements do not need FDA approval before marketing and are not even required to prove safety, let alone efficacy. They're assumed to be safe until they're proven harmful. That's why products like ephedra were so hard to remove from the market. It's the height of hypocrisy to accept untested herbal medicines while rejecting GM foods with much better data on their safety. And it hints at an underlying anti-scientific bias. -
can you guys tell me how to genetically modify weed?
Also I want to mate a from with a squirrell -
Carnivore wrote: [quote=greg]A nice generic description, but hardly a recipe.
He’s probably worried you’ll call him a “sandbagger†if he makes it too detailed. :twisted:
Can't anyone tell how I can go in to my local bio-lab and cook up some Round-up Ready soy?
Anyone?
OK, I’ll put it real simple-like for ya. Let’s say you have a gene that you know codes for a certain protein that you want to put into another plant (such as the glyphosate resistance gene above that codes for the enzyme that isn’t inhibited by glyphosate). Nature in her endless bounty has provided us with a tool called an endonuclease. This is an enzyme derived from deep-sea bacteria that can cut DNA chains in very specific spots leaving ends that are sort of like Lego in that they can stick together with other DNA that was also cut by this enzyme. Once we’ve done that, we still need a way to get it into the cell. Luckily, nature has provided for us again (you’d almost think it was part of her master plan) with two means of getting foreign DNA into a cell (called vectors). One of these is a virus, and the other is a plasmid, which is a circular piece of DNA that bacteria use to transfer genes to each other. If you cut the plasmid or virus with the same endonuclease you used to cut out the gene you want, the ends of the gene will stick to the ends of the vector. One more thing though; once you get the gene into the cell, you want to make sure that that cell’s molecular machinery will recognize it and actually use the plans to make the protein you want. To do this, you have to tag the gene with a “promotor†which is a short piece of DNA that flags a gene for active use. Man, it sure is lucky that these things were already in nature, because otherwise this would never work! If you insert the promotor into the vector the same way you put the gene there but with a different endonuclease, you’re ready for business. You can then use your vector to insert the promotor-primed gene into the cell you want. If you do that with a soy-bean, the plant that grows out of that seed will make the protein that the gene you put in coded for.
This is obviously an over-simplification that leaves out a bunch of steps that are necessary for technical reasons, but it’s the nuts and bolts of it (the high school bio version).
For the record, as I've already said, I think that using GM to make plants that allow you to use more pesticides is a bad idea. But that doesn't make the technology itself unsafe.
Sounds pretty textbook to me.
If you read the link I provided above, or here below,
http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/TransgenicCrops/how.html
things get a little more interesting.
You'll note the writer of this detailed account notes that scientists still do not know how several these processes work, such as in
"We still know relatively little about the specific genes required to enhance yield potential, improve stress tolerance, modify chemical properties of the harvested product, or otherwise affect plant characters."
"It is not clear how the bacterial DNA moves from the cytoplasm to the nucleus of the plant cell, nor how the T-DNA becomes integrated into the plant chromosome."
In my experience, things that I didn't understand often came back to haunt me.
Carnivore also omitted another interesitng tidbit. To wit:
"A selectable marker gene is added to the gene "construct" in order to identify plant cells or tissues that have successfully integrated the transgene. This is necessary because achieving incorporation and expression of transgenes in plant cells is a rare event, occurring in just a few percent of the targeted tissues or cells. Selectable marker genes encode proteins that provide resistance to agents that are normally toxic to plants, such as antibiotics or herbicides. As explained below, only plant cells that have integrated the selectable marker gene will survive when grown on a medium containing the appropriate antibiotic or herbicide. As for other inserted genes, marker genes also require promoter and termination sequences for proper function"
Thus all of the cells in GM plants contains some kind of "marker" gene that allows the scientist to know that it has incorporated the trait of interest. Often this is an antibiotic gene.
Which means that each of the cells in the GM plant has an anti-biotic characteristic. This isn't the trait the scientist wants the plant to express, but rather a by-product of the manufacturing of the plant.
As I'm sure Carnivore will acknowledge, anti-biotic resistance is a major problem Bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to most anti-biotics, due to over-exposure. Not only are most factory farmed animals given larges doses of anti-biotics to keep them alive until they can reach the market, now we have GM plants expressing anti-biotic traits.
A major concern of those opposed to GM plants is: what happens to these anti-biotic genes in our stomaches? Do they continue to express themselves? Is eating a GM plant the equivalent of taking a dose of penicillin?
Another detail that bears looking into is:
"A promoter sequence must be added for the gene to be correctly expressed (i.e., translated into a protein product). The promoter is the on/off switch that controls when and where in the plant the gene will be expressed. To date, most promoters in transgenic crop varieties have been "constitutive", i.e., causing gene expression throughout the life cycle of the plant in most tissues. The most commonly used constitutive promoter is CaMV35S, from the cauliflower mosaic virus, which generally results in a high degree of expression in plants. Other promoters are more specific and respond to cues in the plant's internal or external environment. An example of a light-inducible promoter is the promoter from the cab gene, encoding the major chlorophyll a/b binding protein."
The concern is that these "constitutive" promoters might turn on or activate genes other than the target gene, ie, other than the gene scientist have injected into the plant.
As Dr. Mae-Wan Ho points out in her book "Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare", genes often exists in "families" and work in conjuction with other genes. Altering one gene may and often does have unexpected consequences on other genes in that gene's family. To draw a rough anology, inserting a new gene into a plant's DNA is like what happens when your parents adopt a new sibling. The new family may not function quite as well as before or take on entirely new tendencies.
FYI, Dr. Ho is a respected British scientist from the Open University and a fellow in the US National Genetic Foundation. Her book was published in 1998 by Gateway Books. -
greg wrote: You'll note the writer of this detailed account notes that scientists still do not know how several these processes work, such as in "We still know relatively little about the specific genes required to enhance yield potential, improve stress tolerance, modify chemical properties of the harvested product, or otherwise affect plant characters." "It is not clear how the bacterial DNA moves from the cytoplasm to the nucleus of the plant cell, nor how the T-DNA becomes integrated into the plant chromosome." In my experience, things that I didn't understand often came back to haunt me.
I know it's normal to fear what you do not understand, but this is really just hand-waving. You've been very effective at changing the topic of the discussion, but what I must return to is what Jack Krohn originally asked you over 100 posts ago, "Where's the evidence that these crops are harmful?"greg wrote: Carnivore also omitted another interesitng tidbit. To wit: "A selectable marker gene is added to the gene "construct" in order to identify plant cells or tissues that have successfully integrated the transgene... Often this is an antibiotic gene. Which means that each of the cells in the GM plant has an anti-biotic characteristic. This isn't the trait the scientist wants the plant to express, but rather a by-product of the manufacturing of the plant. As I'm sure Carnivore will acknowledge, anti-biotic resistance is a major problem Bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to most anti-biotics, due to over-exposure. Not only are most factory farmed animals given larges doses of anti-biotics to keep them alive until they can reach the market, now we have GM plants expressing anti-biotic traits. A major concern of those opposed to GM plants is: what happens to these anti-biotic genes in our stomaches? Do they continue to express themselves? Is eating a GM plant the equivalent of taking a dose of penicillin?
I believe I said:Carnivore wrote: This is obviously an over-simplification that leaves out a bunch of steps that are necessary for technical reasons, but it’s the nuts and bolts of it (the high school bio version).
With respect to your antibiotic question, these aren't antibiotics in the medical sense (note that greg was careful to use the hyphenated anti-biotic in an attempt to mislead us), because they're chemicals deisgned to stop plant growth, not bacterial growth. We're not talking about penicillin or any other antibiotic used for human medicine. And if the genes are in your stomach, they're going to get digested. Eating a GM plant is definitively not the equivalent of taking a dose of penicillin. If you think it is, again I say, "show me the evidence."greg wrote: Another detail that bears looking into is:"A promoter sequence must be added for the gene to be correctly expressed (i.e., translated into a protein product)...The concern is that these "constitutive" promoters might turn on or activate genes other than the target gene, ie, other than the gene scientist have injected into the plant.
A "concern" is not evidence. You've offered many hypotheses here, but hypotheses are only the beginning of the scientific process. There is empiric data supporting the safety of these products or the FDA wouldn't have approved them. This evidence can never be 100% because you can't prove a negative. But it's sufficient that reasonable people reviewing the evidence can agree that harm from these products is likely to be either extremely rare or extremely minor or both. The FDA can recall the products at any time if there is evidence that they aren't safe. In order for that to happen, your hypotheses have to be tested. Again, I'm not saying that I know the answer to the question. I'm saying that you don't.greg wrote: FYI, Dr. Ho is a respected British scientist from the Open University and a fellow in the US National Genetic Foundation. Her book was published in 1998 by Gateway Books.
Again with the appeals to authority. You say that you learned to "question authority" on your own, but I think you just switched to a different authority rather than thinking things out for yourself. -
I hope I'm not offending anyone, but Greg's argument reminds me of the "You can't prove God doesn't exist" argument. A lot. Though the burden of proof should be on proving existence, the faithful cast doubt on "evidence" of the lack of existence, and disparage the character and credentials of those who draw conclusions conservatively based on legitimate science. Like Greg, they also point to pseudo-science like Intelligent Design to back up their claims. But most of all, they proclaim with unshakeable self-assurance that, "In the end, you'll see. You will suffer for your refusal to believe."
I've found that the only thing you can accomplish by arguing with people like this is giving yourself a gigantic headache. -
escap wrote: I hope I'm not offending anyone, but Greg's argument reminds me of the "You can't prove God doesn't exist" argument. A lot. Though the burden of proof should be on proving existence, the faithful cast doubt on "evidence" of the lack of existence, and disparage the character and credentials of those who draw conclusions conservatively based on legitimate science. Like Greg, they also point to pseudo-science like Intelligent Design to back up their claims. But most of all, they proclaim with unshakeable self-assurance that, "In the end, you'll see. You will suffer for your refusal to believe."
I have no problem with anyone having their own beliefs, but like the intelligent design folks in Kansas, greg is also trying to impose his beliefs on others by removing the GM foods from the shelves of the co-op, even though they're already labeled to allow people who share those beliefs to choose to avoid them.
I've found that the only thing you can accomplish by arguing with people like this is giving yourself a gigantic headache. -
Most of what I'm asking here for is a bit of healthy skepticism.
Many of the questions that I've raised lack answers because nobody wants to spend the (research) money to find the answers. Who is going to pay for the research?
When the FDA initially reviewed Monsanto's first GMO soy application in 1996, many FDA scientists did indeed object. Their objections were squelched however due to political pressure from Monsanto and the pharmaceutical industry. Rather than adopting the "precautionary" approach encouraged by many scientists where extensive testing is done to determine the possible effects on animals of these novel plants, the FDA adopted the much more expedient approach of "substantial equivalence".
Under this approach the industry merely needs to show that the novel product does not have any measurable differences from the original product. No testing required!
In his book, "Genetic Engineering, Food and Our Environment" (2000, Chelsea Green Publishing Co.) Luke Anderson cites several studies that should have given the FDA pause.
- a gene coding for red pigment was taken from a corn plant and transferred into petunia flowers. Apart from turning red, the flowers also had more leaves and shoots, a higher resistance to fungi and lowered fertility.
- in a trial of genetically engineered insect resistant corn, there was an unexpected yield reduction of 27% and significantly lower levels of copper in the leaves, stalks and grain compared with control plants.
- in 1989 a new brand of a widely used food supplement called L-tryptophan was put on the marketiin the US. It turns out that the drug had been genetically engineered. After the release of the product , 5000 individuals developed a disease called Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome (EMS). Government officials counted 37 deaths from this disease and 1,500 left with permanent disabilities. The government stopped counting casualties shortly after the outbreak occurred but more are believed to have died subsequently. Because the Japanese manufacturer destroyed all batches of the bacteria used to create the GE product, no one was able to determine exactly what in the product had caused the outbreak.
Again we are only talking about the possible health effects of GE foods to humans. The environmental and economic effects are much more easily documented. The latter effects alone should cause consumers to avoid the GM foods, but it has been my experience that people don't really care that much about the environment or other folks income. Just don't give them cancer or EMS. -
greg wrote: Luke Anderson cites several studies that should have given the FDA pause.
What possible relevence to you think these studies have on human safety? These are adverse effects on the plants, not on those who consume them.
- a gene coding for red pigment was taken from a corn plant and transferred into petunia flowers. Apart from turning red, the flowers also had more leaves and shoots, a higher resistance to fungi and lowered fertility.
- in a trial of genetically engineered insect resistant corn, there was an unexpected yield reduction of 27% and significantly lower levels of copper in the leaves, stalks and grain compared with control plants.greg wrote: - in 1989 a new brand of a widely used food supplement called L-tryptophan was put on the marketiin the US. It turns out that the drug had been genetically engineered. After the release of the product , 5000 individuals developed a disease called Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome (EMS). Government officials counted 37 deaths from this disease and 1,500 left with permanent disabilities. The government stopped counting casualties shortly after the outbreak occurred but more are believed to have died subsequently. Because the Japanese manufacturer destroyed all batches of the bacteria used to create the GE product, no one was able to determine exactly what in the product had caused the outbreak.
It is unclear whether the contamination of the L-tryptophan was due to the organism used or the fact that reduced quanitities of powdered carbon were used in the purification step in the implicated batches. Errors in manufacturing have led to many tragedies that have nothing to do with GM foods. Again, however, this is a bad example. L-tryptophan was a supplement promoted by the alternative medicine industry that no one should have been taking anyway. How many "herbal" products does the co-op carry? Do you realize that since the L-tryptophan tragedy, the regulations have been changed so that the FDA has less oversight over the safety of these products? Why aren't you trying to remove these products from the shelves of the co-op? I know "herbal" doesn't sound as scary as "genetic modification", but L-tryptophan and ephedra are just 2 examples of hidden dangers lurking among herbal products.greg wrote: Again we are only talking about the possible health effects of GE foods to humans. The environmental and economic effects are much more easily documented. The latter effects alone should cause consumers to avoid the GM foods, but it has been my experience that people don't really care that much about the environment or other folks income. Just don't give them cancer or EMS.
If you had kept your assertions to what you could document, you would have had no argument from me. But just because it's easier to scare people with cancer doesn't mean it's right to claim there's a link when none has been shown to exist. -
greg wrote: Scientists in their arrogance often in my experience get frustrated talking with non-scientists, finally resort to: just trust us!
If you honestly experience that, it reflects poorly on yourself. Scientists are people with limited time, specialized knowledge, and a lot of responsibility. Some of that time they spend bringing students up to speed who have the necessary background material in place that they can get to the next level quickly. Some of their time they spend writing papers to document their findings, or writing textbooks and reviews to efficiently confer knowledge. Some of their time they spend making discoveries, checking each others' work, and engaged in intelligent discussion with people who agree on the fundamentals. A few spend time talking to specialized science journalists who are best trained to present material to a general audience, or acting as expert witnesses to courts and governments. Why should a scientist continue to waste valuable time trying to re-explain the basics to an intransigent layperson such as yourself, when they can point you to a textbook, a resource on the net, a college course, etc. You have the potential to influence the purchasing habits of a few people who shop at the Park Slope Food Coop; a worthy but local calling. The scientist has the potential to change the world by adding to the sum total of human knowledge, and perhaps influencing the decisions of whole societies and their leaders, even if only in small ways. This is not arrogance, it's what science is for. It would be inefficient and frankly unethical for a scientist to play cat among the pigeons, flogging a dead horse until the cows come home. The correct response upon making no headway with a scientifically illiterate ideologue lacking significant power and influence is: either trust us, or go and do your homework properly and come back when you're ready for a real discussion, or go back to la-la land and don't waste our time again. -
greg wrote: Scientists in their arrogance often in my experience get frustrated talking with non-scientists, finally resort to: just trust us!
Yes, it sucks to have devoted your life to the study of a subject, only to be told by a dilletante that you are wrong. -
Carnivore wrote: [quote=greg] Luke Anderson cites several studies that should have given the FDA pause.
What possible relevence to you think these studies have on human safety? These are adverse effects on the plants, not on those who consume them.
- a gene coding for red pigment was taken from a corn plant and transferred into petunia flowers. Apart from turning red, the flowers also had more leaves and shoots, a higher resistance to fungi and lowered fertility.
- in a trial of genetically engineered insect resistant corn, there was an unexpected yield reduction of 27% and significantly lower levels of copper in the leaves, stalks and grain compared with control plants.greg wrote: - in 1989 a new brand of a widely used food supplement called L-tryptophan was put on the marketiin the US. It turns out that the drug had been genetically engineered. After the release of the product , 5000 individuals developed a disease called Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome (EMS). Government officials counted 37 deaths from this disease and 1,500 left with permanent disabilities. The government stopped counting casualties shortly after the outbreak occurred but more are believed to have died subsequently. Because the Japanese manufacturer destroyed all batches of the bacteria used to create the GE product, no one was able to determine exactly what in the product had caused the outbreak.
It is unclear whether the contamination of the L-tryptophan was due to the organism used or the fact that reduced quanitities of powdered carbon were used in the purification step in the implicated batches. Errors in manufacturing have led to many tragedies that have nothing to do with GM foods. Again, however, this is a bad example. L-tryptophan was a supplement promoted by the alternative medicine industry that no one should have been taking anyway. How many "herbal" products does the co-op carry? Do you realize that since the L-tryptophan tragedy, the regulations have been changed so that the FDA has less oversight over the safety of these products? Why aren't you trying to remove these products from the shelves of the co-op? I know "herbal" doesn't sound as scary as "genetic modification", but L-tryptophan and ephedra are just 2 examples of hidden dangers lurking among herbal products.greg wrote: Again we are only talking about the possible health effects of GE foods to humans. The environmental and economic effects are much more easily documented. The latter effects alone should cause consumers to avoid the GM foods, but it has been my experience that people don't really care that much about the environment or other folks income. Just don't give them cancer or EMS.
If you had kept your assertions to what you could document, you would have had no argument from me. But just because it's easier to scare people with cancer doesn't mean it's right to claim there's a link when none has been shown to exist.
I don't know if you saw the big front page article in the NY Times last week about a new study that suggests a big error was made in calculating the temperatures in previous warming periods. The study suggests that the artic once had a climate similar to Florida, some 12 degrees warming that previously believed.
It's interesting that because global warming has now become "mainstream", there is $12 million for studies such as this one.
The studies from Luke Anderson's book point toward the type of research that should be done about GM foods but hasn't been. The types of anomalies that were found in these studies suggest that we really don't understand what is going on with genetic engineering, that unanticipated results occur. As pointed out by Mae Wan Ho, families of genes interact to produce wierd results when one of the family members is altered. There are so many characteristics of a plant that could be effected but no one is looking.
I'm sure there a lots of scientists who would love to study some of the changes that occur in plant genomes where they are subjected to genetic manipulation, but who will pay for the research?
Until genetic modification attains the status of global warming, research will be neglected. I'm afraid to think what will have to happen before this research gets funded. It will take more than a few million dead monarch butterflies or a few hundred suicidal Indian farmers. -
greg wrote:
From the sounds of this, you haven't grasped the difference between a result and a method, between the ends and the means.
You'll note the writer of this detailed account notes that scientists still do not know how several these processes work, such as in
"We still know relatively little about the specific genes required to enhance yield potential, improve stress tolerance, modify chemical properties of the harvested product, or otherwise affect plant characters."
"It is not clear how the bacterial DNA moves from the cytoplasm to the nucleus of the plant cell, nor how the T-DNA becomes integrated into the plant chromosome."
...
I'm sure there a lots of scientists who would love to study some of the changes that occur in plant genomes where they are subjected to genetic manipulation, but who will pay for the research?
The changes that occur in plant genomes after genetic manipulation are plain to read by sequencing, which is of course done. Furthermore, you can grow a plant and see how it behaves. You don't have to solve the protein folding problem, the mysteries of gene regulation, all the factors governing peptide and nucleic acid trafficking, or the quantum mechanics of enzyme catalysis in order to grow a plant, any more than our ancestors needed a formula for pi to build a wheel. You're standing around looking at a wheel for the first time, and saying "I think that could be dangerously explosive because you can't tell me exactly how round it is".
Think of it like a book. You give it to a book-binder and they add a page. It might be that the book binder has used some standard thread to bind the book without fully understanding the electrostatics behind the tensile strength of cotton. So what? It's a book, you turn the pages, you read the words, you know what it says, you can see the extra page. Nor do you need to fully understand optical character recognition and the cognition of language to learn to read. -
greg wrote: I'm sure there a lots of scientists who would love to study some of the changes that occur in plant genomes where they are subjected to genetic manipulation, but who will pay for the research?
If your point was that there should be more research on GM products, I think you would have had universal agreement here. But that wasn't what you said. You claimed these products were dangerous as though the research had been done and it had been proven. And by trying to remove these products from the shelves of the co-op, you're trying to take away the ability of others to reason this out for themselves and make their own choices. If your case were so compelling, then why are people still buying these products at the co-op even after you've presented your distorted view of the facts to them and labeled all the GM products? Are they all in on the conspiracy too? I guess if you can't convince people through rational discourse, you have to coerce them into acting as you wish.
Until genetic modification attains the status of global warming, research will be neglected. I'm afraid to think what will have to happen before this research gets funded. It will take more than a few million dead monarch butterflies or a few hundred suicidal Indian farmers. -
greg wrote:
Before people like you moved here and gentrified the neighborhood, we had music on vinyl. Only a small group of scientists and techheads were experimenting with digital formats and daring to claim digital was the way of the future. People used to say that CDs would never take over, that digitial was inferior and dangerous to the appreciation of music and the listening environment, with an artificial non-organic sound, but it turns out that was an error. Now that digital has become the "mainstream", people are spending billions producing and consuming music in all sorts of digital formats way beyond what was originally envisioned.
I don't know if you saw the big front page article in the NY Times last week about a new study that suggests a big error was made in calculating the temperatures in previous warming periods. The study suggests that the artic once had a climate similar to Florida, some 12 degrees warming that previously believed.
It's interesting that because global warming has now become "mainstream", there is $12 million for studies such as this one.greg wrote:
Until genetic modification is as mundane as music on CDs, I'm afraid we're going to have to put up with naysayers who neglect the evidence from those reputable studies that have been funded.
Until genetic modification attains the status of global warming, research will be neglected. I'm afraid to think what will have to happen before this research gets funded. It will take more than a few million dead monarch butterflies or a few hundred suicidal Indian farmers. -
This thread has been brilliant. I've never seen such complete domination. But you have to give the little guy points for hanging in there despite trying to fight outside his weight class.
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