The Future of GM Technology...

Ultra

Do you not learn? That is another Mae Wan Ho reference. She is a totally discredited source. She has spouted so much scientific bulldust over the years that no good scientist will take anything she says seriously.

Anyway...

On the antibiotic resistance thing. Ten years ago, it was discovered that 85% of all of us have at least some ampycillin resistant bacteria as a natural part of our gut. Since ampycillin resistance is the standard marker gene in GM crops and foods, that makes the threat of ampycillin resistance from GM rather hollow.

You think transgenic DNA from the food we eat is going to insert into human cells, triggering cancer? What level of science education do you have? If you believe that rot, it is not much.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

NOPE.

The two cases you brought up were NOT as you claimed.

Now you are bringing up something entirely different than GM foods and are discussing genetic based MEDICAL treatments.

Not the same thing.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Skeptic, you'd probably buy snake oil if you were told it was safe! Just becase you want to believe the hype doesn't mean the rest of us have to! When you feel like acting your shoesize, i'll still be around!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your the one acting silly.

You are all over the map.

This latest is really bizzare as it has to do with treating children with severe combined immune deficiency (SCID)

I'd post more but the site has this warning:

MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION

 

I would buy snake oil if :
1. There was a definitive and substantial advantage, with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that advantage.
2. It had 16 years of very widespread use with no ill effects.

 

There's no difference in the vectors used. there's no difference between animal or vegetable DNA, that's why, only the sequence is different. Keep huffing and puffing, it doesn't change anything. Funny how you and skeptic are always in the minority. Most people don't want GM products, and I think that's perfectly reasonable.
The GM companies only have themselves to blame.

 

If there is no difference then how is it that the amount of GM food is expanding dramatically (Huge in the US) and yet no sign anywhere of the problems you are worried about?

 

Education and price I should think Arthur. As people slowly learn that the risks are minimal, and that it's cheaper then it will grow. A lot of people had grave misconceptions over any GMOs, and that is changing. The safety record is not 100% but allergies etc are rare. I just happen to believe it should be labelled so that people like myself can choose. As for Cloned meat, I have welfare issues and prefer to eat free-range eggs and meat. If I said I was a bloody vegetarian I wouldn't have got such a hard time! But anyway it's been a fun and lively debate tonight, it's good to have an intelligent advisary.

 

Actually the safety record for GM food is 100%.

There have been claims for side effects, but each one, when investigated, proved to be caused by something other than GM.

For that matter, non GM foods show side effects often enough, due to a wide range of variables.

 

on whose word? yours?

and before you even think about responding i'll demand the same from you as you demand from me.

 

I'm new to this debate about GM foods, but while reading a number of sites that are anti-GM food one study kept being referenced that said it found gene transfer from GM foods in people.

The Newcastle 2004 study.

This would be an example of a typical reference:

But when I finally found the study I found that it really didn't say that.

Turns out that the test used 7 individuals who had colostomy bags.

They found that in these individuals 3.7% of the gene survived, but in NORMAL individuals the Transgene did not survive passage through an intact intestine and more importantly they SPECIFICALLY concluded that Gene Transfer DID NOT occur during the feeding experiment.

The net is it becomes very difficult to believe what these anti-GM sites say when they claim the opposite of what a study actually finds, relying on the fact that few will do the work to find the actual study as it is not that easy to find.

It took me awhile but here it is:

http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/amadlung/Plant_Phys_Bio332/Bio332_04_GMOdigestion.pdf

Arthur

 

according to the above link no blood tests were carried out to determine if the transgene was in the bloodstream.
the study concentrated on the survivability of the transgene in the bowel.
they found almost no transgene in the feces and concluded the gene was "completely broken down" without providing the blood tests.

 

So what?

Do you have ANY study on lab rats that shows GM gene transfer to their blood?

Because unless you do, given that they feed rats 30% of their diet on GM food and do it for months, there is absolutely no reason to check for it in this test.

Arthur

 

Considering that you have a large number of countries that allow no GM foods at all (grown or imported) and also a number of countries that allow a lot of GM foods, thus creating two very good sets of data on people/health/outcomes that can be statistically compared, it should be fairly easy to show if there is something even suspect with GM foods.

Got any such reports?

Arthur

 

i can't find reports of ANY kind.
the ones that have been submitted have waved away as if they didn't exist.
from what i've read there have been legal issues associated with GM crops, the GM industry says the FDA is looking into those. i'll be damned if i can find anything that supports that claim. the research arm of the USDA mentions no such report or investigation.

 

it essentially means what you posted doesn't mean anything.
it shows the transgene did not appear in the feces.
the scientists concluded it was "completely broken down" without performing the bloodtests to prove that claim.

 

Of course, in science, there is no proof. However, there is a heap of data available.
http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/42/executivesummary/default.asp

The above is a summary after 16 years of widespread GM use. The reference is from a source that Ultra will claim is not to be believed, but I have seen nothing to challenge their claim that no harm has come during those 16 years.

 

well, what have you demanded of me?
let's see:
post 74 will do nicely.

 

To leopold

That is correct.
The reason I give credence to the isaaa reference is that I have seen these data points before, meaning I know they are correct. Isaaa will slant its interpretations towards the conclusion it wants, but the actual data is correct. I am sure you are smart enough to ignore interpretation and simply look at the raw data.

 

The concentrating accumulation of DDT in the body fat of many fish-eating birds and mammals, regardless of location on the planet (Antarctica, etc), and its effects as an estrogen mimic (thin eggshells, screwed up reproduction in general), is just fact. It makes no difference where Bald Eagles nest.

The extinction of the Bald Eagle probably would have been accomplished by now, if the massive agricultural quantities of DDT had not been taken out of their food chain. The fact that their numbers had been reduced by hunting, etc, as well, does not exonerate DDT from its documented and serious effects.

DDT was never banned for anti-malarial use, and is still available for that purpose. The fact that it still works, still kills mosquitos, is due to the rollback and subsequent prevention of their quickly developing resistance - by banning it from agricultural use.

We do not have even five years of experience with the many and varied GM techniques recently deployed, or the many and varied employments of them.

Of the couple of trials and early runs we have deployed for a while now, we have far too little information to conclude a lack of harm. Recall how long it took to officially realize what trans fats were doing? The situation is far more complex with GM modifications.

If history is any guide, serious downsides of new agricultural practices often show up a generation or more down the road. The known and available downsides of GM - especially the more dubious techniques and applications - are potentially dramatic and disastrous. And not always reversible.

Meanwhile, nobody is monitoring well enough to reliably catch even the worst possibilities - prudence in deployment is our only safety net.