|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2012 : 23:11:46 [Permalink]
|
| Again, I do apologize for the hijack but just as Mooner indicated there are people who see no problem where I do, after reading up on the topic. While only anecdotal I had suffered extreme nightly mussel pains for several years, increasing in severity over time. Finally when I went to my doctor about it, he gave me an "annual check up" and found nothing (big help,,, not). I eventually eliminated my problem buy removing my intake of a GMO product. Problem gone, I tried consuming the suspected product again and my pain returned. Not very scientific for others but enough for me. I can't help but think of all the people going to their doctors with allergic problems that are unable to be helped because the possible agent or allergen is not even on the radar. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 05/28/2012 : 23:31:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Again, I do apologize for the hijack but just as Mooner indicated there are people who see no problem where I do, after reading up on the topic. While only anecdotal I had suffered extreme nightly mussel pains for several years, increasing in severity over time. Finally when I went to my doctor about it, he gave me an "annual check up" and found nothing (big help,,, not). I eventually eliminated my problem buy removing my intake of a GMO product. Problem gone, I tried consuming the suspected product again and my pain returned. Not very scientific for others but enough for me. I can't help but think of all the people going to their doctors with allergic problems that are unable to be helped because the possible agent or allergen is not even on the radar.
|
Yeah, not a scientific conclusion from a sample of one. But I would have made the same personal decision. Go with what seems to work for you. You may even be right.
And you did no hijacking, but instead enriched the discussion. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/28/2012 23:32:13 |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2012 : 00:39:00 [Permalink]
|
| Regarding the general anti-natural aspect of GMO, aren't crops unnatural? Humans clearing large areas and ecosystems for a single species of plant. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2012 : 04:31:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
How does one get the genes from viruses and bacteria into plants and animals or genes from different animals species into other animals or plants by cross or selective breeding? It's not possible... |
That's not true. How many of the mutations that traditional farmers found preferable were from viruses or bacteria? I can't say, but I know it's not zero. What I mean is that farmers have often spotted mutant crop in their fields, and if the mutant was "better" in some way, they kept it and grew it. They couldn't know if the mutation was due to a horizontal gene transfer from some other plant, animal, virus or bacteria.
In fact, the risks of GMOed genes getting into other crops through HGT so clog up Google search results that I can't now find an example of a natural HGT resulting in a benefit to a crop that I remember reading about years ago. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2012 : 06:40:27 [Permalink]
|
Horizontal gene transfer in plants
A flurry of research over the last decade has shown that gene movement between distantly related plants (such as flowering plants and mosses or gymnosperms) is a fact of natural evolution, and the research has revealed plant epiphytes and parasites as one vehicle for this movement. Natural transfer of genes between fungi, bacteria and plants is also established (see Horizontal gene transfer).
These biological insights are emerging at a time when artificial transfer of genes into food crops remains controversial and often resisted with the claim [18] that it would never occur in nature (See plant breeding, transgenic plants, Biotechnology and plant breeding).
Accurate knowledge of this facet of plant evolution is relevant to the ongoing debate about transgenic plants produced by biotechnology. |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2012 : 19:39:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by sailingsoul
How does one get the genes from viruses and bacteria into plants and animals or genes from different animals species into other animals or plants by cross or selective breeding? It's not possible... |
That's not true. How many of the mutations that traditional farmers found preferable were from viruses or bacteria? I can't say, but I know it's not zero. What I mean is that farmers have often spotted mutant crop in their fields, and if the mutant was "better" in some way, they kept it and grew it. They couldn't know if the mutation was due to a horizontal gene transfer from some other plant, animal, virus or bacteria.
In fact, the risks of GMOed genes getting into other crops through HGT so clog up Google search results that I can't now find an example of a natural HGT resulting in a benefit to a crop that I remember reading about years ago.
|
Perhaps I wasn't very clear in conveying my point. Let me try to explain what I was getting at.
My comment "It's not possible.." was in reference to the question before it. Which was asking how using GM "methods" when transferring genes, e.g. from a fish to a tomato, is the same as "cross breeding" or "selective breeding". "It not possible" was stating what I believe the case, that using cross breeding or selective breeding techniques that it's not possible to get genes from a fish to a tomato, which have been attempted in the 90's. As far as I understand it, Yes HGT does occur but as I also understand it when it does occurs that is not the product of cross breeding or selective breeding directly, which is what I was referring to when I say "that's not possible.
Researchers have specific concerns which have been completely ignored by the FDA, against their own scientists warnings, that the HGT ability of bacteria could transfer genes from the GMO DNA, in the human gut, to other pathogenic bacteria also in the gut.Creating a antibiotic resistant pathogen. It's a real possibility, ignored by the GMO producers and the FDA.
As I understand it when they shoot the desired genes into a group of cells they are trying to get the genes into, there is no way to know which cells received the genes because it is so imprecise. So what they do is add the genes that also produce antibiotic resistance along with the gene sequence the want to get into the cells. After this is shot into the cells they then apply antibiotics to the cells and the ones that don't die are the cells that received the genes implantation. The gene sequence providing antibiotic resistance are in GMO foods and it is known that via HGT bacteria in the gut could transfer those genes into pathogenic bacteria creating a new pathogenic bacteria that now has genetic coding for antibiotic resistance. Any guess where that could lead? |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
| Edited by - sailingsoul on 05/29/2012 19:44:10 |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2012 : 19:52:31 [Permalink]
|
| No doubt this says it better than I can, why Antibiotic Resistance Genes are used in creating GMO's products. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2012 : 20:12:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Perhaps I wasn't very clear in conveying my point. Let me try to explain what I was getting at.
My comment "It's not possible.." was in reference to the question before it. Which was asking how using GM "methods" when transferring genes, e.g. from a fish to a tomato, is the same as "cross breeding" or "selective breeding". "It not possible" was stating what I believe the case, that using cross breeding or selective breeding techniques that it's not possible to get genes from a fish to a tomato, which have been attempted in the 90's. As far as I understand it, Yes HGT does occur but as I also understand it when it does occurs that is not the product of cross breeding or selective breeding directly, which is what I was referring to when I say "that's not possible. |
Perhaps I wasn't clear: the incorporation of HGTed genes into a crop has happened, simply due to the fact that some HGTed genes produce crops which ancient farmers have considered "better" than what they saw before. That is selective breeding. No, nobody can "force" cross breeding between (say) plants and animals without massive attempts to break down the "fertility barrier" between entire kingdoms, but viruses and bacteria act as go-betweens to allow such crosses to occur naturally, albeit randomly.Researchers have specific concerns which have been completely ignored by the FDA, against their own scientists warnings, that the HGT ability of bacteria could transfer genes from the GMO DNA, in the human gut, to other pathogenic bacteria also in the gut.Creating a antibiotic resistant pathogen. It's a real possibility, ignored by the GMO producers and the FDA.
As I understand it when they shoot the desired genes into a group of cells they are trying to get the genes into, there is no way to know which cells received the genes because it is so imprecise. So what they do is add the genes that also produce antibiotic resistance along with the gene sequence the want to get into the cells. After this is shot into the cells they then apply antibiotics to the cells and the ones that don't die are the cells that received the genes implantation. The gene sequence providing antibiotic resistance are in GMO foods and it is known that via HGT bacteria in the gut could transfer those genes into pathogenic bacteria creating a new pathogenic bacteria that now has genetic coding for antibiotic resistance. Any guess where that could lead? |
Yes, that is a concern, though not relevant to my objection to your "that's not possible" statement. I would hope that the scientists are using the least-powerful antibiotics applicable to their experiments. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2012 : 20:51:14 [Permalink]
|
| Dave,I understand your premise in saying my comment untrue, now. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2012 : 21:08:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
No doubt this says it better than I can, why Antibiotic Resistance Genes are used in creating GMO's products.
|
Research and the use of marker free genes is already happening.
Pocket K No. 36: Marker-Free GM Plants
A lot of research effort has been directed towards the development of marker-free transformation methods and selectable marker elimination strategies. Besides minimizing public concerns, the absence of resistance genes in transgenic plants could also reduce the costs for developing GM products and lessen the need for time-consuming safety evaluations, thereby speeding up the commercial release of new products. Generation of marker free plants likewise supports single line re-transformation, an important approach towards introduction of multiple genes for complex traits such as resistance to several pathogens and tolerance to abiotic stress.
There are several ways to either avoid or get rid of selectable marker genes. Methods that will allow the removal of DNA in plants as efficiently as it is inserted have been developed, such as the use of site-specific recombination, transposition and homologous recombination. Researchers have also described several substitute marker genes that have no harmful biological activities. The presence of these non-bacterial genes allows the plants to metabolize non-toxic agents normally harmful to them. |
Marker-gene-free plants will soon be standard
| New and improved gene transfer methods are being developed throughout the world. The aim is to transfer only the target gene of interest. All sequences which are no longer required once transformation is complete, especially marker genes, are to be removed from the plant’s genome. Various safety research projects are also addressing this issue. In an interview with GMO Safety Professor Reinhard Hehl outlines the current state of play... |
I think once again it's important to point out that this is a rather new technology. And there are things that need to be worked out and improved. My guess is the anti GM sites say nothing about the improved techniques anymore than the anti vax sites mention that there hasn't been mercury in the MMR vaccine since the nineties. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2012 : 21:48:11 [Permalink]
|
| Interesting debate and all but the real question we need to be discussing is "What do these crops taste like?" |
 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2012 : 22:07:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Interesting debate and all but the real question we need to be discussing is "What do these crops taste like?"
|
Oh, yeah!  |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/29/2012 22:24:04 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Rothamsted
