reply to post by Americanist
There's always someone present to trump you on the basis of your argument: You don't know what you don't know.
There are very few individuals alive who can 'trump' me. I generally avoid speaking with authority on subjects I do not have sufficient command
What we do know is the toxicity level of the population has increased dramatically. From newborn babies on up. In broad terms the lower rung of
society, those not able to purchase thousands of acres in NZ for their personal organic farms, have become test subjects/ guinea pigs.
We know the toxicity level has increased? How?
As I understand it, toxicology has been a developing field of science and is relatively recent in terms of human history. Establishing that people's
diets are more toxic today than 200 years ago (or even just 50) is impossible due to the lack of records.
As for "people have become guinea pigs" - we are all guinea pigs in just about everything we do. My parents didn't get an instruction manual that
told them how to raise me - they just had to wing it. Certainty is something that simply doesn't exist - even in the fundamental physics of the
universe. It's all a "learn as we go."
End of debate. I tend to cut to the chase instead of dragging things out and touting egos.
Says the person who declares it the end of a debate.
There are enough people who hop on forums and falsely claim to be humble. Face it - we're all on forums with regularity because we enjoy speaking
our minds (because we are correct) - or just so bored as to not have anything else to do. On forums - I make no effort to hide the fact that I feel
my analysis of the situation is vastly superior to your own, and I enjoy telling you you're wrong.
Someone has to.
reply to post by XPLodER
Jesus Tits, dude - learn to use the quote tag systems and have enough self-respect to go back and fix the posts that require it.
so as a biologist can bt toxin enter the blood stream through the gut wall?
Generally speaking, the proteins that comprise BT toxin are broken down by the digestive system - and quite rapidly, at that. That should not be
taken as an absolute "it can't" - but that any amount consumed is going to be largely broken down before it has a chance to be absorbed in the
intestines (though being absorbed through other membranes is a possibility).
i agree that antibodies would have a hard time surviving through the gut wall on a healthy adult but what about people with gut problems,
childern and pregnant woman? what about leaky gut syndrome? celiacs desiese?
What about them?
Children are not sufficiently different from adults to be of concern. Pregnant women, as well. As for diseases and syndromes - those are an
insignificantly small portion of the population to be of consideration. If you have something like that - it is your responsibility to take care of
it. To draw a parallel - few restaurants and grocery stores offer "gluten free" foods as part of their standard. The overwhelming majority of the
bread on the shelf is made with wheat and other grains - people who can't eat that (a very small percentage) are on their own to seek out foods they
can eat and/or products that cater to their dietary concern.
how many people know how to take care of gut health?
I take mine out and scrub them with a toothbrush once a month - especially when I start getting indigestion.
ok so the human genome is a very complex chemical and mecanical blue print for cell devision and for life in general, at the moment a great
portion of the chain is still described as junk DNA
Because it is. It's generally a repeating sequence that serves as a buffer against chemical corrosion of the DNA strand. It's called a telomere.
It's not "junk" so much as it is a barrier and not used in the manufacturing of proteins. The exception to this are hereditary strands that are
likely the result of retrovirus infections in our distant history.
how can we asume that the changes we are making are not altering genes "down the chain" as we dont even know what they are for or what they
Because DNA doesn't really work that way. Placing a sequence of DNA into the genome instructs the cell to create proteins based off of that pattern.
No other genes -can- be altered in this capacity... spare for reproduction, which is a pretty crazy process, genetically. The process of Meiosis
intentionally pushes strands of DNA together at high relative energies to intentionally mix-and-match gene sequences across chromosomes. Our
reproductive system deliberately attempts to create genetic mutations to increase genetic diversity.
you talk of complex systems and completly overlook the fact we dont even know what we are playing with or the down stream effect of making
how could we even know if the manipulation is effecting ther "expressions" of the code
as we still call it "junk"?
To put it bluntly, the majority of the codons in our genetic code is not used for producing proteins.
That can change, as there are trigger sequences that indicate the start and finish of a protein, and the process of genetic mutations can often be the
erroneous addition of these triggers along with regions of code long forgotten - but our cells also have some interesting ways of cleaning this sort
of thing up, too.
As for the "will it create stuff we don't like in the future!" - it's no more or less likely to exhibit mutations than normal corn - and no more
likely to exhibit unfavorable mutations (to us) than normal corn (or any other biological organism, for that matter).
well i will give you credit for not presenting old out dated data this time around
None of the data I have presented in this thread is out-dated. At the oldest, I posted a source that was from, I believe, 2009 - and the data therein
has not been overturned.
are you really compairing selective natural breeding to selitivly inserting genes into plants
There is no functional difference.
i would be shocked if you tryed to blur the lines here as a tomato "breed" or grown in certain conditions
is completly different from gene splicing in a lab without knowing the "acual" effect of genes being added
The actual effect is pretty well known. That's why they put the gene in the plant to begin with. Tests are then run to ensure the function of the
gene and the presence/dynamics of its products (occasionally things will not work as planned and the protein will interact with another in the plant -
which generally negates the reason for putting it there in the first place).
selective breeding should not (or cannot be accidentally) confused with GMO
Perhaps you should elaborate upon this. In selective breeding, you observe favored expressions within the plants and select them for breeding -
particularly with other plants that also exhibit this characteristic. The only difference is that selective breeding must wait for mutations to occur
randomly in the population (and observe those mutations). Genetic modification is exempt from this requirement - though it is limited to our ability
to both manipulate and predict behavior. Genetic modification to produce tomatoes the size of basketballs is not nearly as simple as making plants
produce a series of proteins - but selective breeding could, over time, conceivably reach such a result (however silly it may seem).
this is not a study i have personally reviewed but can say from the litrature i have read in the same area that the potential has always been
there for transfer through the gut and the issiue was specifically addressed by the manufacturer prior to release so the posability has always been
The only study I've seen that mentions BT toxin in the blood comes from Canada, back in April. I cannot find any other source for the claim.
As for the potential - weren't you just saying it was asserted that it could not happen? Now you're saying the "possibility was always there and
i have read about the study and the amount of people with BT in blood drawn was surprisingly high
Out of a total sample size of less than 200 people.
so a forign toxin is only dangerous if you have a receptor for the toxins?
That's kind of how they work. If it doesn't attach to anything in your body, it just kind of floats around.
what does the liver and kidneys do with this toxin our bodies are not designed to handle?
They break it down. Like everything else. Our bodies are quite robust in their ability to handle chemical compounds. We are some of the most robust
animals in terms of liver and kidney function - the mass-equivalent consumption of caffeine the average tea drinker consumes will flat-out kill most
animals as their bodies cannot metabolize the substance nearly to the degree we can.
About the only things that our bodies really don't like to deal with are heavy and exotic metals that don't serve a biological process. A general
rule of thumb is that if it comes from a living critter and doesn't kill us damned near instantly, it's not going to hurt you in moderation. If it
is something you would use to prepare or eat food with (silver, aluminum, steel, various combustible gasses) - it's not a very good idea to eat it or
otherwise seek to introduce it into your body.
what are the safe levels for BT Toxin in the blood?
in the liver?
To be honest - I am not really sure, and I'm suffering from a bout of laziness and don't want to google it.
However - from a pragmatic standpoint - people have been ingesting similar amounts of BT toxin since the late 50s. It's been in use that long by
conventional and 'organic' farmers. GMO foods are not the start of BT toxin use. And no study has been able to show even a correlation between
health complications and BT toxin in the blood.
please read carefully and note the quote marks "that could be used"
No. It can't be used to sterilize the population, since you seem to not have a clue how the process works.
The antibodies are consumed when they neutralize a sperm. They're a one-shot johnny, not captain stud. Even if you were to inject the stuff
straight into your testicles - it would incapacitate only as many sperm as there were antibodies, and in a few days to a week, you'd have your spunk
back... all puns intended.
Since only a miniscule amount could ever find their way into this region of the body via oral consumption - sterilization is practically impossible.
You'd have to eat enough corn to die of some kind of vitamin toxicity before you could conceivably sterilize yourself with spermicidal cream corn.
It'd be cheaper and more effective to just go have your tubes tied.
why design a crop and then not use it?
I design lots of things I don't use - or, find later, are not going to be nearly as practical as I first thought.
The goal, here, was to explore the ability of using plants to produce a form of spermicide that could be used as a topical application. I trust
you've had "the talk" and know about spermicidal foams placed in the vaginal cavity? Corn was probably just used because it's almost like the
mouse of botanical genetic sequencing experiments.
is it fun to create crops with no comercial value?
It's called exploratory research. There is plenty of commercial value in the crop, itself. As I said - you can confine a lot of compounds to
certain regions of the plant. That's why the root of some plants is nice to use as flavoring for drinks but the leaves will have you puking your
guts out and suffering the runs for the better part of three days. There are plenty of crops where the majority of the plant is simply considered
garbage - maybe to be sold off to a fermentation facility for E-85 production. This sort of stuff opens up options.
why would a company create a crop like this? just for lulz?
Hell - it makes a lot more sense than glow-in-the-dark animals.
just like some peoples guts, there are more gut conditions than i care to list here that weeken the gut linning making our gut like the frog a
wet paper bag ready for toxins and anti bodies to enter
No, not really. We have a lot of acids, enzymes, and symbiotic bacteria that frogs do not have to protect themselves. If you've got a debilitating
condition - that's your responsibility.
except in the case of mexico doing the trials in an open and non bias way
who conducted the trials you refer to? monsanto?
Link your study. I can guarantee it was conducted by an activist group against genetic modification.
Studies done by hundreds, if not thousands of scientists and farmers - indicate that GMO crops do produce typically higher yields. Though that should
be taken with a dose of common sense. In America - the concern is mostly cost/effectiveness. GMO foods on the market now are largely
herbicide/pesticide-imbued, not "makes more corn than you can possibly haul off." The cost/effect is if the plant's natural properties reduce the
use of herbicide and pesticides on crops - reducing those costs to the farmer.
However, in places like India, we see GMO foods running circles around standard crop varieties in terms of yield. Farmers there have huge problems
with pests and a substantial lack of the ability (and funds) to apply the same type of pest-control methods we have here in the U.S.
While transgenic crops have been shown to reduce the use of certain chemical pesticides, they have not been known to substantially increase crop
yields in the countries where they have been grown. For example, the yield gains of insect-resistant cotton crops in the United States and China
average less than 10 percent. Bioengineered corn and soybeans have even less impressive gains, and in some cases, the yield effects are negative.
Why the difference in India? The answer seems to be that the region suffers from a significantly higher pressure of crop-destroying pests, and that
there has not been a widespread adoption of chemical pesticides in India to control crop damage. Transgenic crops would likely have greater potential
to increase yields in such regions, said the authors.
"The large scale applications of genetically modified crops in the United States or China are not truly representative of what would happen if the
crops were grown in the small farm sectors of poor countries in tropical and subtropical climates," said Qaim, who conducted the research while he
was a post-doctoral fellow at UC Berkeley's Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, which is within the College of Natural Resources. "The
results we see in India are much more representative of what would happen if transgenic crops were used in sub-Saharan Africa or Southeast Asia."
HT crops appear to allow for savings in herbicide costs. However cost differences between biotech-based and conventional weed control
programmes are not clear-cut and there are wide margins of fluctuations. While the total use of herbicides associated with HT crops (in particular
those including glyphosate like Round Up) has increased, the use and price of other herbicides have decreased. According to USDA, the net effect is a
decrease in herbicide use. The herbicide effect of HT crops deserves further assessment, both on farm-level and globally, based on the experience of
several years of cultivation.
According to an USDA case-study, insecticide applications are significantly lower for Bt Corn than for conventional varieties. Based on a survey
in Iowa (1999), Duffy confirms that applications are reduced but notices increased insecticide costs, hence the net effect is not clear-cut. In
addition, Duffy observed slightly higher (+ 17 €/ha) weed control and fertiliser costs for Bt fields. To prevent the emergence of resistance to Bt,
US Environmental Protection Agency requires setting up refuges, i.e. non-Bt corn zones next to Bt-fields. This requirement has an impact on the
management of Bt crops.
Comparing yields of GM and non-GM crops is not a straightforward exercise. Yields depend on a large number of factors, and the inserted trait of
GM crops is only one factor amongst others. It is worth recalling (OECD 1999) that first generation genetic modifications address production
conditions (pests, weeds), they do not increase the intrinsic yield capacity of the plant. Not surprisingly yield performance of GM crops against
their non-GM counterparts depends on growing conditions, in particular on the degree of infestation in insects or in weeds, hence on region of
production. Data about yields of GM crops are widely available, however, often specifications on factors which influence yields are missing, such as
temperature, weed control applied etc.
simple answer go watch food inc
go on i am going off memory here but i am sure i saw it on that doco
Let me ask you this: How do I know one type of feed is "genetically modified" and another isn't?
That said - still not finding any videos of the claim.
so you by this statement accept that this technology cant be called safe or tested to high standards because of the complexity of the systems
involved accross different speicies and by this one statement you are really saying its imposable to know exactly how this genetic modification is
No - I'm saying that you can't apply a double-standard. Animal and volunteer human studies are done on these types of foods for years before they
are released. That is the same standard applied to medication - which has the direct attempt to modify the chemical functions of our body.
By contrast - many of the foods we eat have never been tested or exposed to the same kind of scrutiny regarding future health effects - spare for
eggs, perhaps, which are good for you one year, until someone dies of a heart attack while eating one - then they are suicide food.
GMO foods, to a large degree, are some of the safest on the planet, in this respect. They have been tested to a degree that no other food has. When
you read about GMO foods - you generally find the word "experiment" in the context of attempts to discover health effects. In the health effects
overview of any other food, the word "study" is used. The difference is that one has controls, the others are based off of simply observing a group
Take the studies of salt, for instance. The studies only measure salt, often based on urinary excretions. High salt intake is associated with higher
risks for high blood pressure, stroke, etc.
Sounds good... but most people don't have a salt-lick in the middle of the room - so where does that salt come from? .... usually in french fries,
heavily seasoned meats, and other fatty/greasy meals. Someone who has such a diet is likely to have higher sodium intake.
The study is useless in determining cause/effect. Salt, alone, cannot be identified as the culprit. I like my spinach to be quite salty - does that
put me at a higher risk for stroke? Is it really the stroke, or is it the tenth serving of large fries from Mc Donald's that is doing it?
The study is useless.
It's the same sad story across multiple food studies. No attempt is made in the study to even attempt to include other dietary and lifestyle factors
that could affect the results. Even a qualitative survey about what people normally eat in most of these studies on salt intake would allow the data
to be figured - when you exclude people who claim to regularly eat fast food and high-fat diets... does salt still correlate strongly with high blood
So - can I pour the salt on my spinach or pot roast and just be concerned about what I'm salting ... or is it the salt, itself? A rather basic
question, and I'm greatly disappointed that the scientific community cannot seem to pull their collective heads out of their rectums and do some
actual experimentation on the issue.
But we've got to test to see if this new breed of corn is safe and run the same damned experiment a thousand times (even though people have been
eating the stuff for the better part of a decade and a half) while injecting every ounce of bias possible.
As I said - herding chickens.
acually it was a lead in for you to explain how complex the problem is
and prove the point that the interactions are so complex that there is no real way of knowing how this is effecting humans
I'll complement you for the effort and thought put into the attempt. Were I -merely- human in terms of thinking - I'd have my foot in my mouth.
However, I knew from the very moment how you'd respond to "it's a complex system" - and already knew my response.
Even if you are against pharmaceuticals and recommend herbal remedies under the completely illogical assumption that it's safer because it comes from
a green thing that grows out of the ground - you're introducing a foreign substance into the body with the direct intent of manipulating the body's
chemical function. To expect a degree of testing on GMO foods that exceeds that of pharmaceutical medication is simply ridiculous, and a
double-standard, as you'd not even be willing to subject herbal remedies to the same scrutiny (for existing ones - this would seem trivial - however,
it certainly has more relevance when considering the prospect of adding new plants and remedies to the list).
The "organic" crowd simply takes the stand that "it is a 'natural' thing, and therefor it's safer. Which is pure ignorance. 60% of all plants
are toxic. In fact, many plants that have been used through history in various herbal applications -are- toxic. Ingesting them would cause you
severe illness or death. And it's these very chemicals that kill you that are often the goal of herbal remedies. Now - at low enough dosages, yeah
- they are pretty nifty things to help get over a headache or what-have-you... but the plant as a whole is often considered rather dangerous.
how can we manipulate just 1 gene and not "accidentally" change the expression of other genes?
Because it doesn't work that way. This post is long enough - I'm not going to explain "RNA transcription 101" to you .
considering we cannot figaur out what some of the genes are for how can we know what we are changing "down stream" UNINTENDED changes to
unknown gene expresions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Holy crap, dude.... That is awesome. A "1" at the end of that string of exclamation points and everything. That just brought a good laugh to my
day, and it's just started.
Here's the deal, kiddo.
When you modify a gene on something, then you let it grow into an adult - you observe it, like you would any other organism. You compare it to the
original and see what's changed. The difference between GMO and non GMO foods is only the production of the intended proteins within the plant.
That's it. That's how we know the plants won't gain mind-control powers or turn green and bust out of their shucks.
yes and in twelve months someone gentically modifyes something that took thousands of years to develop
without knowing that they could create the cardiac onion you mention.
To do that, they would have to insert the genes necessary to produce digitoxin - which is downright impossible to do as an error.
It would be rather obvious when you grow the onion and run a rather basic toxicology report on it and find that it's chock full of digitoxin. If you
somehow missed that - animal testing would indicate there is some sort of unintended lethality going on. If that didn't concern you, the dead
volunteers for the human trials would probably raise some concern. And, if that still went ignored for whatever insane reason, farmers would probably
refuse to grow the stuff because no store would buy it... because all of the customers who bought it had to be hospitalized or died - and now there's
a class-action of epic proportions out to rape some faces.
humans have not had the thousand years or so to develop tolerence to BT Toxin
therefore it is "unrecognised" by the body, this means it is treated as a toxin and enters the liver and possably the kidneys, whenever you increase
the work load of the liver you will have problems
not to start on the people who have liver and kidney problems
.... That doesn't make any sense at all.
The fact that it is -not- recognized by our body is one of the main reasons it is -not- toxic to us. It is also a protein comprised of amino acids.
The process for metabolizing proteins is quite a bit different from the process of metabolizing non-proteins. Proteins are broken apart by enzymes
into their amino acid bases - which are then used to construct new proteins the body can use. The effect on the liver is null as this process is
continually ongoing in the body.
The liver is really only adversely affected by non-protein compounds like alcohol and some medications (which is why many over-the-counter medications
recommend you consult a doctor before using the product longer than a certain period of time - not only is it because you may be experiencing a
symptom of a more severe medical issue - but it's also because some of those medications are pretty hard on the liver and not intended to be consumed
on a regular basis).
i wont challenge you on your expertise as that would be rude
but the information is older than twelve months
and i disagree with some of it for reasons that are out of scope with this thread
Most college text books are based on data older than 36 months. Applied science doesn't really change - chemistry has been much the same for the
past thirty or forty years. The only things that have changed are some of the different representations used that are more descriptive in various
forms of chemistry (organic chemistry tends to be quite a bit more crazy than metallurgy or industrial chemistry).
You also can't just throw data out because you don't like it.
WOULD YOU WILLINGLY EAT CORN DESIGNED TO SETRALIZE ? clue answer is yes or no and THEN why
Since I'm not a big fan of condoms (I see it as akin to listening to your favorite band on your cell-phone speakers - a horribly degraded
experience), and recognize that I do not yet have the means of supporting a child/family - I can't say I would be particularly concerned.
Whenever I do get a wife and we do decide it's time to 'try to have kids' - I will probably take some vacation time (since, by that time, I'll
likely be working around RF radiation - which have an anecdotal bad habit of killing off the swimmers - particularly the Y chromosome carriers, for
some reason or another) and be sure to bolster my diet accordingly. At which point - I'd be avoiding most of the stuff linked with poor
May sound a bit silly - but if it's worth doing, it's worth putting engineering effort into, in my opinion.