It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops

page: 2
41
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysterX
Thanks OP.


Here's a lengthy article on caMV and the Gene VI...and yes, while this virus is indeed present naturally in many plants including food crops, when it is artificially inserted into a plant that itself has already been genetically tampered with...unpredictable results can ensue.

Here's the article...skim if you like, but not too fast would be my advice.



The major problem with the argument against GMO is the lack of irrefutable evidence. I don't like genetically engineered anything myself, but if we are going to bring down a giant like monsanto we need meticulously researched hard proof that has evidence that is repeatable in a lab.

It's a tall order I know but until such time all the speculation people do is not going to be taken seriously at all.




posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Sorry, I should have been more clear. I more or less was just stoking the fire to debate the possible conflict of interest.

While there is no denying the positives to these advancements, they often come delivered as sugar coated candy with a rotten black core. Most advocates of GMO and their safety are usually of the corporate type camouflaged as humanitarians. The so called "pioneers" act as if there is no other way. They like to invest into technologies owned by people they are all ready sleeping in the same bed with.


The learning from the pharmaceutical industry is to work out how to share one’s product at the early stage with people who aren’t able to pay you for it. Three years ago, we started to work with a team at the University of Nebraska on this. The need for drought–tolerant crops is most acute in sub–Saharan Africa, where the climate is hot and the shortage of water is acute. We donated the technology to an NGO on the ground in Africa that comes out of USAID, that will guide villagers on its use. Both the Gates Foundation and Warren Buffett’s son, Howard Buffett, who’s a farmer just across the river here, who kicked in $47 million, have helped. A product that will move the needle will be launched, probably in three years, in Africa.

Link

Sounds good right? But you have been around here long enough to know how the strings are pulled. Follow the money. They want to drive the bus, not ride the bus. Any billion dollar industy remains just that...an industry.

Good on Brazil though...

[RIO DE JANEIRO] All human and animal food sold in Brazil that contains more than one per cent genetically modified (GM) ingredients must now be labelled under a law that came into force this month.

The law states that the packaging of GM products should be labelled with a 'T' — for 'transgenic' — no smaller than about 1 centimetre squared. It also imposes fines of between US$65 and US$1 million on producers that flout the new regulations.

Three organisations will be responsible for enforcing the law: the Ministry of Agriculture and the National Health Surveillance Agency will take care of agricultural and industry matters, respectively;

PROCONs, the state consumer-protection organisation will control commerce of GM products.

But again there is always a catch,


Paradoxically, however, the new law does not require products containing the 2003 GM soya be labelled. Rather, the law states that the labels of such products should include the information: "this may contain ingredients produced by GM soya" or "this may contain GM soya".

Any idea why?

I am willing to let them have their genetically modified cake and eat it too. Just make sure my piece is labeled Non-GMO. Let ME choose. I know you can agree with that.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by markosity1973
The major problem with the argument against GMO is the lack of irrefutable evidence. I don't like genetically engineered anything myself, but if we are going to bring down a giant like monsanto we need meticulously researched hard proof that has evidence that is repeatable in a lab.


There is plenty of that to be found if your looking. Plenty of peir reviewed studies.

www.i-sis.org.uk...


"In 2000, some six years after the first GM crop was commercialised, we drew attention to new and old findings that have been overlooked on the hazards of the CaMV 35S promoter; including its relationship to hepatitis B virus (HPV) and human immune deficiency virus (HIV)"


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


"Retroviral Gag polyproteins are cleaved by the viral protease into the matrix, capsid, and nucleocapsid proteins, which rearrange and assemble during maturation to form infectious particles (35). The zinc finger domains in the nucleocapsid of retroviruses are critical for viral replication and participate directly in genome recognition and encapsidation (1, 6, 12, 20, 34, 45). One of the best-studied examples is human immunodeficiency virus 1 (HIV-1) (18), for which the three-dimensional structure of the nucleocapsid bound to RNA stem-loop 3 of the HIV-1 leader has been determined (11).


www.sciencemag.org...

www.sciencedirect.com...

journals.lww.com...


What you wont find, however is someone who took Monsanto's GMO seed,
and did a test on that then published the evidence. Why?
Monsanto will not allow any study published that they do not approve of.

Fortunately, some scientists will risk careers to expose dangerous GE organisms, foods and crops.


Árpád Pusztai and Ignacio Chapela have two things in common. They are distinguished
scientists and their careers are in ruins. Both scientists choose to look at the phenomenon of
genetic engineering. Both made important discoveries. Both of them are suffering the fate of
those who criticise the powerful vested interests that now dominate big business and
scientific research.


Scientists under Attack - Genetic Engineering In The Magnetic Field of Money


www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
The argument "plant viruses don't infect people" doesn't necessarily translate into it's okay to eat diseased plants.

There is a chance that plant viruses can make people sick.

Popsci: Evidence of First Virus that Infects Both Plants and Humanss - Dr. Didier Raoult thinks the mild mottle virus found in peppers is bringing people bad symptoms.

New Scientist: People Pick Up Pepper Virus - second link, same plant in question, saying how the RNA gets messed with in the process

Here is another point about viruses in plants: other plant can catch them and get sick! So farmer Gene Modifier plants his viral plant in his field, and then farmer Organic's field next door gets sick. That's the living part of plants, that they are alive and can share disease. The GMO has a virus, it's competitive to other plant groups.

So you eat the diseased plants, it goes through your digestive system, and maybe the virus you ate influences the bacteria in your gut, because we are full of bacteria that helps us live. Then you go dump your dung and the virus stays in the sewer and that can carry disease to other plants along whatever system there is still.

If you had a virus in a cow, and that virus was making the other cows sick, naturally the cattle rancher group would say to destroy the cow. Same idea with plants. The idea is to breed healthy plants not just tolerate the diseased ones because it doesn't hurt the humans. You have to consider the entire food chain.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sandalphon
The argument "plant viruses don't infect people" doesn't necessarily translate into it's okay to eat diseased plants.

There is a chance that plant viruses can make people sick.


But in this case, there's not even an actual virus - there's a partial copy of a plant virus that's in the plant's DNA in a dormant state.

And it's not the whole viral payload, either. It's the promoter region. The hoo ha is over whether the promoter sequence snippet also contains the next gene in the strand, the one that codes for P6. If the plant produces protein P6 segments, it could be an allergen. And that's what the poop is about. Not that the virus will be reinstantiated from a dormant state and learn to infect humans, but that the CMV promoter region will also produce parts of this protein because it's sort of wedged onto the tail end of the promoter sequence.
edit on 27-6-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Yes, and then what else might that protein do....




scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely....

...proteins produced by engineered plants are different than what they should be. Inserting a gene in a genome using this technology can and does result in damaged proteins. The scientific literature is full of studies showing that engineered corn and soya contain toxic or allergenic proteins.

Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene - one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong.


www.fooddemocracynow.org...



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


That's the whole question, though - there really isn't a 'live' virus in there, and there's only a very tiny fragment of a copy of viral DNA.

It boils down to "what harm, if any, do partial P6 proteins do". Not "OMG, virus"

Consider, though, if you cook food, you're going to get deformed, partial, screwed up proteins as well. That's what happens when you heat protein. Or mix it with mild acids like vinegar etc.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by burntheships
 


That's the whole question, though - there really isn't a 'live' virus in there, and there's only a very tiny fragment of a copy of viral DNA.

I


Yes, which reminds me of the ever effective "vaccines", which is similar to the way
that they GE food.


While Bt toxin does appear naturally in the environment, it does not normally occur in conjunction with soil, insects and plant surfaces
www.nationofchange.org...

Even during digestion, some of the mRNA survives, if it is GE then its in our digestive tract as
a GE organism.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheshipsEven during digestion, some of the mRNA survives, if it is GE then its in our digestive tract as a GE organism.

And if it's porcine, bovine, solanaceae, lactuca, daucus, cucumis or whatever else, it's in your digestive tract.

Does that mean you'll turn into a pig like cow with tomato, lettuce, carrot and cucumber like traits?



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dianec
Nice to read an aricle that fat out tells it like it is. Someone said in a post about GMO's that people voted to not have food labeled so its their own fault. Since then I've asked at least a dozen people when this voting took place and no one I've spoken to knew of any such choice. I would like to know what was missed on that one because I always vote.

I am under the impression that nearly everything with wheat or corn is now GMO (unless it clearly says "no GMO"). The manager at my local health food store substantiated this for me, and it seems to be a common belief from people I've talked to. If had more time right now would so some research.



We did vote on a labeling law here in California last year. It went down to narrow defeat as pro-GMO out-spent the anti-GMO by about 20 to one and was very disingenuious in their advertising.

Wheat, Corn, don't forget SOY and SUGAR BEETS. I'm not sure if beet sugar is used in ordinary white sugar or just sugar cane but I don't trust it.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 





Why should you be concerned that cows eating GMO foods died and/or got contaminated with a mysterious disease? Because, if you eat meat or chicken that is contaminated as a result of a GMO with re-engineered DNA that is contaminated with a pathogen, then the DNA genes contaminate your cells and are also harmful to you. These DNA genes can be INSERTED into your own genes. source



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Yes, which reminds me of the ever effective "vaccines", which is similar to the way
that they GE food.


While vaccines are a different discussion, I can show you before and after antibody titers that prove that vaccines work. And it's not really similar in any way that's clear to me.





Even during digestion, some of the mRNA survives, if it is GE then its in our digestive tract as
a GE organism.


Fragments of messenger RNA are not an organism. Consider that every food you eat has mRNA residue in it. Except maybe Twinkies, they're more like edible industrial waste.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships


Why should you be concerned that cows eating GMO foods died and/or got contaminated with a mysterious disease? Because, if you eat meat or chicken that is contaminated as a result of a GMO with re-engineered DNA that is contaminated with a pathogen, then the DNA genes contaminate your cells and are also harmful to you. These DNA genes can be INSERTED into your own genes. source



Well, your source is a vegan restaurant. But ignoring that, "DNA genes" (are there other types?) are present in ANY food you eat. If you're willy-nilly incorporating food DNA into your genome, you are going to turn into broccoli or whatnot.

It doesn't make much sense on face value once you look at it, does it? It's sort of like saying mRNA is an organism. These things are present in any food. If you randomly incorporated them, you would die a swift and horrifying death. Eukaryotic cells do not do this, in general, unless you have a viral vector carrying them in, and even then it has to be a retrovirus.

Prokaryotes do pick up DNA fragments in their environment, they parse them and will occasionally incorporate the DNA into their own strand. They're really picky about what. But not eukaryotes.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Studies prove that MRNA surives the digestion.
It is not entirely destroyed...thereby it does alter our digestive system,
and our organs too!



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Studies prove that MRNA surives the digestion.
It is not entirely destroyed...thereby it does alter our digestive system,
and our organs too!


mRNA doesn't alter anything, even if your cells take it in. It's a template for making a protein. It's not an organism. However, your cells won't process exogenous mRNA fragments.

However, again, ANYTHING you eat will have mRNA residue. Broccoli to bean sprouts. Organic or not. GMO or not. Anything at all.

So obviously, you must be designed to deal with it and it's a non-issue.
edit on 28-6-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

However, again, ANYTHING you eat will have mRNA residue. Broccoli to bean sprouts. Organic or not. GMO or not. Anything at all.


Of course, and those things that were created in a lab, with CRY toxins engineered in,
were never meant to end up in our digestive system.


So obviously, you must be designed to deal with it and it's a non-issue.


Designed? Designed by whom?



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Designed? Designed by whom?


By what. Evolution. If eating mRNA or DNA in your food was toxic, life would have ended long long long ago.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
If eating mRNA or DNA in your food was toxic, life would have ended long long long ago.


Ah, but there is a difference between
a soybean gentecically engineered as opposed to not.

And what is time timline of Genetically Engineered food in the 20th Century?
Was it done before in other civilizations?



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
Ah, but there is a difference between
a soybean gentecically engineered as opposed to not.


Not in terms of mRNA. And if you don't utilize exogenous mRNA nor DNA, then you won't use genetically engineered versions of it either. If you read non-woo articles on the subject, you'll see that they're more worried about oddball proteins, not something from Spawn.



And what is time timline of Genetically Engineered food in the 20th Century?
Was it done before in other civilizations?


See dogs? Used to be wolves. See wheat? Used to be lawn grass. They were 'genetically engineered' by deliberate crossbreeding for traits.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
If you read non-woo articles on the subject, you'll see that they're more worried about oddball proteins, not something from Spawn.


They are concerned about all of the toxins, protiens, prions, etc.



See wheat? Used to be lawn grass.
Nope.




They were 'genetically engineered' by deliberate crossbreeding for traits.

Not the same as inserting fish genes into a tomato.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join