DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Are Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them

reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch


GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies

www.dailymail.co.uk...

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

Perhaps there is a problem worth looking into.

10 years ago the science as I understood it, used bacteria's natural function of inserting genes into organism, (which they do in order to create proteins that they feed on) as the vehicle to insert novel genes into organisms. Vastly this was to make the plants immune to the toxins found in the pregnant women above.

Has the science changed? - are you sure you have nothing that you want to own up to? Can't see ant problems with any of this?

reply to post by Peter Brake


if you look at the gov link someone points out that the testing they did was using tools that only work on plants not animals.
even so the issue is not GMO but pesticides, as with every case people can name. not one person has shown a single shred of evidence that GMO is dangerous to us, only that our method of farming can be.

Thain Esh Kelch
One of the arguments used by GMO scientists is - their is no risk the DNA is destroyed by the digestive system. What a surprise that they were wrong, I was reporting this eight years ago.

It is being destroyed by the digestive system! DNA uptake into the blood is fragments only, and by no means anything that can be translated. And that would even require genomic insertion, which is also not possible.

Given whole gene sequences have been found in cattle blood, bacteria are present having been used to insert the novel gene (they do this naturally) it is not only possible it happens all the time.

It has been shown that the novel gene in a GMO is more likely to be taken up by another organism

That is not true.

The novel gene has been loaded with an insertion package designed to do exactly this - what are you saying?

it has been shown that GMO's have multiple unintended insertions of the novel gene into the organisms genome.

That is also not true.

Commercial transgenic crop varieties can also contain superfluous copies of the transgene, including those that are incomplete or rearranged (Wilson et al 2006). These could be important additional sources of Gene VI protein. The decision of regulators to allow such multiple and complex insertion events was always highly questionable, but the realization that the CaMV 35S promoter contains Gene VI sequences provides yet another reason to believe that complex insertion events increase the likelihood of a biosafety problem.

It is true

The method of gene insertion uses viral materials and bacteria which also raises questions on whether these genes can be taken up by the human genome.

Again, they are not genes but fragments. And we do use bacterial or viral proteins for genomic integration in genetic research - That does not mean it happen in vivo with random stuff. Genomic engineering is a highly complicated process, that doesn't happen by randomly all the time.

Whole gene sequences have been found in cattle blood, what exactly are you saying here?

demongoat
reply to post by Peter Brake

 

if you look at the gov link someone points out that the testing they did was using tools that only work on plants not animals.
even so the issue is not GMO but pesticides, as with every case people can name. not one person has shown a single shred of evidence that GMO is dangerous to us, only that our method of farming can be.

Scientists from the University of Sherbrooke, Canada, have detected the insecticidal protein, Cry1Ab, circulating in the blood of pregnant as well as non-pregnant women.
They have also detected the toxin in fetal blood, implying it could pass on to the next generation. The research paper has been peer-reviewedand accepted for publication in the journal Reproductive Toxicology. The study covered 30 pregnant women and 39 women who had come for tubectomy at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke (CHUS) in Quebec.

Peter Brake
The research paper has been peer-reviewedand accepted for publication in the journal Reproductive Toxicology.

That alone doesn't really mean anything. Can you post the title of the paper so we can see what the feedback from the scientific community says?