"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger wrote:

"ddwyer" wrote in message
...
In article , Moosh:]
writes

Thanks Gordon, good point.
Not thet there's much more we can do about it than what we are doing.
If you want to convert a sheep or a bacteria to produce a bioactive
material such as a protein as a theraputic agent the way foreward is
not
to breed or mutate but GM a species. I.e. create a self replicating
factory. GM food has the potential to generate unwanted materials that
mutation and breeding cannot.
Unwanted material in foodstuffs will be the rare hazard that we wont
recognise until too late. Sadly whole populations will consume; not
just
the ill for whom the risk would ba acceptable.

Due to testing in GM food stuffs we are much less likely to get
unintended
hazards in food stuffs than we are in in normally bred food stuffs.

To my knowledge they only test people with protein that they expect the GM
plant to make. The actual plant could have the engineered promoters
switching on other genes, causing troubles you would not be looking for.

Can you please give a real example where a promoter that controls a specific
gene switches to turn on other genes? Thanks.

Dave


When the tryptophan from GE sources killed some people it might not have
been discovered if the symptoms were similar to some other lethal
but fairly common disease.

I can
list several cases of food stuffs that case harm bred with conventional
methods an you can't list a single one with GM methods.

They get withdrawn if they cause trouble that is plain obvious.

If you are going to use arguments use ones that you don't loose at the
onset
with proven facts.

He means the promoters switching on unexpected gene expression in some
conditions.