"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition David Kendra wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 19
Jul
2003 04:05:43 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:


And if you don't want to catch an illness, keep away from the
source,if
you know what it is.

How far away is labelling of GM ingredientsin corn chips, herrings
in
tomato sauce, chocolate &c &c?

Logically, as far away as labelling that a random mutation
happened
in
the corn field.

No because the sorts of mutations which nature has learnt to allow
to
multiply are ones beneficial to itself. The `junk' genes which can
later
help the plant relate to stress are tested over the thousands of
years.
Nature has learnt to keep a strict order in the genome. The GM
process
defeats that. Many people are saying that drug resistance markers
should
have ceased being used, or never started.

With all the random mutations we caused by intentional radiation and
chemical mutigens that I can still buy across the counter that are in
virtually every variety of every crop out there you worry about one
or
two
genes that were carefully studied and then checked buy the breeders,
USDA
and in some cases the EPA.

The genes were not checked.

What genes were not checked? Genes used to make GE plants such as
Roundup
Ready soybeans and Bt corn? If you answer yes to that, then you are
indeed
wrong. There was considerable study and gene mapping of these
introduced
genes.

Yes.

Now engineers in any field, mechanical or electrical or anything, know
that what theory says is not always what works. There is a lot of trial
and error and practical theories are continually improved.

How about providing some concrete examples with GE foods to prove your
point.

Moving the parts on a computer motherboard might stop it from being so
fast, or make it unstable. Just electric network theory may be severely
lacking.

When you introduce a gene you also introduce a promoter

not necessarily. some people "fish" for promoters by introducing a
selectable marker and looking for gene product.

and the process is
a bit hit and miss. It has been found that the characterization of Rounup
Ready soy was rather inexact.

How about the current versions of RR soybeans?

The promoter, when strong, may not just
switch on the gene next to it, but also ones further along.

Only if they are co-regulated. Please provide examples where this is the
case with GE products. Thanks.

And it may not
do that until certain conditions of stress come up. Heat, drought, cold,
other herbicides or pesticides which are later found necessary. The
theories are not good enough to predict it all.

Such blanket statements apply for all genes. We know that heat shock genes
down regulates a wide variety of genes in plant and animal species so you
your point is what?

Dave



Dave

What was checked was the substance the genes
were *intended* to make the plant produce. What was not able to be
dealt
with was the strong promoters needed to make the genes switch on and do
their work. Those promoters are going radomly into the genome and are
near
other genes as well, causing them to possibly switch on, too, with who
knows what effects.

In the past and it is sill the practice for crops treated with
mutigens
there is no testing or oversight on a process that you have no idea
what
you
have changed you just take what looks good and breed it back dragging
along
who knows what kind of hidden mutation along with it.

But you are leaving it to the plant to do the organisation after it is
damaged. You are not specifically implanting genes to outwit the
natural
scheme of adjustment.