On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:17:07 -0700, Walter Epp
posted:
"Moosh:]" wrote:
On 29 Jul 2003 23:31:37 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:
Moosh:] wrote:
On 22 Jul 2003 12:45:08 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:
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.
And do they look for unintended effects from mutations and cross
pollinating?
Possibly not as thoroughly as they ought. But those are not being applied
to such a wide sector of people as RR & Bt stuff, which goes to nearly
everyone in North America.
Mutations and cross pollinations go on constantly every minute in
every corn field in the world.
So? Natural populations have millions of generations of experience doing
this and figured out how to maintain their genetic integrity and minimize
unpleasant surprises long before human beings came into existence.
Genetic engineering has only a couple handfuls of years of experience.
But it is all much the same thing. Every combination and permutation
has been tried repeatedly over the aeons. Those that are beneficial
survive, those that aren't, go extinct or vestigial..
Many of us do not accept the proposition that a few = millions.
A few multiplied by millions is millions.
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.
But that tryptophan affair was nothing to do with GE.
Not true. The genetically engineered strains resulted in production of
toxins not produced by non-GE strains, and the filtering levels in effect
when the epidemic occurred had previously been in effect with non-GE
strains without evidence of illness resulting.
See http://www.psrast.org/jftrypt.htm for details.
Quote:
"It was later shown that the tryptophan produced in genetically
engineered bacteria contained one or more highly toxic contaminants."
So the contaminants weren't discovered. A quality control matter, not
a unforseen difference between GE tryptophan and non-GE tryptophan.
Linkname: The Thalidomide of Genetic Engineering
URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/tryptophan.php
size: 199 lines
Linkname: Speech by Jeanette Fitzsimons in Urgent debate on GE
decision - 30OCT2001
URL: http://www.ecoglobe.org.nz/ge-news/rcgm1o30.htm
size: 258 lines
The Royal Commission has been lauded by some as balanced, thorough,
informed, and many other plaudits. This was the same Royal Commission
which told the representative of oneorganisation, before they had even
made their presentation, that the Commission had already made their
decision and it would be the Great NZ compromise.
The same organisation, after handing in their written submission much
earlier, found there was an error and asked to correct it. They were
told it didn't matter as "no-one was going to read it anyway".
In fact the Commission disregarded a great deal of evidence which did
not support its conclusions and made numerous errors of fact - for
example in its reporting and assessment of evidence about the
poisoning of thousands by GE tryptophan
Sounds like grasping at straws -- after their key witness a few years
ago was charged with falsifying evidence?
They were not charged with falsifying evidence. The debate was not
about the evidence but the conclusions to be drawn from it.
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.
Where's this list?
You don't know about any conventional foods that are toxic? Try
solanine for a start.
They get withdrawn if they cause trouble that is plain obvious.
Unfortunately that's not true. Only the ones that are immediately obvious
get withdrawn. If 40% of people who ate gmos were going to sustain
gmo-caused heart damage that killed them 25 years later, we may not
know it until millions had been condemned to die.
So why has this never happened before?
Just like foods from plant mutations and cross-pollinating, only these
are more likely
What evidence is there on the relative incidences?
Incidences of what?
Who is doing studies comparing recent health changes in countries with GM
food compared to countries with non-GM? Who is ready for what may show up
in the next generation?
Health is always being monitored by hundreds of thousands of health
professionals.
So you agree with me that we must have labelling of GMOs?
For tracing purposes by manufacturers and regulators, yes.
Without labeling it's difficult to impossible for the public or those
professionals to make any connection between health damage and
genetic engineering. Without labeling the public is being treated as
guinea pigs in a giant uncontrolled experiment,
So put a code on it that can be traced.
For all we know, there could have already been a million illnesses
and 10,000 deaths caused by GE and we wouldn't know it.
Can you cite any example of this? Unknown cause of massive numbers of
illnesses and deaths?
In the US,
year-to-year fluctuations in the number of deaths commonly exceed 10,000.
Do they? From what causes? You are not blaming car accidents, are you?
Have you got ANY evidence of any problems?
Here's a start:
http://www.purefood.org/ge/btcomments.cfm
"Possible Human Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Bt Crops"
^^^^^^^^^
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/exhibit%20r.htm
Milk from cows given rBGH is no different from milk from cows given
any other BGH. Whether we should treat cows at all ia the point here.
Not a GE matter.
http://www.psrast.org/bghsalmonella.htm
Propaganda site about rBGH milk again.
http://www.preventcancer.com/press/july8,98.htm
More propaganda about "Monsanto milk"
http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/cancer091302.cfm
More milk and hormone treatment of cows.
http://www.factoryfarm.org/docs/rBGH-Hudson.doc
http://www.psrast.org/pusztai.htm
http://www.egroups.com/message/corp-ethics/1104
http://www.biotech-info.net/beneficials2.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/070903_ge.cfm
http://www.bwf.org/gedebate.html#5
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/frankenfish.cfm
http://www.psrast.org/superwee.htm
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Superweed-Canola-Canada.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/pate...nger090401.cfm
http://www.psrast.org/soilfertfact.htm
http://www.idiom.com/~for7gen/i/gecatast.htm and links therein, especially
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/meltdown.php
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/unstable.php
http://www.vshiva.net/aticles/gmo_failure.htm
http://www.psrast.org/prhortra.htm
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/camvrecdis.php
http://www.i-sis.org/CaMV.shtml
http://www.i-sis.org/camv-mehd.shtml
http://www.i-sis.org/terminsects-pr.shtml
http://www.vshiva.net/aticles/risks_...nd_science.htm
http://www.psrast.org/jftrypt.htm
I've looked at the first five and not found any evidence of damage
from GE. Have you actually got any? I really don't want to blow my
download allocation on more empty URLs
