GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

Frank · 20-02-2011, 11:26 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible,rec.gardens

On 2/20/2011 2:51 PM, wrote:
writes:

On 2/20/2011 1:09 PM, wrote:
Gary writes:

wrote:

As far as labeling GMO foods, I'm not concerned at all.
Selected crops aren't labeled as such

There's a rather fundamental difference between selective breeding and
inserting genes from a different species. Corn that makes BT toxin in its
pollen, for instance. Not at all the same as Radiator Johnny crossing
tomato lines to get a bigger and tastier fruit to pay off his mortgage.

As I said, foods with unique components, especially components that
might cause a reaction should be labeled that way.

The wikipedia page on transgenic corn is "interesting".
After reading that, I don't think the issue of labeling is relevant.

Corn producing BT toxins doesn't sound safe at all.
I can't see any justification for allowing that trait into crops.

Actually, first line of defense for plants is chemical warfare.
Think about it.

That's true but see my comment about poison ivy and kudzu.

The combination would be beneficial to the plant.
Humans would have another reason not to go near the plant
but it wouldn't be a good thing.

The Wikipedia article raises a number of disturbing things
about corn bred to kill insects. Probably most ironic is
that if this is used widely, we'll almost certainly get
insects that are immune.

It was years ago, I heard a lecture by Bruce Ames about this - way
before genetic modification. He had a couple of examples about plants
bred to resist disease but were toxic to people.

Clipped this recent quote.

Some critics] say, "If [BT corn, for example, is] toxic to that insect,
it must be toxic to us."
But that's an over-simplification. Dr. Bruce Ames at the University of
California, for the last 20 years,
has been analyzing all kinds of foods, thousands of different samples.
He finds that in the foods that
we've been eating from the beginning of agriculture, there are many
toxic substances, but they're present in very small quantity.
A good example to illustrate is the case of the common mushroom that
most of us like to have with our steak or gravy.
There are two [toxins] present in minute quantity. But if you isolate
those, like Dr. Ames has,
increase the dosage and incorporate it in the feed of rats, it's a
beautiful carcinogen.
Why don't we get [cancer from eating these mushrooms]? Simple reason is
that we don't eat kilos each day of mushrooms.
So dosage really makes the toxin or carcinogen. There's no zero risk in
the biological world. ...