In article ,
Frank wrote:

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. ...

How many lab rats have the mushrooms killed?
Tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, eggplant are members of the "nightshade"
family. These all contain solanine a toxin. Going to quit eating them
soon?
-----

The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals
by Michael Pollan
http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dile...als/dp/0143038
583/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815576&sr=1-1
(Available at better libraries near you)

BIG ORGANIC * 180

The reason plants produce these compounds (polyphenols) in the first
place is to defend themselves against pests and diseases; the more
pressure from pathogens, the more polyphenols a plant will produce.
These compounds, then, are the products of natural selection and, more
specifically, the coevolutionary relationship between plants and the
species that prey on them. Who would have guessed that
**humans evolved to profit from a diet of these plant pesticides?**
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw