"Steve Peek" writes:

"Big Country" wrote in message
...
On Feb 20, 1:11 am, Billy wrote:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Still not sure what a GMO is but thank you for the information

GMO= genetically modified organism

Just continue the point I was trying to make,
when plant breeders select one plant because it has a desirable
trait, for example, it grows faster, what they are really doing
is genetically modifying the plant. The offspring will contain
the desirable gene.

This has been going on for thousands of years with plants and
animals.

GMO speeds up the process because scientists use recombinant DNA
technology which actually extracts genes from one species and
inserts those genes into another species.

So "normal" breeding relies on randomly occurring change and
GMO speeds up the process by picking specific changes.

The way the public reacts to this is that they see a Frankenstein
in the making. Fortunately, scientists recognize the danger
and take steps to minimize the problem. The same danger is present
with "normal" breeding. It's just a matter of degree.

In article , wrote:

"Steve Peek" writes:

"Big Country" wrote in message
...
On Feb 20, 1:11 am, Billy wrote:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Still not sure what a GMO is but thank you for the information

GMO= genetically modified organism

Just continue the point I was trying to make,
when plant breeders select one plant because it has a desirable
trait, for example, it grows faster, what they are really doing
is genetically modifying the plant. The offspring will contain
the desirable gene.

This has been going on for thousands of years with plants and
animals.

GMO speeds up the process because scientists use recombinant DNA
technology which actually extracts genes from one species and
inserts those genes into another species.

So "normal" breeding relies on randomly occurring change and
GMO speeds up the process by picking specific changes.

The way the public reacts to this is that they see a Frankenstein
in the making. Fortunately, scientists recognize the danger
and take steps to minimize the problem. The same danger is present
with "normal" breeding. It's just a matter of degree.

The problems with GMOs are multiple.

There is no relationship to normal breeding. No matter how many
times that lie is told, it won't make it the truth.

Breeding for size is simply preferentially cultivating the larger
organism. On the other hand, giving people composite eyes
from a fly, or giving tomatoes protein from fish is beyond normal.

Despen has not responded to the first four points below.

1) An antibiotic is attached to the genes that are to be inserted. This
allows for identification of GMO cells in a petrie dish. It also
allows bacteria to develop a resistance to that antibiotic, making
it worthless in the treatment of a bacterial disease.

2) The cauliflower mosaic virus is attached to the genes that are to be
inserted. The cauliflower mosaic virus is the activator that turns
on the inserted gene. More than 98% of the human genome does not
encode protein sequences (junk DNA). Some of these genes are for
suppressed evolutionary traits such as gills, some could be dormant
diseases. These genes are also susceptible to being activated by the
cauliflower mosaic virus.

3) The spliceosome (a complex of specialized RNA and protein subunits)
from the host cell may not recognize a protein from the injected
genes and attach it to other proteins, thereby creating an unique
proteins which may be allergens.

This appears to be the case with GMO potatoes created by Arpad
Pusztai at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. He
was tying to modify the lecithin in the potatoes, which he did, but
the potatoes gave lab rats lesions in their digestive systems,
which lead to death (which, IIRC, had nothing to do with the
lecithin).

[In 1995 the Arpad Puzstai began research on genetically modified
potatoes containing the GNA lectin gene from the snowdrop plant.[2] His
group fed rats on raw and cooked genetically modified potatoes, using
Desiree Red potatoes as controls. In 1998 Arpad Puzstai said in an
interview on a World in Action programme that his group had observed
damage to the intestines and immune systems of rats fed the genetically
modified potatoes. He also said

"If I had the choice I would certainly not eat it",

and that "I find it's very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea
pigs".[4]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Pusztai

4) GMO Bt corn (StarLink) kills monarch butterflies. Round Up Ready
crops allow more glyphosate to be used to suppress weeds, but it
also severely damages the soil biota, triggers over 40 plant
diseases, and endangers human and animal health.

5) GMOs don't produce larger crops.

6) Then there is the matter of a recent recent CBS/NYT poll that found 87
percent of consumers want GMOs them labeled so that they can make
an informed choice about what they eat. Arpad Pusztai, a
recombinant geneticist agrees with them (see #3 above).

Other than that, there isn't anything wrong with "Genetically Modified
Organisms" (GMOs) that we know of, yet.
--
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

wrote:

Just continue the point I was trying to make,
when plant breeders select one plant because it has a desirable
trait, for example, it grows faster, what they are really doing
is genetically modifying the plant. The offspring will contain
the desirable gene.

This has been going on for thousands of years with plants and
animals.

In the selective breeding case the genetic diversity slowly goes down.
Eventually the population is suseptible to attack because it lacks
diversity. Problems of recessive genes previously not expressed often
enough to detect start becoming more common.

That down side is why new blood is mixed into crops and herds every so
often. With careful study a new trait can be added by breeding in a
distant cousin that has the gene then culling for most of the previous
state plus that one new traits.

GMO speeds up the process because scientists use recombinant DNA
technology which actually extracts genes from one species and
inserts those genes into another species.

But in this case the new blood is not a different strain of the same
species or at least genus but many orders removed.

So "normal" breeding relies on randomly occurring change and
GMO speeds up the process by picking specific changes.

The depends on if you count added new blood as normal and if you count a
beefalo as an expected product.

The way the public reacts to this is that they see a Frankenstein
in the making. Fortunately, scientists recognize the danger
and take steps to minimize the problem. The same danger is present
with "normal" breeding. It's just a matter of degree.

Much of the scare about GMO organisms is irrational. It does have a
part that is rational that gives power to the irrational part. In that
it is much like the anti-nuke movement. The vast majority is irrational
powered by a small kernel of valid objections.

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article , wrote:

"Steve Peek" writes:

"Big Country" wrote in message
...
On Feb 20, 1:11 am, Billy wrote:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Still not sure what a GMO is but thank you for the information

GMO= genetically modified organism

Just continue the point I was trying to make,
when plant breeders select one plant because it has a desirable
trait, for example, it grows faster, what they are really doing
is genetically modifying the plant. The offspring will contain
the desirable gene.

This has been going on for thousands of years with plants and
animals.

GMO speeds up the process because scientists use recombinant DNA
technology which actually extracts genes from one species and
inserts those genes into another species.

So "normal" breeding relies on randomly occurring change and
GMO speeds up the process by picking specific changes.

The way the public reacts to this is that they see a Frankenstein
in the making. Fortunately, scientists recognize the danger
and take steps to minimize the problem. The same danger is present
with "normal" breeding. It's just a matter of degree.

The problems with GMOs are multiple.

There is no relationship to normal breeding. No matter how many
times that lie is told, it won't make it the truth.

Breeding for size is simply preferentially cultivating the larger
organism. On the other hand, giving people composite eyes
from a fly, or giving tomatoes protein from fish is beyond normal.

Despen has not responded to the first four points below.

1) An antibiotic is attached to the genes that are to be inserted. This
allows for identification of GMO cells in a petrie dish. It also
allows bacteria to develop a resistance to that antibiotic, making
it worthless in the treatment of a bacterial disease.

2) The cauliflower mosaic virus is attached to the genes that are to be
inserted. The cauliflower mosaic virus is the activator that turns
on the inserted gene. More than 98% of the human genome does not
encode protein sequences (junk DNA). Some of these genes are for
suppressed evolutionary traits such as gills, some could be dormant
diseases. These genes are also susceptible to being activated by the
cauliflower mosaic virus.

3) The spliceosome (a complex of specialized RNA and protein subunits)
from the host cell may not recognize a protein from the injected
genes and attach it to other proteins, thereby creating an unique
proteins which may be allergens.

This appears to be the case with GMO potatoes created by Arpad
Pusztai at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. He
was tying to modify the lecithin in the potatoes, which he did, but
the potatoes gave lab rats lesions in their digestive systems,
which lead to death (which, IIRC, had nothing to do with the
lecithin).

[In 1995 the Arpad Puzstai began research on genetically modified
potatoes containing the GNA lectin gene from the snowdrop plant.[2] His
group fed rats on raw and cooked genetically modified potatoes, using
Desiree Red potatoes as controls. In 1998 Arpad Puzstai said in an
interview on a World in Action programme that his group had observed
damage to the intestines and immune systems of rats fed the genetically
modified potatoes. He also said

"If I had the choice I would certainly not eat it",

and that "I find it's very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea
pigs".[4]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Pusztai

4) GMO Bt corn (StarLink) kills monarch butterflies. Round Up Ready
crops allow more glyphosate to be used to suppress weeds, but it
also severely damages the soil biota, triggers over 40 plant
diseases, and endangers human and animal health.

5) GMOs don't produce larger crops.

6) Then there is the matter of a recent recent CBS/NYT poll that found 87
percent of consumers want GMOs them labeled so that they can make
an informed choice about what they eat. Arpad Pusztai, a
recombinant geneticist agrees with them (see #3 above).

Other than that, there isn't anything wrong with "Genetically Modified
Organisms" (GMOs) that we know of, yet.

The whole idea of saving the best for the next generation of seeds
resides on a delicate thread . Seed viability can be lost in a few
years if GMO's interlope. Control of viable seeds is removed from the
end users and placed in the hands of a few corporations.
I wonder how many GMO seeds are deposited the Norwegian Seed Bank?
I'd guess none and wonder why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d16qkHpAXo

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden

³Every conflict in the world today has its origin in the
imagination of British map drawers,² Author Unknown

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

"Steve Peek" writes:

"Big Country" wrote in message
...
On Feb 20, 1:11 am, Billy wrote:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Still not sure what a GMO is but thank you for the information

GMO= genetically modified organism

Just continue the point I was trying to make,
when plant breeders select one plant because it has a desirable
trait, for example, it grows faster, what they are really doing
is genetically modifying the plant. The offspring will contain
the desirable gene.

This has been going on for thousands of years with plants and
animals.

GMO speeds up the process because scientists use recombinant DNA
technology which actually extracts genes from one species and
inserts those genes into another species.

So "normal" breeding relies on randomly occurring change and
GMO speeds up the process by picking specific changes.

The way the public reacts to this is that they see a Frankenstein
in the making. Fortunately, scientists recognize the danger
and take steps to minimize the problem. The same danger is present
with "normal" breeding. It's just a matter of degree.

The problems with GMOs are multiple.

There is no relationship to normal breeding. No matter how many
times that lie is told, it won't make it the truth.

Breeding for size is simply preferentially cultivating the larger
organism. On the other hand, giving people composite eyes
from a fly, or giving tomatoes protein from fish is beyond normal.

Despen has not responded to the first four points below.

I think you need to re-read the thread where I agreed that these
are all legitimate issues.

I don't want to look now but I think you commented that you were
happy I agreed.

Any alteration in genes is dangerous.
In many cases they lead to the previous occupier of the ecological
niche being removed. Ie, they go extinct.

It's a matter of opinion as to whether that's a good thing.

Bill who putters writes:

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article , wrote:

"Steve Peek" writes:

The whole idea of saving the best for the next generation of seeds
resides on a delicate thread . Seed viability can be lost in a few
years if GMO's interlope. Control of viable seeds is removed from the
end users and placed in the hands of a few corporations.
I wonder how many GMO seeds are deposited the Norwegian Seed Bank?
I'd guess none and wonder why.

Good guess:

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=2126

About 2/3 of the way down.

Since they only have about a third of all current crops I guess they
think they don't need them. Of course the GMO companies have their
own seed banks.

In article
,
Billy wrote:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss



FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren¹t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN

If you want to avoid sugar, aspartame, trans-fats, MSG, or just about
anything else, you read the label. If you want to avoid G.M.O.¹s ‹
genetically modified organisms ‹ you¹re out of luck. They¹re not listed.
You could, until now, simply buy organic foods, which by law can¹t
contain more than 5 percent G.M.O.¹s. Now, however, even that may not
work.
In the last three weeks, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved
three new kinds of genetically engineered (G.E.) foods: alfalfa (which
becomes hay), a type of corn grown to produce ethanol), and *sugar
beets. And the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a
super-fast-growing salmon ‹ the first genetically modified animal to be
sold in the U.S., but probably not the last ‹ may not be far behind.

It¹s unlikely that these products¹ potential *benefits could possibly
outweigh their potential for harm. But even more unbelievable is that
the F.D.A.and the U.S.D.A. will not require any of these products, or
foods containing them, to be labeled as genetically engineered, because
they don¹t want to ³suggest or imply² that these foods are ³different.²
(Labels with half-truths about health benefits appear to be O.K., but
that¹s another story.)
They are arguably different, but more important, people are leery of
them. Nearly an entire continent ‹ it¹s called Europe ‹ is so wary that
G.E. crops are barely grown there and there are strict bans on imports
(that policy is in danger). Furthermore, most foods containing more than
0.9 percent G.M.O.¹s must be labeled.
(cont.)

Singing in the rain Just singing in the rain. I'm happy again. Yada
Yada. Who wants a label besides me?


.................................................. ..........

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/newPathogenI...adyGMCrops.php

ISIS Report 21/02/11
Emergency! Pathogen New to Science Found in Roundup Ready GM Crops?
USDA senior scientist sends ³emergency² warning to US Secretary of
Agriculture Tom Vilsack on a new plant pathogen in Roundup Ready GM
soybean and corn that may be responsible for high rates of infertility
and spontaneous abortions in livestock Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Please distribute widely and forward to your elected representatives

An open letter appeared on the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance founded
and run by Judith McGeary to save family farms in the US [1, 2]. *The
letter, written by Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University,
to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, warns of a pathogen ³new to
science² discovered by ³a team of senior plant and animal scientists².
Huber says it should be treated as an ³emergency¹¹, as it could result
in ³a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant
disruption of domestic food and feed supplies.²
The letter appeared to have been written before Vilsack announced his
decision to authorize unrestricted commercial planting of GM alfalfa on
1 February, in the hope of convincing the Secretary of Agriculture to
impose a moratorium instead on deregulation of Roundup Ready (RR) crops.
*
The new pathogen appears associated with serious pervasive diseases in
plants - sudden death syndrome in soybean and Goss' wilt in corn * but
its suspected effects on livestock is alarming.* Huber refers to ³recent
reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and
spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.²
This could be the worst nightmare of genetic engineering that some
scientists including me have been warning for years [3] (see Genetic
Engineering Dream or Nightmare, ISIS publication): the unintended
creation of new pathogens through assisted horizontal gene transfer and
recombination.
Huber writes in closing: ³I have studied plant pathogens for more than
50 years. We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant
and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to
understanding and solving this problem. It deserves immediate attention
with significant resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical
agricultural infrastructure.²
The complete letter is reproduced below.
Dear Secretary Vilsack:
A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my
attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears
to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably
human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very
serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR)
soybeans and corn-suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the
presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science!
*This is highly sensitive information that could result in a collapse of
US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic
food and feed supplies. On the other hand, this new organism may already
be responsible for significant harm (see below). My colleagues and I are
therefore moving our investigation forward with speed and discretion,
and seek assistance from the USDA and other entities to identify the
pathogen's source, prevalence, implications, and remedies.
We are informing the USDA of our findings at this early stage,
specifically due to your pending decision regarding approval of RR
alfalfa. Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a
promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such approval could be a
calamity. Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at
this time would be to delay deregulation at least until sufficient data
has exonerated the RR system, if it does.
For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and
military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade
biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. Based
on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this
pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman's terms, it
should be treated as an emergency.
A diverse set of researchers working on this problem have contributed
various pieces of the puzzle, which together presents the following
disturbing scenario:

Unique Physical Properties
This previously unknown organism is only visible under an electron
microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium
size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a
micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such
micro-fungus ever identified. There is strong evidence that this
infectious agent promotes diseases of both plants and mammals, which is
very rare.

Pathogen Location and Concentration
It is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and
corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents,
and pig and cattle placentas.

Linked with Outbreaks of Plant Disease
The organism is prolific in plants infected with two pervasive diseases
that are driving down yields and farmer income-sudden death syndrome
(SDS) in soy, and Goss' wilt in corn. The pathogen is also found in the
fungal causative agent of SDS (Fusarium solani fsp glycines).
Implicated in Animal Reproductive Failure
Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide
variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and
infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been
able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.
The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and
spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy,
swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility
rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle
as high as 45%.
*For example, 450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlege experienced
spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from
the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High
concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlege, which
likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.

Recommendations
In summary, because of the high titer of this new animal pathogen in
Roundup Ready crops, and its association with plant and animal diseases
that are reaching epidemic proportions, we request USDA's participation
in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the
deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with
glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and
animal production and human health.
It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may
have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause
greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts. It is well-documented
that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with
the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant
defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the
bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal
disorders. To properly evaluate these factors, we request access to the
relevant USDA data.
I have studied plant pathogens for more than 50 years. We are now seeing
an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and
disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and
solving this problem. It deserves immediate attention with significant
resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical agricultural
infrastructure.

Sincerely,

COL (Ret.) Don M. Huber
Emeritus Professor, Purdue University
APS Coordinator, USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS)
References
1. ³Researcher: Glyphosate (Roundup) or Roundup Ready Crops May Cause
Animal Miscarriages², Jill Richardson, La Vida Locavore, 18 February 2011
http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/4523
2. ³Researcher: Glyphosate (Roundup) or Roundup Ready Crops May Cause
Animal Miscarriages², 18 February 2011,
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/gmo-miscarriages
3. Ho MW. Genetic Engineering Dream of Nightmare? The Brave New World of
Bad Science and Big Business, Third World Network, Gateway Books,
MacMillan, Continuum, Penang, Malaysia, Bath, UK, Dublin, Ireland, New
York, USA, 1998, 1999, 2007 (reprint with extended Introduction).
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/genet.php

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden

³Every conflict in the world today has its origin in the
imagination of British map drawers,² Author Unknown

Bill who putters wrote:

Who wants a label besides me?

+1

Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic
Zone 5/4 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G

Gary Woods wrote:
Bill who putters wrote:

Who wants a label besides me?

+1

Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic
Zone 5/4 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G

+2

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

"Nad R" wrote in message
...
Gary Woods wrote:
Bill who putters wrote:

Who wants a label besides me?

+1

Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at
home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic
Zone 5/4 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G

+2

I don't have much to say but +3

Mike