|
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 21 Jul 2003 23:55:02 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: what memory bank? The `junk DNA'. Anthropomorphism noted :) Where is there any evidence of this. I think you are getting carried away with the classifications again. If you run out of hosts you just find more Jump species? You would have to do that before you killed every last one of the previous species. They are all doing everything at the same time all the time. They have no brains. They are looking for hosts continually, whether they need them or not. Your anthropomorphism is running away with you. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Moosh:] wrote:
On 21 Jul 2003 12:01:49 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: It is subtle since if you kill all of your hosts you die, too. There must be some of that knowledge in the genome, too. No, it's just a survival artifact. Those that don't have the luck to cop a survival mutation die out. Only those lucky enough to mutate not to kill out all the hosts survive. Once it has happened before then the knowledge is there in the genome, if it hasn't been messed with GM. Because bacteria can exchange genes to their advantage in the protected environment of a human cell it is necessary to take more care with drug resistance genes. We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering anything. Do bacteria have a special licence from Nature so they can do their own thing and not need to obey Natures instructions about strict order in the genome? Where do you apply for this licence? I presume you look up your memory bank to remind yourself how to keep alive. Do not kill every last host. If there is stress start swopping genes faster. Gene swapping is done as fast as it CAN be done. There is NO intent. Mutating accelerates under stress. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 22 Jul 2003 00:46:26 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: Moosh:] wrote: On 21 Jul 2003 11:39:12 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: "Some disease causing bacteria, like Salmonella typhimurium, invade human cells when they infect people. News to me, but there you go. What sort of cells are invaded? Leucocytes? Epithelial cells. It looks like the whole article is free to read: Linkname: J. Bact -- Ferguson et al. 184 (8): 2235 URL: http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/full/1...&pmid=11914355 size: 947 lines JB International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology Gene Transfer between Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium inside Epithelial Cells Gayle C. Ferguson,1 Jack A. Heinemann,1^,2^* and Martin A. Kennedy3 Department of Plant and Microbial Sciences, University of Canterbury,1 Department of Pathology, Christchurch School of Medicine, Christchurch, New Zealand,3 Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology, Tromsø, Norway2 Received 5 November 2001/ Accepted 16 January 2002 Thanks. There the bacteria coul dbe protected from antibiotics while exhanging the genes for antibiotic resistance and the genes that make bacteria better at causing disease. Laboratory tests proved that genes do transfer between these bacteria even when antibiotics are present. The ability of bacteria to exchange genes insdie human cells also suggests the bacteria could transfer genes to the human genome. However, Heinemann says, `This is not necessarily going to cause the transfer of bacterial genes to our sex cells and to our children, because these bacteria do not normally have access to our sex cells'" - Deborah Parker, UC Alumni, Winter 2003, p 19. Though who knows, when, as I posted in the `apocalypse' thread, GM can be used to make, in corn, antibodies which will destroy human sperm. And this would be injected into what site on the body? I don't know if they have to be injected. Well how will these proteins survive the gut? What is the route of the anti-sperm antibodies that vasectomised men may start to produce? Well it's already in the bloodstream, so it needs NO route of introduction. Why would you want to manufacture anti-sperm antibodies? Contraception? If it could be put in food it might be a political tool. Wow. Machiavelli lives :) These are only just proteins, BTW it is necessary to take more care with drug resistance genes. Is not sufficient care already being taken? No. Things are done with the knowledge of the decade. What more can you ask? When you are working with the bases of life take some heed from people who sacrifice their jobs when they have not been listened to. Huh? We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering anything. What evidence have you that this has not been thoroughly investigated? It has been examined with the old ideas. That genes are transferred from parent to offspring (vertical movement) was the basis. That is now outmoded. Genes go horizontally from one bacteria to another, and that is the more dominant method of passing on resistance. It can happen in human cells where bacteria are protected from antibiotics. But how is this well-known phenomenon related to GE? In GE genes are moved horizontally artificially. But this "horizontal"/ "vertical" is just an etic grid that you have put on this phenomrnon. To the organism, there is no difference. And I believe you are assuming that banana genes are different from human genes. Let me tell you a little secret, they are not. Genes are just a sequence of genetic material that occurs in all living organisms. Just shows that we evolved from the same primitive organisms. They are engineered in a package which makes it easier to move in. They will then be more potently available to bacteria. But bacteria have just about any gene available to them now. Why should a few already existing ones be a bother? Heinemann's work was `recognised by the American Society for Microbiology as teh best published in April 2002. The society publishes 600 of the many thousands of articles submitted to its journals each month, and of the 600 published last year, the Canterbury research was singled out as "best of the best."' Fine. Bacteria swap genes. As they can multiply "vertically" from one to 4,722,366,400,000,000,000,000 in just one day, I think this is probably not all that fantastic :) Fritjof Capra already in 1996 reports about Kauffman (1993): `sytems biologists have begun to portray teh genome as a self-organizing network capable of spontaneously producing new forms of order. "We must rethink evolutionary biology," writes Stuart Kauffman. "Much of the order we see in organisms may be the direct result not of natural selection but of the natural order selection was allowed to act on... Evolution is not just a tinkering ... It is an emergent order honored and honed by selection."' Surmise. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Gordon Couger writes
Had organophosphates caused it or fairies dancing ainti clockwise on the dark of a blue moon BSE is still no more than a fart in a hurricane in the problems of world health. Indeed so. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote: But as Jim admitted there is no drug that could cure his father's MRSA (methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus). It had to be left to nature to take its course with some nursing care (soap and water and bandages). Jim did no such thing I might not have made it clear.. Jims father was too weak for the drugs but didn't need them anyway because the bacteria were taken out with an antiseptic wash (which will contain bacterialcides) and soap and water. The drugs were offered but he couldn't handle them What drugs? Here they said soap and water, that is a few years ago. Plus everyone going near the infected people had to wear protective gear. I don't know. They tried him on the standard antiboitics for dealing with MRSA but after two days they had to take them off him because his appetitie had totally gone and he was being permenantly sick. As I said 3 to 14% of hospital admissions result from prescribed drug adverse effects. So they switched to the antiseptic wash Which they probably use anyway, linezolid or not? I suppose they will claim linezolid is no worse than any other, but it is better to have more in the arsenal isn't it? Then say do genetic testing and do not prescribe by trial and error. Try not to eliminate your choices by feeding everybody with GM antibiotic resistance genes, especially when we know that DNA is not fully deactivated by digestion, and is also getting to the unborn. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote: But as Jim admitted there is no drug that could cure his father's MRSA (methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus). It had to be left to nature to take its course with some nursing care (soap and water and bandages). Jim did no such thing I might not have made it clear.. Jims father was too weak for the drugs but didn't need them anyway because the bacteria were taken out with an antiseptic wash (which will contain bacterialcides) and soap and water. The drugs were offered but he couldn't handle them What drugs? Here they said soap and water, that is a few years ago. Plus everyone going near the infected people had to wear protective gear. I don't know. They tried him on the standard antiboitics for dealing with MRSA but after two days they had to take them off him because his appetitie had totally gone and he was being permenantly sick. As I said 3 to 14% of hospital admissions result from prescribed drug adverse effects. nothing to do with it in this case, a very sick man cannot be expected to be able to cope with some drugs. So they switched to the antiseptic wash Which they probably use anyway, linezolid or not? I suppose they will claim linezolid is no worse than any other, but it is better to have more in the arsenal isn't it? Then say do genetic testing and do not prescribe by trial and error. Try not to eliminate your choices by feeding everybody with GM antibiotic resistance genes, especially when we know that DNA is not fully deactivated by digestion, and is also getting to the unborn. what total twaddle. As bacteria have far more antibiotic resistant genes than GM crops, and vastly more bacteria are ingested and digested that GM food, (as everyone swallows bacteria) then any antibiotic resistant transfer occuring through the mechanism you suggest will be happening constantly and at a high frequency now and any GM addition will be a trivial irrelevence. Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 22 Jul 2003 00:46:26 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: Gayle C. Ferguson,1 Jack A. Heinemann,1^,2^* and Martin A. Kennedy3 Department of Plant and Microbial Sciences, University of Canterbury,1 Department of Pathology, Christchurch School of Medicine, Christchurch, New Zealand,3 Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology, Tromsø, Norway2 Received 5 November 2001/ Accepted 16 January 2002 Thanks. Heinemann is not getting sufficient grants, I presume because partnership with immediate profit-making would not be easy in his field. Well that is a bit strange when you think of the tremendous public-funded sink going/having gone into GM and not paying off, except to sell herbicide. He says his work might eventually yield insights into the design of fundamentally different anti-infective agents for the control of antibiotic resistance and infectious diseases as well as being relevant to "the volatile debate on assessing the risks of genetically modified organisms to teh environment". There the bacteria coul dbe protected from antibiotics while exhanging the genes for antibiotic resistance and the genes that make bacteria better at causing disease. Laboratory tests proved that genes do transfer between these bacteria even when antibiotics are present. The ability of bacteria to exchange genes insdie human cells also suggests the bacteria could transfer genes to the human genome. However, Heinemann says, `This is not necessarily going to cause the transfer of bacterial genes to our sex cells and to our children, because these bacteria do not normally have access to our sex cells'" - Deborah Parker, UC Alumni, Winter 2003, p 19. Though who knows, when, as I posted in the `apocalypse' thread, GM can be used to make, in corn, antibodies which will destroy human sperm. And this would be injected into what site on the body? I don't know if they have to be injected. Well how will these proteins survive the gut? As you may have now read, my post of Schubbert et al, the GM green fluorescence marker gets in and even crosses to the unborn embryo/fetus. What is the route of the anti-sperm antibodies that vasectomised men may start to produce? Well it's already in the bloodstream, so it needs NO route of introduction. And these GM proteins get in. Why would you want to manufacture anti-sperm antibodies? Contraception? If it could be put in food it might be a political tool. Wow. Machiavelli lives :) By saying that you imply I am two faced: that I support such political control, and further imply that I support the technology, a total about face. If I preach against murder and say guns can be used to kill people do you then say I am Machiavellian and imply I support gun killing? What sort of intelligence are you hoping to sway/sell to? These are only just proteins, BTW it is necessary to take more care with drug resistance genes. Is not sufficient care already being taken? No. Things are done with the knowledge of the decade. What more can you ask? When you are working with the bases of life take some heed from people who sacrifice their jobs when they have not been listened to. Huh? Scientists from the FDA who did not support `generally recognised as safe' (GRAS) line of FDA. We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering anything. What evidence have you that this has not been thoroughly investigated? It has been examined with the old ideas. That genes are transferred from parent to offspring (vertical movement) was the basis. That is now outmoded. Genes go horizontally from one bacteria to another, and that is the more dominant method of passing on resistance. It can happen in human cells where bacteria are protected from antibiotics. But how is this well-known phenomenon related to GE? In GE genes are moved horizontally artificially. But this "horizontal"/ "vertical" is just an etic grid that you have put on this phenomrnon. To the organism, there is no difference. Read again: ********* This is the html version of the file http://www.nzige.canterbury.ac.nz/fi...ubmission.pdf. G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web. To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/cobrand_univ?q...www.nzige.cant erbury.ac.nz/finalgmd01194submission.pdf+heinemann+submission&h l=en&ie =UTF-8 [...] Submission on AgResearch Application GMD01194 ********** and I shan't quote the volumes of horizontal gene transfer elucidation, but shall give: " tetracycline stimulates HGT rates by controlling expression of the genes that cause these elements to transfer (Salyers, 1995)." As further comment on an earlier point of yours about bacterial gene-swapping always being all-on. And I believe you are assuming that banana genes are different from human genes. Let me tell you a little secret, they are not. Genes are just a sequence of genetic material that occurs in all living organisms. Just shows that we evolved from the same primitive organisms. Yes, we share 80% of genes with a rice plant. That is why we should be so careful about tinkering with rice. And it is now known that the genes themselves are not sufficient to explain the complexities of mammals. They are engineered in a package which makes it easier to move in. They will then be more potently available to bacteria. But bacteria have just about any gene available to them now. Why should a few already existing ones be a bother? That's like saying an orchestra has so many violinists a few more won't matter. But it only takes one playing a bit loud to spoil the other 12's effect. And the genes have strong promoters packaged with them. Heinemann's work was `recognised by the American Society for Microbiology as teh best published in April 2002. The society publishes 600 of the many thousands of articles submitted to its journals each month, and of the 600 published last year, the Canterbury research was singled out as "best of the best."' Fine. Bacteria swap genes. As they can multiply "vertically" from one to 4,722,366,400,000,000,000,000 in just one day, I think this is probably not all that fantastic :) Fritjof Capra already in 1996 reports about Kauffman (1993): `sytems biologists have begun to portray teh genome as a self-organizing network capable of spontaneously producing new forms of order. "We must rethink evolutionary biology," writes Stuart Kauffman. "Much of the order we see in organisms may be the direct result not of natural selection but of the natural order selection was allowed to act on... Evolution is not just a tinkering ... It is an emergent order honored and honed by selection."' Surmise. You yourself agreed when you said survival techniques from the past are helpful for the present. But we do not realise the extent of that. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 22 Jul 2003 02:29:38 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: Now engineers in any field, mechanical or electrical or anything, know that what theory says is not always what works. Rubbish. That is what engineering is all about. If the observations don't match the theory, then it has either been improperly applied, or they change the theory. Usually an estimation or measurement is wrong. There is a lot of trial and error and practical theories are continually improved. That's better :) 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. You mean motherboards don't follow the rules of physics? When you introduce a gene you also introduce a promoter and the process is a bit hit and miss. But nowhere near as hit and miss as mutagens or cross pollination. It has been found that the characterization of Rounup Ready soy was rather inexact. But nowhere near as inexact as trying the results of mutagen applications, or cross pollinating. The promoter, when strong, may not just switch on the gene next to it, but also ones further along. Just like is happening every second of every day in uncountable millions of living cells. 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. No, the cell that hasn't got the survival mutation dies, and the one that does survives. The theories are not good enough to predict it all. But nowhere near as hit and miss as mutagens or cross pollination. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Jim Webster wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message As I said 3 to 14% of hospital admissions result from prescribed drug adverse effects. nothing to do with it in this case, a very sick man cannot be expected to be able to cope with some drugs. So you want a greater range in the arsenal. You don't want them getting disabled by resistance. So they switched to the antiseptic wash Which they probably use anyway, linezolid or not? I suppose they will claim linezolid is no worse than any other, but it is better to have more in the arsenal isn't it? Then say do genetic testing and do not prescribe by trial and error. Try not to eliminate your choices by feeding everybody with GM antibiotic resistance genes, especially when we know that DNA is not fully deactivated by digestion, and is also getting to the unborn. what total twaddle. As bacteria have far more antibiotic resistant genes than GM crops, They bacteria may have a few more types, if they have been selected by anitbiotics, but the crop has it in every cell, so far more altogether, and constantly present. and vastly more bacteria are ingested and digested that GM food, (as everyone swallows bacteria) Now from North America the corn is grown patch work in fields and all is mixed. So unless North Americans go to special trouble to get non-GM they will be getting an antibiotic resistance gene every second cell of that food they eat. Same with soy. then any antibiotic resistant transfer occuring through the mechanism you suggest will be happening constantly and at a high frequency now I suggested the gene packages jumping from the GM food to bacteria, yes. You say it will be happening at a high frequency now, and any GM addition will be a trivial irrelevence. you say. I and several others say we do not want any GM addition we want the whole GM contribution brought right back to zero. Stop using antibiotic resistance markers. The argument that we are using so many that a few more is of no consequence is as silly as saying another drink will be of no consequence to a driver who is already drunk. We do not want any drivers drunk in the first place. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 22 Jul 2003 07:08:06 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: Moosh:] wrote: On 21 Jul 2003 11:53:41 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Not anthropomorphism, ecology of genes. The chief of the University of Canterbury Plant and Microbial Sciences Department runs the New Zealand Gene Ecology organisation. (Jack Heinemann) (do google search in www.canterbury.ac.nz) Because bacteria can exchange genes to their advantage in the protected environment of a human cell it is necessary to take more care with drug resistance genes. We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering anything. As bacteria make better bacteria we have to make better drugs. However in this case we are doing the opposite. We are giving the bacteria the genes to improve their resistance. You reckon they haven't already tried these somewhere over the past aeons? Afterall where did these "resistance markers" come from? Probably from culturing them in a weak antibiotic environment, then gradually stronger when you find ones which learn to survive. Just like happens in thousands of human guts every day? Of course, "learning to survive" is anthropomorphism. But I guess you know this. The "learners" are just lucky mutants. Yes this may be important in the short term, but in the grand scheme of things, it's only a matter of time before these bacteria would have developed resistance to all antibiotics known today. When the resistance is of no use to them then the gene to express it will not be expressing. No, not until a random mutation turns it off, and this may be never, if it causes no disavantage to survival. That is when there is no antibiotic being applied for a while. But put the genes in everyone's food and they are always there. Well they are often so common in the environment, and idiots not taking full courses and sewage outflow. I think we just have to live with it and, like pesticide resistance, stay one or two steps ahead. The same is true with insects on the farm. 75 years ago simple natural pesticides work for my father. In the 50's and 60's the first generation of insecticides work very very well. We have had to keep making better insecticides and at the same time more specific ones. But as Jim admitted there is no drug that could cure his father's MRSA (methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus). I suspect there was, but his father was unable to take it. Something like vancomycin? I have read someone suggesting using it for prevention when they do operations. In susceptible people, why not? So resistance to it by Staph. aureus will probably be developing, too. Only if they use it incorrectly. Yes it is a bit toxic - maybe hearing damage to quite a few. There is always a drug which can kill the illness, but may quite often kill the patient, agreed. Not the aim of therapy, though :) It had to be left to nature to take its course with some nursing care (soap and water and bandages). We also learned how to extend their usefulness but he means `by' not `but'. refuges and IPM. When you plant bt corn or cotton you plant it in a checkerboard pattern with non-bt so some of the bugs will develop in non-bt and the development of resistance will be slowed a bit. Still there will be loss of effectiveness of organic bt to the organic farmers who only apply it when necessary, and have it active for a short period. With that use resistance does not develop. With the bt crops teh bt is there all the time and gradually weakens as the crop ages - perfect for development of resistance. It always amazes me how Organic folk can accept a GE "chemical" as OK for their needs. Bt is a natural soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, which happens to be toxic to butterfly and moth larvae. It is not a GE "chemical", though the genes producing the Bt toxins have been engineered into GE crops. I suggest you bring yourself up to date. BT is the freeze dried protein (chemical) that is produced by the bacterium you mentioned. It is a stomach poison to caterpillars and some other insects. Some strains of it are produced by genetic engineering. Desperation? Anyways, Bt has been so overused that it only has a limited useful life. Now that it is present perpetually, whether really needed or not, you are right. Well it is that by use of the protein powder by agriculture and the home gardener. New specific pesticides will be developed. Which we do not know the problems with. Same problems as with BT. Have you heard of testing? Happens all the time. And the produce will probably not sell as well as when the organic Bt stuff was used occasionally. Only because the public has been hoodwinked into believing that Organic is somehow better. If you want to blame some one for antibiotic resistant bacteria the water out of the sewer plant has several orders of magnitude more effect that crops possibly could because they are mixed with the pathogens at the sewer and in the environment and give them a chance to build resistance. Sewage is not being eaten by everyone. But it's where epidemics start. Epidemics start when the bugs are resistant to the conditions in the host. Or the host is susceptible, like all Westerners to Cholera? They continue when drugs given to the host are resisted by the bugs, too. When everyone is eating food with the resistance in it that is far more likely. Antibiotic resistant organisms are a small percentage of the microorganisms that cause disease. Also it will be worse with incompletely digested naked DNA from GM crops. I don't see why. Why should a gut commensal suddenly become pathogenic at the same time it absorbs a million-to-one chance of a compatible antibiotic resistant gene? Bacterial resistance tends to be multidrug resistant. To members of the same class of drug, of course, but how is this relevant to a bug suddenly becoming pathogenic, AND drug resistant at the same time? Sure you have a problem treating this infection, but why should the bug do both at the same time? And what has this to do with GE? Poor food hygiene introduces the bacteria from a worker who has not washed themselves or animal faecal contamination. Or any one of myriad other vectors. An infected beast or human is treated with antibiotics and the bacteria has ducked inside a huamn cell and exchanges drug resistance from naked DNA which has got there since everyone has it in their diet. How did it get from the mouth to the human cells? This phenomenon you describe has been demonstrated in vivo? How common is it thought to be? Rare as hens' teeth? Lots in the population have less than optimal digestion, leaky guts from gluten injury, and will get the naked DNA into their circulation. What proportion of folk have this damage, and what proportion are likely to have undigested DNA enter their bloodstream? Seems very far-fetched to me. Of course there will likely be plenty of other antibiotics to treat this rare event, if that is what is needed. Another class of antibiotics may have deleterious side effects - hearing damage, kidney damage, liver damage. Some 3 to 14% of hospital admissions result from prescribed drug injury. But not antibiotics, in the main. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 22 Jul 2003 08:26:46 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: Moosh:] wrote: On 19 Jul 2003 12:04:27 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: Moosh:] wrote: On 19 Jul 2003 04:24:23 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: Moosh:] wrote: On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:59:34 -0700, Dzogvi Gzboli wrote: Where can I find a list of the persons/cases in which diagnosable injury resulted from ingesting GE corn? Or medical journal reports? You are joking? Doesn't the inability to find such say something? Not really. Farmers are judging that cows fed on GM corn give less milk. Which farmers? Which cows? Which corn? Where? I shall have to search it out. But you might expect it. It does not take much to affect milk production, cows even have music preferences. If you say so :) I've heard tomatoes do too. As I reported before rats given the choice of GM and non-GM feed had a preference for the latter. So that could affect the cows. The rats play different music? How did the rats tell the difference? Its extremely difficult for science to differentiate. Animals have good sense organs. They can almost sense the theoretical limit of low light intensity. They have a good sense of smell, and the different protein expression in the food would smell different. It is a few percent of the plant. Besides the extra Roundup may have a taste or smell. So it is just *difference*, not any harmful characteristic? Before Roundup Ready times strict withholding periods for herbicides had to be adhered to. Which herbicides? They are all different. With holding times still apply. Roundup has been promoted as safe so is applied more. Look, glyphosate ( a very safe plant enzyme inhibitor) can be applied to RR crops during growth. Whereas with conventional crops it is applied heavily before sowing, and then other more toxic and expensive selective herbicides are applied during growth. It migh not be ideal, but it is a big improvement on the conventional regime. I know it is thought to be safe. No evidence otherwise, and that's all you can ever demonstrate -- with everything. Nothing is ever proven safe, just "not yet shown to be harmful!" Indeed some farmers used it to dry out a crop for harvest. How could you dry out a crop by applying an aqueous solution? Oh, I see, they killed a crop with the herbicide making it look dry? That's illegal, for use on a food crop. Now I wonder what they do about that. Prosecute! Extra? Something else? I don't follow. Extra what? What else? And isn't Roundup resistance transfering to the weeds so the other herbicides are needed anyway? Of course, to weeds in the same genus or family, but this is likely to happen with all pesticides. We must realise that nothing will be effective for ever. We must just keep up, or fall behind. I dread world starvation. You ain't seen nothin' yet! And you have to buy it with the Monsanto seed. No you don't. You can not buy anything you like. You can not buy anything you like. That's what I said. You contract to buy Roundup when you buy the RR seeds. Of course, like wheels when you by a new SUV. So it will be used, most likely, since it has been bought under the contract, whether it is really needed or not. Hang on, why would you buy RR seed when you don't have a weed problem? Do Monsanto allow you to buy the seed without Roundup next time? You can buy any other seed you like. If you don't have a weed problem, I would advise it. Then how do they make their profit on the loss leader technology fee on the seeds? Perhaps they go broke. Hope you haven't got any shares in them. It is the Roundup sale which makes the profit. But you seem to think farmers are forced to buy it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Are you unhappy that there is no better solution to the weed problem? So there will be more Roundup in the corn crop now. It breaks down rapidly in plants see EXTOXNET: http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/ghindex.html But it does adhere to soil particles and may not break down, even in waterways. Yes it can reach waterways adsobed to some soil particles, but it breaks down well in water. It mostly breaks down well in soil, after it is adsorbed so tightly to soil particles that it doesn't go anywhere without them. And anyway, it is quite harmless. Not necessarily to water creatures, or to many humans, possibly. No evidence so far. And there's a shit load of greenies furiously looking :) It will be more estrogenic. Like many many molecules in the environment. But that is assuming it has survived the breakdown in the plant. It is soil bacteria which attempt to break it down. The RR plants will metabolise it something else, then you have to check the toxicity of that. And that has already been done. No problemo. Estrogenic pasture is generally a reproductive problem. as I have posted. That would be some clovers? Some more than others, and mycotoxins. Perhaps Jim might comment on pendulous udders in developing calves produced from cows on estrogenic pasture. They will be harder to milk. Maybe an estrogenic mycotxin is causing it, or red clover, or Roundup? Needs research, I would say. And it hasn't been researched? I'm sure I've come across lots over the years. Who does it profit to research it? Science just functions on know-it-all scientists wanting to be first with the news. Can they afford the research? Plenty have. Will they be bought out? Not and survive the peer review process. Oh yes when zearallenones increase growth rate of animals owing to their estrogenicity then that gets published. But how often the reproductive problems? Not so much, I believe. Well as you're not apparently working in the area.... It takes a while for troubles to show up in humans. If a few percent more women have to bottle supplement their babies that may reduce a nations great IQ test as the DHA in human milk helps eye - possibly brain development. A long bow to draw? The business world is always trying to avoid taking long time spans into account. That's the job of the regulator, and I believe yours has taken all this into account. The stuff has not been around for a generation. So? There are lots of ways to assess likely dangers in the long term. But if there is no evidence, or likelyhood of harm, we can't wait for 50 years just to make certain. Human progress would effectively stop. And in the meantime... The extra Roundup in human diets of Roundup Ready crops provides extra xeno-estrogen in the diet. What "more Roundup"? The glyphosate, or the surfactant wetting agent? I think it is proprietary information. What is? Glyphosate and surfactant (dish liquid or shampoo)? And a sticky agent, probably. No, the wetting agent (dish liquid/shampoo) is the "sticky agent". It's a lot more toxic than the glyphosate. More xeno-oestrogen than what? Than before the advent of Roundup Ready. I very much doubt that. Have you seen the list of hormone disruptors? Reads like the Merck Index. Depends on how much of them or their metabolites are in the food, and environment. Depends where you live, and what you eat. They are pretty well everywhere. American DDT has been found in the Arctic ice. You may not see results till the developing eggs in the ovaries of todays foetuses are being fertilised 30 years away. Farmers who would have gone organic are getting caught with polluting Monsanto genes in their crops and rather than fighting are finding it easier to pay up and go totally Roundup Ready, rather than lose the farm. Roundup Ready has huge advantages if a farmer can afford it. Saves on use of far more toxic and expensive herbicides. Roundup also can save much soil erosion from mechanical pre-seeding weed control. Some farmers have `succeeded' with Roundup Ready, but the technology fee is still a loss leader. Well don't buy it. Simple. Monsanto don't expect folks to buy their product if it provides them with no advantage. Then if you happen to get it on your land you are liable. Ah, I think if you were a little bird in the court room, you might find that Monsanto has a good case that it's technology was stolen. One or two farmers in such cirucumstances have resisted going GE paying the technology fee. Even if they think it is not providing them with advantage they are still charged. Only when it is found that they have actually stolen this technology. You have been reading too much of the anti-Monsanto propaganda. Then it is very hard to track an origin of a disease which jumps species in one individual then spreads rapidly through the new species. The GM technology is designed to get genes to cross barriers they otherwise would not. The probability of a jump in one individual is very low, but in the population of China you have to multiply by a billion. I think you are confusing two entirely separate phenomena. Why do you? Well you are talking about the possible spread of gene sequences expressing proteins providing antibiotic resistance to organisms, and then about new diseases. I can't see the connection. They are both furthered by the technology which increases the probability of gene transfer. Catching the disease? How? The drug resistance marker in the GM crops has been warned against by many. But nothing has come of it? What problems has this ever caused? The experminent going on is uncontrolled. Therefore although infectious disease is increasing world wide it cannot be pinned on the GM technology. What infectious diseases are increasing world wide and of which the cause is not known? go to http://www.i-sis.org.uk and search for infectious diseases. You mean you don't know what you were referring to? One interesting point: Linkname: SARS Virus Genetically Engineered URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SVGE.php size: 247 lines [...] Urnovitz believes that the spike protein of the SARS virus is the result of genetic rearrangements provoked by environmental genotoxic agents, much like those he and his colleagues have detected in Gulf War I veterans suffering from Gulf War Syndrome. But how did the virus get to south China? A possible answer was provided by Urnovitz: Migratory birds that frequent gene-swapping hot spots like southeast China could have carried the SARS virus there. Urnovitz himself doesn't think the SARS virus is the real cause of SARS. Instead, it is the piece of reshuffled human chromosome 7 that others are referring to as the spike protein gene of the SARS virus. That alone is sufficient to trigger serious autoimmune responses in people. Hence, to create vaccines against that `spike' protein is also tantamount to vaccinating people against their own genes (see "Dynamic genomics", this series). [...] Interesting speculation. What do his peers think of this? All bacteria have always swopped their genes, Just like humans and all beings which reproduce sexually. But bacteria can swap quite a percentage in a day. Their generation span is 20 minutes in ideal situations. But they pass on resistance more by swapping genes rather than passing them on from parent to offspring. But I can't see this makes a difference in practice. They are duplicating DNA so furioualy that they can pretty much go anywhere and everywhere. they really have a common gene bank, Like all species-like groups No really rather different. You are behind with your reading. In what way different, then. No point saying I'm behind in this and that and outdated. What is intrinsically different from sexual reproductive gene mixing and the way bacteria do it. They don't do it sexually of course. I have explained that a bit, but you can read more in: This is the html version of the file http://www.nzige.canterbury.ac.nz/fi...ubmission.pdf. G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web. To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/cobrand_univ?q... l=en&ie=UTF-8 [...] 3. Issue 2.1, the difference between gene transfer and gene transmission and how that difference should be used in risk analysis. 3.1. Preamble. That HGT is real and an important mechanism by which some genes reproduce is by now widely acknowledged. Yet that acknowledgment is only recent. Had this application been made even five years earlier, the debate on its acceptability would have been at the level of arguing whether HGT happened at all. This is to say that the science of HGT is young even though the effects of HGT have been described since the mid-20th Century (Ferguson and Heinemann, 2002). HGT's role in evolution is just starting to be studied outside of specialist biological examples (eg, Agrobacterium and plants). Technologies purpose designed for its study are only just appearing. So it is understandable, perhaps, that despite the realisation by the larger scientific community that HGT is real and frequent, HGT is not universally incorporated into the daily working analyses of molecular biologists, botanists and zoologists. Moreover, it will take time for this new specialist branch of genetics to become widely incorporated in curricula through the publication of new textbooks. Still, the incorporation of HGT in risk analysis must transcend a cursory knowledge of HGT and cultural barriers to these ideas within some branches of biology. [...] &c, a bit much to quote. Thanks. and what you do to one gets around and is made use of by the others. Yep, happens in all sexually reproducing gene pools. All surviving mutations will spread into the gene pool. You are behind. Mid 1990s the question was whether horizontal gene transfer occurs. Now it totally accpeted. Bacteria probably pass on more of their survival characteristics through it than through vertical transfer. What is the vertical transfer? Cloning? No parent to offspring. They don't multiply sexually. They bud off as clones. Again, what is intrinsically different in mixing genetic material one way or another? Nothing is new, however. Bacteria have been doing what they do for millions of years. The ref I gave explains. Speculations, of course. But how widely accepted is this extra danger? Then you get indirect harm from GM when the drugs we have can no longer treat the illnesses. Examples? I have been in a hospital ward which had MRSA. When I went back to hospital 4 years later I had a red medicalert sticker on my bracelet. It turned out to be an MRSA warning. Several tests were done and some weeks before it was removed. Was MRSA caused by GM? I thought it was bacteria doing what bacteria do. Evolving to resist environmental attack. GM can cause things by direct engineering or secondary picking up of resistance from GM foods and other products. Theoretically possible. But what proportion of resistance evolution can be put down to GM? In the latter case what was treatable Staph aureus turns itself into untreatable Staph aureus. By being exposed to partially lethal doses of the particular class of antibiotic. If aniamls are being fed GM food with antibiotic resistance genes, and given low dose antibiotic growth promoters en masse, it seems important to look into whether that increases the rate of increase of resistance to antibiotics. You really think the bacteria need any help to evolve a resistance in this mileau? The antibiotic resistance gene being fed must A get into the bloodstream, and B be taken up by a pathogenic organism. It must also be the same antibiotic that this gene expresses the protein to be resistant to. Oh, yes, as with the computer viruses made by the people who wish to sell antidotes, it is all work for them. Conspiracy theory noted :) Resistance can develop from animals fed antibiotics, but what about when humans are fed antibiotic resistance genes en masse? They are denatured and digested, along with all the other food we eat. Not when the digestion is not perfect. One in a million, and then there are more one-in-a-million hurdles to jump. Yes it is possible, but the bacteria will have likely beaten you to the jump and evolved already with out this theoretically unlikely GM help. For one thing transgenes from GE food can be found in colostomy bags. That wouldn't surprise me. They don't put these on the bulk of healthy folk. The antibiotics we take lightly are another matter. But it is a bit of a different dimension of risk. Theoretically a tiny possible increase, from what I see. Funding of research these days is based on partnerships with profit driven companies. So risk analysis which might take away the quick-profit-and-get-out-of-it is a poor relation. Well if you haven't got a strong regulator.... But don't confuse this with "science". If we had strong Govt risk analysis we would not have had GE crops with antibiotic resistance. I don't think the apt word is "strong" I think more paranoid. A strong regulator is one who goes for the middle road of truth and does not steer either toward the industrialists point of view, or to the green "do nothing " point of view. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:22:44 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote: Moosh:] wrote: [Re Roundup persistence in corn:] It breaks down rapidly in plants see EXTOXNET: http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/ghindex.html Pulling a fastie, eh? Your reference contradicts your claim. No. I've looked up the reference given and stand by my claim. "Rapidly" is perhaps a misleading word. It is not regarded as persistent in significant plants. From memory, corn was amongst these. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 22 Jul 2003 12:45:08 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: Gordon Couger wrote: "ddwyer" wrote in message ... In article , Moosh:] writes Thanks Gordon, good point. Not thet there's much more we can do about it than what we are doing. If you want to convert a sheep or a bacteria to produce a bioactive material such as a protein as a theraputic agent the way foreward is not to breed or mutate but GM a species. I.e. create a self replicating factory. GM food has the potential to generate unwanted materials that mutation and breeding cannot. Unwanted material in foodstuffs will be the rare hazard that we wont recognise until too late. Sadly whole populations will consume; not just the ill for whom the risk would ba acceptable. Due to testing in GM food stuffs we are much less likely to get unintended hazards in food stuffs than we are in in normally bred food stuffs. 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? 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. 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. They get withdrawn if they cause trouble that is plain obvious. Just like foods from plant mutations and cross-pollinating, only these are more likely If you are going to use arguments use ones that you don't loose at the onset with proven facts. He means the promoters switching on unexpected gene expression in some conditions. Just like is happening in the wild every day? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Moosh:] writes
How could you dry out a crop by applying an aqueous solution? Oh, I see, they killed a crop with the herbicide making it look dry? That's illegal, for use on a food crop. Actually no. Dessicants are not that unusual in european agriculture (and probably american as well). It's quite often used for EU canola, and sometimes other crops, particularly where weed control has been, er, less than perfect. This has been going on for decades. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 24 Jul 2003 05:04:37 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: So you don't read Moosh:]'s articles, I have to economize somehwe **** From: "Moosh:]" Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,nz.general,sci.agriculture Subject: Paying to find non-GE wild corn? Message-ID: Lines: 89 Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:54:52 GMT [...] In the junk DNA there is just about everything that has been tried, if it hasn't been harmlessly corrupted over the aeons. [...] **** That doesn't mean that it is a "memory bank" Just a repository for turned off sequences. What turns them on again is a moot point. Evolution isn't using these if needed, it is being lucky enough to have a random mutation that confers a survival benefit. And when all your non-mutated peers are dying from some environmental change (antibiotics) , you will outcompete them. Where is there any evidence of this. I think you are getting carried away with the classifications again. If you run out of hosts you just find more Jump species? You would have to do that before you killed every last one of the previous species. which isn't a problem, those who prey on only one species are very much a minority Lots of viruses tend to be specific to certain classes of hosts. Calici haemorrhagic disease jumped to rabbits in 1970s in China, though I don't know why. Using pig organs in humans in concert with GM is a risk that pig viruses will jump and spread through the human population. What on earth does GM have to do with this? It happens whether or not, surely. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 24 Jul 2003 10:45:20 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: Moosh:] wrote: On 21 Jul 2003 12:09:43 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: 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. You believe in Gaea? More like what I posted recently: Fritjof Capra already in 1996 reports about Kauffman (1993): `sytems biologists have begun to portray the genome as a self-organizing network capable of spontaneously producing new forms of order. "We must rethink evolutionary biology," writes Stuart Kauffman. "Much of the order we see in organisms may be the direct result not of natural selection but of the natural order selection was allowed to act on... Evolution is not just a tinkering ... It is an emergent order honored and honed by selection."' And I called this "surmise". But of course, what happens can be charcterised in many ways. So if survival in the past had come about through mutating more when under stress, then that would happen again under stress. I think that is accepted. Chemical reactions occur when and where they can. There is no choice. Evolution only progresses faster when much stress is about, coz the less lucky organisms in the lottery of random mutations are dying off all around, and only the few lucky ones survive. Mutations are happening all the time, just not giving great advantage to those who win them when times are good. And anyway it is hard to tell that sort of thing from a Gaia if there is one. What was the origin of the first enzymes? Random mutation that allowed a chemical change to occur more readily. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 24 Jul 2003 10:48:17 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: Moosh:] wrote: On 21 Jul 2003 12:01:49 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: It is subtle since if you kill all of your hosts you die, too. There must be some of that knowledge in the genome, too. No, it's just a survival artifact. Those that don't have the luck to cop a survival mutation die out. Only those lucky enough to mutate not to kill out all the hosts survive. Once it has happened before then the knowledge is there in the genome, if it hasn't been messed with GM. It is being messed up all the time with cosmic rays and mutagens in the environment. Because bacteria can exchange genes to their advantage in the protected environment of a human cell it is necessary to take more care with drug resistance genes. We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering anything. Do bacteria have a special licence from Nature so they can do their own thing and not need to obey Natures instructions about strict order in the genome? Where do you apply for this licence? I presume you look up your memory bank to remind yourself how to keep alive. Do not kill every last host. If there is stress start swopping genes faster. Gene swapping is done as fast as it CAN be done. There is NO intent. Mutating accelerates under stress. Are you sure? Selection does, but surely mutations are not affected by stress. What is the mechanism? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message As I said 3 to 14% of hospital admissions result from prescribed drug adverse effects. nothing to do with it in this case, a very sick man cannot be expected to be able to cope with some drugs. So you want a greater range in the arsenal. You don't want them getting disabled by resistance. utterly irrelevent he was too weak to take any antibiotic So they switched to the antiseptic wash Which they probably use anyway, linezolid or not? I suppose they will claim linezolid is no worse than any other, but it is better to have more in the arsenal isn't it? Then say do genetic testing and do not prescribe by trial and error. Try not to eliminate your choices by feeding everybody with GM antibiotic resistance genes, especially when we know that DNA is not fully deactivated by digestion, and is also getting to the unborn. what total twaddle. As bacteria have far more antibiotic resistant genes than GM crops, They bacteria may have a few more types, if they have been selected by anitbiotics, but the crop has it in every cell, so far more altogether, and constantly present. no, start thinking carefully all food has bacteria so you eat it with every meal. Each meal with contain bacteria resistant to antibiotics we haven't even developed yet but are used in nature, bacteria resistant to antibiotics that are so old that they are no longer used and bacteria more resistant than their fellows to heavy metals, UV, and for all I know tedium. With GM, firstly not every meal contains GM DNA, as opposed to every meal which does contain GM DNA, and the GM is far more restricted in its resistance. and vastly more bacteria are ingested and digested that GM food, (as everyone swallows bacteria) Now from North America the corn is grown patch work in fields and all is mixed. So unless North Americans go to special trouble to get non-GM they will be getting an antibiotic resistance gene every second cell of that food they eat. Same with soy. then any antibiotic resistant transfer occuring through the mechanism you suggest will be happening constantly and at a high frequency now I suggested the gene packages jumping from the GM food to bacteria, yes. You say it will be happening at a high frequency now, and any GM addition will be a trivial irrelevence. you say. I and several others say we do not want any GM addition we want the whole GM contribution brought right back to zero. tough, you have two choices. pay enough to make growing conventional worth while or eat GM choice is entirely yours Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:51:19 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote: On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:22:44 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote: Moosh:] wrote: [Re Roundup persistence in corn:] It breaks down rapidly in plants see EXTOXNET: http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/ghindex.html Pulling a fastie, eh? Your reference contradicts your claim. No. I've looked up the reference given and stand by my claim. "Rapidly" is perhaps a misleading word. Point is, you claim it breaks down rapidly in plants, while referencing that information to a source which says in some plants it remains bloody intact. It is not regarded as persistent in significant plants. From memory, corn was amongst these. Well, what can one say. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Moosh:] wrote:
On 24 Jul 2003 10:45:20 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: Moosh:] wrote: On 21 Jul 2003 12:09:43 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: 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. You believe in Gaea? More like what I posted recently: Fritjof Capra already in 1996 reports about Kauffman (1993): `sytems biologists have begun to portray the genome as a self-organizing network capable of spontaneously producing new forms of order. "We must rethink evolutionary biology," writes Stuart Kauffman. "Much of the order we see in organisms may be the direct result not of natural selection but of the natural order selection was allowed to act on... Evolution is not just a tinkering ... It is an emergent order honored and honed by selection."' And I called this "surmise". But of course, what happens can be charcterised in many ways. I don't think randomity explains what goes on. So if survival in the past had come about through mutating more when under stress, then that would happen again under stress. I think that is accepted. Chemical reactions occur when and where they can. There is no choice. Evolution only progresses faster when much stress is about, coz the less lucky organisms in the lottery of random mutations are dying off all around, and only the few lucky ones survive. Mutations are happening all the time, just not giving great advantage to those who win them when times are good. But the bacteria acquire mutations which then allow them to compete better, so it is not random: This is the html version of the file http://www.nzige.canterbury.ac.nz/fi...ubmission.pdf. G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web. To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/cobrand_univ?q...www.nzige.cant erbury.ac.nz/finalgmd01194submission.pdf+heinemann+submission&h l=en&ie =UTF-8 New Zealand Institute of Gene Ecology University of Canterbury [...] 5.1.3.3. An example from the biomedical experience with antibiotics and resistance evolution is illustrative here. Many newly emerging antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria are less competitive than their antibiotic- susceptible parents in environments free of the antibiotic. This early disadvantage, however, is soon lost. Many have assumed that resistance to current antibiotics would fade when new antibiotics were developed partly because resistant strains were less fit in antibiotic-free environments. However, it is clear now that resistant strains can acquire competition- compensatory mutations while growing in antibiotics (Bjorkman et al., 1998; Bjorkman et al., 2000; Schrag and Perrot, 1996; Schrag et al., 1997). By the time the antibiotic is removed from the environment, the strains are as fit or more fit than their parents even in antibiotic-free environments. Antibiotics, in this case, serve as an umbrella supporting the evolution of initially uncompetitive phenotypes. __________________________________________________ _______________ And anyway it is hard to tell that sort of thing from a Gaia if there is one. What was the origin of the first enzymes? Random mutation that allowed a chemical change to occur more readily. What was there to mutate before the first enzymes? What biochemical reaction has ever worked without an enzyme? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 24 Jul 2003 22:54:10 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: Moosh:] wrote: On 24 Jul 2003 10:45:20 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: Moosh:] wrote: On 21 Jul 2003 12:09:43 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: 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. You believe in Gaea? More like what I posted recently: Fritjof Capra already in 1996 reports about Kauffman (1993): `sytems biologists have begun to portray the genome as a self-organizing network capable of spontaneously producing new forms of order. "We must rethink evolutionary biology," writes Stuart Kauffman. "Much of the order we see in organisms may be the direct result not of natural selection but of the natural order selection was allowed to act on... Evolution is not just a tinkering ... It is an emergent order honored and honed by selection."' And I called this "surmise". But of course, what happens can be charcterised in many ways. I don't think randomity explains what goes on. Well it can, so why look for fairies at the bottom of the garden? Think of Ockham's razor. So if survival in the past had come about through mutating more when under stress, then that would happen again under stress. I think that is accepted. Chemical reactions occur when and where they can. There is no choice. Evolution only progresses faster when much stress is about, coz the less lucky organisms in the lottery of random mutations are dying off all around, and only the few lucky ones survive. Mutations are happening all the time, just not giving great advantage to those who win them when times are good. But the bacteria acquire mutations which then allow them to compete better, so it is not random: Mutations happen to them randomly. How does this (active) acquision work? This is the html version of the file http://www.nzige.canterbury.ac.nz/fi...ubmission.pdf. G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web. To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/cobrand_univ?q... l=en&ie=UTF-8 New Zealand Institute of Gene Ecology University of Canterbury [...] A grant application? 5.1.3.3. An example from the biomedical experience with antibiotics and resistance evolution is illustrative here. Many newly emerging antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria are less competitive than their antibiotic- susceptible parents in environments free of the antibiotic. This early disadvantage, however, is soon lost. Many have assumed that resistance to current antibiotics would fade when new antibiotics were developed partly because resistant strains were less fit in antibiotic-free environments. However, it is clear now that resistant strains can acquire competition- compensatory mutations while growing in antibiotics (Bjorkman et al., 1998; Bjorkman et al., 2000; Schrag and Perrot, 1996; Schrag et al., 1997). By the time the antibiotic is removed from the environment, the strains are as fit or more fit than their parents even in antibiotic-free environments. Antibiotics, in this case, serve as an umbrella supporting the evolution of initially uncompetitive phenotypes. __________________________________________________ _______________ And anyway it is hard to tell that sort of thing from a Gaia if there is one. What was the origin of the first enzymes? Random mutation that allowed a chemical change to occur more readily. What was there to mutate before the first enzymes? Any old DNA that expressed a protein. Sounds unlikely, but over millions of years. What biochemical reaction has ever worked without an enzyme? Many of them. Enzymes just happen to be the way metabolic pathways are "controlled". Because a reaction goes a certain way with a specific enzyme coz the energy requirements are lower than going another way, does not mean that there are not many reactions requiring so little energy that they can procede without enzymes. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:06:14 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote: On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:51:19 GMT, "Moosh:]" wrote: On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:22:44 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote: Moosh:] wrote: [Re Roundup persistence in corn:] It breaks down rapidly in plants see EXTOXNET: http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/ghindex.html Pulling a fastie, eh? Your reference contradicts your claim. No. I've looked up the reference given and stand by my claim. "Rapidly" is perhaps a misleading word. Point is, you claim it breaks down rapidly in plants, while referencing that information to a source which says in some plants it remains bloody intact. "Bloodywell intact", Torsten, try to be grammatical :) It is not regarded as persistent in significant plants. From memory, corn was amongst these. Well, what can one say. That it doesn't hang about long in significant food plants. IIRC. Even if it does, so what? Over the years I've ferretted out scores of references and always come to a dead end as far as any harm goes. Can you mention any harm from glyphosate? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:12:10 +0100, Oz
wrote: Moosh:] writes How could you dry out a crop by applying an aqueous solution? Oh, I see, they killed a crop with the herbicide making it look dry? That's illegal, for use on a food crop. Actually no. Dessicants are not that unusual in european agriculture (and probably american as well). It's quite often used for EU canola, and sometimes other crops, particularly where weed control has been, er, less than perfect. This has been going on for decades. Yes, I follow, but would you use Roundup for this? What chemicals are used for dessicants? Curious. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 24 Jul 2003 14:12:56 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message As I said 3 to 14% of hospital admissions result from prescribed drug adverse effects. nothing to do with it in this case, a very sick man cannot be expected to be able to cope with some drugs. So you want a greater range in the arsenal. Of course, and it's happening as we speak. Those damned multinational drug companies :) You don't want them getting disabled by resistance. No, and you don't want to get run over at the crosswalk, either. So they switched to the antiseptic wash Which they probably use anyway, linezolid or not? I suppose they will claim linezolid is no worse than any other, but it is better to have more in the arsenal isn't it? Then say do genetic testing and do not prescribe by trial and error. Try not to eliminate your choices by feeding everybody with GM antibiotic resistance genes, especially when we know that DNA is not fully deactivated by digestion, and is also getting to the unborn. what total twaddle. As bacteria have far more antibiotic resistant genes than GM crops, They bacteria may have a few more types, if they have been selected by anitbiotics, but the crop has it in every cell, so far more altogether, and constantly present. But by your own strange analogy bacteria have them all in their "memory banks" What's new? You eat bacteria with every mouthful. And they are full of every conceivable resistance gene. and vastly more bacteria are ingested and digested that GM food, (as everyone swallows bacteria) Now from North America the corn is grown patch work in fields and all is mixed. So unless North Americans go to special trouble to get non-GM they will be getting an antibiotic resistance gene every second cell of that food they eat. Same with soy. And same number of cells of bacteria with every resistance gene ever imagined in their "memory banks". then any antibiotic resistant transfer occuring through the mechanism you suggest will be happening constantly and at a high frequency now I suggested the gene packages jumping from the GM food to bacteria, yes. They are jumping between bacteria all the time. And they are far more potent carriers. You say it will be happening at a high frequency now, Yes. and any GM addition will be a trivial irrelevence. you say. I and several others say we do not want any GM addition we want the whole GM contribution brought right back to zero. Well, yes, that's what some want, but for no demonstrated, logical reason. Stop using antibiotic resistance markers. They have, haven't they?. The argument that we are using so many that a few more is of no consequence is as silly as saying another drink will be of no consequence to a driver who is already drunk. We do not want any drivers drunk in the first place. Your analogy, although good, is based on a flawed premise. There is infinitely more resistance genes in the bacteria we swallow than in any amount of GE food we might eat. And then only a minute proportion of the relatively tiny amount of ingested GM genes will survive the gut. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 24 Jul 2003 12:43:53 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 22 Jul 2003 00:46:26 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: Gayle C. Ferguson,1 Jack A. Heinemann,1^,2^* and Martin A. Kennedy3 Department of Plant and Microbial Sciences, University of Canterbury,1 Department of Pathology, Christchurch School of Medicine, Christchurch, New Zealand,3 Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology, Tromsø, Norway2 Received 5 November 2001/ Accepted 16 January 2002 Thanks. Heinemann is not getting sufficient grants, I presume because partnership with immediate profit-making would not be easy in his field. Well that is a bit strange when you think of the tremendous public-funded sink going/having gone into GM and not paying off, except to sell herbicide. You HAVE been reading too much greenie anti-Monsanto propaganda. He says his work might eventually yield insights into the design of fundamentally different anti-infective agents for the control of antibiotic resistance and infectious diseases as well as being relevant to "the volatile debate on assessing the risks of genetically modified organisms to teh environment". There the bacteria coul dbe protected from antibiotics while exhanging the genes for antibiotic resistance and the genes that make bacteria better at causing disease. Laboratory tests proved that genes do transfer between these bacteria even when antibiotics are present. The ability of bacteria to exchange genes insdie human cells also suggests the bacteria could transfer genes to the human genome. However, Heinemann says, `This is not necessarily going to cause the transfer of bacterial genes to our sex cells and to our children, because these bacteria do not normally have access to our sex cells'" - Deborah Parker, UC Alumni, Winter 2003, p 19. Though who knows, when, as I posted in the `apocalypse' thread, GM can be used to make, in corn, antibodies which will destroy human sperm. And this would be injected into what site on the body? I don't know if they have to be injected. Well how will these proteins survive the gut? As you may have now read, my post of Schubbert et al, the GM green fluorescence marker gets in and even crosses to the unborn embryo/fetus. And this has been replicated, accepted, and written into the text books? What is the route of the anti-sperm antibodies that vasectomised men may start to produce? Well it's already in the bloodstream, so it needs NO route of introduction. And these GM proteins get in. Rarely, like any other proteins. But using a protein therapeutic agent by mouth is useless. Otherwise folk wouldn't have to inject insulin. Why would you want to manufacture anti-sperm antibodies? Contraception? If it could be put in food it might be a political tool. Wow. Machiavelli lives :) By saying that you imply I am two faced: that I support such political control, and further imply that I support the technology, a total about face. If you assume that I was calling YOU Machiavelli -- I wasn't. If I preach against murder and say guns can be used to kill people do you then say I am Machiavellian and imply I support gun killing? No, but I might have something derogatory to say about Charleton Heston. :) What sort of intelligence are you hoping to sway/sell to? None, I'm merely having a discussion. Who are you trying to sway? These are only just proteins, BTW it is necessary to take more care with drug resistance genes. Is not sufficient care already being taken? No. Things are done with the knowledge of the decade. What more can you ask? When you are working with the bases of life take some heed from people who sacrifice their jobs when they have not been listened to. Huh? Scientists from the FDA who did not support `generally recognised as safe' (GRAS) line of FDA. Well what else have you got? There is NO test to say that somehing is "safe" (whatever that actually means). You can only look for harm, and if you find none, it can be assumed "safe" until some harm is discovered. We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering anything. What evidence have you that this has not been thoroughly investigated? It has been examined with the old ideas. That genes are transferred from parent to offspring (vertical movement) was the basis. That is now outmoded. Genes go horizontally from one bacteria to another, and that is the more dominant method of passing on resistance. It can happen in human cells where bacteria are protected from antibiotics. But how is this well-known phenomenon related to GE? In GE genes are moved horizontally artificially. But this "horizontal"/ "vertical" is just an etic grid that you have put on this phenomrnon. To the organism, there is no difference. Read again: ********* This is the html version of the file http://www.nzige.canterbury.ac.nz/fi...ubmission.pdf. G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web. To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/cobrand_univ?q...www.nzige.cant erbury.ac.nz/finalgmd01194submission.pdf+heinemann+submission&h l=en&ie =UTF-8 [...] Submission on AgResearch Application GMD01194 ********** and I shan't quote the volumes of horizontal gene transfer elucidation, but shall give: " tetracycline stimulates HGT rates by controlling expression of the genes that cause these elements to transfer (Salyers, 1995)." As further comment on an earlier point of yours about bacterial gene-swapping always being all-on. It's always on, but that doesn't preclude the possiblility of there being genes that can switch on particular expressions. There are genes, afterall, for just about anything. Think about it and it will likely exist. And I believe you are assuming that banana genes are different from human genes. Let me tell you a little secret, they are not. Genes are just a sequence of genetic material that occurs in all living organisms. Just shows that we evolved from the same primitive organisms. Yes, we share 80% of genes with a rice plant. That is why we should be so careful about tinkering with rice. Huh? We have been tinkering with rice for probably 20,000 years. The fact that all genetic material is just sequences of the same material should show that we have been exposed to everything that the millions of years of life evolution has tried. And it is now known that the genes themselves are not sufficient to explain the complexities of mammals. What else but environment? They are engineered in a package which makes it easier to move in. They will then be more potently available to bacteria. But bacteria have just about any gene available to them now. Why should a few already existing ones be a bother? That's like saying an orchestra has so many violinists a few more won't matter. But it only takes one playing a bit loud to spoil the other 12's effect. And the genes have strong promoters packaged with them. But what harm does this violinist do? It is a subjective value judgement. It might be undesirable, but surely causes no harm. Heinemann's work was `recognised by the American Society for Microbiology as teh best published in April 2002. The society publishes 600 of the many thousands of articles submitted to its journals each month, and of the 600 published last year, the Canterbury research was singled out as "best of the best."' Fine. Bacteria swap genes. As they can multiply "vertically" from one to 4,722,366,400,000,000,000,000 in just one day, I think this is probably not all that fantastic :) Fritjof Capra already in 1996 reports about Kauffman (1993): `sytems biologists have begun to portray teh genome as a self-organizing network capable of spontaneously producing new forms of order. "We must rethink evolutionary biology," writes Stuart Kauffman. "Much of the order we see in organisms may be the direct result not of natural selection but of the natural order selection was allowed to act on... Evolution is not just a tinkering ... It is an emergent order honored and honed by selection."' Surmise. You yourself agreed when you said survival techniques from the past are helpful for the present. Only with a suitable random mutation of course. But we do not realise the extent of that. Well there is the evidence of the present to show the success of the process. What catastrophes have occurred in this area over the aeons? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Moosh:]" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:12:10 +0100, Oz wrote: Moosh:] writes How could you dry out a crop by applying an aqueous solution? Oh, I see, they killed a crop with the herbicide making it look dry? That's illegal, for use on a food crop. Actually no. Dessicants are not that unusual in european agriculture (and probably american as well). It's quite often used for EU canola, and sometimes other crops, particularly where weed control has been, er, less than perfect. This has been going on for decades. Yes, I follow, but would you use Roundup for this? What chemicals are used for dessicants? Curious. Reglone, for one. Round-Up has a duel use here in the fall. It can be used as a slower acting dessicant, but usually is used in a pre-harvest treatment to control such weeds as Canada thistle and dandelion. By the way, where did you get the information that this practice was illegal??????????? Dean Ronn |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Moosh:] writes
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:12:10 +0100, Oz wrote: Moosh:] writes How could you dry out a crop by applying an aqueous solution? Oh, I see, they killed a crop with the herbicide making it look dry? That's illegal, for use on a food crop. Actually no. Dessicants are not that unusual in european agriculture (and probably american as well). It's quite often used for EU canola, and sometimes other crops, particularly where weed control has been, er, less than perfect. This has been going on for decades. Yes, I follow, but would you use Roundup for this? Absolutely, the product of choice due to it's safety. What chemicals are used for dessicants? Curious. Diquat pre roundup, and still preferred if a fast kill is required. The approvals tend to be crop specific. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
What a crock.
Gordon "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Moosh:] wrote: On 21 Jul 2003 12:09:43 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: 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. You believe in Gaea? More like what I posted recently: Fritjof Capra already in 1996 reports about Kauffman (1993): `sytems biologists have begun to portray the genome as a self-organizing network capable of spontaneously producing new forms of order. "We must rethink evolutionary biology," writes Stuart Kauffman. "Much of the order we see in organisms may be the direct result not of natural selection but of the natural order selection was allowed to act on... Evolution is not just a tinkering ... It is an emergent order honored and honed by selection."' So if survival in the past had come about through mutating more when under stress, then that would happen again under stress. I think that is accepted. And anyway it is hard to tell that sort of thing from a Gaia if there is one. What was the origin of the first enzymes? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:02:44 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:06:14 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote: On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:51:19 GMT, "Moosh:]" wrote: .. I've looked up the reference given and stand by my claim. "Rapidly" is perhaps a misleading word. Point is, you claim it breaks down rapidly in plants, while referencing that information to a source which says in some plants it remains bloody intact. "Bloodywell intact", Torsten, try to be grammatical :) Hello? There is inconsistency between your claim and the source to which you reference it. Deal with it. It is not regarded as persistent in significant plants. From memory, corn was amongst these. Well, what can one say. That it doesn't hang about long in significant food plants. IIRC. Even if it does, so what? Over the years I've ferretted out scores of references and always come to a dead end as far as any harm goes. Can you mention any harm from glyphosate? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Oz" wrote in message ... Moosh:] writes How could you dry out a crop by applying an aqueous solution? Oh, I see, they killed a crop with the herbicide making it look dry? That's illegal, for use on a food crop. Actually no. Dessicants are not that unusual in european agriculture (and probably american as well). It's quite often used for EU canola, and sometimes other crops, particularly where weed control has been, er, less than perfect. This has been going on for decades. Round Up is sure better than the arsenic acid we used to use on cotton to defoliate it. The fellow I teamed up to harvest cotton with so much arsenic in his system he couldn't work in a field that had been sprayed with it anymore. Lets go back to the old ways. Gordon |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Calcium chloride and pariquat are the only two I can think of. Parquat is
used in cotton not crops for human consumption. There are a number of other defoilats that are less toxic that work will if the cotton is growing well. In southwest Oklahoma we don't need desiccants very often. We just wait for the afternoon sun. Gordon "Moosh:]" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:12:10 +0100, Oz wrote: Moosh:] writes How could you dry out a crop by applying an aqueous solution? Oh, I see, they killed a crop with the herbicide making it look dry? That's illegal, for use on a food crop. Actually no. Dessicants are not that unusual in european agriculture (and probably american as well). It's quite often used for EU canola, and sometimes other crops, particularly where weed control has been, er, less than perfect. This has been going on for decades. Yes, I follow, but would you use Roundup for this? What chemicals are used for dessicants? Curious. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Oz" wrote in message ... Moosh:] writes On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:12:10 +0100, Oz wrote: Moosh:] writes How could you dry out a crop by applying an aqueous solution? Oh, I see, they killed a crop with the herbicide making it look dry? That's illegal, for use on a food crop. Actually no. Dessicants are not that unusual in european agriculture (and probably american as well). It's quite often used for EU canola, and sometimes other crops, particularly where weed control has been, er, less than perfect. This has been going on for decades. Yes, I follow, but would you use Roundup for this? Absolutely, the product of choice due to it's safety. What chemicals are used for dessicants? Curious. Diquat pre roundup, and still preferred if a fast kill is required. The approvals tend to be crop specific. We have no chemicals I know of cleared for cereals as harvest aids. If the weeds are bad you wind row it and let it dry. Gordon |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 22 Jul 2003 02:29:38 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: Now engineers in any field, mechanical or electrical or anything, know that what theory says is not always what works. Rubbish. That is what engineering is all about. If the observations don't match the theory, then it has either been improperly applied, or they change the theory. Usually an estimation or measurement is wrong. Or the theory does not cope with the complexity. In GM consider the `Central Dogma,' that flow of genetic information is unidirectional, from DNA to protein, with messenger RNA as an intermediate. I think many, including you, are caught in that old dogma. Linkname: The End of Bad Science and Beginning Again with Life URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/paris.php size: 737 lines [...] The bad science of reductionist biology Up to the late 1960s and early 1970s, biology was dominated by the double helix of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), the genetic material, which got Watson, Crick and Wilkins the Nobel prize. Complementary base-pairing between the strands of the double helix enables the DNA to be faithfully copied, and passed on unchanged generation after generation. Random mutations occur, but these are very rare, about one in a billion or less. DNA is faithfully transcribed into a complementary strand of RNA (ribonucleic acid), which is, in turn, translated into a protein with a specific amino-acid sequence. This is the so-called Central Dogma of molecular biology. Genetic information is strictly linear, and goes in one direction, from DNA to RNA to protein, and no reverse information flow is allowed. As the proteins catalyze all the biochemical reactions in our body, the implication is that the genes ultimately control and determine all the characteristics of the organism. The Central Dogma formalizes the four basic assumptions of genetic determinism and give them material substance. 1. Genes determine characters in a straightforward, additive way: one gene-one protein, and by implication, one character. Environmental influence, if it occurs, can be neatly sorted from the genetic. 2. Genes and genomes are stable, and except for rare, random mutations, are passed on unchanged to the next generation. 3. Genes and genomes cannot be changed directly in response to the environment. 4. Acquired characters are not inherited, as germline genes are not influenced by the environment. These assumptions fit neatly with the dominant neo-Darwinian theory, which says that all of marvelous life on earth evolved, and is still evolving essentially by the natural selection of random genetic mutations. Neo-Darwinism combines Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with August Weismann's theory of the immortal, inviolable germline, which, through Mendelian and molecular genetics became the Central Dogma. So, there is supposed to be a `Weismann's barrier' forbidding environmental influences from changing the genes directly, especially in the germ cells that give rise to the next generation. That is how biologists and the public at large came to see the living world purely in terms of genes and DNA. There are no organisms, only collections of `selfish genes', all clamoring to replicate. There are no societies of communities, only selfish individuals competing against one another. Dawkins is the best known popularizer of such views. [...] One has to appreciate that the assumptions of genetic determinism, in one form or another, have been the bread and butter of mainstream biology for at least 100 years, rather the way that Newtonian mechanics had been the foundations of physics in the pre-quantum physics era. Within 10 years of the Central Dogma, however, genetics was turned upside-down. All those assumptions, and more, were contradicted by research findings, from the then newly developed recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology. Recombinant DNA technology is a set of techniques for isolating, multiplying, cutting and joining pieces of DNA, and for transferring DNA between species. It is what makes genetic engineering possible, and it happens also to be a powerful research tool. The initial crack to the genetic determinist edifice appeared before rDNA research really got underway. Howard Temin and David Baltimore in the United States, independently discovered reverse transcriptase, an enzyme that does the reverse of transcription - making a copy of complementary DNA from an RNA sequence, which is inserted into the genome - the totality of all the genetic material in the cell or organism - so it can be replicated with the genome. Reverse transcriptase was first found in retroviruses, such as the ones implicated in AIDs and in cancers, which have RNA as their genomes. Then came a torrent of new discoveries which shook the very foundations of genetic determinism.6 By far the most significant picture to emerge from the findings is how very dynamic and flexible the genome is in both its function and structure. This is in striking contrast to the static, mechanical conception that previously held sway. Gene functions are mutually entangled in extremely complex networks, with many genes required to turn other genes on or off, which are in turn regulated by other genes. Genes can get silenced under certain physiological conditions, and this state can be passed on to all daughter cells. According to the Central Dogma, one gene specifies one protein. In reality, all possible specifications exist. One-to-one, one to many, many to one, and many to many. The gene is no longer a continuous stretch of DNA on the chromosome. It exists in bits, interrupted by long non-coding stretches which are spliced out in the RNA transcript. Transcipts are subject to numerous processing reactions including alternative splicing to produce different proteins. Most surprisingly, the transcript can become extensively `edited' by chemical modifications to change the base sequence, so that it is translated into a protein completely different from the one encoded. Furthermore, the genes themselves and the structure of the genome are both subject to small and large changes in the course of normal development and as the result of environmental perturbations, so much so that molecular geneticists have coined the descriptive term, `the fluid genome' almost 20 years ago. There are many processes contributing to the fluidity of the genome (see Box 1). All these processes are under cellular regulation and also occur in response to the environment. Box 1 Processes responsible for genomic fluidity * Transposition (gene jumping) * Gene amplification and contraction * Deletion * Insertion * Reverse transcription and insertion of cDNA into the genome * Chromosomal rearrangement * Hyper-mutation/directed mutation * Gene conversion * Horizontal gene transfer All these processes are subject to cellular regulation and can also occur in response to the environment. [...] MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT PERMISSION, ON CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY AND CONTAINS A LINK TO http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ There is a lot of trial and error and practical theories are continually improved. That's better :) So move with it. 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. You mean motherboards don't follow the rules of physics? They don't follow the simple rules used to build telephone exchanges years ago when things worked so slowly that interacting EM fields were not a problem. When you introduce a gene you also introduce a promoter and the process is a bit hit and miss. But nowhere near as hit and miss as mutagens or cross pollination. When a human has a car smash and is left to their resources to heal, it will be different from if someone sews them back together. An inventive surgeon might mishievously decide to connect something inappropriate to get a circus creature. I use the latter as an analogy for GM, as opposed to damage by mutants &c being left to the plant to heal. It has been found that the characterization of Rounup Ready soy was rather inexact. But nowhere near as inexact as trying the results of mutagen applications, or cross pollinating. The inexactitude is more protective. The GM is inexact but suffiently exact to get improper limb tendons linked, sort of thing, in the analogy. The promoter, when strong, may not just switch on the gene next to it, but also ones further along. Just like is happening every second of every day in uncountable millions of living cells. We must be still learning about that, how it had come to some sort of equilibriums. The new bits sewn in are unpredictable. 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. No, the cell that hasn't got the survival mutation dies, and the one that does survives. Past survival had been helped by mutating faster when stress occurs. So it happens again when stresses occur. That makes it more likely that there will be some mutations that survive the stress. I reported Heinmemann's comments on it. The theories are not good enough to predict it all. But nowhere near as hit and miss as mutagens or cross pollination. The thing is that the theories are evolving faster than is comfortable. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.med.nutrition:168566 nz.general:583491 sci.agricultu63019
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 24 Jul 2003 22:54:10 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: I don't think randomity explains what goes on. Well it can, so why look for fairies at the bottom of the garden? Think of Ockham's razor. You are behind, as I explained last article. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Gordon Couger" wrote in message . .. Calcium chloride and pariquat are the only two I can think of. Parquat is used in cotton not crops for human consumption. There are a number of other defoilats that are less toxic that work will if the cotton is growing well. In southwest Oklahoma we don't need desiccants very often. We just wait for the afternoon sun. round here you can wait weeks for the afternoon sun. Haven't seen it since Monday Jim Webster Gordon "Moosh:]" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:12:10 +0100, Oz wrote: Moosh:] writes How could you dry out a crop by applying an aqueous solution? Oh, I see, they killed a crop with the herbicide making it look dry? That's illegal, for use on a food crop. Actually no. Dessicants are not that unusual in european agriculture (and probably american as well). It's quite often used for EU canola, and sometimes other crops, particularly where weed control has been, er, less than perfect. This has been going on for decades. Yes, I follow, but would you use Roundup for this? What chemicals are used for dessicants? Curious. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Jim Webster writes
round here you can wait weeks for the afternoon sun. Haven't seen it since Monday IT'S RAINING HERE!!!!! Maybe 3mm (1/10") since yesterday! Yippppeeee!!!! If it stops by monday, that will be nice. I seem to remember you reporting no sight of the sun for three months once, although you did report the odd rainless day. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message As I said 3 to 14% of hospital admissions result from prescribed drug adverse effects. nothing to do with it in this case, a very sick man cannot be expected to be able to cope with some drugs. So you want a greater range in the arsenal. You don't want them getting disabled by resistance. utterly irrelevent he was too weak to take any antibiotic That vomiting is one of the listed side effects of linezolid, a drug now used against MRSA. You don't have to be feeble to be taken off it. Did he use to be able to tolerate the `...cillin' drugs? So they switched to the antiseptic wash Which they probably use anyway, linezolid or not? I suppose they will claim linezolid is no worse than any other, but it is better to have more in the arsenal isn't it? Then say do genetic testing and do not prescribe by trial and error. Try not to eliminate your choices by feeding everybody with GM antibiotic resistance genes, especially when we know that DNA is not fully deactivated by digestion, and is also getting to the unborn. what total twaddle. As bacteria have far more antibiotic resistant genes than GM crops, They bacteria may have a few more types, if they have been selected by anitbiotics, but the crop has it in every cell, so far more altogether, and constantly present. no, start thinking carefully all food has bacteria so you eat it with every meal. Varying amounts, healthy food stops bacteria growing in itself. There might be some on the surface. But GM food has it all the way through, in every cell. Each meal with contain bacteria resistant to antibiotics we haven't even developed yet but are used in nature, bacteria resistant to antibiotics that are so old that they are no longer used It is not the age which stops them being used. It is when they don't work or are too toxic. and bacteria more resistant than their fellows to heavy metals, UV, and for all I know tedium. Yes, as I posted from Heinemann they learn under antibiotic selection to do stress adaptation. If the antibiotic resistance genes are present they will make use of them. With GM, firstly not every meal contains GM DNA, Except if you eat corn most meals. as opposed to every meal which does contain GM DNA, This is not really a proper sentence you have written, but go on: and the GM is far more restricted in its resistance. Unfortunately This is the html version of the file http://www.nzige.canterbury.ac.nz/fi...ubmission.pdf. G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web. To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/cobrand_univ?q...www.nzige.cant erbury.ac.nz/finalgmd01194submission.pdf+heinemann+submission&h l=en&ie =UTF-8 [...] 4.4.6. The use of one antibiotic has implications for resistance to other antibiotics (Heinemann, 1999; Heinemann et al., 2000; Salyers and Amábile-Cuevas, 1997). 4.4.6.1. Vectors that convey antibiotic resistance genes in nature tend to carry more than one resistance gene, meaning that selection for any of those genes maintains all linked resistance genes (eg, Holmberg et al., 1984). 4.4.6.2. Tetracycline resistance can lead to an increased likelihood of cross- resistance to other drugs (Heinemann, 1999). For example, one study found that tetracycline can select Escherichia coli with a "multiple antibiotic resistance" (mar) phenotype and those strains were 1000 times more likely to acquire resistance to structurally unrelated fluoroquinolone antibiotics, a class which is of extreme clinical importance (reviewed in Heinemann, 1999). [...] and vastly more bacteria are ingested and digested that GM food, (as everyone swallows bacteria) Now from North America the corn is grown patch work in fields and all is mixed. So unless North Americans go to special trouble to get non-GM they will be getting an antibiotic resistance gene every second cell of that food they eat. Same with soy. then any antibiotic resistant transfer occuring through the mechanism you suggest will be happening constantly and at a high frequency now I suggested the gene packages jumping from the GM food to bacteria, yes. You say it will be happening at a high frequency now, and any GM addition will be a trivial irrelevence. you say. I and several others say we do not want any GM addition we want the whole GM contribution brought right back to zero. tough, you have two choices. pay enough to make growing conventional worth while or eat GM choice is entirely yours Or persuade people they are being ripped off, made into serfs, having their tax used to subsidise research into such activities. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote:
What a crock. Gordon Gordon Couger? Please explain. "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... So if survival in the past had come about through mutating more when under stress, then that would happen again under stress. I think that is accepted. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 22 Jul 2003 07:08:06 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: [...] It always amazes me how Organic folk can accept a GE "chemical" as OK for their needs. Bt is a natural soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, which happens to be toxic to butterfly and moth larvae. It is not a GE "chemical", though the genes producing the Bt toxins have been engineered into GE crops. I suggest you bring yourself up to date. BT is the freeze dried protein (chemical) that is produced by the bacterium you mentioned. It is a stomach poison to caterpillars and some other insects. Some strains of it are produced by genetic engineering. Yes, I suppose it would be extracted from GM crops. Or is it produced by some GM bacterium? The Organic folk would not accept it if it were properly labelled as GM. They would use the non-GM sort. All you have to be amazed about is the labelling issue. Desperation? Anyways, Bt has been so overused that it only has a limited useful life. Now that it is present perpetually, whether really needed or not, you are right. Well it is that by use of the protein powder by agriculture and the home gardener. No, because when GE'd into a crop it is present all the time, though gradually fading in strenght as the crop matures. When home gardners use it, or non-GM soy farmers &c, it is only present as needed, then disappears. New specific pesticides will be developed. Which we do not know the problems with. Same problems as with BT. Have you heard of testing? Happens all the time. So the Bt crop suppliers, who are ruining it, should be paying for the research for something new organic. And the produce will probably not sell as well as when the organic Bt stuff was used occasionally. Only because the public has been hoodwinked into believing that Organic is somehow better. It is. Why buy corn with Bt protein in it? Why buy paste made from tomato which keeps longer, but with no guarantee about the nutritional qualities lasting in proportion? [...] |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter