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.

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. 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.


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. So resistance to it by Staph. aureus
will probably be developing, too. 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.

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.

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.

New specific pesticides will be
developed.

Which we do not know the problems with. And the produce will probably not
sell as well as when the organic Bt stuff was used occasionally.

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.
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.

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.

Poor food hygiene introduces the bacteria from a worker who has not washed
themselves or animal faecal contamination. 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. Lots in the population have less than
optimal digestion, leaky guts from gluten injury, and will get the naked
DNA into their circulation.

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.

Jim Webster wrote:

Why would estrogenic compounds have nothing to do with estrogenic pasture?


you asked about the effects of estrogenic pasture on cattle, you have shown
no evidence that there is such an effect

I asked you as one farmer whether you have noticed anything.

Have you ever had cows on red clover to any extent? Then have you noticed
any affect on them? Or the estrogenic mycotoxin zearallenone? Don't some
farmers use it as a steroid to increase growth of animals? I think I
posted how it reduces fertility.

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.

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. Indeed some farmers used it to dry out a
crop for harvest. Now I wonder what they do about that. Extra? Something
else?

And isn't Roundup resistance transfering to the weeds so the other
herbicides are needed anyway?


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. You contract to buy Roundup when you
buy the RR seeds. So it will be used, most likely, since it has been
bought under the contract, whether it is really needed or not. Do Monsanto
allow you to buy the seed without Roundup next time? Then how do they make
their profit on the loss leader technology fee on the seeds? It is the
Roundup sale which makes the profit.


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.

And anyway, it is quite harmless.

Not necessarily to water creatures, or to many humans, possibly.

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.

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? Can they afford the research? Will they
be bought out?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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).
[...]
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.

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.

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.

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.

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. In the latter case what was
treatable Staph aureus turns itself into untreatable Staph aureus. 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. Oh, yes, as with the computer viruses made by the people who
wish to sell antidotes, it is all work for them.

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. For one thing transgenes from GE
food can be found in colostomy bags.

The antibiotics we take lightly are another matter.

But it is a bit of a different dimension of risk.

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.

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.

"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. 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.

If you are going to use arguments use ones that you don't loose at the onset
with proven facts.

Gordon

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:31:21 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

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. 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.

It is not clear which testing you are referring to -- somewhat linked
to it being unclear what you mean by 'food stuffs'. Maybe you meant to
write 'varieties'?

But then your argument would seem to assume that GM methods are not
used in combination with conventional breeding methods. Which they
are, and which I know that you know that they are.

Or, it assumes that unintended food hazards from the conventional
breeding methods involved are being tested for in GM varieties, but
not in non-GM varieties of the same crop species -- and that you can
name several such comparable non-GM varieties that cause harm because
they were not similarly tested from the outset.

And, that, I - erm - might well not think that you can. TO make things
worse, were you to be inable to name them, that would put you in an
awkward position with your argument, since in any given crop species
that have GM varieties used for food currently, you would have had
vastly more non-GM varieties to pick your alleged harm-causers from,
than your opponent would have had GM-varieties.

So, perhaps better; can I ask you to rephrase your argument, please.

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message ...
"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.

Another naif who seems to believe that governments and their
regulations will save us. It was a British government regulation
requiring cattle to be heavily dosed with organophosphate pesticides
which may have triggered the BSE outbreak. See Mark Purdy's research.

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.

I certainly can, a company in San Diego named Epicyte. They are
producing a spermicide in corn kernals via GM.

================================================== ===========
Vast fields of maize could soon be churning out antibodies for
preventing sexually transmitted diseases.

Researchers at Epicyte, a biotech company in San Diego, say their
technology promises to make the mass production of therapeutic
antibodies easier and cheaper. At the moment, therapeutic antibodies
are produced using hamster ovary cells - an expensive method that
produces limited amounts.

But Epicyte's new "plantibody" technology allows the DNA that codes
for antibodies to be introduced into crop plants such as maize. The
antibodies are only produced in the maize kernels, making it easy to
extract them using current maize-processing methods.

Epicyte is already well on the way to producing an antibody to prevent
herpes infection, says Andrew Hiatt, who helped develop the
technology. The antibody, HX8, works by sticking to the virus and
blocking its entry into cells, and has proved highly effective in
animal tests.

Although condoms provide some protection against herpes infection,
they are not 100 per cent reliable. But HX8 can provide protection in
the vagina for 24 hours. Epicyte is also developing antibodies that
block HIV transmission and the virus that causes genital warts.

The HX8 genes have already been transferred into maize, and Epicyte
plans to start clinical trials of the antibody next year. Hiatt hopes
plantibodies will be cheap enough for consumers to buy them over the
counter. "That's the ultimate goal," he says.

Claire Ainsworth
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991373
================================================== ===================

I don't want my balls to be damaged every time I eat corn just because
a company wants to improve it's bottom line. Once their GM pollen
escapes into the air there's no going back, and no protection for any
other corn plant in the world. It's already happened.

================================================== ================
"Biotech Company Admits StarLink
Contamination is Forever
Knight Ridder/Tribune
Biotech Firm Executive Says Genetically Engineered Corn Is
Here to Stay
Mar. 19

A top Aventis CropScience executive said Sunday that the food
supply will never be rid of the new strain of corn that the company
genetically engineered at Research Triangle Park."

http://www.purefood.org/ge/starlinkforever.cfm
================================================== ==================


================================================== ==================
"Genetically Modified Corn Spreading to Protected Wild Corn
Despite Mexico's 3-year-old moratorium on the use of genetically
altered corn, scientists have detected genetically modified DNA in
wild maize in the mountains of the state of Oaxaca.

Wayward genes from genetically modified corn that is widely grown in
Canada and the United States are spreading in remote mountainous
regions of Mexico.

Up to 70% of wild Mexican maize now carries transgenes that could only
have come from genetically engineered crops. The transgenes, which
scientists borrow from viruses and bacteria, have been engineered into
GM crops."

Nature November 29, 2001;414:541-543

http://www.mercola.com/2001/dec/12/gm_corn.htm
================================================== =====================


If you are going to use arguments use ones that you don't loose at the onset
with proven facts.

Gordon

I just used proven facts.

--Hua Kul

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:31:21 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

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. 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.

It is not clear which testing you are referring to -- somewhat linked
to it being unclear what you mean by 'food stuffs'. Maybe you meant to
write 'varieties'?

But then your argument would seem to assume that GM methods are not
used in combination with conventional breeding methods. Which they
are, and which I know that you know that they are.

Or, it assumes that unintended food hazards from the conventional
breeding methods involved are being tested for in GM varieties, but
not in non-GM varieties of the same crop species -- and that you can
name several such comparable non-GM varieties that cause harm because
they were not similarly tested from the outset.

And, that, I - erm - might well not think that you can. TO make things
worse, were you to be inable to name them, that would put you in an
awkward position with your argument, since in any given crop species
that have GM varieties used for food currently, you would have had
vastly more non-GM varieties to pick your alleged harm-causers from,
than your opponent would have had GM-varieties.

So, perhaps better; can I ask you to rephrase your argument, please.

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message ...
"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.

Another naif who seems to believe that governments and their
regulations will save us. It was a British government regulation
requiring cattle to be heavily dosed with organophosphate pesticides
which may have triggered the BSE outbreak. See Mark Purdy's research.

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.

I certainly can, a company in San Diego named Epicyte. They are
producing a spermicide in corn kernals via GM.

================================================== ===========
Vast fields of maize could soon be churning out antibodies for
preventing sexually transmitted diseases.

Researchers at Epicyte, a biotech company in San Diego, say their
technology promises to make the mass production of therapeutic
antibodies easier and cheaper. At the moment, therapeutic antibodies
are produced using hamster ovary cells - an expensive method that
produces limited amounts.

But Epicyte's new "plantibody" technology allows the DNA that codes
for antibodies to be introduced into crop plants such as maize. The
antibodies are only produced in the maize kernels, making it easy to
extract them using current maize-processing methods.

Epicyte is already well on the way to producing an antibody to prevent
herpes infection, says Andrew Hiatt, who helped develop the
technology. The antibody, HX8, works by sticking to the virus and
blocking its entry into cells, and has proved highly effective in
animal tests.

Although condoms provide some protection against herpes infection,
they are not 100 per cent reliable. But HX8 can provide protection in
the vagina for 24 hours. Epicyte is also developing antibodies that
block HIV transmission and the virus that causes genital warts.

The HX8 genes have already been transferred into maize, and Epicyte
plans to start clinical trials of the antibody next year. Hiatt hopes
plantibodies will be cheap enough for consumers to buy them over the
counter. "That's the ultimate goal," he says.

Claire Ainsworth
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991373
================================================== ===================

I don't want my balls to be damaged every time I eat corn just because
a company wants to improve it's bottom line. Once their GM pollen
escapes into the air there's no going back, and no protection for any
other corn plant in the world. It's already happened.

================================================== ================
"Biotech Company Admits StarLink
Contamination is Forever
Knight Ridder/Tribune
Biotech Firm Executive Says Genetically Engineered Corn Is
Here to Stay
Mar. 19

A top Aventis CropScience executive said Sunday that the food
supply will never be rid of the new strain of corn that the company
genetically engineered at Research Triangle Park."

http://www.purefood.org/ge/starlinkforever.cfm
================================================== ==================


================================================== ==================
"Genetically Modified Corn Spreading to Protected Wild Corn
Despite Mexico's 3-year-old moratorium on the use of genetically
altered corn, scientists have detected genetically modified DNA in
wild maize in the mountains of the state of Oaxaca.

Wayward genes from genetically modified corn that is widely grown in
Canada and the United States are spreading in remote mountainous
regions of Mexico.

Up to 70% of wild Mexican maize now carries transgenes that could only
have come from genetically engineered crops. The transgenes, which
scientists borrow from viruses and bacteria, have been engineered into
GM crops."

Nature November 29, 2001;414:541-543

http://www.mercola.com/2001/dec/12/gm_corn.htm
================================================== =====================


If you are going to use arguments use ones that you don't loose at the onset
with proven facts.

Gordon

I just used proven facts.

--Hua Kul

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:

Why would estrogenic compounds have nothing to do with estrogenic
pasture?


you asked about the effects of estrogenic pasture on cattle, you have
shown
no evidence that there is such an effect

I asked you as one farmer whether you have noticed anything.


Zearalenone is a mycotoxin produced by the fungus Fusarium. To my knowledge
this mycotoxin is not produced in red clover. The fungus is a cereal
pathogen and consequently zearalenone is found in wheat, barley and corn.

Dave
Have you ever had cows on red clover to any extent? Then have you noticed
any affect on them? Or the estrogenic mycotoxin zearallenone? Don't some
farmers use it as a steroid to increase growth of animals? I think I
posted how it reduces fertility.

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
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.

Can you please give a real example where a promoter that controls a specific
gene switches to turn on other genes? Thanks.

Dave


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.

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.

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.

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition David Kendra wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 19
Jul
2003 04:05:43 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:


And if you don't want to catch an illness, keep away from the
source,if
you know what it is.

How far away is labelling of GM ingredientsin corn chips, herrings
in
tomato sauce, chocolate &c &c?

Logically, as far away as labelling that a random mutation
happened
in
the corn field.

No because the sorts of mutations which nature has learnt to allow
to
multiply are ones beneficial to itself. The `junk' genes which can
later
help the plant relate to stress are tested over the thousands of
years.
Nature has learnt to keep a strict order in the genome. The GM
process
defeats that. Many people are saying that drug resistance markers
should
have ceased being used, or never started.

With all the random mutations we caused by intentional radiation and
chemical mutigens that I can still buy across the counter that are in
virtually every variety of every crop out there you worry about one
or
two
genes that were carefully studied and then checked buy the breeders,
USDA
and in some cases the EPA.

The genes were not checked.

What genes were not checked? Genes used to make GE plants such as
Roundup
Ready soybeans and Bt corn? If you answer yes to that, then you are
indeed
wrong. There was considerable study and gene mapping of these
introduced
genes.

Yes.

Now engineers in any field, mechanical or electrical or anything, know
that what theory says is not always what works. There is a lot of trial
and error and practical theories are continually improved.

How about providing some concrete examples with GE foods to prove your
point.

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.

When you introduce a gene you also introduce a promoter

not necessarily. some people "fish" for promoters by introducing a
selectable marker and looking for gene product.

and the process is
a bit hit and miss. It has been found that the characterization of Rounup
Ready soy was rather inexact.

How about the current versions of RR soybeans?

The promoter, when strong, may not just
switch on the gene next to it, but also ones further along.

Only if they are co-regulated. Please provide examples where this is the
case with GE products. Thanks.

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. The
theories are not good enough to predict it all.

Such blanket statements apply for all genes. We know that heat shock genes
down regulates a wide variety of genes in plant and animal species so you
your point is what?

Dave



Dave

What was checked was the substance the genes
were *intended* to make the plant produce. What was not able to be
dealt
with was the strong promoters needed to make the genes switch on and do
their work. Those promoters are going radomly into the genome and are
near
other genes as well, causing them to possibly switch on, too, with who
knows what effects.

In the past and it is sill the practice for crops treated with
mutigens
there is no testing or oversight on a process that you have no idea
what
you
have changed you just take what looks good and breed it back dragging
along
who knows what kind of hidden mutation along with it.

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.

Just in passing phytoestrogen effects in livestock are not unknown.

Sheep with a tup fed on clover-rich swards fail to ovulate and breeding
can be seriously affected or even prevented. This has been known for
decades.

It has been postulated that phytoestogens in soya (rather high) are
responsible for unpredicted increases in weight gains in pigs,
effectively a natural application of hormones (see growth promoters).


--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.