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?

[...]