Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. 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 and the process is a bit hit and miss. It has been found that the characterization of Rounup Ready soy was rather inexact. The promoter, when strong, may not just switch on the gene next to it, but also ones further along. 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. 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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
[IBC] Non-traditional forms {WAS: [IBC] good quote (non-bonsai, but related)} | Bonsai | |||
NW: Best grass for a non garden/non mowing kind of guy | Gardening | |||
GM crop farms filled with weeds (Was: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?) | sci.agriculture | |||
Comparison photos of GM/non-GM (Was: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?) | sci.agriculture | |||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn? (Was: Soy blocked in NZ) | sci.agriculture |