|
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
R.L. McCarty has no answers and goes into damage
control: If one were to cross a tainted field corn with an original by simply planting them aternately,,,a rectified strain could be raised in about three years of continuous monitoring. ALSO the corn would have HUGE-long ears with giant kernals. The original corn brought to our Indian Nationss in about 800 BC by what they call: THE KATCHINA! They were reptoids from Eridanus ( 350 systems) who are vegetarians and live in a very "controlled' Empire! They are vegetarians and even the least planet is weather controlled...so much so that even windows are UN-necessary! No roads od powerlines as each home has an atomic powere source about the size of a football and it lasts for 3500 yrs. Since they ARE Vegetarians,,they cook in a "WOK"..YES! You simply cannot beat perfection?? They have Grav-drive flying "pickup Trucks" as well! ( flat beds) LOL! B-0b1 And do they have a secret society with secret recognition symbols aimed at fighting genetic pollution? For some time on earth for an industry to dump their pollutants where someone else had to deal with them had been fair game: externalisation of costs it is known as. Now genetic pollution has become a legal method to take over ownership. What are the laws on Eridanus about genetic pollution. Do they have `polluter pays' yet? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 19 Jul 2003 04:05:43 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: Moosh:] wrote: On 17 Jul 2003 20:09:04 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: "It gets worse. The selling point behind Roundup Ready is that it is a glyphosphate-resistant strain. Spray on the herbicide and you're left with nothing but Monsanto crops. However, after two years application, glyphosphate-resistant volunteer corn plants begin to flourish. This has led to the most bizarre Monsanto patent yet awarded. US patent # 6,239,072 covers the practice of mixing glyphosphate with other herbicides, and any premixture thereof. This patent has been awarded despite the fact that mixing herbicides is what any sensible, thinking farmer would naturally do, and has been doing, in the event of resistant plants emerging. The patent also serves as a "de facto" admission of the GM "superweed" problem and that Roundup technology lacks efficacy and predictability. " So, don't buy Monsanto products, if you don't like them. No-one's forcing anyone. 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 ingredients in corn chips, herrings in tomato sauce, chocolate &c &c? Logically, as far away as labelling that a random mutation happened in the corn field. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. 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. The extra Roundup in human diets of Roundup Ready crops provides extra xeno-estrogen in the diet. 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. 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. The drug resistance marker in the GM crops has been warned against by many. All bacteria have always swopped their genes, they really have a common gene bank, and what you do to one gets around and is made use of by the others. Then you get indirect harm from GM when the drugs we have can no longer treat the illnesses. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Moosh:] wrote:
On 17 Jul 2003 20:09:04 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: "It gets worse. The selling point behind Roundup Ready is that it is a glyphosphate-resistant strain. Spray on the herbicide and you're left with nothing but Monsanto crops. However, after two years application, glyphosphate-resistant volunteer corn plants begin to flourish. This has led to the most bizarre Monsanto patent yet awarded. US patent # 6,239,072 covers the practice of mixing glyphosphate with other herbicides, and any premixture thereof. This patent has been awarded despite the fact that mixing herbicides is what any sensible, thinking farmer would naturally do, and has been doing, in the event of resistant plants emerging. The patent also serves as a "de facto" admission of the GM "superweed" problem and that Roundup technology lacks efficacy and predictability. " So, don't buy Monsanto products, if you don't like them. No-one's forcing anyone. 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 ingredients in corn chips, herrings in tomato sauce, chocolate &c &c? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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? 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 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? More xeno-oestrogen than what? 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. 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. 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? All bacteria have always swopped their genes, Just like humans and all beings which reproduce sexually. they really have a common gene bank, Like all species-like groups 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. Then you get indirect harm from GM when the drugs we have can no longer treat the illnesses. Examples? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 19 Jul 2003 04:34:37 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: 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. Well of course. The lethal mutations die out :) The `junk' genes which can later help the plant relate to stress are tested over the thousands of years. If they last that long. I would guess that every combination and permutation has been "tried" over the millions of years. Nature has learnt to keep a strict order in the genome. Rubbish. There is no control over this other than "what works persists and what doesn't dies out". It's all chemistry. The GM process defeats that. Again, rubbish. If a man-made mutation (and man has been artificially mutating things for a long time) works to the advantage (or no effect) on the organism it will survive. If it does harm to the organism, it will die out. Many people are saying that drug resistance markers should have ceased being used, or never started. The natural mutations of bacteria are breeding drug resistance every moment of every day. That's life. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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. what total rubbish where to you apply to 'nature' for a licence, where does 'nature' test and 'allow' these genes. Nature is not a person for christsake! Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Jim Webster 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. what total rubbish where to you apply to 'nature' for a licence, where does 'nature' test and 'allow' these genes. Nature is not a person for christsake! Jim Webster Organims including humans have learned to coexist. Now we have to learn new lessons very fast. Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance, because of current practices. Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from antibiotics, too. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Moosh:] wrote:
On 19 Jul 2003 04:34:37 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: 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. Well of course. The lethal mutations die out :) The ones lethal to themselves, Moosh means. But that is a very simplistic, outdated view, that neo-Darwinism. Bacteria for example swop and store genes which help them survive. It is now being found that drug resistance to several antibiotics can be selected by applying only one of them. The `junk' genes which can later help the plant relate to stress are tested over the thousands of years. If they last that long. I would guess that every combination and permutation has been "tried" over the millions of years. Many reactions to stress have been tried and their results saved in the junk DNA. Nature has learnt to keep a strict order in the genome. Rubbish. There is no control over this other than "what works persists and what doesn't dies out". It's all chemistry. The GM process defeats that. Again, rubbish. If a man-made mutation (and man has been artificially mutating things for a long time) works to the advantage (or no effect) on the organism it will survive. If it does harm to the organism, it will die out. Outdated. Many people are saying that drug resistance markers should have ceased being used, or never started. The natural mutations of bacteria are breeding drug resistance every moment of every day. That's life. It is very seriously wrong to provide them with extra tools to do it. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 19 Jul 2003 11:01:41 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: Moosh:] wrote: On 19 Jul 2003 04:34:37 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: 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. Well of course. The lethal mutations die out :) The ones lethal to themselves, Moosh means. But that is a very simplistic, outdated view, that neo-Darwinism. That lethal mutations aren't lethal? Hookay.... Bacteria for example swop and store genes which help them survive. And so? How does this not show that "Nature" only allows mutations beneficial to the organism? As if anything is needed to show this self-evident phenomenon. It is now being found that drug resistance to several antibiotics can be selected by applying only one of them. Was this the Mexican finding that was shown to be invalid? The `junk' genes which can later help the plant relate to stress are tested over the thousands of years. If they last that long. I would guess that every combination and permutation has been "tried" over the millions of years. Many reactions to stress have been tried and their results saved in the junk DNA. But they are generally irrecoverable, except for splicing into the right area by genetic engineers. In the junk DNA there is just about everything that has been tried, if it hasn't been harmlessly corrupted over the aeons. Nature has learnt to keep a strict order in the genome. Rubbish. There is no control over this other than "what works persists and what doesn't dies out". It's all chemistry. The GM process defeats that. Again, rubbish. If a man-made mutation (and man has been artificially mutating things for a long time) works to the advantage (or no effect) on the organism it will survive. If it does harm to the organism, it will die out. Outdated. What, that man has been genetically engineering organisms for centuries? Or that lethal mutations are lethal, or that beneficial mutations are beneficial? Your one word reposts are uninformative. Many people are saying that drug resistance markers should have ceased being used, or never started. The natural mutations of bacteria are breeding drug resistance every moment of every day. That's life. It is very seriously wrong to provide them with extra tools to do it. Like unnecessary applications to the environment of sub lethal doses of antibiotics? In the short term, I agree, but in the long run, it probably makes no odds. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 19 Jul 2003 11:07:15 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: Jim Webster 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. what total rubbish where to you apply to 'nature' for a licence, where does 'nature' test and 'allow' these genes. Nature is not a person for christsake! Jim Webster Organims including humans have learned to coexist. Humans have difficulty coexisting with humans. Most other creatures eat each other in one form or other. Now we have to learn new lessons very fast. What would they be? Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance, because of current practices. So? Tell us something new. Every animal's gut is swarming with E coli. It is everywhere. Only a few strains are pathogenic, and to actually infect us, a huge number of organisms must be ingested. Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from antibiotics, too. Which bacteria are these? Amongst the myriad mutations of these organisms with a generation life of 20 minutes, a few antibiotic resistances here and there, while a worry at the moment, are neither here nor there in the scheme of things. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. 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. Before Roundup Ready times strict withholding periods for herbicides had to be adhered to. Roundup has been promoted as safe so is applied more. And you have to buy it with the Monsanto seed. So there will be more Roundup in the corn crop now. It will be more estrogenic. Estrogenic pasture is generally a reproductive problem. as I have posted. 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. 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. 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. More xeno-oestrogen than what? Than before the advent of Roundup Ready. 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. 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? 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. 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. they really have a common gene bank, Like all species-like groups No really rather different. You are behind with your reading. 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. 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. Resistance can develop from animals fed antibiotics, but what about when humans are fed antibiotic resistance genes en masse? 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. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Jim Webster 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. what total rubbish where to you apply to 'nature' for a licence, where does 'nature' test and 'allow' these genes. Nature is not a person for christsake! Jim Webster Organims including humans have learned to coexist. Now we have to learn new lessons very fast. Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance, because of current practices. Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from antibiotics, too. so what what has this got to do with the childish anthropomorphism of nature. It makes as much sense as saying that Gravity has a sense of humour. Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Perhaps Jim might comment on pendulous udders in developing calves produced from cows on estrogenic pasture. If I had ever heard of this effect before I would. Certainly never come across it, have you any evidence for it? Snip 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. my father has had it several times but clears up with nursing care (he is too weak for antibiotics) and natural resistance. Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Jim Webster wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Perhaps Jim might comment on pendulous udders in developing calves produced from cows on estrogenic pasture. If I had ever heard of this effect before I would. Certainly never come across it, have you any evidence for it? Sorry I was mixing two sections, but estrogenic compounds seem to cause mammary problems: ******************** This is the html version of the file http://animsci.agrenv.mcgill.ca/cour...450_notes.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/search?q=cache...animsci.agrenv .mcgill.ca/courses/450/450_notes.pdf+cows+estrogenic+%22less+mil k%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 5. Udder abnormalities a. blind or light quarters - causes: -poor management / injuries -mastitis __________________________________________________ _________ Page 8 -3- -inherited -blood / nerve supply -metabolic disturbances during embryonic development -congenital gland malformations * malformed nipples * deficient glandular tissue *structural Example: estrogenic compounds can affect mammary rudiment in embryonic development of the glands b. pendulous udders - Difficult to milk - Easily injured - Generally results from: * weak medial and/or lateral suspensory ligaments, and/or weak rear attachments ************************ I posted a long time ago how red clover pasture can cause abnormalities of the external genitalia in sheep. Snip 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. my father has had it several times but clears up with nursing care (he is too weak for antibiotics) and natural resistance. Yes we are going back to the old days. I did not actually get it myself, though I had had a knee operation. They were just taking care that I hadn't picked it up and was harbouring it. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Organims including humans have learned to coexist. Now we have to learn new lessons very fast. Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance, because of current practices. Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from antibiotics, too. so what what has this got to do with the childish anthropomorphism of nature. It makes as much sense as saying that Gravity has a sense of humour. 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. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 20 Jul 2003 03:05:01 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Organims including humans have learned to coexist. Now we have to learn new lessons very fast. Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance, because of current practices. Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from antibiotics, too. so what what has this got to do with the childish anthropomorphism of nature. It makes as much sense as saying that Gravity has a sense of humour. 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 Can you give us an example of this? Bacteria living within a cell? it is necessary to take more care with drug resistance genes. Is not sufficient care already being taken? 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? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... 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. Come back with some peer reviewed results that show any damage from GM crops and we will listen. Dairy production per cow has increase about 10% since the induction of GM crops. http://www.usda.gov/nass/aggraphs/milkprod.htm BT corn has up to 10 times less natural toxins from fungi that grow on insect damaged grain. These toxins are real bad actors on milk production, reproductive performance and live if the concentration get very high. It also has less insecticide residue and natural plant chemical to fight insects that are not listed in anyone's toxic assays of grains. Gordon |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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. 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. Gordon |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Moosh:]" wrote in message ... On 19 Jul 2003 11:07:15 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: Jim Webster 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. what total rubbish where to you apply to 'nature' for a licence, where does 'nature' test and 'allow' these genes. Nature is not a person for christsake! Jim Webster Organims including humans have learned to coexist. Humans have difficulty coexisting with humans. Most other creatures eat each other in one form or other. Now we have to learn new lessons very fast. What would they be? Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance, because of current practices. So? Tell us something new. Every animal's gut is swarming with E coli. It is everywhere. Only a few strains are pathogenic, and to actually infect us, a huge number of organisms must be ingested. E. coli:0157 is only pathogenic to those raised in isolation from it. When people visiting farms stated catching it they started wondering why the farm families didn't get it and had never had it. Seem if you are raised around it as almost all people were 100 years ago you are immune. It is only when you no longer have horses in the streets nor cattle near where your live that catch the disease. Gordon |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Organims including humans have learned to coexist. Now we have to learn new lessons very fast. Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance, because of current practices. Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from antibiotics, too. so what what has this got to do with the childish anthropomorphism of nature. It makes as much sense as saying that Gravity has a sense of humour. 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. 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. We also learned how to extend their usefulness but refuges and IPM. 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. Gordon |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:36:39 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Jim Webster 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. what total rubbish where to you apply to 'nature' for a licence, where does 'nature' test and 'allow' these genes. Nature is not a person for christsake! Jim Webster Organims including humans have learned to coexist. Now we have to learn new lessons very fast. Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance, because of current practices. Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from antibiotics, too. so what what has this got to do with the childish anthropomorphism of nature. It makes as much sense as saying that Gravity has a sense of humour. Course it does, Jim. It is the mainstay of slapstick comedy :) |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. 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. And you have to buy it with the Monsanto seed. No you don't. You can not buy anything you like. 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 And anyway, it is quite harmless. It will be more estrogenic. Like many many molecules in the environment. But that is assuming it has survived the breakdown in the plant. Estrogenic pasture is generally a reproductive problem. as I have posted. That would be some clovers? 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. 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 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)? 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. 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 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. 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? 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. The antibiotics we take lightly are another matter. 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". |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 07:25:07 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: E. coli:0157 is only pathogenic to those raised in isolation from it. When people visiting farms stated catching it they started wondering why the farm families didn't get it and had never had it. Seem if you are raised around it as almost all people were 100 years ago you are immune. It is only when you no longer have horses in the streets nor cattle near where your live that catch the disease. Gordon Thanks Gordon, good point. Not thet there's much more we can do about it than what we are doing. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Organims including humans have learned to coexist. Now we have to learn new lessons very fast. Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance, because of current practices. Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from antibiotics, too. so what what has this got to do with the childish anthropomorphism of nature. It makes as much sense as saying that Gravity has a sense of humour. 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) no, what has it got to do with your anthropomorphic statement 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 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? Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Perhaps Jim might comment on pendulous udders in developing calves produced from cows on estrogenic pasture. If I had ever heard of this effect before I would. Certainly never come across it, have you any evidence for it? Sorry I was mixing two sections, but estrogenic compounds seem to cause mammary problems: ******************** This is the html version of the file http://animsci.agrenv.mcgill.ca/cour...450_notes.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/search?q=cache...animsci.agrenv .mcgill.ca/courses/450/450_notes.pdf+cows+estrogenic+%22less+mil k%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 I think you better download the pdf and actually read it, it is the course notes for a complete dairy course and no where does it mention estrogenic pasture. The only mention of estrogenic is Example: estrogenic compounds can affect mammary rudiment in embryonic development of the glands which is absolutely true but has nothing to do with pasture. Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Gordon Couger writes
E. coli:0157 is only pathogenic to those raised in isolation from it. When people visiting farms stated catching it they started wondering why the farm families didn't get it and had never had it. Seem if you are raised around it as almost all people were 100 years ago you are immune. It is only when you no longer have horses in the streets nor cattle near where your live that catch the disease. see also polio.... -- 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 ... Perhaps Jim might comment on pendulous udders in developing calves produced from cows on estrogenic pasture. If I had ever heard of this effect before I would. Certainly never come across it, have you any evidence for it? Sorry I was mixing two sections, but estrogenic compounds seem to cause mammary problems: ******************** This is the html version of the file http://animsci.agrenv.mcgill.ca/cour...450_notes.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/search?q=cache...animsci.agrenv .mcgill.ca/courses/450/450_notes.pdf+cows+estrogenic+%22less+mil k%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 I think you better download the pdf and actually read it, it is the course notes for a complete dairy course and no where does it mention estrogenic pasture. The only mention of estrogenic is Example: estrogenic compounds can affect mammary rudiment in embryonic development of the glands which is absolutely true but has nothing to do with pasture. Why would estrogenic compounds have nothing to do with estrogenic pasture? As I said I posted how estrogenic pasture affects sheep, their genitalia, and reduces their fertility, maybe permanently. (Spelling: oestrogenic) Who is going to fund a study about what the more estrogenic Roundup Ready corn does to cattle in the second generation? Linkname: Google Search: sandle sheep clover genitalia URL: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=sa...o.nz&rnu m=31 |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 20 Jul 2003 03:05:01 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: 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 Can you give us an example of this? Bacteria living within a cell? "Some disease causing bacteria, like Salmonella typhimurium, invade human cells when they infect people. 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. 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. 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. 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."' |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. 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). 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. 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. Also it will be worse with incompletely digested naked DNA from GM crops. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Organims including humans have learned to coexist. Now we have to learn new lessons very fast. Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance, because of current practices. Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from antibiotics, too. so what what has this got to do with the childish anthropomorphism of nature. It makes as much sense as saying that Gravity has a sense of humour. 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) no, what has it got to do with your anthropomorphic statement You mean my statement: " Organims including humans have learned to coexist."? 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 That is what I was trying to convey. 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. 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. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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 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. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 21 Jul 2003 11:39:12 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 20 Jul 2003 03:05:01 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: 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 Can you give us an example of this? Bacteria living within a cell? "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? 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? Why would you want to manufacture anti-sperm antibodies? Contraception? 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? 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? 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 :) |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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? 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. 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. 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. Desperation? Anyways, Bt has been so overused that it only has a limited useful life. New specific pesticides will be developed. 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. 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? 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. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Organims including humans have learned to coexist. Now we have to learn new lessons very fast. Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance, because of current practices. Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from antibiotics, too. so what what has this got to do with the childish anthropomorphism of nature. It makes as much sense as saying that Gravity has a sense of humour. 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) no, what has it got to do with your anthropomorphic statement You mean my statement: " Organims including humans have learned to coexist."? 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 That is what I was trying to convey. 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 is purely a matter of categorisation on our part. Diseases kill their hosts, parasites don't necessarily. It is our labelling, not anything the organism is doing 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. what memory bank? 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 Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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 Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. -- ddwyer |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Jim Webster wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... That is what I was trying to convey. 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 is purely a matter of categorisation on our part. Diseases kill their hosts, parasites don't necessarily. It is our labelling, not anything the organism is doing Viruses don't even multiply without a host. 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. what memory bank? The `junk DNA'. 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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter