Mooshie peas wrote:
On 13 Aug 2003 07:49:20 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

The antibiotics provide the selective force and the bacteria can pick up
resistance genes from the food, since they are constantly present.

What are "resistance genes"? Resistance to what?

This describes mechanisms of action of various antibiotics.


Linkname: Antibiotics
URL
http://users.erols.com/jkimball.ma.u...tibiotics.html
size: 441 lines

Resistance genes give a bacteria a pathway to outwit that sort of
mechanism.

When a biotechnologist is trying to genetically engineer a species they
usually put an antibiotic resistance marker in the package. That is so
they can find out which of the plants have been changed. The changed ones
will not die when the antibiotic is applied.

Another marker option for the job is to make the organism fluoresce green.

Bacteria are mutating constantly.

Yes they transfer genes between one another and pick them up from dead
ones, too. And antiobiotic restance genes, if available, can allow the
bacteria to become resistant to other antiobiotics, too.

In article , "Gordon Couger" wrote:

"Bruce Sinclair" wrote in
message ...
snip
If they are able to build resistance. Maybe it used to be part of
infant
mortality.

I have never heard of any cases of infant mortality from diseases from
animals.

Just because you haven't heard doesn't mean it doesn't happen

I follow several emerging disease mailing list that follow zoonoses very
carefully.

Note. zoonoses are not the same as diseases catchable from animals. IIRC, they
are specifically parasites ... or so I have seen the word used. Interested to
hear if your interpretation is different


Bruce

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oook !
NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !

In article , "Gordon Couger" wrote:

"Bruce Sinclair" wrote in
message ...
snip
If they are able to build resistance. Maybe it used to be part of
infant
mortality.

I have never heard of any cases of infant mortality from diseases from
animals.

Just because you haven't heard doesn't mean it doesn't happen

I follow several emerging disease mailing list that follow zoonoses very
carefully.

Note. zoonoses are not the same as diseases catchable from animals. IIRC, they
are specifically parasites ... or so I have seen the word used. Interested to
hear if your interpretation is different


Bruce

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oook !
NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !

In article , "Gordon Couger" wrote:

"Bruce Sinclair" wrote in
message ...
snip
If they are able to build resistance. Maybe it used to be part of
infant
mortality.

I have never heard of any cases of infant mortality from diseases from
animals.

Just because you haven't heard doesn't mean it doesn't happen

I follow several emerging disease mailing list that follow zoonoses very
carefully.

Note. zoonoses are not the same as diseases catchable from animals. IIRC, they
are specifically parasites ... or so I have seen the word used. Interested to
hear if your interpretation is different


Bruce

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oook !
NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 12 Aug 2003 22:48:18 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 3 Aug 2003 03:58:04 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

This
part of the contract further makes farmers pay Monsanto's legal fees
and other costs of enforcement.

If the contract says anything you disagreee with, don't sign it,
simple. Sheeesh!

Which often means you would have to leave farming corn or canola.

Why? There is plenty of other seed about,

No I don't think there is. And the farmers have ben begging Monsanto
not to release GM wheat. Even then the wheat has been polluted by GM
grain, and if you mean wheat, as Gordon says it gets other grain in
it, which is likely GM.

Or are you saying these
don't compete with the Monsanto product?

The Monsanto product does not compete for the farmers, hence the
extra govt payouts to farmers when they hoped payouts would be
lessening.


Linkname: GMO
URL:
http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/sa...O12092002.html
[...]
The Soil Association's report is the first to reveal the serious
widespread impacts of GM crops in North America on the food and
farming industry, where three-quarters of the world's GM food is
grown. It is the most comprehensive review of the situation to be
produced from a non-biotechnology industry perspective.
Peter Melchett, the Soil Association's Policy Director said: "A
decision will be made next year whether to allow GM crops to be grown
commercially in the UK. With agriculture still suffering a deep
economic crisis, the temptation to seize a new technology is great.
"GM was introduced to the USA when farmers were financially
vulnerable. The biotechnology industry's claims that their products
would bring benefits were widely accepted, but GM crops have now
proved to be a financial liability.
[...]
Over the three years 1999, 2000 and 2001, the USA paid out an
estimated total extra $10 billion (£6.5 billion) in farm subsidies for
maize and soya (as 'Loan Deficiency Payments' and 'Market Loss
Assistance') as a result of the low prices caused by the loss of trade
due to GM crops. The loss of foreign trade due to GM crops totalled an
estimated $1-2 billion (£0.6 billion - £1 billion) . The StarLink
incident has cost an estimated $1 billion (£0.6 billion) including the
product recall.

GM oilseed rape, maize, soya and cotton have been grown commercially
in North America since 1996. They are all used in vegetable oils and
animal feed, and soya is widely used in processed food.

The report is based on interviews with organic and conventional
farmers in the Mid-West states of America in January and February
2002, as well as evidence from independent academics, advisers and
industry analysts in the USA and Canada.

Nestle, Unilever and Heinz, plus the major UK supermarkets have a
ban on GM food ingredients in own brand products. Many are now using
GM-free animal feed.
[...]
Lower profits for farmers growing GM crops: The profitability of
growing GM herbicide tolerant soya and insect-resistant Bt maize is
less than non-GM crops. This is due to the extra cost of GM seed
(which can be up to 40% higher), the lower market prices paid for GM
crops, and reduced soya yields.

Collapse of export markets: within a few years of the introduction
of GM crops, almost the entire $300 million (£200 million) annual US
maize exports to the EU and the $300 million annual Canadian rape
exports to the EU had disappeared due to market rejection. The US
share of the world soya market has decreased while non-GM producing
countries have seen an increase.

Increase in government subsidies: US farm subsidies were meant to
have fallen over the last few years. Instead they rose dramatically,
paralleling the growth in GM crops. The lost export trade as a result
of GM crops is thought to have caused a fall in crop prices and a need
for increased government subsidies, estimated at an extra $3-$5
billion (£2 - £3 billion) annually.

Lower yields: the claims of increased yields have not been realised
overall except for a small increase in Bt maize yields. The main GM
variety (Roundup Ready soya) yields 6-11% less than non-GM varieties.
A farmer in Mississippi was awarded over $165,000 (£100,000) in
damages from Monsanto for low GM soya yields.

Widespread contamination of non-GM crops: contamination has caused
major problems throughout the food and farming industry in just a
couple of years, including the loss of nearly the whole organic
oilseed rape sector in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. Non-GM
seeds varieties are difficult to buy, and even these may turn out to
be contaminated. Those who are successful in sourcing non-GM seeds
risk having their crops contaminated by neighbouring GM fields. Many
organic and other GM-free maize farmers have lost sales or received
lower prices because of contamination at a potential cost of over $90
million (£60 million) annually.

Premiums for non-GM crops: farmers who are successfully growing
non-GM crops are reaping benefits, with one farmer reporting that
organic soya is selling at a 200 per cent premium.

A proliferation of lawsuits and the emergence of complex legal
issues: biotechnology companies are suing many farmers for infringing
company patent rights, saying that they have unlicensed GM plants on
their land. A non-GM farmer whose crop was contaminated by GMOs was
sued by Monsanto for $400,000 (£260,000). Farmers are turning to the
courts for compensation from the companies for lost income and markets
as a result of contamination. In Canada, legal action has been
launched by the organic sector in Saskatchewan because they cannot
supply the organic rape market with GM-free rape, which could cost
biotechnology companies millions of dollars.

Increased use of herbicides: Contrary to claims from the
biotechnology industry, farmers are now more reliant on herbicides
(weedkillers). Certain crops have been engineered to be resistant to
specific herbicides to enable farmers to spray weeds without damaging
crops. Although it was claimed that only one application would be
needed per crop, several are being made. In addition, weeds are
developing resistance to these herbicides, and rogue GM plants that
grow after a harvest (volunteers) have appeared and spread widely. In
particular, GM oilseed rape volunteers- the GM crop most likely to be
introduced in the UK - have spread quickly, and some plants have
become resistant to several herbicides through cross pollination. As a
result, farmers are making more frequent applications and reverting to
older and more toxic chemicals.

GM food recalls: the most expensive recall concerned GM Starlink
which was approved for animal feed, but not human consumption.
However, it was found in food products such as taco shells and the
recall cost to Aventis is estimated to be up to $1 billion (£0.5
billion). In 1998, cross-pollination from GM maize was suspected of
contaminating organic maize in Texas. This was only discovered once
the maize was shipped to Europe as organic tortilla chips, costing the
small company more than $150,000 (£100,000).

[...]
Well, grow something else
that you can make a living from or get out of farming and do something
else.

Not as easy as you make out, which is why non-GM is being pushed
further out.

Not so simple when it has been your livelihood for generations. Now
the pollutant GM genes are nearly everywhere in Canada in those
crops, trying to avoid paying the GM tech fee is a losing battle.

No it's not. Don't buy it, don't grow it and you have no problems.

No income, nothing to lose, eh?

You get charged it anyway if the GM genes get on to your land.

Garbage. You haven't read the court transcripts, just read the
sensationalist popular press, or greenie propaganda.

Give us a ref. Looks like the lawyers are getting rich either way.

I suppose you say litigate, but how do you pay for that when your
income stream has been cut?

Litigate for what? No-one is forcing you to buy Monsanto products or
any others, and sign contacts for the conditions of sale.

And no one is forcing you to eat.

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 12 Aug 2003 22:48:18 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 3 Aug 2003 03:58:04 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

This
part of the contract further makes farmers pay Monsanto's legal fees
and other costs of enforcement.

If the contract says anything you disagreee with, don't sign it,
simple. Sheeesh!

Which often means you would have to leave farming corn or canola.

Why? There is plenty of other seed about,

No I don't think there is. And the farmers have ben begging Monsanto
not to release GM wheat. Even then the wheat has been polluted by GM
grain, and if you mean wheat, as Gordon says it gets other grain in
it, which is likely GM.

Or are you saying these
don't compete with the Monsanto product?

The Monsanto product does not compete for the farmers, hence the
extra govt payouts to farmers when they hoped payouts would be
lessening.


Linkname: GMO
URL:
http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/sa...O12092002.html
[...]
The Soil Association's report is the first to reveal the serious
widespread impacts of GM crops in North America on the food and
farming industry, where three-quarters of the world's GM food is
grown. It is the most comprehensive review of the situation to be
produced from a non-biotechnology industry perspective.
Peter Melchett, the Soil Association's Policy Director said: "A
decision will be made next year whether to allow GM crops to be grown
commercially in the UK. With agriculture still suffering a deep
economic crisis, the temptation to seize a new technology is great.
"GM was introduced to the USA when farmers were financially
vulnerable. The biotechnology industry's claims that their products
would bring benefits were widely accepted, but GM crops have now
proved to be a financial liability.
[...]
Over the three years 1999, 2000 and 2001, the USA paid out an
estimated total extra $10 billion (£6.5 billion) in farm subsidies for
maize and soya (as 'Loan Deficiency Payments' and 'Market Loss
Assistance') as a result of the low prices caused by the loss of trade
due to GM crops. The loss of foreign trade due to GM crops totalled an
estimated $1-2 billion (£0.6 billion - £1 billion) . The StarLink
incident has cost an estimated $1 billion (£0.6 billion) including the
product recall.

GM oilseed rape, maize, soya and cotton have been grown commercially
in North America since 1996. They are all used in vegetable oils and
animal feed, and soya is widely used in processed food.

The report is based on interviews with organic and conventional
farmers in the Mid-West states of America in January and February
2002, as well as evidence from independent academics, advisers and
industry analysts in the USA and Canada.

Nestle, Unilever and Heinz, plus the major UK supermarkets have a
ban on GM food ingredients in own brand products. Many are now using
GM-free animal feed.
[...]
Lower profits for farmers growing GM crops: The profitability of
growing GM herbicide tolerant soya and insect-resistant Bt maize is
less than non-GM crops. This is due to the extra cost of GM seed
(which can be up to 40% higher), the lower market prices paid for GM
crops, and reduced soya yields.

Collapse of export markets: within a few years of the introduction
of GM crops, almost the entire $300 million (£200 million) annual US
maize exports to the EU and the $300 million annual Canadian rape
exports to the EU had disappeared due to market rejection. The US
share of the world soya market has decreased while non-GM producing
countries have seen an increase.

Increase in government subsidies: US farm subsidies were meant to
have fallen over the last few years. Instead they rose dramatically,
paralleling the growth in GM crops. The lost export trade as a result
of GM crops is thought to have caused a fall in crop prices and a need
for increased government subsidies, estimated at an extra $3-$5
billion (£2 - £3 billion) annually.

Lower yields: the claims of increased yields have not been realised
overall except for a small increase in Bt maize yields. The main GM
variety (Roundup Ready soya) yields 6-11% less than non-GM varieties.
A farmer in Mississippi was awarded over $165,000 (£100,000) in
damages from Monsanto for low GM soya yields.

Widespread contamination of non-GM crops: contamination has caused
major problems throughout the food and farming industry in just a
couple of years, including the loss of nearly the whole organic
oilseed rape sector in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. Non-GM
seeds varieties are difficult to buy, and even these may turn out to
be contaminated. Those who are successful in sourcing non-GM seeds
risk having their crops contaminated by neighbouring GM fields. Many
organic and other GM-free maize farmers have lost sales or received
lower prices because of contamination at a potential cost of over $90
million (£60 million) annually.

Premiums for non-GM crops: farmers who are successfully growing
non-GM crops are reaping benefits, with one farmer reporting that
organic soya is selling at a 200 per cent premium.

A proliferation of lawsuits and the emergence of complex legal
issues: biotechnology companies are suing many farmers for infringing
company patent rights, saying that they have unlicensed GM plants on
their land. A non-GM farmer whose crop was contaminated by GMOs was
sued by Monsanto for $400,000 (£260,000). Farmers are turning to the
courts for compensation from the companies for lost income and markets
as a result of contamination. In Canada, legal action has been
launched by the organic sector in Saskatchewan because they cannot
supply the organic rape market with GM-free rape, which could cost
biotechnology companies millions of dollars.

Increased use of herbicides: Contrary to claims from the
biotechnology industry, farmers are now more reliant on herbicides
(weedkillers). Certain crops have been engineered to be resistant to
specific herbicides to enable farmers to spray weeds without damaging
crops. Although it was claimed that only one application would be
needed per crop, several are being made. In addition, weeds are
developing resistance to these herbicides, and rogue GM plants that
grow after a harvest (volunteers) have appeared and spread widely. In
particular, GM oilseed rape volunteers- the GM crop most likely to be
introduced in the UK - have spread quickly, and some plants have
become resistant to several herbicides through cross pollination. As a
result, farmers are making more frequent applications and reverting to
older and more toxic chemicals.

GM food recalls: the most expensive recall concerned GM Starlink
which was approved for animal feed, but not human consumption.
However, it was found in food products such as taco shells and the
recall cost to Aventis is estimated to be up to $1 billion (£0.5
billion). In 1998, cross-pollination from GM maize was suspected of
contaminating organic maize in Texas. This was only discovered once
the maize was shipped to Europe as organic tortilla chips, costing the
small company more than $150,000 (£100,000).

[...]
Well, grow something else
that you can make a living from or get out of farming and do something
else.

Not as easy as you make out, which is why non-GM is being pushed
further out.

Not so simple when it has been your livelihood for generations. Now
the pollutant GM genes are nearly everywhere in Canada in those
crops, trying to avoid paying the GM tech fee is a losing battle.

No it's not. Don't buy it, don't grow it and you have no problems.

No income, nothing to lose, eh?

You get charged it anyway if the GM genes get on to your land.

Garbage. You haven't read the court transcripts, just read the
sensationalist popular press, or greenie propaganda.

Give us a ref. Looks like the lawyers are getting rich either way.

I suppose you say litigate, but how do you pay for that when your
income stream has been cut?

Litigate for what? No-one is forcing you to buy Monsanto products or
any others, and sign contacts for the conditions of sale.

And no one is forcing you to eat.

On 15 Aug 2003 12:55:08 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 12 Aug 2003 22:48:18 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 3 Aug 2003 03:58:04 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

This
part of the contract further makes farmers pay Monsanto's legal fees
and other costs of enforcement.

If the contract says anything you disagreee with, don't sign it,
simple. Sheeesh!

Which often means you would have to leave farming corn or canola.

Why? There is plenty of other seed about,

No I don't think there is.

The seed store has run out? What happened to all the seed before
Monsanto came on the scene?

And the farmers have ben begging Monsanto
not to release GM wheat.

Have they? Where? I haven't heard of this. What are the reasons given?

Even then the wheat has been polluted by GM
grain, and if you mean wheat, as Gordon says it gets other grain in
it, which is likely GM.

And how is this a bother?

Or are you saying these
don't compete with the Monsanto product?

The Monsanto product does not compete for the farmers, hence the
extra govt payouts to farmers when they hoped payouts would be
lessening.

What are you talking about? What payouts?

I'm talking about the crops from Monsanto's seed compared to those
from any other.



Linkname: GMO
URL:
http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/sa...O12092002.html

A rabid lying greenie front IME. Sorry, the lying front man has been
spreading his mistruths here recently.

[...]
The Soil Association's report is the first to reveal the serious
widespread impacts of GM crops in North America on the food and
farming industry, where three-quarters of the world's GM food is
grown. It is the most comprehensive review of the situation to be
produced from a non-biotechnology industry perspective.
Peter Melchett, the Soil Association's Policy Director said: "A
decision will be made next year whether to allow GM crops to be grown
commercially in the UK. With agriculture still suffering a deep
economic crisis, the temptation to seize a new technology is great.
"GM was introduced to the USA when farmers were financially
vulnerable. The biotechnology industry's claims that their products
would bring benefits were widely accepted, but GM crops have now
proved to be a financial liability.
[...]
Over the three years 1999, 2000 and 2001, the USA paid out an
estimated total extra $10 billion (£6.5 billion) in farm subsidies for
maize and soya (as 'Loan Deficiency Payments' and 'Market Loss
Assistance') as a result of the low prices caused by the loss of trade
due to GM crops. The loss of foreign trade due to GM crops totalled an
estimated $1-2 billion (£0.6 billion - £1 billion) . The StarLink
incident has cost an estimated $1 billion (£0.6 billion) including the
product recall.

GM oilseed rape, maize, soya and cotton have been grown commercially
in North America since 1996. They are all used in vegetable oils and
animal feed, and soya is widely used in processed food.

The report is based on interviews with organic and conventional
farmers in the Mid-West states of America in January and February
2002, as well as evidence from independent academics, advisers and
industry analysts in the USA and Canada.

Nestle, Unilever and Heinz, plus the major UK supermarkets have a
ban on GM food ingredients in own brand products. Many are now using
GM-free animal feed.
[...]
Lower profits for farmers growing GM crops: The profitability of
growing GM herbicide tolerant soya and insect-resistant Bt maize is
less than non-GM crops. This is due to the extra cost of GM seed
(which can be up to 40% higher), the lower market prices paid for GM
crops, and reduced soya yields.

Collapse of export markets: within a few years of the introduction
of GM crops, almost the entire $300 million (£200 million) annual US
maize exports to the EU and the $300 million annual Canadian rape
exports to the EU had disappeared due to market rejection. The US
share of the world soya market has decreased while non-GM producing
countries have seen an increase.

Increase in government subsidies: US farm subsidies were meant to
have fallen over the last few years. Instead they rose dramatically,
paralleling the growth in GM crops. The lost export trade as a result
of GM crops is thought to have caused a fall in crop prices and a need
for increased government subsidies, estimated at an extra $3-$5
billion (£2 - £3 billion) annually.

Lower yields: the claims of increased yields have not been realised
overall except for a small increase in Bt maize yields. The main GM
variety (Roundup Ready soya) yields 6-11% less than non-GM varieties.
A farmer in Mississippi was awarded over $165,000 (£100,000) in
damages from Monsanto for low GM soya yields.

Widespread contamination of non-GM crops: contamination has caused
major problems throughout the food and farming industry in just a
couple of years, including the loss of nearly the whole organic
oilseed rape sector in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. Non-GM
seeds varieties are difficult to buy, and even these may turn out to
be contaminated. Those who are successful in sourcing non-GM seeds
risk having their crops contaminated by neighbouring GM fields. Many
organic and other GM-free maize farmers have lost sales or received
lower prices because of contamination at a potential cost of over $90
million (£60 million) annually.

Premiums for non-GM crops: farmers who are successfully growing
non-GM crops are reaping benefits, with one farmer reporting that
organic soya is selling at a 200 per cent premium.

A proliferation of lawsuits and the emergence of complex legal
issues: biotechnology companies are suing many farmers for infringing
company patent rights, saying that they have unlicensed GM plants on
their land. A non-GM farmer whose crop was contaminated by GMOs was
sued by Monsanto for $400,000 (£260,000). Farmers are turning to the
courts for compensation from the companies for lost income and markets
as a result of contamination. In Canada, legal action has been
launched by the organic sector in Saskatchewan because they cannot
supply the organic rape market with GM-free rape, which could cost
biotechnology companies millions of dollars.

Increased use of herbicides: Contrary to claims from the
biotechnology industry, farmers are now more reliant on herbicides
(weedkillers). Certain crops have been engineered to be resistant to
specific herbicides to enable farmers to spray weeds without damaging
crops. Although it was claimed that only one application would be
needed per crop, several are being made. In addition, weeds are
developing resistance to these herbicides, and rogue GM plants that
grow after a harvest (volunteers) have appeared and spread widely. In
particular, GM oilseed rape volunteers- the GM crop most likely to be
introduced in the UK - have spread quickly, and some plants have
become resistant to several herbicides through cross pollination. As a
result, farmers are making more frequent applications and reverting to
older and more toxic chemicals.

GM food recalls: the most expensive recall concerned GM Starlink
which was approved for animal feed, but not human consumption.
However, it was found in food products such as taco shells and the
recall cost to Aventis is estimated to be up to $1 billion (£0.5
billion). In 1998, cross-pollination from GM maize was suspected of
contaminating organic maize in Texas. This was only discovered once
the maize was shipped to Europe as organic tortilla chips, costing the
small company more than $150,000 (£100,000).

I wouldn't trust these *******s to tell me the time of day, sorry.
Soil Association. Sheeesh!

Well, grow something else
that you can make a living from or get out of farming and do something
else.

Not as easy as you make out, which is why non-GM is being pushed
further out.

You go to the bloody seed store and buy whatever you want.
Pushed further out where?

Not so simple when it has been your livelihood for generations. Now
the pollutant GM genes are nearly everywhere in Canada in those
crops, trying to avoid paying the GM tech fee is a losing battle.

No it's not. Don't buy it, don't grow it and you have no problems.

No income, nothing to lose, eh?

You can grow anything you like, so long as you have the rights to it.
I don't see the problems you seem to be imagining.

You get charged it anyway if the GM genes get on to your land.

Garbage. You haven't read the court transcripts, just read the
sensationalist popular press, or greenie propaganda.

Give us a ref. Looks like the lawyers are getting rich either way.

NO court would EVER award damages to Monsanto because of a farmer
innocently having his crops pollinated accidentally by a neighbours
crop. The press invariably get the wrong end of the stick when it
comes to ALL court cases.

I suppose you say litigate, but how do you pay for that when your
income stream has been cut?

Litigate for what? No-one is forcing you to buy Monsanto products or
any others, and sign contacts for the conditions of sale.

And no one is forcing you to eat.

What is this non-sequitur for?

You sem to think that if you don't want to buy from one
producer(Monsanto) you have no other source of seed.

On 17 Aug 2003 06:22:22 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 13 Aug 2003 07:49:20 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

The antibiotics provide the selective force and the bacteria can pick up
resistance genes from the food, since they are constantly present.

What are "resistance genes"? Resistance to what?

This describes mechanisms of action of various antibiotics.


Linkname: Antibiotics
URL
http://users.erols.com/jkimball.ma.u...tibiotics.html
size: 441 lines

Resistance genes give a bacteria a pathway to outwit that sort of
mechanism.

When a biotechnologist is trying to genetically engineer a species they
usually put an antibiotic resistance marker in the package. That is so
they can find out which of the plants have been changed. The changed ones
will not die when the antibiotic is applied.

Another marker option for the job is to make the organism fluoresce green.

Bacteria are mutating constantly.

Yes they transfer genes between one another and pick them up from dead
ones, too. And antiobiotic restance genes, if available, can allow the
bacteria to become resistant to other antiobiotics, too.

But my question was trying to elicit what exactly these were resistant
to. Different "resistance genes" are overcoming a particular pathway
block. There are no such things as "generic resistance genes" that
offer resistance to all antibiotic actions, are there?

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 17 Aug 2003 06:22:22 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 13 Aug 2003 07:49:20 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

The antibiotics provide the selective force and the bacteria can pick up
resistance genes from the food, since they are constantly present.

What are "resistance genes"? Resistance to what?

This describes mechanisms of action of various antibiotics.


Linkname: Antibiotics
URL
http://users.erols.com/jkimball.ma.u...tibiotics.html
size: 441 lines

Resistance genes give a bacteria a pathway to outwit that sort of
mechanism.

When a biotechnologist is trying to genetically engineer a species they
usually put an antibiotic resistance marker in the package. That is so
they can find out which of the plants have been changed. The changed ones
will not die when the antibiotic is applied.

Another marker option for the job is to make the organism fluoresce green.

Bacteria are mutating constantly.

Yes they transfer genes between one another and pick them up from dead
ones, too. And antiobiotic restance genes, if available, can allow the
bacteria to become resistant to other antiobiotics, too.

But my question was trying to elicit what exactly these were resistant
to. Different "resistance genes" are overcoming a particular pathway
block. There are no such things as "generic resistance genes" that
offer resistance to all antibiotic actions, are there?

Possibly not, but another class of antibiotic may not be suitable to
treat a particular condition.

Isn't it bad enough to lose a whole class of antibiotics not just a
single member?

To lose most of the *mycin family would be pretty bad. Even to lose
kanamycin would be bad. Kanamycin resistance is used as a marker for
GM plants. The biotechs say it is not used in humans. But that is
wrong. Kanamycin can get at E.coli 0157 without releasing verotoxin.
So it is used prior to bowel surgery and in trauma medicine.

Deal with that and think about cross resistance, too.

On 26 Aug 2003 04:29:50 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 17 Aug 2003 06:22:22 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 13 Aug 2003 07:49:20 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

The antibiotics provide the selective force and the bacteria can pick up
resistance genes from the food, since they are constantly present.

What are "resistance genes"? Resistance to what?

This describes mechanisms of action of various antibiotics.


Linkname: Antibiotics
URL
http://users.erols.com/jkimball.ma.u...tibiotics.html
size: 441 lines

Resistance genes give a bacteria a pathway to outwit that sort of
mechanism.

When a biotechnologist is trying to genetically engineer a species they
usually put an antibiotic resistance marker in the package. That is so
they can find out which of the plants have been changed. The changed ones
will not die when the antibiotic is applied.

Another marker option for the job is to make the organism fluoresce green.

Bacteria are mutating constantly.

Yes they transfer genes between one another and pick them up from dead
ones, too. And antiobiotic restance genes, if available, can allow the
bacteria to become resistant to other antiobiotics, too.

But my question was trying to elicit what exactly these were resistant
to. Different "resistance genes" are overcoming a particular pathway
block. There are no such things as "generic resistance genes" that
offer resistance to all antibiotic actions, are there?

Possibly not, but another class of antibiotic may not be suitable to
treat a particular condition.

Well this is often the case. It's the reason doctors order an
antibiotic culture and sensitivity. They can confirm the organism and
determine what antibiotics it is sensitive to.

Isn't it bad enough to lose a whole class of antibiotics not just a
single member?

Resistance usually goes with classes. Classes tend to affect a certain
metabolic process of the bacterium and members of that class are just
variations of the original one.

To lose most of the *mycin family would be pretty bad.

For what organism?

Even to lose
kanamycin would be bad.

For what organism?

Kanamycin resistance is used as a marker for
GM plants. The biotechs say it is not used in humans. But that is
wrong. Kanamycin can get at E.coli 0157 without releasing verotoxin.
So it is used prior to bowel surgery and in trauma medicine.

I suggest you know as much about this as I do

Deal with that and think about cross resistance, too.

Deal with what? Your speculations?

What problems have been caused?