Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Prohibited: Comparison photos of GM/non-GM
On 12 Aug 2003 12:18:37 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted: Mooshie peas wrote: On 10 Aug 2003 10:34:31 GMT, Brian Sandle posted: Our scientists have not been able to make many important parts for the human body as an alternative to getting them from human donors. I don't see how they can keep up with the constant change of life's genome, the fluidity and ecology needed for health, even in cotton. They are making great strides in human tissue growth, I believe. I know they have been culturing an infant foreskin into lots of square meters of skin in USA, which may be a reason why circumcision has been held on longer in USA. I think the infant donates but I suspect the culturer gets well paid. Is that all you know about? It is shown by the biotech slump. That shows the fickleness of the stock market gamblers. They have given it a fair go. Biotech century ending? [...] Sorry, I always distrust those with an axe to grind. The science comes off second best, IME. This miniseries charts the further collapse of the biotech empire, particular in the supposedly `highly lucrative' biomedical sector since the latter part of 2000. It is now desperately grasping for support from the taxpayer by hyping genetics and bio-defence. Don't be fooled. [...] MRC Acknowledges GM Food Risks Sorry, I always distrust those with an axe to grind. The science comes off second best, IME. The more advanced science people are pointing out that the technologists are risky. They've got something nasty and contagious? Now here is topic we have argued about recently. You haqve been trying to say that the use of antibioitc resistance genes is oh so safe, based on your faulty `central doctrine'. You think you know better than the MRC? Using antibiotics is even riskier. It's all to do with cost/benefit. Linkname: MRC Acknowledges GM Food Risks URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MRC-pr.php size: 184 lines [...] The risks mentioned in the Report include the potential transfer of antibiotic resistance genes into pathogens, the uptake of DNA from GM foods by human cells or micro-organisms in the gastrointestinal tract and more indirectly (though beyond the scope of the report) health-related ecological disturbances caused by the genes or dissemination of the genes. While underplaying the transfer of GM DNA to micro-organisms and human cells, it at least recommends further research. It also advocates removal of antibiotic resistance genes from GM constructs used in the production of food, but falls short of calling for their removal in animal feed, even though there is growing evidence that bacteria can pass from farm animals to human beings - E. coli 0157 is a well known example. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why some wildflowers prohibited in certain states? | Lawns | |||
Drough Orders- what exactly is prohibited? | United Kingdom | |||
Prohibited orchid substances (was bare-root plants) | Orchids | |||
Comparison photos of GM/non-GM | sci.agriculture | |||
Comparison photos of GM/non-GM (Was: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?) | sci.agriculture |