Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Bob Hobden writes
"Oz" wrote in message You tell me to get some knowledge, fine, Have you got any? but it's all in the interpretation AHH, so your one of those people who 'interpret' knowledge when it doesn't suit them. Knowledge is not 'interpretation'. and that changes with life's experiences. Only when you haven't the knowledge to understand it. From your comments I see my replies to your blind faith in everything GM You forget I have directly pointed out areas that are likely to be hazardous, which is more than you managed. are obviously annoying you, No, it's your inability to face facts and answer some very very simple questions. That is, your unwillingness to think it out for yourself. and that's not my ball game. THE END! :-) OK, another bigot. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. DEMON address no longer in use. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 23:45:31 +0100, "Bob Hobden"
wrote: "Oz" wrote in message You tell me to get some knowledge, fine, but it's all in the interpretation and that changes with life's experiences. From your comments I see my replies to your blind faith in everything GM are obviously annoying you, and that's not my ball game. THE END! :-) D'oz cares not for consequences, if there is a buck to be made, for less work he'll cut that corner, like most British farmers, they are ruled by money and the rest of us be damned. The subsidy mentality is now biting us back globally. . . . . . . . . The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The distinction is yours to draw... /( )` \ \___ / | /- _ `-/ ' (/\/ \ \ /\ / / | ` \ O O ) / | `-^--'` ' (_.) _ ) / `.___/` / `-----' / ----. __ / __ \ ----|====O)))==) \) /==== ----' `--' `.__,' \ | | \ / ______( (_ / \______ ,' ,-----' | \ `--{__________) \/ I'm a horny devil when riled. pete who? -=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97 .""--.._ [] `'--.._ ||__ `'-, `)||_ ```'--.. \ _ /|//} ``--._ | .'` `'. /////} `\/ / .""".\ //{/// / /_ _`\\ // `|| | |(_)(_)|| _// || | | /\ )| _///\ || | |L====J | / |/ | || / /'-..-' / .'` \ | || / | :: | |_.-` | \ || /| `\-::.| | \ | || /` `| / | | | / || |` \ | / / \ | || | `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | || / /` `\ || || | . / \|| || | | |/ || / / | ( || / . / ) || | \ | || / | / || |\ / | || \ `-._ | / || \ ,//`\ /` | || ///\ \ | \ || |||| ) |__/ | || |||| `.( | || `\\` /` / || /` / || jgs / | || | \ || / | || /` \ || /` | || `-.___,-. .-. ___,' || `---'` `'----'` I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic! |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
In article ,
"Bob Hobden" wrote: From your replies I understand you are sure. So we will have to differ on that. I see. 1B years worth of evidence isn't good enough for you. GM science has not been around for 1b years. But lateral gene transfer has been around, proably since before true cells evolved. Down amongst the protists there isn't a tree of life, its a web. How do you classify a bacterium with 20% of its genome from this lineage, 30% from that lineage 45% from this one and sundry genes from other places? Bacteria with genomes like this exist, just because we have only recently developed the tools to analyse them does not mean it hasn't been going on for billions of years. Human mediated lateral gene transfer (aka GM or GE) is, to evolution not different from natural lateral transfer. If you wish to argue that it is then you need to present reasons for any difference. There is nothing intrinsicly different in the dna a human causes to be transfered from that transfered by a virus, a bacterium or a sucking insect. Peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Subject: A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the
EconomicInterests of the Life Science Industry From: "pearl" Date: 07/10/2003 13:27 GMT Daylight Time Message-id: The food chain: In 1996, scientists discovered that ladybugs that had eaten the aphids that had eaten genetically engineered potatoes died. Well, they were unlikely to have died before eating the aphids weren't they? Undead zombie ladybirds, there's gotta be a star trek show in that hasn't there..? -- Rhiannon http://www.livejournal.com/users/rhiannon_s/ Q: how many witches does it take to change a lightbulb? A: depends on what you want it changed into! |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Xref: kermit uk.environment.conservation:52336 uk.rec.gardening:169340 uk.rec.natural-history:17809 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:137305 alt.animals.rights.promotion:14478 uk.business.agricultu131335
In article , "pearl" wrote: snip list of misrepresented results. Superviruses: Viral promoters are invasive agents used by genetic engineers to trick a cell into accepting and integrating an alien gene into the cell's own DNA. Some scientists predict that releasing viral promoters into the gene pool could lead to the creation of superviruses and novel infectious diseases for organisms at every level of life -- from bacteria to humans. These people are very good are doing Cassandra impressions but are less able to point to mechanisms by which this might come about. A promoter is not magical, there is nothing about it that makes it more likely than any random piece of dna to be incorporated into anything. There is nothing in them that makes it likely they will be incorporated intact. The genomes of 'higher' plants and animals are riddled with endogenous retroviruses in various states of decay. If the doommongers are correct in their guesses of probability the boundaries between different species would be so porous all life would have collapsed into an amorphous blob as soon as it started to differentiate. If you have a mechanism by which this can happen many people would be glad to hear from you. Apart from anything else it could have major technology uses. These are just some of the dangers that are discernible in the premature marketing of genetically engineered products. The biotech industry is eager to point to their so-called successes while keeping their failures under raps. No, they are a jaundiced and biased spin on some aspects of a technology that has and does provide us with many very useful products. From the enzymes in your washing powder to the latest pharmaceuticals. You also write as though the discovery of some of these is a tragedy. they are examples of checks and balances working. If noone was looking we wouldn't even know about these things. Again this is an argument for proper, informed rules and regulations, not wholesale banning. Because the govt. drove the farm scale trials through they now have a sound basis in international law to limit GM crops in this country. The anti brigade would have denied them this by ripping it all up, denied us the science we need to make an informed choice. Why? because they didn't want us to make an informed choice. They wanted us to make the choice based on fear and superstition. You may want to live your life this way, I don't. peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
OK, another bigot. Or another potcalling kettle black -- Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Jim wrote in message .... Bob, Franz etc etc wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? Can't you understand that here is no gene more foreign than one which results from a random natural mutation? The damn thing did not even *exist* before. Are you sure on that? I though a mutated gene was one that simply changed not came into spontaneous existance. Eh? What is the difference between that 'changed' to give RR resistance, and a gene added to give RR resistance? Where it came from and how, an unnatural source that I am not yet sure "Nature" can always cope with in it's normal way. From your replies I understand you are sure. So we will have to differ on that. but remember that GM always uses an existing, natural gene. Natural mutation creates something new and essentially untested To all those that are still following this thread in both camps can I ask that you download and read the .pdf file of "Contents, foreward and Executive summary" of the Gm Science Review. (UK) First Report. July 2003. to be found at. www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/default.htm My conclusions are that it confirms my call for more scientific research before general release as valid. But what do you all think? It's all in the interpretation. :-) -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Jim wrote in message .... Bob, Franz etc etc wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? Can't you understand that here is no gene more foreign than one which results from a random natural mutation? The damn thing did not even *exist* before. Are you sure on that? I though a mutated gene was one that simply changed not came into spontaneous existance. Eh? What is the difference between that 'changed' to give RR resistance, and a gene added to give RR resistance? Where it came from and how, an unnatural source that I am not yet sure "Nature" can always cope with in it's normal way. From your replies I understand you are sure. So we will have to differ on that. but remember that GM always uses an existing, natural gene. Natural mutation creates something new and essentially untested To all those that are still following this thread in both camps can I ask that you download and read the .pdf file of "Contents, foreward and Executive summary" of the Gm Science Review. (UK) First Report. July 2003. to be found at. www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/default.htm My conclusions are that it confirms my call for more scientific research before general release as valid. But what do you all think? It's all in the interpretation. :-) -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Jim wrote in message .... Bob, Franz etc etc wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? Can't you understand that here is no gene more foreign than one which results from a random natural mutation? The damn thing did not even *exist* before. Are you sure on that? I though a mutated gene was one that simply changed not came into spontaneous existance. Eh? What is the difference between that 'changed' to give RR resistance, and a gene added to give RR resistance? Where it came from and how, an unnatural source that I am not yet sure "Nature" can always cope with in it's normal way. From your replies I understand you are sure. So we will have to differ on that. but remember that GM always uses an existing, natural gene. Natural mutation creates something new and essentially untested To all those that are still following this thread in both camps can I ask that you download and read the .pdf file of "Contents, foreward and Executive summary" of the Gm Science Review. (UK) First Report. July 2003. to be found at. www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/default.htm My conclusions are that it confirms my call for more scientific research before general release as valid. But what do you all think? It's all in the interpretation. :-) -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
... It's all in the interpretation. :-) Isn't it always ;-) M |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Michelle Fulton" wrote in message ... "Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... It's all in the interpretation. :-) Isn't it always ;-) especially when there are a lot of major companies who stand to loose serious money if GM becomes the norm. Some chemical manufacturers are already feeling a pinch as demand for their products falls on the world market, and they see cheap generic glyphosphate (produced by a lot of firms, often smaller and based in countries like India) taking more of the market. It has to be expected that these companies will take steps to ensure that this process is retarded and are probably throwing money about to do this Jim Webster M |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Michelle Fulton" wrote in message ... "Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... It's all in the interpretation. :-) Isn't it always ;-) especially when there are a lot of major companies who stand to loose serious money if GM becomes the norm. Some chemical manufacturers are already feeling a pinch as demand for their products falls on the world market, and they see cheap generic glyphosphate (produced by a lot of firms, often smaller and based in countries like India) taking more of the market. It has to be expected that these companies will take steps to ensure that this process is retarded and are probably throwing money about to do this Jim Webster M |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Michelle Fulton" wrote in message ... "Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... It's all in the interpretation. :-) Isn't it always ;-) especially when there are a lot of major companies who stand to loose serious money if GM becomes the norm. Some chemical manufacturers are already feeling a pinch as demand for their products falls on the world market, and they see cheap generic glyphosphate (produced by a lot of firms, often smaller and based in countries like India) taking more of the market. It has to be expected that these companies will take steps to ensure that this process is retarded and are probably throwing money about to do this Jim Webster M |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Peter Ashby" wrote in message
news In article , "pearl" wrote: snip list of misrepresented results. Ipse dixit evasion isn't going to erase serious concerns, Peter. -unsnip- THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL Editorial November 9, 2000 (Don Lovejoy, who has a doctorate in health and human services, is an educator based in Cranston.) '.. From soil to superviruses: In 1994, a genetically engineered bacterium developed to aid in the production of ethanol produced residues that rendered the land infertile. New crops planted on this soil grew three inches tall and fell over dead. The food chain: In 1996, scientists discovered that ladybugs that had eaten the aphids that had eaten genetically engineered potatoes died. The immune system: In 1998, research by Dr. Arpad Pusztai uncovered the potential for genetically altered DNA to weaken the immune system and stunt the growth of baby rats. Monarch butterflies: In May 1999, researchers at Cornell University discovered that monarch butterflies died unexpectedly from eating milkweed plants that had been dusted with the pollen of genetically engineered Bt corn. Pregnant mice: A 1998 study showed that DNA from the food fed to pregnant mice ended up in their intestinal lining, white blood cells, brain cells, and their fetuses. This suggests that the genetically engineered DNA in the food we eat can end up in our own cells. Honeybees: Last May, a leading European zoologist found the genes from genetically engineered canola jumped the species barrier and were picked up by the bacteria in the digestive tracts of bees. This indicates that antibiotic-resistant genes in genetically engineered foods can cause the bacteria in our own intestines to mutate into superbugs that cannot be killed by antibiotics. -end unsnip- Superviruses: Viral promoters are invasive agents used by genetic engineers to trick a cell into accepting and integrating an alien gene into the cell's own DNA. Some scientists predict that releasing viral promoters into the gene pool could lead to the creation of superviruses and novel infectious diseases for organisms at every level of life -- from bacteria to humans. These people are very good are doing Cassandra impressions but are less able to point to mechanisms by which this might come about. A promoter is not magical, there is nothing about it that makes it more likely than any random piece of dna to be incorporated into anything. There is nothing in them that makes it likely they will be incorporated intact. The genomes of 'higher' plants and animals are riddled with endogenous retroviruses in various states of decay. If the doommongers are correct in their guesses of probability the boundaries between different species would be so porous all life would have collapsed into an amorphous blob as soon as it started to differentiate. If you have a mechanism by which this can happen many people would be glad to hear from you. Apart from anything else it could have major technology uses. 'The release of transgenic crops into the environment has raised concerns over the spread of transgenic DNA, not only by cross- pollination to related species, but especially by horizontal gene transfer to unrelated species (reviewed by Ho et al (1) and Traavik (2)). On account of the _persistence_ of DNA in all environments, and the ability of practically all cells to take up 'naked' or free DNA, the success of horizontal gene transfer may depend largely on the nature of the DNA itself. New revelations concerning the CaMV recombination hotspot (3) have prompted us to consider the safety implications of the CaMV promoter. That is all the more urgent as CaMV promoter is in practically all transgenic crops already released commercially or undergoing field trials. Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) is a pararetrovirus of crucifer plants. [....................] It is clear that the CaMV 35S promoter is well-endowed with motifs involved in recombination. An additional factor which may increase the instability of the plasmid is the junction between CaMV 35S promoter and foreign DNA. All these considerations make it highly likely that the CaMV 35S promoter will take part in horizontal gene transfer and recombination, and also cause largescale genomic rearrangements in the process. Horizontal transfer of the CaMV promoter not only contributes to the known instability of transgenic lines (30), but has the potential to reactivate dormant viruses or creating new viruses in all species to which it is transferred, particularly in view of the modularity and interchangeability of promoter elements (8). In this regard, the close relationship of CaMV to hepadnaviruses such as the human hepatitis B is especially relevant. In addition, because the CaMV promoter is promiscuous in function (see above), it has the possibility of promoting inappropriate over- expression of genes in all species to which it happens to be transferred. One consequence of such inappropriate over- expression of genes may be cancer. ....' http://www.i-sis.org.uk/camvrecdis.php These are just some of the dangers that are discernible in the premature marketing of genetically engineered products. The biotech industry is eager to point to their so-called successes while keeping their failures under raps. No, they are a jaundiced and biased spin on some aspects of a technology No, your comments are. that has and does provide us with many very useful products. From the enzymes in your washing powder to the latest pharmaceuticals. All 'the best thing since sliced bread' ... until the mold sets in. You also write as though the discovery of some of these is a tragedy. they are examples of checks and balances working. If noone was looking we wouldn't even know about these things. Again this is an argument for proper, informed rules and regulations, not wholesale banning. Because the govt. drove the farm scale trials through they now have a sound basis in international law to limit GM crops in this country. The anti brigade would have denied them this by ripping it all up, denied us the science we need to make an informed choice. Why? because they didn't want us to make an informed choice. They wanted us to make the choice based on fear and superstition. You may want to live your life this way, I don't. We want to make informed choices. My choice is- !NO! GM crops!!! http://www.iol.ie/~creature/GenEng.htm peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
International Science and Engineering Fair-Call for Judges | Plant Biology | |||
Genetic engineering of plants | Plant Science | |||
problems with genetic engineering | sci.agriculture |