Originally posted by humyNo, this is about claiming that proponents of GMO labeling of food are not "anti-science". This is about misusing the term anti-science to put proponents of GMO food labeling on the defensive which is stupid! I never said it was related to GMOs. I didn't bring it up, your side did!Dolly the sheep had a shorter lifespan than her genetic origin and diseases that her genetic origin also did not have.
irrelevant; He just said “I agree that cloning is not ready for use on humans, “ and I should add cloning has NOTHING to do with GM crops only partly because cloning is NOT GM by definition!
Talking about cloning is g ...[text shortened]... agree that cloning is not ready for use on humans, “ which make the rest of your post nonsense.
If it has nothing to do with it then condemn it as nonsense!
"Talking about cloning is going off-topic but; if you are against coning, are you against propagating strawberries from their runners? because that is also cloning!"
No! You are wrong! Runners from stawberries are asexual reproduction just like potato tubers are.
By admitting that cloning is not ready for mammals he is essentially admitting that the whole "anti-science" crap is ridiculous. That is my whole point!
You people are really dumb for people who are educated in science.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnti-science is the term I took issue with and you know it. You are just purposely pretending to not know what the point is that I am making to avoid admitting that it was stupid to accuse others of being anti-science.
I know that. But why do you label that 'flawed science'?
[b]By your logic cloning people would be fine and good until the flaws become apparent.
Where do you get that from?
You already admitted that some GMOs can be harmful which begs clear labeling, but you cannot admit labeling is justified. That is a clear contradiction and you are too ...[text shortened]... are, nor do you know what I am arguing for - despite I and others explaining it many times over.
Wanting GMOs labeled on the food ingredients is not anti-science. You know that but just do not want to admit it. Hence the digression and diversion tactics you are using.
GMO's could be harmful to Human Health
1) DNA
Personally I think this is a microscopic risk, my main reference for this is Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects (2004) which is a neutral to pro-GM book. I agree with their assessment that there is no more danger to eating DNA which is genetically modified than there is to eating DNA which is not.
2) Proteins
This is where the worry is. The problem is that the gene which is inserted may not just produce one protein, but that the GMO will produce something novel. The book admits the problem which is that lab testing can only really detect known toxins. New proteins aren't really detectable - the only thing one can do is compare the parent organism with the new one. The worry is that an unknown allergen will be created.
The way one would hope to find this is through trials, however all the trials are in animals, and as the fact that guinea pigs die if you give them penecilin shows animal models are imperfect. So the question arises how many randomised controlled trials of GM foods have there been in humans. The answer is none. In fact the only RCT in food was for aspartimine with a mere 30 odd participants. There should be large trials of GM food using volunteers who get free food out of it to ensure that no novel problems emerge with genetically engineered food.
The objection that hybrids are GMOs is sound, but useless as we are already committed to them and have been for a long time. However there is a clear case for RCTs in the case of new hybrids.
Effects on Wild Populations
This is a real worry. If genes from genetically engineered species migrate into wild populations the wild populations can become extinct. The reason for this is that domestic varieties are given extra nutrients by humans to allow them to grow faster, or exhibit whatever the trait we hope for is. The exhibition of this trait incurs a cost which we cover. This coverage is not available to wild species, so if genetically engineered material can affect the wild population it will reduce their fitness in a way that natural selection can't cope with because the source of the genes will not become extinct.
As an illustration of this, I believe that they have found a way of genetically engineering salmon to grow faster. This is fine in the farmed stock, but a potential disaster for the wild stock, which have a completely different set of pressures to deal with. There is a clear risk that GM salmon genes will enter the wild population.
I therefore think that the exploitation of this potentially highly useful new technology should be approached with caution and that the laissez faire approach advocated by many of the habitual participants of this forum should be avoided. I do not think that the UK government's risk management is adequate on this issue, I suspect that is the case for most of the Western world, and therefore I would like at a minimum to see labelling of GM foods so that concerned citizens can "vote with their feet".
5 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtRight, there are genes that make proteins. We already knew that thanks. Why would the proteins made by GM genes generally be any more likely to be harmful than non-GM genes i.e. those genes that are produced by evolution and/or selective breeding?[b]GMO's could be harmful to Human Health
1) DNA
Personally I think this is a microscopic risk, my main reference for this is Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects (2004) which is a neutral to pro-GM book[hidden]http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977[/hidden]. I ...[text shortened]... at a minimum to see labelling of GM foods so that concerned citizens can "vote with their feet".[/b]
Answer, no reason. So this makes the whole of your post totally irrelevant.
With exactly the same 'logic' in your post, we also shouldn't use any crop that has genes created from selective breeding because their proteins they produce could be dangerous and for the same reasons! So why don't you propose banning all selectively bred crops and for exactly the same reasons you have given for banning GM crops?
The problem is that the gene which is inserted may not just produce one protein, but that the GMO will produce something novel.
Such as what exactly? Another protein?
Why would producing “something novel”, whatever that is supposed to mean, be a “problem”? “novel” in what way exactly? And why would this “novel” equate with “more likely to be harmful”?
And Why would a GM gene be more likely to produce “something novel” than a non-GM gene? non-GM gene are produced by random mutation so why cannot random mutation produce “something novel” ?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI agree with humy. You need to do a short course on biology.
This is where the worry is. The problem is that the gene which is inserted may not just produce one protein, but that the GMO will produce something novel.
If you are interested, there is a free one on edx.com that I am doing right now called 'Introduction to Biology' and its from MIT. It covers proteins, DNA, mutations etc.
Novel proteins are produced via mutations in all life forms all the time. It is a natural part of life. There is no reason whatsoever to think such novel proteins would be more common in GMO products than in any other crop. In fact, if they did occur in a GMO crop they would be more likely to come from the unmodified parts of the DNA than from the modified parts simply because there is more of it.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree with humy. You need to do a short course on biology.
If you are interested, there is a free one on edx.com that I am doing right now called 'Introduction to Biology' and its from MIT. It covers proteins, DNA, mutations etc.
Novel proteins are produced via mutations in all life forms all the time. It is a natural part of life. There is no reason ...[text shortened]... the unmodified parts of the DNA than from the modified parts simply because there is more of it.
In fact, if they did occur in a GMO crop they would be more likely to come from the unmodified parts of the DNA than from the modified parts simply because there is more of it.
Excellent point! (and excellent points ) And, generally, in most cases, there would be VASTLY more of it! Therefore, 'novel' proteins (whatever exactly 'novel' means in this context -not sure what. Its rather vague! ) are VASTLY more likely to come from unmodified parts of the DNA.
1 edit
Originally posted by humyIn fact, if they did occur in a GMO crop they would be more likely to come from the unmodified parts of the DNA than from the modified parts simply because there is [b]moreof it.
Excellent point! (and excellent points ) And, generally, in most cases, there would be VASTLY more of it! Therefore, 'novel' proteins (whatev ...[text shortened]... sure what. Its rather vague! ) are VASTLY more likely to come from unmodified parts of the DNA.[/b]As far as I can discern you have still FAILED to tell us of what benefit GMO's are to the consumer.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt depends on the GMO in particular. Benefits may range from detriment, to no benefit, to significant benefit, depending on the crop and the modification in question.
As far as I can discern you have still FAILED to tell us of what benefit GMO's are to the consumer.
Some GMOs are designed to be better for the environment, some may be designed to be more productive, others may be designed to produce vitamins they would not normally produce - for example banana which produce vitamin A.
In this last case it may be a life saver for thousands of people.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/07/08/325796731/globe-trotting-gmo-bananas-arrive-for-their-first-test-in-iowa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A_deficiency
Originally posted by humyLook at the nice picture on page 4 (Figure ES-1) of the reference I gave. It shows the "Relative likelihood of unintended genetic effects associated with various methods of plant genetic modification." rRNA methods are more likely to produce unintended genetic effects.
Right, there are genes that make proteins. We already knew that thanks. Why would the proteins made by GM genes generally be any more likely to be harmful than non-GM genes i.e. those genes that are produced by evolution and/or selective breeding?
Answer, no reason. So this makes the whole of your post totally irrelevant.
With exactly the same 'logic' in ...[text shortened]... M gene are produced by random mutation so why cannot random mutation produce “something novel” ?
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977
Cell metabolism is not as simple as one sequence of DNA being transcribed into one bit of RNA and then converted into a protein. There are gene interactions. The reference I gave gives several examples of this. The following is from page 48:
Other unexpected effects in GE plants have been documented. In GE high oleic soybean lines, metabolic analysis revealed trace amounts of an unintended metabolite, cis9,cis15-octadecadienoic acid, an isomer of the fatty acid linoleic acid that is not usually present in nonhydrogenated soybean oil, but is present in hydrogenated soybean oil and in other food sources.Unintended side effects are both frequent and difficult to spot. This is why I am advocating Randomised Controlled Trials to check that there are no problems with ingesting GM foods. In the absence of RCTs there should at the very minimum be labelling of the food.
The difference with already existing hybrids is that we are already committed to them, as I said in my original post. There should be more rigorous testing of hybrids.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo as yet there are no direct benefits and they may in fact be detrimental to consumers. That being the case, one wonders who is pushing for them and why?
It depends on the GMO in particular. Benefits may range from detriment, to no benefit, to significant benefit, depending on the crop and the modification in question.
Some GMOs are designed to be better for the environment, some may be designed to be more productive, others may be designed to produce vitamins they would not normally produce - for exampl ...[text shortened]... o-bananas-arrive-for-their-first-test-in-iowa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A_deficiency
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere are many potential benefits not so much nutritional benefits for individual consumers, although there IS that potential benefit also, but for humanity as a whole and even some potential environmental benefits.
As far as I can discern you have still FAILED to tell us of what benefit GMO's are to the consumer.
Examples:
GM crops that are more drought resistant thus making famine less likely in the poorer countries;
GM crops that are disease resistant thus don't need chemical strays;
GM crops with more efficient photosynthesis resulting in bigger yields that mean less area of land needed to grow the same amount of food which would be beneficial where there is a lack of suitable land or where we want to avoid the need to cut down forests to make way for more food crops to avoid food shortage or, in the case where there is already plenty of agricultural land, reduce the land area needed to grow food so that we can turn some of it into sustainable forest land or even conservation areas!
Make a crop have more of a vitamin it normally doesn't have enough of to prevent terrible vitamin deficiency.
Here is some actual examples of the last one on that list:
http://banana.aatf-africa.org/news/media/new-gm-banana-could-help-tackle-uganda%E2%80%99s-nutrition-challenges
http://tyglobalist.org/in-the-magazine/features/genetically-modified-cassava-new-technologies-have-complicated-the-challenge-of-feeding-africa/
in both above cases, it would help stop many poor people going blind!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat is not what I said.
So as yet there are no direct benefits ....
That being the case, one wonders who is pushing for them and why?
Again, it depends on the particular GMO. The whole problem is that you and others are grouping all GMOs together. I know Monsanto is pushing some GMOs because its their business. I suspect some farmers would push some GMOs because it is profitable for them to do so. The link I gave earlier is for GMOs presumably being pushed by people who care about malnutrition in Africa. There are probably many other people pushing GMOs for many different reasons.
What objections do you have to GMOs in general (not specific cases such as Monsanto) other than your general fear of anything sciency.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy would anyone bother with GM if there are no benefits...?
So as yet there are no direct benefits and they may in fact be detrimental to consumers. That being the case, one wonders who is pushing for them and why?
This article mentions some of the reasons for using genetic modification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_modification_of_food
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWe know this. As I said, there are free course on the subject, and you could learn a lot.
Cell metabolism is not as simple as one sequence of DNA being transcribed into one bit of RNA and then converted into a protein.
But what you apparently don't realise, is that mutations are common in life.
The difference with already existing hybrids is that we are already committed to them, as I said in my original post. There should be more rigorous testing of hybrids.
No, we are not committed to existing hybrids. There are many hybrids to choose from and new ones are being developed all the time.
Oddly enough you are not advocating the labelling of new hybrids. Why not?
Have a look here:
http://seeds.seedco.co/zambia
That one company list 18 different hybrids of Maize, 8 of wheat, 7 of soya beans etc. When you buy the mealie meal, I can assure you they do not generally label it with the specific hybrid that was used. They may label it if it is yellow maize rather than white, as most people prefer white.