Europe about to embrace GM?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Look 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.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977

Cell metabolism is not as simp ...[text shortened]... itted to them, as I said in my original post. There should be more rigorous testing of hybrids.

We have already explained to you why that link is irrelevant so I want bother to repeat myself.

...rRNA methods...

that is gibberish. “rRNA” is not a kind of “method” but stands for “Ribosomal RNA” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosomal_RNA ) .
This shows the extend of your ignorence on the subject.

Unintended side effects are both frequent and difficult to spot.

If that is true for GM genes, it is just as true for NON-GM genes. So this is irrelevant as with the whole of your post.

There should be more rigorous testing of hybrids.

What? Now you are against hybrids? Hybrids have existed for billions of years in nature and some of our crops are hybrids and have been hybrids well before all this hysterical crap against GM.

http://www.thegardeningtimes.com/article.asp?AR01=1157
“...But regardless of whether you are an enthusiast for old or new cultivated forms they are more than likely to have arisen as a result of either a mutation or hybridisation. ….”

Originally posted by twhitehead
We know this. As I said, there are free course on the subject, and you could learn a lot.
But what you apparently don't realise, is that mutations are common in life.

[b]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 ar ...[text shortened]... as used. They may label it if it is yellow maize rather than white, as most people prefer white.[/b]

We know this.

Not for the first time, he is being extremely condescending pretending we don't know very basic biology!
We almost certainly know more about biology than he does esp in the light of the fact he said "...rRNA methods..." in his last post -what!? "rRNA" is a kind of "method"!?
He really should study basic science before shouting his mouth off against it!

Originally posted by humy

We know this.

Not for the first time, he is being extremely condescending pretending we don't know very basic biology!
We almost certainly know more about biology than he does esp in the light of the fact he said "...rRNA methods..." in his last post -what!? "rRNA" is a kind of "method"!?
He really should study basic science before shouting his mouth off against it!

If you read my reference you will see experts in the field using the term "rDNA methods". To distinguish genetic engineering from other mechanisms, such as just blasting the organism with radiation. I did make a mistake in talking about RNA, but we all make mistakes.

You should treat other posters with more respect. You don't read posts properly and dismiss other peoples arguments because you treat science and technology as a religion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you 'took issue' with the term 'anti-science'. How does that make the cloning of Dolly the sheep 'flawed science' as you claimed?

Shorter lifespan and more diseases. Not at all what was hoped for. Life can be unpredictable and those that think they have it all figured out are hopelessly ignorant.
All I am defending is labeling GMO foods and the stubborn resistance I get from you and Humy is ridiculous. It is almost like you guys are working for Monsanto.
I already proved GMOs can be harmful and you admitted it. Now you are bent on making non-GMOs to be harmful to defend your positions. We all know allergies to foods exist, that is why they are labeled.
You and Humy have taken an extreme position and Humy will not accept what you have already, that GMOs can be harmful to intestinal health unlike the non-GMO equivalents.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We know this. As I said, there are free course on the subject, and you could learn a lot.
But what you apparently don't realise, is that mutations are common in life.

[b]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 ar ...[text shortened]... as used. They may label it if it is yellow maize rather than white, as most people prefer white.[/b]

You should be careful about telling people that they are ignorant of subjects. I do not claim to be a biologist. I can however read and interpret scientific data.

I was referring to hybrid and force bred varieties already in the food chain. I am happy to see labelling of new varieties of hybrid. I am aware of random mutations. These are not something we can avoid. Genetically engineered varieties are things we have control over, so we have the opportunity to be cautious.

You have failed to address the main issue concerned with potential health effects which is that there have been no randomised controlled trials of GM foods in humans and that there is therefore no good quality evidence that they are indeed safe. There is low quality evidence in the form of what in the drugs industry would be called phase 0 trials (laboratory analysis and animal model trials).

You have also not commented on my point about potential reduction in the fitness of wild species.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Shorter lifespan and more diseases. Not at all what was hoped for. Life can be unpredictable and those that think they have it all figured out are hopelessly ignorant.
All I am defending is labeling GMO foods and the stubborn resistance I get from you and Humy is ridiculous. It is almost like you guys are working for Monsanto.
I already proved GMOs ca ...[text shortened]... you have already, that GMOs can be harmful to intestinal health unlike the non-GMO equivalents.

I don't agree that because Dolly the Sheep had a shorter lifespan it was flawed science. They were still in the basic research stage. So the problem with the shorter lifespan was actually a triumph of the experiment - they found something important out.

A flawed scientific argument would have been to argue on the basis of the success of the cloning procedure, but before Dolly had prematurely aged, that one should mass produce cloned sheep.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't agree that because Dolly the Sheep had a shorter lifespan it was flawed science. They were still in the basic research stage. So the problem with the shorter lifespan was actually a triumph of the experiment - they found something important out.

A flawed scientific argument would have been to argue on the basis of the success of the cloning procedure, but before Dolly had prematurely aged, that one should mass produce cloned sheep.

It depends how you look at it.

My point is that a law the prohibits the cloning of people could be called anti-science too. It loses it's meaning when the prohibition is for good reason.

I don't think many who frequent the science forum are anti-science. The label is nothing more than reckless slander.

Originally posted by DeepThought
If you read my reference you will see experts in the field using the term "rDNA methods". To distinguish genetic engineering from other mechanisms, such as just blasting the organism with radiation. I did make a mistake in talking about RNA, but we all make mistakes.

You should treat other posters with more respect. You don't read posts properly and dismiss other peoples arguments because you treat science and technology as a religion.

If you read my reference you will see experts in the field using the term "rDNA methods"

-yet another indication that your links contain garbage!
Most experts in the field wouldn't use such an erroneous term.

To distinguish genetic engineering from other mechanisms

most genetic engineering doesn't involve manipulating rDNA

such as just blasting the organism with radiation.

That IS a type of genetic engineering.

You should treat other posters with more respect.

Which ones? I have shown nothing but for respect for twhitehead posts in this thread.
But I don't see any particular reason why I should show a post containing a load of garbage respect so, no, I disagree.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't agree that because Dolly the Sheep had a shorter lifespan it was flawed science. They were still in the basic research stage. So the problem with the shorter lifespan was actually a triumph of the experiment - they found something important out.

A flawed scientific argument would have been to argue on the basis of the success of the cloning procedure, but before Dolly had prematurely aged, that one should mass produce cloned sheep.

It is just a matter of time before they find a way of cloning animals (cloning not to be confused with GM! ) without unwanted side effects and then the usual arguments used by people who are against cloning animals wouldn't apply any more.

However, I doubt that even then it would be widely adopted but that is only because I bet the potential benefits of cloning in most cases would be so trivial that I bet that in most cases they wouldn't bother.

But, that said, I can see at least one very real potential application for cloning that may be one day widely adopted; conservation; cloning members of endangered species to prevent them going extinct!
It is the usual knee-jerk reaction by environmentalists to be against both cloning and GM. Perhaps if cloning prevents a species going extinct, they will change their views on cloning and, because they often confuse cloning with GM, GM as well?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Shorter lifespan and more diseases. Not at all what was hoped for.

So when a scientist develops a new solar cell and it turns out not to be all he had hoped for, you would describe his research as 'flawed science'?
It seems you haven't got the first clue about what science is all about. 99% of all scientific experiments give results that are 'not all what was hoped for'. That is science. It is not 'flawed science'.

Life can be unpredictable and those that think they have it all figured out are hopelessly ignorant.
I fully agree. Scientists know this better than anyone - which is why they use science to try and figure out more stuff.

All I am defending is labeling GMO foods ...
Well calling Dolly the sheep 'flawed science' is not helping your case.

....and the stubborn resistance I get from you and Humy is ridiculous.
You have totally failed to make a case for labelling.

It is almost like you guys are working for Monsanto.
I couldn't care less about Monsanto.

I already proved GMOs can be harmful and you admitted it.
I admitted that any food can be harmful - and you admitted it. What you totally failed to prove was that there is an increased risk of harm with GMOs over other foods.

You and Humy have taken an extreme position and Humy will not accept what you have already, that GMOs can be harmful to intestinal health unlike the non-GMO equivalents
Now you are outright lying. I accepted no such thing.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You should be careful about telling people that they are ignorant of subjects.

I am only saying it about a specific area where you displayed ignorance. We are all ignorant of many things, it is not intended to be rude.

I was referring to hybrid and force bred varieties already in the food chain.
And as I pointed out, we can pick and choose these varieties, and we create new varieties all the time. GMOs are also already in the food chain.

I am happy to see labelling of new varieties of hybrid.
Labelled in what way? The variety name? What benefit would that provide to the typical consumer? Or would you want it to say 'warning: new untested hybrid, may be hazardous to your health!'?
You do realise that these labels would have to appear on almost all food?

I am aware of random mutations. These are not something we can avoid. Genetically engineered varieties are things we have control over, so we have the opportunity to be cautious.
But the claim is that GMOs may be dangerous in the areas we do not have control of as in unforeseen proteins appearing. The fact is that this far more likely to occur via random mutation in a non-GMO product or in the area of the genome that was not modified at all.

You have failed to address the main issue concerned with potential health effects which is that there have been no randomised controlled trials of GM foods in humans and that there is therefore no good quality evidence that they are indeed safe.
There have been no randomised controlled trials of most foods, yet you do not advocate labelling them all as potentially dangerous.

You have also not commented on my point about potential reduction in the fitness of wild species.
I must have missed it. Please repeat it and I will address it.

Originally posted by humy

If you read my reference you will see experts in the field using the term "rDNA methods"

-yet another indication that your links contain garbage!
Most experts in the field wouldn't use such an erroneous term.

To distinguish genetic engineering from other mechanisms

most genetic engineering doesn't involve manipula ...[text shortened]... ticular reason why I should show a post containing a load of garbage respect so, no, I disagree.

Before criticizing other people for being stupid you really should check their references. The book I was quoting was an academic study basically in support of GMOs. This is the front page:

SAFETY OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS

APPROACHES TO ASSESSING UNINTENDED HEALTH EFFECTS

Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health

Board on Life Sciences

Food and Nutrition Board

Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources

INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE AND NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.

www.nap.edu

If that isn't a top quality reference there is no such thing. You are a fool.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am only saying it about a specific area where you displayed ignorance. We are all ignorant of many things, it is not intended to be rude.

[b]I was referring to hybrid and force bred varieties already in the food chain.
And as I pointed out, we can pick and choose these varieties, and we create new varieties all the time. GMOs are also already ...[text shortened]... the fitness of wild species.[/b]
I must have missed it. Please repeat it and I will address it.[/b]

I read your post after humy's and was in an irritated state of mind when I read it. I've just been quite rude to him, but he deserved it solely for not checking on what my reference actually was - I'd deliberately chosen a pro-GM document which was scientific advice for policy makers, the real problem with it is it is 10 years old and the field will have moved on:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977

The reference I gave has a nice little diagram on page 4 giving the relative risks of unintended genetic effects from various techniques of crossing. The reference, reserves the term genetic engineering for what they term "rDNA methods". They give a greater risk with these methods than with pollen based hybridization. Probably because there is greater variation in where the new DNA is inserted into the plant genome. What they term "agrobacterium transfer of rDNA from closely related species" has a risk comparable to simply selecting from a heterogenous population. What increases the risk of unintended genetic effects is the distance between the species being crossed. This is the point of Genetic Engineering solutions to plant breeding problems. So adding genes for root nodules from legumes to unrelated species could produce unwanted proteins in trace, but still biologically significant, quantities.

There is an interesting bit (I think in chapter 6, but it could have been in the executive summary) where they talk about using GM techniques to make the nutrients in the food more bio-available and make the point that making the nutrients in the plant more absorbable by our bodies could also make anti-nutrients, such as heavy metals, more absorbable. This is why I think randomised controlled trials in humans are in order.

The stuff about wild species is the second half of the 3rd post on the previous page. In a nutshell if GMO's can reproduce with wild species then the contaminated wild species can lose fitness because the genetic material is not selected against (GM pollen keeps on coming from farms, GM salmon keep spawning) and the trait may require extra nutrients for the plant or animal which is fine for a farmed species, but a problem for wild ones. The effect could be to reduce the fitness of wild species and potentially cause an extinction. This is why I favour terminator genes.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So when a scientist develops a new solar cell and it turns out not to be all he had hoped for, you would describe his research as 'flawed science'?
It seems you haven't got the first clue about what science is all about. 99% of all scientific experiments give results that are 'not all what was hoped for'. That is science. It is not 'flawed science'.

[ ...[text shortened]... health unlike the non-GMO equivalents
Now you are outright lying. I accepted no such thing.[/b]

You are clearly trying to digress instead of confronting the true issue. I explained myself quite well and you are just being overzealous in defending your position to the point of failure.
The Reuters news article is proof that you will not accept. In other words, you have your mind made up and don't want to be confused with facts. So long guys, you all bore me with your evasiveness. You know I am right, you just can't admit it out of ego. My work is done here. 🙂

Originally posted by DeepThought
Before criticizing other people for being stupid you really should check their references. The book I was quoting was an academic study basically in support of GMOs. This is the front page:

SAFETY OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS

APPROACHES TO ASSESSING UNINTENDED HEALTH EFFECTS

Committee on Identify ...[text shortened]... u

If that isn't a top quality reference there is no such thing. You are a fool.

You are a fool. - Deep thought to Humy

or a mad scientist with a mind ray hidden far in the hills bent on world domination!