ADOPTION OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS IN THE U.S.

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Agriculture Forum » ADOPTION OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS IN THE U.S.

Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2

Author

Message

Bruce Sinclair

Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2003 5:49 pm

Guest

In article <DARP4rBDbjj$EwM$@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:

Quote:

Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes
In article <bmg8bs$r6j$3@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message > >> >you want GM food to be safer and cheaper than conventional,
after all
most
conventional food has not been safety tested
True. But there is long experience Smile

yes we have gluten intolerance, nut allergies, need I go on
Indeed. Well said ... and thank you for proving my polint Smile

exactly, there is no evidence that conventional food is safe, indeed we have
evidence that much isn't
But, as you have said, we do have SOME evidence. You get this from long term
data. Smile

Thanks again fro proving the point :)

Hardly, since the allergies appeared within a few years and GE crops are
tested for potential allergens (see starlight).

Tests are good ... but don't necessarily pick up everything they
should - as I'm sure you know. Allergens are one thing .. and I
suspect the tests are simple and easy to interpret. They are not the
only thing.

I also note that most (if not all ?) food these days comes with a
warning ... "may contain traces of nuts".
Why ? ... the processing equipment is used for nuts and other stuff
... and it's an arse covering exercise Smile

Has this warning appeared on packets of nuts ? ... of course :)

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

Jim Webster

Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2003 11:58 pm

Guest

"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:IqFkb.1851$ws.187935@news02.tsnz.net...

Quote:

In article <DARP4rBDbjj$EwM$@btopenworld.com>, Oz
acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes
In article <bmg8bs$r6j$3@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message > >> >you want GM food to be safer and cheaper than
conventional,
after all
most
conventional food has not been safety tested
True. But there is long experience Smile

yes we have gluten intolerance, nut allergies, need I go on
Indeed. Well said ... and thank you for proving my polint Smile

exactly, there is no evidence that conventional food is safe, indeed we
have
evidence that much isn't
But, as you have said, we do have SOME evidence. You get this from long
term
data. Smile

Thanks again fro proving the point :)

Hardly, since the allergies appeared within a few years and GE crops are
tested for potential allergens (see starlight).

Tests are good ... but don't necessarily pick up everything they
should - as I'm sure you know. Allergens are one thing .. and I
suspect the tests are simple and easy to interpret. They are not the
only thing.

I also note that most (if not all ?) food these days comes with a
warning ... "may contain traces of nuts".
Why ? ... the processing equipment is used for nuts and other stuff
.. and it's an arse covering exercise Smile

Has this warning appeared on packets of nuts ? ... of course :)

and the same thing will appear, "May contain GM", as a way of covering their
own backs.

So labelling is a total waste of time

Jim Webster

Jim Webster

Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2003 12:01 am

Guest

"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:elFkb.1850$ws.187990@news02.tsnz.net...

Quote:

As you say. I still note that what is "food" now has a long history
and even some data behind it. I still say why introduce untired
solutions to a problem we do not have ?

you mean like Kiwi fruit?

Similarly the introduction of new foods to diets is not uncommon. We know
what soya does in an eastern diet, but no one has done any tests on what the
effects of soya in western diets might be, which given the hormonal effects
seems strange.
We know that there can be synergistic effects.

Quote:

A rational (to me of course Smile

) course of action is to wait until we
can fairly confidently say ... this has a similar risk to that.
I don't believe we can do this currently. Therefore I believe we must
act as tho a disater is awaiting us if we get this wrong.

Why worry about GM when you aren't making a fuss about Kiwi and Soya?

Quote:

In what way is this wrong ? I have seen the data "showing" the 2 are
comparable ... but it is not and cannot be long term data. Without
that, I cannot and will not be happy to ignore something that we may
well have missed - god knows, it's happened before :)

What is your assesment of the risks ?

the biggest risk is if we let hysteria take over.
Look at the 'precautionary principle.' People want it applied to things
they don't like, but ignore it totally on things they want

Jim Webster

Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2003 12:38 am

Guest

Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes

Quote:

As you say. I still note that what is "food" now has a long history
and even some data behind it.

Indeed. The evidence is that plants have a lot of toxins in
(particularly leafy ones).

Quote:

I still say why introduce untired
solutions to a problem we do not have ?

Originally to reduce pesticide use and use more benign products.
Also it was an obvious way to go, just extending existing plant breeding
tools which were crude, inefficient and slow.

Quote:

A rational (to me of course Smile

) course of action is to wait until we
can fairly confidently say ... this has a similar risk to that.

Probably some 500M people have been eating GM foods for several years
with no known adverse effects. During that period several died in NZ
from eating courgettes (zuccini) which had (due to inappropriate
breeding and climatic conditions) elevated curcubin levels.

Feeding trials have been done with GM foods. They can never duplicate
the pesticide specification because they cannot find a NOEL, let alone
an LD50 (against controls).

Quote:

I don't believe we can do this currently. Therefore I believe we must
act as tho a disater is awaiting us if we get this wrong.

Some hint of a possible mechanism would be good.

Quote:

Of course it has. Potatoes in multiplication with lethal levels of
solanin, celery (in production for a time) with such high levels of
toxins that packers came out with eczema and refused to handle it. Basil
is carcinogenic enough that the amount on a pizza is equivalent to
smoking two or three cigarettes.

These are just for conventional varieties.

So what's new, other than we should test ALL foods for toxicity.
Nobody wants to do this because people may get fearful when they find
most plant foods contain carcinogens, mutagens and other nasty products
designed to damage pests.

Quote:

What is your assesment of the risks ?

1) I think ALL new varieties (and old ones come to that) should be
tested for toxicity. A two generation mouse/hamster feeding trial should
do, compared to other existing varieties.

2) For BT cotton, very low.

3) For most current GM foods, very low.

At this point I would like to include torsten's piece on soya toxicity,
but I can't find it.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2003 12:41 am

Guest

Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes

Quote:

Tests are good ... but don't necessarily pick up everything they
should - as I'm sure you know.

Yes, but that is the exception rather than the rule, which is why its so
noteworthy. You can say the same about buildings, bridges and cars, well
everything that humans have ever made or done, yet that doesn't stop you
using them.

Quote:

Allergens are one thing .. and I
suspect the tests are simple and easy to interpret. They are not the
only thing.

<sigh> So what else?

Quote:

I also note that most (if not all ?) food these days comes with a
warning ... "may contain traces of nuts".
Why ? ... the processing equipment is used for nuts and other stuff
.. and it's an arse covering exercise Smile

Has this warning appeared on packets of nuts ? ... of course Smile

Quite.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:39 pm Science Forum Index