[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Moratorium Called on Genetically Modified Foods
In article <321840D7.CD2@cimatron.co.il>, joshua@cimatron.co.il wrote:
*much deletia*
>
> Again - there is NO parallel in natural mutation for the splicing of
totally foreign
> genes from one order of life into another.
>
> The genes that are spliced have a desirable effect in their home
environment - but
> that is no guarantee that their effect will be beneficial (or at least
harmless) in
> the totally new environment into which it has been spliced. GUESS WHAT?
plants
> produce all sorts of compounds that animals don't, and vice versa. There
is NO way to
> be certain that the chemical created by the newly spliced gene isn't
interacting
> within this alien environment in an unpredicted way. Add another layer
of complexity
> by trying to take into account how our bodies will treat the mix, and
you have a
complete nonsense. What about chewing two foods together? Isn't that a
mix. What if there were some fungus on a vegetable you consumed? What if
you ate some bread? Are you truly advocating never eating a combination of
foods. There's a wholesome proposition :-).
> technology that is far from proven safe.
This statement adds nothing but rhetoric. Please post the standards of
safety you require for "proof". State why you require them, and state why
those standards, which you have asserted, must be adhered to by one and
all. Please state why we should hold your assertions in higher esteem than
those which have been openly stated and subjected to scientific scrutiny.
Extra credit #1: ascertain how those standards, based on these unmentioned
assertions are met in your everyday life.
> Well......most genetically modified foods I have heard of are not focused on
> increasing yields or nutritional value.
Actually, a great deal of effort is focussed on genetically improved
disease resistance. If that is not attempting to increase yield (under
field conditions) I don't know what is.
>They are focused on a proprietary goal - like
> (for example) the Monsanto tomato bred to resist (surprise) Monsanto
herbicides.
Would you have them make their tomato plants sensitive to their herbicides?
> What new chemical compounds bestow this resistance?
OK. A real question. The easiest way to confer resistance is to render the
plant for example, glyphosate resistant. Glyphosate can kill sensitive
plants because it mimics one of the substrates of an enzyme used in amino
acid biosythesis. The substrate mimic inhibits the enzyme and thus, the
pathway. Humans don't have a sensitivty to this compound. (Remember
"essential amino acids"? In fact humans lack many amino acid biosynthetic
pathways.) What about the bacteria in the gut, they must make their amino
acids? Yes they do. In fact, a form of their enzyme can be glyphosate
resistant. These bacteria can thrive in a glyphosate rich environment.
Extra credit #2: how would you identify bacteria resistant to glyphosate?
(Remember, the bacteria double in number every half-hour or so.) Extra
credit #2 - no it's not a typo it's the same question: how would you
identify plants resistant to glyphosphate? (Remember, the plants double in
nuber every 4 months or so.) Now transfer the specific gene for that
enzyme to the target plant. Did it matter whether you selected the gene in
the bacteria or plant. Actually, no, it's the same enzymatic pathway.
What happens when they are
> introduced into our food chain? I think that Monsanto knows about as
much about the
> effects these chemicals have on humans as they did about pesticide
residues when they
> began releasing pesticides..........which is none too encouraging.
Now we know what "they" are. An enzyme in an amino acid biosynthetic
pathway. You are asserting that the glyphosphate resistant forms of life
is are somehow detrimental to our food chain. Please identify resistant
organisms. (For a start, find a mirror.)
We're only now
> aware of the true depth of cost/loss balance in pesticide use. I have
every reason to
> be suspicious of Monsanto's silence the second time around -
We are waiting with great expectancy. Please do not hold us in suspense.
Just what is the true depth of cost/loss balance in pesticide use?
> - and as a consumer, I want to be able to avoid these foods if I wish.
Why shouldn't
> people responsible for our foodstuffs be held to an ethical standard of
> safety testing, just like drug companies?
Hmm. Last time I checked Monsanto was a drug company. Wait a moment... Sure is.
If the product is so safe, why are Monsanto
> and its sisters trying to stop labelling of these strains in consumer
markets? If
> everything is so safe, they should be spending their money on
advertising, not
> lobbying to make me a guinea pig against my will.
Cut the rhetoric Joshua. No one is making you a guinea pig. If you want to
buy foodstuffs that have never seen herbicides, eat meat. :-) Ok, just a
joke. In fact, you can buy plenty of vegetables that have not been grown
in herbicides. These are called organic. The folks who grow them will not
have paid the extra cost to obtain the herbicide resistant cultivars. Why
should they? In fact these growers will spend their money advertising the
fact that their plants are not resistant. However, you might want to have
the organic gardeners prove that they have checked that sensitivity; just
to keep them up to an ethical standard :-).
> Joshua
References: