[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Gene Tinkering: YOU Are The Mice And They Don't Want You to Know



In Article <VA.00000036.00ec8204@wrcs.u-net.com>, William R Hite
<wrhite@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <aquilla.1193032089A@news.erols.com> on  Fri, 13 Sep 96 
>19:54:09 GMT aquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla) wrote:>
>> >Current test are growing riskier all the time even though release
>> >of a carelessly gene tinkered health food product caused death of at 
>> >least 37 Americans and crippled thousands.
>> 
>> I assume this reference is to tryptophan, but as in the rest of your
>> post, there is no reference to any literature or evidence to support
>> your claim. Tryptophan is not a food product and the case in question did
>> not involve any "tinkered" gene...
>
>I am not a scientist but what I have read is:
>From the book "Genetic Engineering: The Hazards, Vedic Engineering: The 
>Solutions", Fagan J, MIU Press 1995, p53-54

Ayurvedic medicine doesn't exactly embrace the Western approach to medicine
or biology. I don't have a problem with individuals who have an interest in
'holistic' or ancient forms of medicine, but it should be noted that the two
philosophies are as mutually exclusive as creationism and evolutionism. In
other words, Vedic medicine rejects virtually everything inherent in modern
Western medical practice. It is more of a philosophy than science.

Also interesting is the author's background. John Fagan was a successful
scientist at the pinnacle of an impressive career, when he returned over
$600,000 in grant money to NIH, abandoned his Western beliefs, and gave up
science to delve into the art of Ayurvedic Medicine. My point is not to
attack the author's personal philosophy, but rather to point out that his is
the viewpoint of a highly biased extremist who rejects the most basic
concepts embraced by scientists.

><<
>Genetic manipulations to customize a bacterium for efficient tryptophan 
>production
>
>   Several companies use bacterial fermentation to produce tryptophan 
>which is sold as a human nutritional supplement.

Supplement tablets are not what I'd call food products. The FDA treats
supplements separately from real food.

>   Not satisfied with the efficiency of tryptophan production, this 
>company carried out further genetic modifications of this organism. 
>These manipulations were successful in greatly increasing output.
>However, Showa Denko decided not to carry out the costly series of 
>safety tests that were done with the earlier genetically engineered 
>microorganism. The company assumed, based on the earlier tests, that 
>the tryptophan produced using the new bacterium was safe and 
>immediately began selling it as a nutritional supplement.
>   Over the next two years 37 people died, another 1500 were partially 
>paralyzed, and 5000 more were temporarily disabled by a syndrome that 
>was finally linked to this company's tryptophan (Ref 13). It was
>contaminated with one or more toxic compounds chemically related to 
>tryptophan.

Actually, I believe what happened was that they started using a different,
unapproved host strain, which turned out to be toxic. This was a human
ERROR, due to the fact that someone 'responsible' was not doing their job
properly. It actually had nothing to do with a genetic experiment gone awry,
as the enviro-terrorists would have the public believe. It was a case of
stupidity, not a lack of knowledge or testing of any product.

>   There is still controversy regarding the cause of this toxicity. 
>since, in addition to using the new genetically engineered bacterium 
>this company had also begun to cut corners in the procedure for 
>purifying their tryptophan. To protect the good name of genetic 
>engineering, the industry has blamed the toxicity on these procedural 
>changes, and the company has destroyed the bacterium, so that further 
>research cannot be done.

This is merely speculation.

>However, scientists who have followed this incident...

Please name some who have spoken out publicly on this issue, besides Fagan.

>...favor the explanation in which genetic manipulations caused 
>the bacteria to generate toxic tryptophan derivatives.

Certainly much of the information in question is proprietary and I'm sure
many of the court documents remain sealed from the public. The facts will
remain obscure in this case. While it is possible that such "genetic
manipulations" were involved, if they were it was in violation of many
regulatory statutes designed to protect the public from such irresponsible
behavior. I might point out that although similar incidents have occurred in
the past, particularly in regard to the pharmaceutical industry, this is the
only significant case opponents of "genetic engineering" have been able to
latch onto as their version of "The Andromeda Strain". (Remember also that
automobiles kill many thousands daily, but we continue to take that risk,
and it's the most significant risk most of us take daily by orders of
magnitude.)

>   The question that this example raises is this: If it is impossible 
>to predict the consequences of altering the genes of a simple, 
>single-celled organism how can genetic engineers say with confidence 
>that manipulations of the far more complex human genome will improve 
>health and not create new diseases?

That's why there's a huge body of regulatory law, requiring extensive
testing of any theraputic compound or device. Why on the one hand does the
public demand cures for cancer and AIDS and on the other condemn the
industry which provides them? If you don't trust your doctor, maybe you
should become a Vedic!

In any case, all this has nothing to do with food, genetically-engineered or
otherwise. If you stick to the topic I was discussing and do some research,
you will find that the alleged dangers from using insect viruses as
biological controls are unwarranted by the scientific literature.
Tracy



Follow-Ups: References: