Hawaii Senate panel to consider GMO labeling

[snorkle]

True that it's largely politics(and economics). That's what large multinational Chemical Companies have made it. They say their motives are altruistic, but actually they are about control and profit.

Companies like Monsanto are giving science a bad name with their selfish agenda.

I'm all for labeling. It works for Hi5 and will work for food. True that it will be more effective if Nationally practiced, but like anything from Marijuana to equality, it will start with progressive States and spread from there.

[peteadams]

"True that it's largely politics(and economics). That's what large multinational Chemical Companies have made it. They say their motives are altruistic, but actually they are about control and profit. "

More fluffy stuff: True that it's largely politics(and economics). That's what large multinational food corporations buying into the organic market have made it. They say their motives are altruistic, but actually they are about control and profit.

Actually, the politics and economics surrounding anti-GMO are all about gullibility. Very little different from the anti-vaxxers. If large food corporations are so proud of their non-GMO products, label them as such. They should gain marketing advantage among organic aficionados, much as General Mills announced its non-GMO labeling on Cheerios was simply a marketing campaign.

[rainyjim]

Companies like Monsanto are giving science a bad name with their selfish agenda.

Science stands separately from the ethical and moral practices of corporations.

Perhaps, Monsanto gives companies a bad name because of their ethical and moral practices.

Science however is not given a bad name by Monsanto.

Further, if you believe Monsanto to have poor ethical and moral practices look at the laws in our society e.g. U.S. office of patents and patenting law. Is it Monsanto who creates patent laws for intellectual property rights or do they merely adhere to them?

In other words: 'Don't hate they player; hate the game.'

[snorkle]

You are much more eloquent than I, Jim.
I agree and stand corrected.

Monsanto does give Corporations a bad name, and the game is indeed fixed.

I do reserve the right to "hate the player" however; and feel that labeling would level the playing field.

The same mega corporations will indeed exploit any new laws, to the extent that their legal divisions and lobbyists allow them. Look at the phrase "Natural", which has evolved to mean anything other than Healthy.

The bottom line is to actually read the label, which savvy shoppers do, rather than place your trust in General Mills or Nestle.

I tend to actually avoid foods labeled "Natural" flavors or colors as it's become a corporate code word for "Haha, we don't have to tell you, trust us".

[Wao nahele kane]

The complexities of the microbiological realm may prove to be where food source genetic modifications exhibit harmful effects. Unfortunately such research will take years to conclude and iron out the precise biological interactions occurring. In particular of interest is the interaction of consumed enzymes and the bodies internal bacteria that also absorb these enzymes which influence the bacteria's DNA structure. Of present concern is the possible influence of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria that have been recently emerging. Here's one such study regarding such issues - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23215020

When it boils right down to it... there are still many unknowns and I personally am not interested in being a lab rat in an uncontrolled experiment or any experiment for that matter regarding GMO. I for one support GMO labeling.

[Punatic007]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

“The people of Hawaii have a right to know what’s in the food they eat,” said Health Committee Chairman Josh Green in a statement. “If the people want to know if there are GMOs in their food, then the Legislature should follow their will and pass a simple and effective labeling system.”
From the following link -
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/02/hawaii-...-labeling/

---

Josh Green is a lovely man....compassionate and highly intelligent. If we could just borrow some of that GMO technology and clone him the world would be a much safer place.

[rainyjim]

Transgenics doesn't exhibit anything more or less harmful than conventional breeding.


With transgenics you get one or two genes inserted and you actually know he functions of the genes, whereas with conventions breeding you have thousands sometimes tens of thousands of genes inserted and you don't know what they are or their function.

Between that and mutagenesis being unregulated it's pretty clear the detractors of GE foods have little clue of what they speak.

[rainyjim]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane:
Take it up with the scientist involved in the survey.

---

You misunderstand me, I'm not disagreeing with anything in the article you linked to from the ncbi.

However, you also seem to misunderstand the article.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane:
Transgenic are a source member of synthetic plasmid and in the case of the cited survey, transgenic are the source of the synthetic plasmid vector responsible for the antibiotic resistant E. coli strains.

---

So fyi, because your word choice makes me think you might be a little confused. Transgenic is a more accurate term for what non-scientist term 'GMO'. Genetically modified organism is a vague term. Technically it could be referring to you or me. After all we are just genetic modifications of the combination of our parents sets of chromosomes. Recombinant DNA or rDNA is also used interchangeably with transgenic. It is just a more accurate way of describing the product of moving a foreign gene from one organism to another.

So yes, synthetic plasmids are the 'cassettes' or constructs upon which the genes of interest to be moved from one organism to another are packaged inside of.

On this plasmid is what is referred to as a reporter gene, this can sometimes be an antibiotic resistance gene. Other reporter genes are used, however, besides antibiotic resistance genes. Another example of a reporter gene is the GFP gene from jellyfish. These genes have different uses and it would not always be appropriate to use one or the other depending on the nature of the organism you are trying to improve and how you wish to observe he presence of the gene of interest.

So to recap a plasmid is a small circular extra chromosomal piece of DNA that we can manipulate to include genes of interest think herbicide tolerance or insect tolerance. As well as the gene of interest there is also the reporter gene like antibiotic resistance or GFP. Everything within a specific region of the plasmid is transferred over into the target organism. Knowing this enables us to know that if the reoporter gene made it into the organism then the gene of interest made it as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane:
But what the heck, empirical evidence be damned because it doesn't fit your rational paradigm. Nice.

---

My paradigm on this matter starts and ends in molecular biology. Please consult molecular cloning: a laboratory manual by Tom Maniatus for further information about plasmids.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane:
You can now firmly welcome this antibiotic resistant E.coli bacteria or one like it with open arms when it ends up in your fast food burger.

---

I don't know where you came up with this idea but if you really think that based off the paper you read on the ncbi you will soon have antibiotic resistant E.coli in your burger you should probably take a basic biology course.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane:
Why? Because you're a GMO proponent and welcome all things influenced by GMO because its 100% safe in your opinion.

---

I've actually said many times on punaweb nothing is 100% safe. Literally. Name one thing thats 100% safe. You can't! I don't think transgenic foods are any more or less safe that conventional, fwiw.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane:
Forget the fact that no research is required to test the influence these products have on the world of the countless micro biologic organisms that surround us.

---

I don't know why you think this but in reality corporations have to go through an extensive battery of testing to the tune of severa hundred million dollars per crop just to get their perfectly safe products licensed to be produced commercially. It's this extensive R&D investment that necessitates their patenting of intellectual property rights.

Oh and back to plasmids and reporter genes. They will soon be replaced by recent technology which is easier to manipulate and more efficient.

New technologies have since come into use which are making this technique insignificant. It's now much easier to make genome modifications without the need to insert DNA from a foreign host. Small molecular machines called CAS proteins are now utilized to make insertion and deletions at specific loci. This new technology is driven by gRNA to the site of interest and has applications that are widespread. A researcher in China has induced resistance to powdery mildew in wheat using these new methods and current research is ongoing to inhibit Mosquitoes ability to transmit malaria and dengue fever. Future applications in material science like biomaterials that can absorb co2 (a greenhouse gas) from the atmosphere making 'super green' homes.

So. I wouldn't be worried about 'GMOs' causing a catastrophe via antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance is a real problem and should be addressed seriously. However, the role of resistance and mutation is a well studied and understood biological phenomena and is completely separate of 'GMOs'. Bactetia will evolve further resistance in the future but it will be because of a natural process that has been happening for millions of years if not billions and not because of 'GMOs'.


just my .02 cents
Hope you learned something!

[ironyak]

Thanks to RainyJim for the nice plasmid overview! I'm still sticking with 'GMO' for convenience and familiarity though

The bacteria used for transformation via plasmid transfer are normally critically weakened and unable to survive outside the lab. Of course, China may not be following best practices or overly concerned about environmental protections.

Having made my share of GMO bacteria via plasmid transfer (it's a standard biochem technique you learn third year or so, not something abby normal from Young Frankenstein) I still favor GMO labelling simply as a matter of consumer choice.

Given that the US does not have a pre-market testing process like the one used by Japan to evaluate Hawaii's GMO papaya, labelling allows for an informed choice for those that care. How is that a bad thing?

[Wao nahele kane]

Rainyjim,
Transgenic is not a more accurate term to describe GMO. It is a term used to describe a particular type of GE process but in no way defines the whole of GE.
The way you are using the term is what constitutes my use of the term in the above. You're using as if the whole of GMO is transgenic and that is incorrect. Rather than argue the point, I simply used the word the way you seemed to comprehend it.