01-17-2014, 09:35 AM
Permie:
“The GMO approval process? It absolutely terrifies me.”
“…a study at the NIH that raises allergenicity concerns”
“If a GMO is released that turns out to have toxicity or allergenicity”
“What if millions of americans are having intestinal allergic reactions to BT Toxin from GMO food?”
geochem:
"Mr. Ruderman's business model, and the business model of his whole industry, is to instill paranoia in the public consciousness over their food and over non-organic food production - that is their marketing strategy."
Permie has a lot of fears, maybe's and what ifs. Geochem seems to have caught the flavor, and relevance, of Permie's posts. After all, like Mr. Ruderman, Permie apparently has business interests that could improve if GMOs were vilified further.
The WHO article, for instance, was from 2001. Followup demonstrating Permie's concerns? Crickets. The antibody response to Bt article was from 1999. The followup gut/bmg link, an abstract, doesn't discuss GMOs, only generically that IgG antibodies from food may be linked to irritable bowel syndrome. Rather a stretch to point at GMOs. Also a big "maybe" in the abstract to the investigator's own hypothesis. By the way, our bodies create antibodies, including IgG, from exposure to almost any organism/protein, including those in our own bodies. That's the way the immune system works. Wikipedia says IgG's "[represent] approximately 75% of serum immunoglobulins in humans, IgG is the most abundant antibody isotype found in the circulation." Allergenicity caused by a single gene inserted into a GMO chromosome versus everything we eat, inhale or get scratched with?
The body of scientific knowledge was large in 1999 and 2001 and is much larger now, but the conclusion is still the same: there is no known food risk to GMO crops. To point, the Japanese government cleared our Hawaiian GMO papayas after ten years of testing. Permie's comments reflect the separate issue of consumer fear and paranoia.
“The GMO approval process? It absolutely terrifies me.”
“…a study at the NIH that raises allergenicity concerns”
“If a GMO is released that turns out to have toxicity or allergenicity”
“What if millions of americans are having intestinal allergic reactions to BT Toxin from GMO food?”
geochem:
"Mr. Ruderman's business model, and the business model of his whole industry, is to instill paranoia in the public consciousness over their food and over non-organic food production - that is their marketing strategy."
Permie has a lot of fears, maybe's and what ifs. Geochem seems to have caught the flavor, and relevance, of Permie's posts. After all, like Mr. Ruderman, Permie apparently has business interests that could improve if GMOs were vilified further.
The WHO article, for instance, was from 2001. Followup demonstrating Permie's concerns? Crickets. The antibody response to Bt article was from 1999. The followup gut/bmg link, an abstract, doesn't discuss GMOs, only generically that IgG antibodies from food may be linked to irritable bowel syndrome. Rather a stretch to point at GMOs. Also a big "maybe" in the abstract to the investigator's own hypothesis. By the way, our bodies create antibodies, including IgG, from exposure to almost any organism/protein, including those in our own bodies. That's the way the immune system works. Wikipedia says IgG's "[represent] approximately 75% of serum immunoglobulins in humans, IgG is the most abundant antibody isotype found in the circulation." Allergenicity caused by a single gene inserted into a GMO chromosome versus everything we eat, inhale or get scratched with?
The body of scientific knowledge was large in 1999 and 2001 and is much larger now, but the conclusion is still the same: there is no known food risk to GMO crops. To point, the Japanese government cleared our Hawaiian GMO papayas after ten years of testing. Permie's comments reflect the separate issue of consumer fear and paranoia.