Sen Ruderman, where is the proof

[Hawnjigs]

I too would be interested in opinions and info about GM within species. Isn't that similar to hybridization?

For anyone on the fringe wanting to school themselves like I did last year, here's an expose on Monsanto:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/news.cfm

Monsanto of course is not the only GMO developer:
http://www.biofortified.org/resources/ge...companies/

My apologies if these links replicate already posted.

Aloha aina, aloha kai

[Haaheo okole puka]

I'd say the issue of unintended mutagens resulting as unknown proteins that are present in all GM products, this also accompanied by selective propagation into a full population of the unintended mutagens. Where in nature such a mutagen created by cosmic radiation will carry only its own singular randomized mutation gene set and not be subject to selective continued propagation but rather subject to randomized propagation within the natural unaffected populace. There are enhanced mathematical probabilities involved in GMO procedures that are not inherent in natural mutagen occurrences.
Most importantly aside from the intended mutation, there are always untended mutation proteins in GMO and not all of these have been studied in the various products under current scrutiny. There is indeed a mathematical roll of the dice occurring and in the lab and controlled greenhouse, it is propagated into a full population.

[geochem]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haaheo okole puka

I'd say the issue of unintended mutagens resulting as unknown proteins that are present in all GM products, this also accompanied by selective propagation into a full population of the unintended mutagens....

---

Do I understand your point here to be that any selective propagation of mutations should be banned? (because mutations do occur all the time - whether induced by radiation damage or by transcription errors)

[peteadams]

(Geochem beat me to essentially the same conclusions - need to refresh the page more often - but perhaps seeing the same ideas twice might be helpful).

GMO plants are the same plants as the parent plants they are derived from other than the specific gene that is inserted. So saying "unintended mutagens resulting as unknown proteins that are present in all GM products" is pretty meaningless as the statement obviously applies to the non-GMO plant as well. The inserted genes are heavily characterized and their effects are well known. That's why they are being used. But mutations always happen. Similarly, statements like "Most importantly aside from the intended mutation, there are always untended mutation proteins in GMO" applies just as much to non-GMO propagation. Sexual reproduction always involves "unintended mutation." This is how evolution happens.

One more point. The offspring of GMO plants, since their original parents are derived from one or a few individual plant cells in which the specific gene is inserted, tend to be more consistent, that is, more predictable, in their characteristics than their original plant lineage. This means that "unintended effects" are more applicable to the non-GMO strains than the GMO. That's why typically hundreds or thousands of individual plants have to be evaluated in traditional propagation in order to find any individuals that possess desirable characteristics, the point being that many of the discarded thousands possess indifferent or non-desirable characteristics.

[Bullwinkle]

good read from a U.S. university:

http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html


All genetically modified foods that have been approved are considered by the government to be as safe as their traditional counterparts and are generally unregulated (FDA website). However, there are several types of potential health effects that could result from the insertion of a novel gene into an organism. Health effects of primary concern to safety assessors are production of new allergens, increased toxicity, decreased nutrition, and antibiotic resistance (Bernstein et al., 2003).

this from the national institute of health - posses another animal feed / human consumption spillover or GMO Starlink

" The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention investigated 51 reports of possible adverse reactions to corn that occurred after the announcement that StarLink, allowed for animal feed, was found in the human food supply"

[Hawnjigs]

BW, thanks for the article link.

Aloha aina, aloha kai

[Haaheo okole puka]

Geochem,
Selective propagations of mutagens has broad meaning and I would limit that to laboratory induced mutagens and apply the following. Laboratory induced would consist of the following preformed within a laboratory - radiation bombardment, chemical, gene gun injection, etc. As per the horticulturist who one day found a distinctive character specimen amongst their crop and selectively propagated it - such I would not include as a selective propagation of said mutagens.
Prior to the laboratory induced GM mutagen introduction, I would have supported such bans with regard to environmental exposure and the market until proven through extensive long term research/analysis not to cause harm or furthered adversity within biological organisms and their environment. I do support a ban on any furthered introduction of not yet introduced GM specimens until such previously cited safety precautions have been exercised in full.

Today, previously introduced GM mutagens are a mute point as the introduction to the environment and market has already gone forward. At this point, I do support a clearly labeled distinction of all such content mutagens (GM food). That said, I would support a ban if down the road they are proven to cause harm to biological organisms or furthered environmental adversities. I do not like the fact they were introduced without public input or notification. I find that action to be unscrupulous behavior and therefore suspicious of any further facts finding or claims proposed by those within the industry/practiced science. They've destroyed their own credibility IMO.

[Haaheo okole puka]

Also... I am not against responsible chemical pesticide/herbicide use. I am not part of the Organic crowd.

[Haaheo okole puka]

Geochem,
I'd like to point this out also. Keeping it as simple as possible. Lets Consider said horticulturist finds a distinctive characteristic plant within their crop and it unknowingly contains a mutagen inspired by cosmic radiation. The horticulturist holds only one such specimen in hand and the chances of holding two like type specimens are effectively 0. Therefor the selective propagation is then subject to a natural breeding process where an unaffected plant will become part of the propagation process and its naturally equipped "filters" will alter the mutagen within a natural process that has occurred for millions of years.

In the lab, these mutagens are created within several specimens and those specimens are bread with one another and that is not something that will likely ever occur in nature.

[geochem]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullwinkle

good read from a U.S. university:

http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html



this from the national institute of health - posses another animal feed / human consumption spillover or GMO Starlink

" The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention investigated 51 reports of possible adverse reactions to corn that occurred after the announcement that StarLink, allowed for animal feed, was found in the human food supply"

---

A very interesting read, indeed. Do I remember correctly that you were objecting to speculation? The article is nearly 100% speculation about what "could" happen with nothing cited to distinguish between what COULD happen with laboratory modification and what could or does happen in conventional breeding. In fact, to quote the article:
"Although these effects (increased toxicity) have not been observed in GM plants, they have been observed through conventional breeding methods creating a safety concern for GM plants. For example, potatoes conventionally bred for increased diseased resistance have produced higher levels of glycoalkaloids (GEO-PIE website)"

If there was any logic to the anti-GMO or GMO labeling argument, then conventionally bred and hybridized food plants should have a higher demand for labeling than the GM plants since the former have shown potentially adverse effects. And, near as I can tell, these toxic plants never made it to market due to oversight by our supposedly corrupt and incompetent Federal agencies...

WRT the Starlink allergen reports: not unlike our heptachlor in milk episode of many years ago, the announcement that heptachlor was in the milk led to low-birthweight babies not the presence of heptachlor itself ... It is quite apparent that the organic foods industry well knows that the perception of risk (and the fear-mongering) is more effective at influencing peoples' decisions and health, than is the actual effect of exposure...