Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
"Transgenics doesn't exhibit anything more or less harmful than conventional breeding."
This is a generalized use of the term transgenic and in fact the sentence is befuddling. Evidently you seem to think the whole of GMO labeling revolves around transgenic GE only. Wrong.
Secondly - Transgenic manipulation can not be done through use of same species but rather differing species. Natural breeding cannot cross species on average.
Third - transgenic manipulation can be and has created some real nasty stuff that's rejected in the lab everyday. So pretending it cant be more harmful when the splicing technique is a randomized blast isn't being honest. The results produce a wide variety of mutations with the vast majority of the results rejected above 99%. That my friend does not equate to the higher safety results found in natural breeding, but then again natural breeding will no produce the target transgenic result.
Posts: 526
Threads: 11
Joined: Oct 2006
Transgenic is contrasted with cisgenic. The former means transferring genes between non related species and the former means transfers between species that typically can interbreed with each other. An example of transgenic gene transfer is the GMO papaya varieties where a fragment of the ring spot virus was inserted into the papaya chromosome to initiate resistance to the disease. Similarly, it's becoming fairly well established that the human genome has areas contributed by accretion of viral and bacterial genes over the ages.
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
Thank-you Pete, well stated.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
Guess what the foods you want labeled were transformed with - of thats right transgenics. Hence my point before that transgenics is a more specific term than the more vague 'genetically modified organism'
Transgenics can potentially create something that is harmful but so can conventional breeding. Think a trisomy of chromosome which can create a birth defect that results in aborting before birth. Hence my assertion that transgenics is no more or less 'safe' than conventional.
I am not arguing with you that 'GMO' foods should or should not be labeled. I'm just pointing out what we have learned from using transgenics and how you can apply that to an understanding of what that means for the food that you eat.
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
My original point was aimed at the process which doesn't allow for the surrounding biology to assimilate the newly introduced mutagen in small quantities as would occur in nature. For example, the vast array of new mutagens introduced in extremely high levels is not something that is found in nature. Thus a subtle introduction isn't occurring. In this case, just as virus and bacteria will imprint themselves on the host genome over time, the same occurs with the high level of newly introduced mutagens in X environment upon the bacteria and virus. For example the human gut where the mutgens are eventually absorbed by virus and bacteria in the body and replicated. This alters the virus and bacteria inducing high level mutagen forms of these micro organisms, some of which pose a problem for modern medicine when the current antibiotic regime is no longer adequate or even in the way these bacteria and virus behave thereafter. The link I referenced was an example of this sort of interaction albeit not in the Human body but none the less extremely relevant when it comes to the microbiology within the human body. Hence the low level occurrence of natural occurring mutagens vs. the high level introduction of synthetic mutagens does indeed pose a factual threat and thus a danger with regard to their effects upon virus and bacteria both within a host and within its external biosphere. To state that these transgenic variety are as safe as the regular breeding process is patently absurd... it's in the concentration levels the problems occur and that's the point.
BTW... radiation and chemical GE also exist - As an example, Ruby Red grapefruit are an irradiated form of GE food, hence GMO.
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
It's the microbiological factor that is the issue. Some GMO in the lab not released can kill you outright if eaten. Of all the mutagens created from one imprinting process, less than 1% make the cut for replication and so on through target testing to the final product. These products are not tested with regard to their impact on the microbiological level. No-one knows what effects they have on bacteria and virus nor the ameba floating about in pond scum or all the other countless microorganisms, nor do they know how these products effect cellular development which leads to brain development and every other organ in the body. To assume a product developed in a lab that has less than a 1% survival to market rate is somehow going to offer good things to cellular development in the biosphere and its full host of life forms is critically flawed.
A test for immediate harm is all fine and dandy but it in no way shape or form proves safety.
When it boils right down to it... a mandatory label is only the beginning in a long line of critical safety criteria that should have been established from day one. No-one here or within the scientific community can guarantee anyone that these products aren't at minimum a partial cause in many of the newly emerging health and medical issues plaguing society today.
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
Kane - I would be interested in hearing what sort of testing you feel would guarantee that GMO foods aren't "a partial cause in many of the newly emerging health and medical issues plaguing society today."
To keep this local, perhaps consider the transgenic GMO rainbow papaya that dominates the current crop in Puna?
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
Ironyak,
Ask one of the many scientist who have presented the findings, they may have opinions on that matter. I don't.
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
I'm quite familiar with the science, am more interested in people's views, as this is our own little slice of the "War on Science", the cover story for National Geographic this month.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/0...nbach-text
For GMO food, one side wants complete scientific guarantees of the safety (an impossible task), while the other side points out that no scientific evidence demonstrates any health risks (although FDA review is strictly voluntary). Science can be used to support either the largely hands-off approach of the US or the strict pre-market review and labeling requirements of Japan.
This is why we got to enjoy local transgenic Rainbow papaya over a decade before Japan, and why it is the predominate variety here, but only a small fraction of the papaya market there.
IMHO, GMO labeling is a middle ground allowing for individuals to make their own choices, based on whatever mix of factors are important to them, and the market forces will decide the pricing and availability. What is the harm in having more detailed ingredient information available?
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
It's not the science that I doubt. It's science that causes me to doubt the politically derived approval criteria - allowing GE products for public consumption.
GMO labeling is simply a minor direct heads up to the consumer but in no way provides a reasonable safeguard when such wide and broad use of the products are introduced throughout the entirety of the food production industry. Aside from direct GMO content, there resides indirect GMO products such as livestock feed that ends up becoming part of the steaks and chickens etc. that people also consume. It also penetrates much further into the environment than that, inclusive of the fields growing such products and the wild animals that consume the products, it's an introduction into the entire biosphere. GMO labeling is far from being "middle ground", it's simply a slap in the face courtesy in an already GMO saturated biosphere.
That's my "opinion".
