Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
kane, look up the ames test, it might help you understand mutagens better.
anything carcinogenic is a mutagen. Almost everything causes mutations its just the rate at which it occurs that it is important or relevant. In this case there is no suggestion that GE foods cause any health problems and scientific census that they are substantially equivalent to the original food from which they were derived.
Its not something you can make true just by arguing your point. Its the consensus from the scientific community that I agree with. If you want to change something try to do some research to actually prove something because just having an opinion won't prove everyone else wrong.
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
See that... anyone who opposes unrestricted GMO introduction doesn't understand. I understand what a mutagen is and when a GMO grain cross pollinates with a natural grain it mutates the natural DNA in the resulting embryo. Thus altering the natural background. Hence all mutated DNA sequences are mutagens by definition as they are part of a self replicating agent and you're incorrect in assuming almost everything is a mutagen. It need not be carcinogenic to qualify as a mutagen, it merely needs to alter the norm (in this case natures normal background).
As per the remainder of what you wrote. It sounds like standard GMO proponent propaganda quotes. Word for word and rather uniformed with regard to what you quoted.
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
Rainyjim,
Do yourself a favor and know that I've read in-depth regarding this issue on all sides of the issue and the processes involved in GE. I started out as a proponent for GE and still stand by that position regarding medicinal applications (drugs) but when it comes to food source GE, I had no choice but to cross to the other side of the issue after reading through all the evidence.
You will not change my mind nor will the "scientific consensus" claims or the "standard equivalency" nonsense. Know that I agree to disagree on this matter.
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
Kane - do you mind posting some links to the evidence you've read? Be interested to know what changed your mind on GE food.
Some countries like Japan and EU members take a much stricter stance on GMO than the US, but they still have approved many GMO crops for both animal and human consumption. Do you feel their approval process is sufficient or also fails to provide a "reasonable safeguard"?
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
Ironyak,
Most proponents aren't willing to dig into the oppositional issues so this will mostly fall on closed eyes.
If you're willing to read through a 331 page document to start the ball rolling here it is. This is an updated version of the original report that I started with, so I'll be reading through this 2nd addition update also to see what (if anything) I've may have missed since I read the original report.
There may be several citations within to follow through on so I'll just limit it to this for the time being.
http://earthopensource.org/wp-content/up...ition2.pdf
I have no opinion on what Japan and the EU are up to, my only concern is how the USA handles the issue. Thus far, I'm not impressed.
Posts: 526
Threads: 11
Joined: Oct 2006
A mutagen is an agent causing a mutation. In the case of our GMO papaya the agent was something called a "gene gun" according to Wikipedia. A mutagen could also be radiation or a chemical. However, once the chromosome strand is altered it's still a chromosome, a bunch of nucleic acids.
But a mutated chromosome is not a mutagen. It has already been "mutagenized." Possibly Wnk is trying to say that a mutated (GMO) haploid chromosome "mutates" the non-GMO haploid in fertilization relative to some mythical natural condition of the organism. Sorry, no. This is an abuse of the word. Kinda scary too, you think? The one haploid simply hooks up with the other haploid, just like Mendel crossing smooth peas with wrinkled ones. Creating a diploid chromosome from two haploids, the basis of sexual reproduction, is not a mutagenic action. It is simply an ordinary mixture of traits any of which may or may not be expressed.
Finally mutations, modified chromosomes, whether originating from radiation (natural or human-directed), bacterial or viral incursion or just molecules bumping in a new way, are also the basis of evolution (or the accelerated evolution we call breeding), so let's not be too scared of mutations. Granted random mutations may be harmful, but mutations are also why we have a wealth of heirloom tomato varieties and why our corn kernels are fat and juicy compared to the teosinte original.
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
"In genetics, a mutagen is a physical or chemical agent that changes the genetic material, usually DNA, of an organism and thus increases the frequency of mutations above the natural background level."
When the E. coli bacteria absorbs an antibiotic resistant GM product it changes the organism of E. coli's genetic material, hence increasing the frequency of the mutations above normal. See the reports linked regarding the Rivers in China. There are no method limitations defined in which a mutagenic agent must induce a mutation within an organism, only that it changes the genetic material within the organism, etc. The grain was probably not an appropriate example unless one considers a species as an organism, however the induced mutations created by the said products upon the E. Coli represents an example mutagen.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
Bruce Ames is famous for the Ames Test, a simple test that tests the mutagenicity of chemicals, this test is widely used and required for testing of toxic compounds by the various government agencies.
Try to read this, it's Dr. Ames publication: Carcinogens are Mutagens: A Simple Test System Combining Liver Homogenates for Activation and Bacteria for Detection
http://www.pnas.org/content/70/8/2281.full.pdf
This will give you a better understanding of what a mutagen is, how we detect them, and how common they are.
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
Rainyjim,
What's your point? It's an analysis of chemicals that seeks to ascertain what chemicals are mutagens in the sense of carcinogens.
Mutagens are not necessarily carcinogens though all carcinogens are mutagens. Chemicals are not the only form of mutagens.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
My point was I didn't think you understood what a mutagen was so I wanted you to read the article.
