Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
Well Jim.
It sounds as if you don't understand that DNA is a Biochemical or the following.
Both normal DNA and mutated DNA are a molecular helix chain in a biochemical form and when absorbed by a microorganism can induce mutations within the DNA of the microorganism depending on the combination in question. The resulting mutation need not bare carcinogenic results to define the absorbed DNA as a mutagen.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
kane, there is no such thing as normal or mutated DNA.
All DNA has been mutated - theres no DNA that hasn't undergone a mutation.
DNA can be wound into a helix shape but is more often bound around proteins called histones when packaged into chromatin in chromosomes.
I don't know why you are using the term biochemical. technically any molecule involved in a biological process is a biochemical. its redundant to use the term biochemical when talking about chemicals in biological processes - its a given.
DNA isn't absorbed by microorganisms, however there are specific processes involving molecular structures such as endonucleases (nucleic acids) and guide RNA (gRNA) that can direct the transfer of DNA and RNA to a specific locale. These processes aren't absorption. I'm not sure what you meant by that.
I'm not sure why you are fixated on the terms mutagen and carcinogen.
Different molecular machines can transcribe portions of foreign organisms genomes into their own genome through a variety of different processes this can be a beneficial process in many cases allowing the host organism to utilize the foreign genome as a template to for providing defense against further incursions. For a simple real world example: Its kind of like in a convenience store you may see pictures of shoplifters posted on the wall next to the register. The foreign genetic material that is now a part of the host organisms genome is used to recognize further incursions into the host organism and eliminate them.
Anyways I'm not sure why we're talking about this... you seem like you just want to discredit anything I say. I only posted because I thought you seemed confused about some of the terms you were using. My mistake for trying to explain. I won't bother to again. I'm not posting here to argue with you anymore.
If you want to talk about labeling fine.
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
Rainyjim...
Define normal for me as you understand it.
Posts: 1,100
Threads: 6
Joined: Nov 2010
Wnk's earlier posts, e.g. 02/27/2015 : 12:36:58, refer to mutant organisms produced in the process of creating GMOs as "mutagens" (despite his loud protestations that he knows what a mutagen is). Hence the confusion in this thread.
Note: throwing around science-y sounding words like "mutagen" and "biochemical" without knowing what they actually mean doesn't really help your argument.
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
MidnightRambler,
The discussion was based upon the linked study regarding the antibacterial resistant strains of E. coli found in the Chinese Rivers. Those E. coli bacteria were not the direct product of a laboratory. They were a byproduct of consuming parts of lab created antibacterial resistant GM organisms. If the parts they take up induce mutations within the E. coli they are effectively mutagen.
This is to say that the modified GM parts responsible for mutating the E. coli outside the lab within the river are mutagen. Thus the mutations created in the lab are also mutagen when interacting with E. coli in the river. Is this still not making any sense? I never meant to state that all lab created GM mutations are mutagen though many could be and that information is not yet available because these test have not been preformed on the multitude of organism that these products will be exposed to.
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
Genes are chemicals and many thousands of them compose DNA. When a select gene is extracted from one microorganism and prepared for pneumatic blasting (Shot gunned/Gene Gun) into a desired grouping of cells, the outcome is a randomized collection of a product that has been effectively shot by a microscopic shot blast. Very similar except in scale to bird shot or buck shot, shot out of an air shot gun that doesn't have genes affixed to the shot. The end result is not at all precision, these selected genes end up in all sorts of randomized locations within the cells substructure. This is why there is less than a 1% success rate of creating the desired specimen.
Depending where these gene segments align themselves within the DNA of the target will determine their over all effect on the cells. Depending on what genes they land next to may also create randomized chemical links where one gene may fit in without creating an unintended chemical reaction while another one may react unintendedly depending on where it landed and it links in.
They don't know the exact result, only that in the end, the cells matured into a plant that appears healthy and may or may not reflect the desired properties. Otherwise the product either dies or is rejected for a multitude of possible reasons.
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
This is to say that the modified GM parts responsible for mutating the E. coli outside the lab within the river are mutagen.
You're stretching the common use of the word mutagen a bit here. Mutagen is commonly referred to as any physical or chemical agent that changes the genetic material of an organism. Plasmid uptake by bacteria is usually referred to as transformation, and doesn't mutate/change the bacteria's existing genetic material, but supplements it with additional but separate genes. Bacteria can contain several plasmid loops and freely exchanges them creating genetic variation within a single bacterial species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutagen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformat...enetics%29
More on topic regarding GMO labeling, finished up reading this:
http://earthopensource.org/wp-content/up...ition2.pdf
Overall it's a good review of the concerns related to GMO foods, if redundant in several places making it a grind to read front to back. Probably better to check the list of "myths" and read on those of interest.
To focus on one previously mentioned: the lack of scientific studies demonstrating safety or harm from GMO food. No doubt this is true, with studies finding contradictory results based on the source of the study or the variables tested (dose, strain, time length, etc). The only way to resolve this is increased and replicated robust studies to untangle the factors involved. Steps needed to facilitate this, such as breaking down legal constraints on research placed by patent holders, is in the public interest.
Kane - As you've changed your views on the desirability of GMO foods, do you mind me asking where you tend to shop/dine or how you identify GMO free foods?
Posts: 526
Threads: 11
Joined: Oct 2006
"This is why there is less than a 1% success rate of creating the desired specimen."
There is probably a much smaller chance of success in conventional breeding of "creating the desired specimen." Obviously with a technique as, well, scatter-shot as a gene gun many resultant plants may be discarded simply because the introduced gene did not get located where it would do any good rather than any danger.
As Wnk may or may not be aware, conventional breeders typically create thousands of seedlings to obtain one or a few desirable varieties. As an example of cisgenic gene transfer, in one of Richard Ha's blog entries a tomato researcher stated that geneticists know which genes control flavor, aroma, and structural aspects of tomatoes. But with the torches and pitchforks out for GMO breeding she was essentially stuck conventionally breeding thousands of tomato seedlings to hopefully finally come up with the combination of characteristics from the essentially random combinations of parent plant chromosomes.
And, yes, you can create undesirable characteristics in plants with conventionally breeding. They do discard thousands of those conventionally bred experimental seedlings in the course of development.
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
Ironyak,
LOL... A stretch, fair enough but none the less a serious problem.
I began reading through the second addition again and decided to wait till I was more willing to drudge through it again.
We try to keep our dining out to a minimum though it's hard to break old habits sometimes. Here's a good a example of one major thing I changed. I used to eat the multigrain type of a major brand cereal but replaced it with a non GMO verified Kashi cereal. That removed GMO from 1/3 of my meals right off the bat. For the remainder we tend to look at the labels and steer clear of as much pre processed food (crap) as is possible. We're not 100% GMO free yet but we try to keep it to a minimum and not allow it to become any regular regime type snack (No soda, etc). A GMO label would help considerably if it's adhered to by manufacturers.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
If you are truly passionate about not eating 'GMO' foods it's not that hard to do the research and find out which crops are actually grown as 'GMO'.
There are not that many.
By knowing which crops are transgenic it's fairly easy to look at the ingredient labels and identify for yourself whether or not it has 'GMO' ingredients or not.
For example, a product contains soy - probably 'GMO'. A product contains wheat - not GMO.
Why? Because 90% of soy is grown commercially as 'GMO', and because no 'GMO' wheat is grown commercially.
There are really not that many crops that have been approved for commercial production by the USDA, FDA, and EPA (the three regulatory agencies for 'GMO' crops in the U.S.)
If you are truly interested in the matter educate yourself and learn which crops have been approved for commercial production and use your own intuition to decide if a product contains 'GMO'.
I'm not saying that you can't have labels - just that there is information available for you to make an informed decision already without having labels yet. If you aren't too lazy you can learn this information yourself and be able to make an informed decision without the need for a label.
I can see how this may change in the future once more crops become modified and are approved for commercial production.
