Are genetically engineered foods safe to eat? (statistics, death, brainwashing)

[ergohead]

Our lab was right next to the E Coli lab, and at that time it was illegal to perform ANY gene jumping experiments with E Coli, for the obvious reason that it could have SEVERE negative consequences for all humans.

Hey, man, we just stuck with yeast.

Had the best smelling lab in the joint.

Smelled like freshly baked glazed doughnuts, man.

[ergohead]

Wanna go on a trip, man?

Try one of Starbucks' new cornbred raised doughnuts.

Your E Coli will take the Brooklyn Bridge hostage, man.

[SoEdible]

Originally Posted by Konraden

In reference to genetically modifying foods for the past ten thousand years. Bananas are the easiest example to cite. Natural bananas look nothing like the yellow dessert banana. But, humans have been selectively breeding animals and plants for thousands of years. That is genetic engineering on a gross scale. With the discovery of the genome and our ability to manipulate it, we have the power to modify our foodstuffs with incredible precision.

You actually believe that what we were doing then is the same as the technological and scientific abilities of what we do to food today?

I'm sorry, but I don't think that makes sense.

[SoEdible]

Originally Posted by lucknow

You are completely wrong. What you described is not at all or in any way genetically engineered. Selective breeding or grafting are not genetically engineered. I suggest that you read up on the topic so that you can inform yourself on what it really is, what are the possible dangers of it and what are the benefits. Then you can come to some conclusions based of reality and not on unimformed opinion.

Exactly, that's why I am not following what the heck they are talking about.

[SoEdible]

Originally Posted by bobman

5 pages of responses, and barely one reply which has any sense, never mind facts in it !!

Never have I known people to get so animated, or so obsessed about a subject which they know NOTHING about.

My fiancee does this stuff for a living, she has a masters, and a phd in molecular plant biology, her specialism is in plant disease resistance, especially to do with nitric oxide signalling of the plant.

Understand that, do you ?

No ??

And yet you feel so informed about the subject of genetic engineering that you'll willingly post all your crap on message boards on the internet, no doubt based on an article you read in 1985 or something.

You guys know better than all these folks who have spent 10 years+ at university, with the best knowledge base, facilites and equipment available ??


Bullcrap.

What a lot of hysterical nonsense.
Anyone remember how "you can get AIDS from a toilet seat" ?
or how "smoking was good for you ?"

Similar principles.

Much hysteria about catching autism from innoculations recently, how salt is bad for you, how aspartame can make you senile, all of which are now being shown to be false.

Genetic engineering is not as sinister as you might think. It has gone on for years, naturally, and artificially.
It happens with animals, to name a few-the Jackass, a cross between a horse and a donkey, most dogs are genetically engineered by cross breeding, we breed them for size, for obedience, for intelligence.
We do the same with cats, cows can be bred to produce milk, or leather, or meat.
The list is endless

Whether you like it or not, pretty much everything you eat is some sort of genetic mutation from something else, nature is a very miraculous thing !!

Remember, it's your fiance that works in the field ... not you. Have her sign on and we'll be good.

Also, to all of you talking about how genetic engineering has been going on for centuries. Don't you think most of us are smart enough to know that NATURE has been doing some of that itself? I mean, duh. It's the artificial, manmade, man-forced things that people are questioning.

You rant in your post, but all the thread started with was a simple, honest question about people's opinions on it.

Please stop ruining a "message" board where people come to see other people's opinions.

[bobman]

Originally Posted by lucknow

Well the old saying is surely true. It takes one to know one". You try to make it seem like you know what your talking about and then spout completely wrong information that even every single layman should know. CROSS BREEDING IS NOT GM. A Labradoddle is a hybrid not GM. That's basic grade 9 biology.

You don't think that cross breeding involves genes then ?
No ?
You don't think that integrating dna from another species during fertilization or development has anything to do with genes ?
You don't think it's our genes who make us who we are, what we look like, whether we are intelligent, whether we are prone to cancer or other disesases?

You don't think that the result of the cross breeding will have a combination of genes from the labrador or the poodle which will give it certain characteristics ?

Maybe that's because 9th grade science doesn't dabble anywhere near this kind of level.
It is still genetic modification, just a very basic form of it.
If anything, cross breeding could be worse than GM because it's not an exact science, it can take generations for flaws to show up.
Plants grow relatively quickly, so therefore any "mistakes" are evident much more quickly.


I don't claim to be an expert, I barely understand any of what she talks about, and I admit that my post was slightly "dumbed down" to help try to explain some of it to the layman, but maybe it wasn't dumbed down enough.................

Originally Posted by lucknow

If in my garden a watermellon and a cucumber by accident cross pollinate and I get big useless watercuks, they are not GM. They are a hybrid.

Maybe this is just a simplified version of what you think, or an example of how poor your knowledge is.

In nature, these plants won't cross.
In the laboratory, they just might.

The cucumber could contain a gene which makes it more resistant to a certain type of pest, or to a certain disease than the watermelon.
If this gene can be isolated, then it can also be isolated in the watermelon, and by a process I don't fully understand, the gene can be added to the watermelon to help crop yield in areas where that type of pest is prevalent.
Or, rather than the gene being added, the gene which makes the watermelon susceptible can be removed altogether.

Disclaimer......Again, "dumbed down" slightly and simplified for the layman, not an accurate representation......

Originally Posted by SoEdible

Remember, it's your fiance that works in the field ... not you. Have her sign on and we'll be good.

Also, to all of you talking about how genetic engineering has been going on for centuries. Don't you think most of us are smart enough to know that NATURE has been doing some of that itself? I mean, duh. It's the artificial, manmade, man-forced things that people are questioning.

No, judging from many of the replies on this thread, I don't think the majority of folk have even a basic grasp of exactly what genetic engineering involves.

Originally Posted by SoEdible

You rant in your post, but all the thread started with was a simple, honest question about people's opinions on it.

Please stop ruining a "message" board where people come to see other people's opinions.

If by "ruining" you mean disagreeing, then fair enough.
If you think I'm being inapppropriate, not factual, insulting, or in any other way breaking the T&C's of City data, then please, feel free to use the "report post" button.

Otherwise, it's a message board, and I'll put forward my case whether you like it or not.
If you disagree, then discuss it with me, if you agree, then rep me.
I am just as entitled to post my opinions as you.

My gripe is that most people's opinions, which you cherish so much, are based on media hype, old wives' tales, hypotheses, rumours, and plain old lies

As for all those who say "bring your fiancee around so she can talk", you have no chance.
As soon as she says to anyone she is involved with gene reserarch of plants, it brings out all the crazies, and she's pig-sick of trying to defend what she does to uneducated, uninformed and biased laymen who she can't possibly get through to.

If anyone is interested, I could PM them with a link to her phd thesis, and you may feel free to challenge her findings. I will relay the message
This is the field she specializes in
Nitric oxide signaling in plants. [Vitam Horm. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
Do a little research yourself, then we can have a wee chat about it.
Perhaps when you can fully understand this article, then you are fully qualified to understand and comment on the positives and negatives of GM.
Personally, despite being with a scientist for years and learning from her, I barely even understand the excerpt.

Simple point of fact is that genetic engineering could (and already has) led to HUGE breakthroughs in technology which could have benefits for the world.
Eventually, it could lead to crops which will grow in drought areas of Africa, so we won't have the famines.
Year after year, we hear of crops failing in some places due to too much rain, or to disease.
Gene therapy could potentially lessen the effects of this. Resistant crops could be developed.

There are also knock on effects. Work on plants is contributing further to our knowledge of human genetics, leading to pioneering medical technology in treating and understanding disease in humans and animals.

I fail to see how that could be a bad thing ?

[stan4]

Originally Posted by ergohead

I worked with one of the world's leading researchers in horizontal gene transfer and homology.

"Transgenic DNA more likely to spread horizontally

1. Transgenic DNA is designed to jump into genomes, often through viral or bacterial plasmid vectors that can integrate into genomes.

2. Transgenic DNA tends to be structurally unstable and hence prone to break and rejoin, giving rise to numerous deletions, duplications, and other rearrangements during the transformation process, which spread into the host genome; and this is in part responsible for the instability of transgenic varieties [8, 9] (see Transgenic Lines Unstable hence Illegal and Ineligible for Protection and MON810 Genome Rearranged Again, Stability of All Transgenic Lines in Doubt, SiS 38)."

Horizontal Gene Transfer from GMOs Does Happen

So these plasmids are likely to survive the cooking and digestive process (which starts in the mouth and ends in a pile of acid in your stomach) long enough for the vectors to be effective?

And do the same vectors that count on plant receptors work on animal receptors?

Because I am going to say probably not. We worked with using phage as vectors...and there was never any chance they were going to do anything besides hop from bacteria to bacteria. And not even all bacteria, but their specific hosts.

Not only the fact that plasmids and their respective vectors exist naturally and are all around us right now. Or are they only evil if they are created in the lab?

Btw, all I have read in that article is 'possible' 'possible' 'possible.'

[stan4]

Originally Posted by ergohead

Our lab was right next to the E Coli lab, and at that time it was illegal to perform ANY gene jumping experiments with E Coli, for the obvious reason that it could have SEVERE negative consequences for all humans.\.

What the hell year was this? Our lab did EXACTLY that...T7 with E coli. And 'gene jumping' is exactly what I did for 2 years.

[jimhcom]

The really scary part of GMO's is that once we started down that road there is no going back.
GMO's will spread thruought the world until everything grown outdoors will be affected.
We better hope to hell they are safe because otherwise we are doomed.

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Bt Pesticide has been detected in human blood samples.

The EPA, not the FDA, did studies and declared Bt Corn would not pose any risk to health. This back in 2001.

What do you suppose pesticide would do to a developing fetus ?

Genetically engineered foods require FEWER pesticides, are more drought resistent, and more create higher yields. That is the point to modify these crops. Livestock is modified to create more meat per animal and with less fat.

How much cow DNA has been incorporated into your genome by consuming beef over your lifetime? I have yet to see humans taking on the characteristics of livestock or vegetables.