Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
oh please, genetic manipulation is genetic manipulation. it doesnt matter if it is done through animal husbandry or plant husbandry, or if a scientist in a lab plays with the gene sequence, the end result is a plant or animal that is different than its ancestor. the other difference is that when the scientist manipulates the gene sequence, the result is more quickly known, that is the changes happen in one or two generations rather than several generations.
"They made mistakes, such as failing to check facts on where the target gene had come from. Importantly, not a single commentator offered any evidence that a risk assessment on the dsRNA molecules, or secondaries that might arise, was done by anyone. Much less did they offer even a single shred of data from any testing specific to this risk of the GM wheat being considered by OGTR."
"Science routinely shows prevailing assumptions, such as those made earlier about dsRNA, to have been wrong. The proper response to challenges to assumptions is further research. This, not denunciation of the challengers, is the way to maintain public trust in the regulatory system, and in science."
"For GM food crops (such as the GM wheat debated so hotly in Australia and New Zealand) there may be unintended off-target effects from RNAs hitting non-target genes in non-target organisms, following ingestion and transmission. (Note: The change intended to be introduced into the genetically modified (GM) wheat through genetic engineering was the production of novel RNA molecules that 'turn off' the expression of genes; these are called regulatory RNAs (a type of non-coding RNA). The vast majority of existing commercial GM plants (e.g., herbicide tolerant or insecticide traits) are not intended to make RNA molecules that are involved in gene regulation. This type of modification is therefore rare and has not benefited from extensive or validated safety testing procedures.)"
"2.7 There is also recent evidence that DNA is not broken down rapidly in the gut as previously supposed.(13)That means genes can spread from ingested transgenic plant material to bacteria in the gut and also to cells of the organism ingesting the material."
"Unintended transboundary movements of LMOs, as everyone knows, can occur by cross-pollination between transgenic crop-plants and their wild relatives (see Meister and Mayer, 1994). Field trials have shown that cross-hybridization has occurred between transgenic Brassica napa and its wild relatives: B. campestris (Jorgensen and Anderson, 1994; Mikkelsen et al, 1996), Hirschfeldia incana (Eber et al, 1994; Darmency 1994) and Raphanus raphanistrum (Eber et al, 1994). Rissler and Mellon (1993) have predicted those problems arising from the introduction of exotic species, whether genetically engineered or not. A much more insidious, uncontrollable way for the transgenes (and associated marker genes) to spread, which is peculiar to LMOs, is by horizontal gene transfer (see below). This process recognizes no species barriers, and is inherent to many current transgenic technologies. It is, to a large extent, why transgenic organisms are different from those obtained by conventional breeding methods. The vectors for gene transfer are the means whereby the original species barriers are transgressed. They have the potential to infect and transgress further species boundaries in the process of horizontal gene transfer."
I've come around on GMOs. I don't think GMOs themselves are inherently bad. The problem lies that, what seems to me, GMO crops are bathed in pesticides they are resistant to, and that's the toxic part, whereas non-GMOs would probably use les pesticide because there is no built-in resistance to it. That's my speculation. It's not the DNA that's sickening us, it's the pesticides. It's always been the pesticides. They are some of the most toxic chemicals we use, and we eat it everyday
I've come around on GMOs. I don't think GMOs themselves are inherently bad. The problem lies that, what seems to me, GMO crops are bathed in pesticides they are resistant to, and that's the toxic part, whereas non-GMOs would probably use les pesticide because there is no built-in resistance to it. That's my speculation. It's not the DNA that's sickening us, it's the pesticides. It's always been the pesticides. They are some of the most toxic chemicals we use, and we eat it everyday
You should avoid V8; it is a liquid concentrated pesticide.
I would not be surprised if the recycling environmentalists begin insisting on using V8 for spraying crops.
It is, to a large extent, why transgenic organisms are different from those obtained by conventional breeding methods. The vectors for gene transfer are the means whereby the original species barriers are transgressed. They have the potential to infect and transgress further species boundaries in the process of horizontal gene transfer."
"They made mistakes, such as failing to check facts on where the target gene had come from. Importantly, not a single commentator offered any evidence that a risk assessment on the dsRNA molecules, or secondaries that might arise, was done by anyone. Much less did they offer even a single shred of data from any testing specific to this risk of the GM wheat being considered by OGTR."
"Science routinely shows prevailing assumptions, such as those made earlier about dsRNA, to have been wrong. The proper response to challenges to assumptions is further research. This, not denunciation of the challengers, is the way to maintain public trust in the regulatory system, and in science."
"For GM food crops (such as the GM wheat debated so hotly in Australia and New Zealand) there may be unintended off-target effects from RNAs hitting non-target genes in non-target organisms, following ingestion and transmission. (Note: The change intended to be introduced into the genetically modified (GM) wheat through genetic engineering was the production of novel RNA molecules that 'turn off' the expression of genes; these are called regulatory RNAs (a type of non-coding RNA). The vast majority of existing commercial GM plants (e.g., herbicide tolerant or insecticide traits) are not intended to make RNA molecules that are involved in gene regulation. This type of modification is therefore rare and has not benefited from extensive or validated safety testing procedures.)"
"2.7 There is also recent evidence that DNA is not broken down rapidly in the gut as previously supposed.(13)That means genes can spread from ingested transgenic plant material to bacteria in the gut and also to cells of the organism ingesting the material."
"Unintended transboundary movements of LMOs, as everyone knows, can occur by cross-pollination between transgenic crop-plants and their wild relatives (see Meister and Mayer, 1994). Field trials have shown that cross-hybridization has occurred between transgenic Brassica napa and its wild relatives: B. campestris (Jorgensen and Anderson, 1994; Mikkelsen et al, 1996), Hirschfeldia incana (Eber et al, 1994; Darmency 1994) and Raphanus raphanistrum (Eber et al, 1994). Rissler and Mellon (1993) have predicted those problems arising from the introduction of exotic species, whether genetically engineered or not. A much more insidious, uncontrollable way for the transgenes (and associated marker genes) to spread, which is peculiar to LMOs, is by horizontal gene transfer (see below). This process recognizes no species barriers, and is inherent to many current transgenic technologies. It is, to a large extent, why transgenic organisms are different from those obtained by conventional breeding methods. The vectors for gene transfer are the means whereby the original species barriers are transgressed. They have the potential to infect and transgress further species boundaries in the process of horizontal gene transfer."
hyperthetic/ergohead, please go reply to your own posts in another thread.
thank you
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
