"David Hare-Scott" > wrote in message
news
>
> "rick" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "David Hare-Scott" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "rick" > wrote in message
>> > nk.net...
>> >>
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >>
>> >> Bionic Growth For Biotech Crops
>> >>
>> >> Gene-Altered Agriculture Trending Global
>> >> By Justin Gillis
>> >> Washington Post Staff Writer
>> >> Thursday, January 12, 2006; D01
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> snippage...
>> >>
>> >> You do realize don't you that every crop food you eat has
>> >> been
>> >> "genetically modified" don't you? You don't really think
>> >> you
>> >> are
>> >> eating whatever the original plant was do you?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > GM by direct intervention at the gene level may turn out in
>> > the
>> > long run to
>> > be good, bad or indiferent but lumping it in with selective
>> > breeding over
>> > thousands of years is just pointless. So you can call both
>> > techniques
>> > "genetic modification". What does this tell us that is
>> > relevant to the
>> > issue? Nothing, it's just playing with words.
>> > =================================
>> Really? then why do these people talk like the foods they ate
>> before GM are the same as they have been for eons? It just
>> ain't
>> so.
>
> Because "people" may be ignorant. Whatever the reason it
> doesn't make the
> two methods the same.
>
>>Besides, selective breeding doesn't mean safety anyway.
>
> True there are no certainties but given the amount of time we
> have been
> doing it and the number of cases of development of new
> varieties through
> selective breeding mean that we have reasonable confidence in
> the kinds of
> results that will be obtained.
>
>> There have been selective breeding programs to produce pest
>> resistant strains of food that have turned out toxic just to
>> handle.
>
> Please cite your sources for this information.
>
> David
==========================
So, as a typical 'expert' here on usenet you'll dispute things
that you know nothing about, and won't even bother to research.
You must be veg*n, they're the willfully ignorant ones on most
subjects.


"...The potato contains a naturally occurring chemical that's
quite toxic, called a glycoalkyloid. Those glycoalkyloids in some
potatoes, as a matter of fact, have caused severe human
poisonings and near death. When you breed potatoes, it's possible
to breed in high levels of that toxin into a potato. And as a
matter of fact, there are a number of breeds of potatoes that
have high levels. Fortunately, they did not make the marketplace
for that reason.
Another great example of the risks of traditional breeding is
celery. Celery naturally contains a chemical, when it hits
sunlight, becomes toxic. There was a case in California where a
new variety of celery was bred. It had, unknown to the people who
bred it, high levels of this toxin in it. It was planted, and the
workers who harvested this came out with a very severe skin rash.
So normal kind of breeding can produce risks, just as any other
genetic or other kinds of breeding can produce risks..."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/etc/script.html

If you were really interested in knowledge, you could look things
up, but it appears you just want to remain willfully ignorant.






>
>