In message >, Oz
> writes
>John Beardmore > writes
>>In message >, Oz
> writes

>>>Oh, its quite clear. Inserting a single known gene with a precise action
>>>means you know what the effect will be (pretty much),
>>
>>Does that not depend where it's inserted ? How much control over that
>>do you have these days ?
>
>AFAIK the insertion point basically determines if the result produces a
>viable organism with the inserted gene expressed.

Yes, though presumably it may also produce a viable organism with some
other genes expression altered.


>>> In animal trials you can't usually feed high levels of a
>>>single food for a lifetime without your stock dying or showing bad
>>>effects. This sort of thing is well known in farming, but appears
>>>unknown elsewhere.
>>
>>Think most nutritionists would take issue with you there !
>
>They might, but they won't have actual trial results

Well, I suspect that all nutritionists will express the need for a
'balanced diet', and they will know from animal trials, the effects of a
lack of most micro and bulk nutrients.


> let alone know the
>major toxins and have analytical procedures to evaluate them. Compared
>to animal nutritionists, human ones are at the stick and bone level.
>Nearly all their claims are more or less invented by comparison.

Well much of what they know will be from animal trials anyway, so there
may be the odd misunderstanding.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore