View Single Post
  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
Oz Oz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Genetic modification (was: Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !)

John Beardmore > writes
>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.


Possible, but usually unlikely to be viable.

>>>> 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.


Unfortunately plant toxins can vary widely in their effect on animals.
Its quite usual to find some animals that can eat (as food) plants that
would kill others. One nice example is that minute amounts of penicillin
will kill a guinea pig (which fortunately wasn't used to test the drug).

So extrapolating (say) pig nutrition to humans is a pretty rough way to
go. Best match would probably be the dog, but not many full-blown
feeding trials done on dogs as they are not much of a commercial farm
animal.

>> 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.


Indeed. Probably more than the 'odd bit', too.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Use functions].
BTOPENWORLD address has ceased. DEMON address has ceased.