Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !


Bionic Growth For Biotech Crops

Gene-Altered Agriculture Trending Global
By Justin Gillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 12, 2006; D01


Since genetically modified crops were first planted a decade ago, the
acreage devoted to them worldwide has been growing at double-digit
rates, and it did so again last year, jumping 11 percent to 222 million
acres, according to a new report.

The crops are gaining popularity in middle-income countries such as
China, India and Brazil, the report says, with small cotton farmers in
particular embracing a technology that allows them to grow more cotton
while reducing the use of chemical pesticides.

The report notes that the world's most important food crop, rice, could
be on the verge of a transformation. Iran has already commercialized
gene-altered rice and China appears nearly ready to do so, the report
says. Widespread acceptance of such rice could put crop biotechnology
into the hands of the tens of millions of small rice farmers who grow
nearly half the calories eaten by the human race.

Commercialization of rice that has been genetically altered to resist
insects "has enormous implications for the alleviation of poverty,
hunger and malnutrition, not only for the rice-growing and -consuming
countries in Asia, but for all biotech crops and their acceptance on a
global basis," says the report, compiled by the International Service
for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. The group publishes
an annual review, funded partly by the Rockefeller Foundation, that is
considered the definitive global analysis of trends in crop
biotechnology.

Proponents of the technology welcomed the findings, saying the spread
of biotech crops demonstrates their usefulness for farmers and society.
But two advocacy groups preemptively attacked the new report before it
was published, putting out reports of their own this week that
questioned industry "hype" and disputed the impact of gene-altered
crops.

The Polaris Institute, an anti-globalization group in Ottawa,
acknowledged that biotech crop acreage appears to be increasing but
noted that the technology is still concentrated in a handful of
countries, with the United States, Argentina, Canada and Brazil
accounting for 90 percent of the world's biotech acreage. The group
pointed out that the technology is widely used in only a few crops --
mainly cotton, corn, soy and canola.

Industry claims that the technology would help alleviate poverty in
Africa have proven illusory so far, the group said, a point echoed by a
report from environmental group Friends of the Earth. And the groups
said growing biotech crops can hurt farmers' export markets in
countries that are skeptical of the technology.

"Instead of wholesale adoption, we are seeing at most experimentation,"
David Macdonald, a Polaris Institute analyst, said in a statement.
"Worldwide farmers have good reason to be wary."
It's clear, in fact, that even after a decade of growth, biotech crops
are grown on only a small fraction of the world's arable land -- well
under 1 percent. But the trend is also clear: When they were first
commercialized in 1996, biotech crops were planted on 4.3 million acres
in six countries, but the report says that by 2005 farmers were
planting them on 222 million acres in 21 countries. "Biotech crops
deliver substantial agronomic, environmental, economic, health and
social benefits to farmers and, increasingly, to society at large," the
report says.

Almost a third of the agricultural land in the United States is planted
in gene-altered crops, and more than half in Argentina and Paraguay,
the report shows. Brazilian farmers had been illegally planting biotech
crops for years, but that country has now legalized them and the
acreage there is growing rapidly, the report says.

The report says China stands to become a major player in the field.
Clive James, chairman of the group that published the report, estimated
that 2,000 scientists in China are working on numerous gene-modified
crops. "If we look at the investment in China in biotech crops, it is
very significant," he said in a conference call yesterday from Sao
Paulo, Brazil.

Agricultural companies, led by Monsanto Co. of St. Louis, created the
first biotech crops in the 1990s by moving genes from other species
into plants. Bacterial genes give some plants the ability to resist
worms, and others gain the ability to survive heavy applications of
herbicides that kill nearby weeds.

But a controversy erupted over the technology in Europe in the late
1990s, with advocacy groups saying the crops posed unnecessary
environmental risks and much of the European public agreeing.

The United States has been trying to pry open the European market, with
some recent success. The new report notes that five of 25 European
countries are now growing at least small quantities of biotech crops,
though only Spain has embraced the technology in a big way.

The United States filed a complaint against Europe over the issue with
the World Trade Organization, and a ruling is expected soon. The
European Commission in Brussels has been battling resistance by
individual countries and this week ordered Greece to permit a variety
of gene-altered corn.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011102210.html

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
Mike McWilliams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !

Article <snipped>

judging by your subject line to present the article you think
genetically altered foods such as rice are a bad idea.

Rice has been genetically altered for some time, the most popular being
the golden rice.

This particular modification generates a vitamin A precursor in the rice
which upon consumption reduces the need of dietary intake of vitamin A
from other sources.

Considering that the level of vitamin A provided by the golden rice is
still very low (not high enough to satisfy the daily requirement), some
might be tempted to toss it entirely.

Except that even at the low level, it can prevent blindness brought on
by vitamin A deficiency in the worlds poorest.

In addition the licence for golden rice is such that subsitence farmers
can grow $10,000 worth per year before they have to pay licencing fees.

People who hate biotech like this are stupid and deserve to lose their
agricultural competitiveness to countries which embrace the new biology.

I guarantee that the half blind starving person will take golden rice if
you give it to them.
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !


> 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?


  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
David Hare-Scott
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !


"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.

David


  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
Oz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !

David Hare-Scott > writes
> 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.


Why?

Selective breeding is a lot faster than 'thousands of years'
particularly if its easy to select.

Note that a range of plants (eg ryegrasses in australia) have developed
resistance naturally in very much less than 1000's of years.

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

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



  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !


"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. Besides, selective breeding doesn't mean safety anyway.
There have been selective breeding programs to produce pest
resistant strains of food that have turned out toxic just to
handle.


> David
>
>



  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
David Hare-Scott
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !


"Oz" > wrote in message
...
> David Hare-Scott > writes
> > 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.

>
> Why?


Because both the genetic changes and the methods used to create them are
completely different.

>
> Selective breeding is a lot faster than 'thousands of years'
> particularly if its easy to select.
>


True, it may be faster than thousands of years. I just picked that figure
as humans have been doing it for that long with food species. It doesn't
make any difference to my point.

> Note that a range of plants (eg ryegrasses in australia) have developed
> resistance naturally in very much less than 1000's of years.
>


OK and if you do selective breeding with microbes you can get genetic
changes in very short times. But this information doesn't contribute much
to the original question.

David


  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
David Hare-Scott
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !


"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


  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
Oz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !

David Hare-Scott > writes
>
>"Oz" > wrote in message
...
>> David Hare-Scott > writes
>> > 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.

>>
>> Why?

>
>Because both the genetic changes and the methods used to create them are
>completely different.


So, its the genes that count.

>> Selective breeding is a lot faster than 'thousands of years'
>> particularly if its easy to select.

>
>True, it may be faster than thousands of years.


Much, much faster.

>I just picked that figure
>as humans have been doing it for that long with food species. It doesn't
>make any difference to my point.


What is 'natural' and what is 'artificial'?
Who cares?

>> Note that a range of plants (eg ryegrasses in australia) have developed
>> resistance naturally in very much less than 1000's of years.

>
>OK and if you do selective breeding with microbes you can get genetic
>changes in very short times. But this information doesn't contribute much
>to the original question.


Was it a question or a statement?

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

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



  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
Oz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !

David Hare-Scott > writes

>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.


Hardly...

Toxic potatoes (solanins)
Eczema celery (psilorins)
Lethal courgettes (cucubins)

have all been bred in in recent decades and have come to market or very
nearly so (potatoes). These are just the ones one hears about.

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

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

  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
David Hare-Scott
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !


"Oz" > wrote in message
...
> David Hare-Scott > writes
>
> >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.

>
> Hardly...
>
> Toxic potatoes (solanins)
> Eczema celery (psilorins)
> Lethal courgettes (cucubins)
>
> have all been bred in in recent decades and have come to market or very
> nearly so (potatoes). These are just the ones one hears about.
>


So you are saying there are cases of selective breeding producing vegetables
with toxins. This may or may not be so, solanins are naturally occuring
toxins that may develop in all potatos and I cannot find any reference to
psilorins or cucubins, so please supply some references.

If these cases are as you say what is your point? Are you saying this mean
that selective breeding is a seriously flawed technique that should be
abandoned? Given the benefits that have accrued over the history of mankind
you have a long way to go to prove that. If not what are you saying?

David



  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
Oz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !

David Hare-Scott > writes
>
>"Oz" > wrote in message
...
>> David Hare-Scott > writes
>>
>> >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.

>>
>> Hardly...
>>
>> Toxic potatoes (solanins)
>> Eczema celery (psilorins)
>> Lethal courgettes (cucubins)
>>
>> have all been bred in in recent decades and have come to market or very
>> nearly so (potatoes). These are just the ones one hears about.
>>

>
>So you are saying there are cases of selective breeding producing vegetables
>with toxins.


Selective breeding is 90% to do with producing toxins. Toxins is
typically how you produce plants resistant to pests and diseases.
Fortunately (or as a consequence) most of our food plants (pther than
cereals) come naturally packed with high doses of toxins so are pretty
pest and disease resistant.

>This may or may not be so, solanins are naturally occuring
>toxins that may develop in all potatos


Quite. Its expressed in different amounts so that (food) potatoes have
very high (lethal) levels in leaves and fruit whilst tomatoes have very
high levels in leaves but not fruit. The potato variety was one
developed to be particularly resistant to tuber attack by insects and
slugs (which it was).

>and I cannot find any reference to
>psilorins or cucubins, so please supply some references.


google curcubin threw up 13 refs you aren't even trying.

>If these cases are as you say what is your point? Are you saying this mean
>that selective breeding is a seriously flawed technique that should be
>abandoned? Given the benefits that have accrued over the history of mankind
>you have a long way to go to prove that. If not what are you saying?


That selective breeding is no more safe (and arguably less safe) than
typical GM methods.

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

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

  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
Oz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !


A good place to start

http://museum.gov.ns.ca/poison/pptoxin.htm

http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~djw/pltx.cgi?QUERY=squash

No 8 (as an example)
AUTHOR(S): Kirschman, J. C.; Suber, R. L.
TITLE: "Recent food poisonings from cucurbitacin in traditionally bred
squash."
YEAR: 1989 CITATION: Food Chem Toxicol, 27 (8), 555-556 [English]
FDA #: F06386 || GRIN: 3164
COMMON NAME: squash || STANDARD COMMON NAME: ---
FAMILY: Cucurbitaceae || LATIN NAME: ---
STANDARD PLANT NAME: Cucurbita genus

http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/issues/toxins.html
Some Common Plant Toxins and Antinutrients

Chemical families of naturally-occuring plant-made toxins found at low
levels in many foods that we eat. Effect on humans and animals is based
on laboratory tests using toxin concentrations much higher than the
concentrations normally found in food.

Toxin Family

Examples of Occurrence in Plants

Effect on humans and animals
Cyanogenic glycosides Sweet potatoes, stone fruits, lima beans
Gastrointestinal inflammation; inhibition of cellular respiration
Glulcosinolates Rape (canola), mustard, radish, cabbage, peanut,
soybean, onion Goiter; impaired metabolism; reduced iodine uptake;
decreased protein digestion
Glycoalkaloids Potato, tomato Depressed central nervous system; kidney
inflammation; carcinogenic; birth defects; reduced iron uptake
Gossypol Cottonseed Reduced iron uptake; spermicidal;
carcinogenic
Lectins Most cereals, soybeans, other beans, potatoes Intestinal
inflammation; decreased nutrient uptake/absorption
Oxalate Spinach, rhubarb, tomato Reduces solubility of calcium,
iron, and zinc
Phenols Most fruits and vegetables, cereals, soybean, potato, tea,
coffee Destroys thiamine; raises cholesterol; estrogen-mimic
Coumarins Celery, parsley, parsnips, figs Light-activated
carcinogens; skin irritation

http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/issues/convtoxins.html
Plant toxins in Conventionally-Bred Crops












Conventionally-bred crop varieties may actually pose a greater risk from
increased plant toxins than genetically engineered plants. In order to
develop varieties with improved disease resistance, plant breeders
usually begin by crossing the disease-prone conventional variety with a
disease-resistant wild relative of the crop plant. Because the disease
resistance in the wild variety may often be caused by higher levels of
natural pest-killing toxins, the breeder may be unknowingly selecting
varieties with increased levels of a chemical toxic to both the plant
pest and to humans. One variety of potatoes developed in the 1970's to
be resistant to insects was found to have very high concentrations of
glycoalkyloids, a family of chemicals that can cause a potentially
lethal suppression of the central nervous system. This potato was never
marketed-- primarily because it tasted very bitter!

Plant breeders developed a variety of celery that was highly insect-
resistant. Surprisingly, people who handled the variety and then were
exposed to strong sunlight developed rashes and burns. It was later
discovered that the new variety contained almost eight times the normal
quantity of psoralen, a light-activated natural compound known to be
toxic and carcinogenic. This celery variety was on the market for
several years (including long after it was learned to have high toxin
levels).

The FDA does not require any pre-market safety testing of whole-plant
foods derived from plant breeding. Although the FDA has the authority to
remove foods from the market which are determined to contain unsafe
levels of toxins, quantification of those toxins before marketing is a
responsibility left entirely to breeders and producers.


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

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

  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !


"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.






>
>





  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !


"David Hare-Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Oz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> David Hare-Scott > writes
>>
>> >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.

>>
>> Hardly...
>>
>> Toxic potatoes (solanins)
>> Eczema celery (psilorins)
>> Lethal courgettes (cucubins)
>>
>> have all been bred in in recent decades and have come to
>> market or very
>> nearly so (potatoes). These are just the ones one hears about.
>>

>
> So you are saying there are cases of selective breeding
> producing vegetables
> with toxins. This may or may not be so, solanins are naturally
> occuring
> toxins that may develop in all potatos and I cannot find any
> reference to
> psilorins or cucubins, so please supply some references.
>
> If these cases are as you say what is your point? Are you
> saying this mean
> that selective breeding is a seriously flawed technique that
> should be
> abandoned?

============================
Reading comprehension problems too, eh? I don't think anyone
said that at all. The comments are that selective breeding isn't
necessarily safer than others. In some of these cases, since
'normal' breeding techniques need no safety testing unlike
biotechniques, products can make it to market that are dangerous.



Given the benefits that have accrued over the history of mankind
> you have a long way to go to prove that. If not what are you
> saying?
> ===================================

That the current kneejerk reaction to bio-techniques are
disingenuous.



> David
>
>
>



  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
Oz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !


http://www.alternative-doctor.com/al...lanttoxins.htm

Alternative-Doctor Allergy and Overload Pages


Natural toxins in foodstuffs

To those who think "herbal" means safe, natural and nurturing, I like to
point out that deadly nightshade (belladonna), opium, hemlock and
digitalis are all herbs €“ but very dangerous indeed!

In fact Nature has seen fit to endow a number of plants with the
capacity to synthesize substances that are toxic to humans and other
animals. Ingesting them may produce unpleasant consequences which are
not allergic but may become confused with an allergy. As I reported in
THE FOOD ALLERGY PLAN (Unwins, London, 1985), humans are probably able
to tolerate the majority of foods only because of the discovery of fire,
which cooks away toxins (although several plant toxins are heat-stable).

Farmers and veterinarians, who are more advanced in clinical ecology
than many doctors, have known for years that animals become sick if they
graze on certain types of plant (for example, bulls become enraged if
they eat loco weed €“ 'loco' being Spanish for crazy). Many plant
substances are toxic to humans in quite small quantities, including
deadly nightshade, acorns and hemlock. Ricin, the toxic principle in
caster seeds (Ricinus communis), is one of the most poisonous substances
known: a minute drop on a needle at the tip of an umbrella was used in
an infamous political assassination on the streets of London in 1978.

The fact is that all plants, including edible ones, contain quantities
of poisons. Carrots, for example, contain a nerve toxin: caratotoxin.
And someone once pointed out that if cabbage had to undergo the tests
that drugs are now subjected to before being pronounced fit for humans,
it wouldn't pass. Obviously, most often the amounts of poison in foods
are tolerable. Toxicity is a matter of degree.

There are a number of interesting groups of plants toxins in our food
supply. To understand them a little may help you work out some
mystifying food reactions that defy even the advice given here in this
book!

Lectins

Lectins are large protein molecules; they are toxic and also mimic
allergies. Lectins are widespread and may be up to 20 per cent of the
protein content of plants, especially of seeds and pulses. They have the
curious property of imitating antigen-antibody reactions without
actually sensitizing the immune system.

Anti-enzymes

These interfere with body enzymes such as trypsin (a protein digestive
enzyme). In experimental animals this interference has been shown to
cause retarding of growth, abnormal hypertrophy (enlargement) of the
pancreas and, in the case of prolonged feeding, even the formation of
cancer of the pancreas. Soya-bean protein derivatives have been shown to
retain some of this effect, leading to concern that infants fed on soya
milk might suffer growth retardation.

Goitrogens

Goitrogens are substances causing goiter or thyroid enlargement. Soya-
bean extract is in this category and goiters have been seen in human
infants fed with soya milk. Iodine appears to counter act this effect,
so infant soya milks are fortified with iodide as a precautionary
measure.

Goitrogens are a common constituent of plans belonging to the Crucifer
family (cabbage, turnip, swede, broccoli, cauliflower, kale brussel
sprout, rape and mustard seed). An epidemic goiter seen in Tasmania is
probably due to milk from cows fed on kale and turnips.

Oestrogens

There are naturally occurring oestrogenic compounds in many plants.
These heat-stable compounds are capable of eliciting an oestrogenic
response (feminization) in experimental animals. Recently much interest
has focused on so-called "phyto-oestrogens", some women like to use
these substances in the belief that they are somehow a natural
alternative to medication for hormone imbalances. This is partly
deluded, in that pseudo-oestrogens in plants are not the human hormone.
It is possible to manufacture natural human hormone, such as
progesterone from plant sources (such as diascorea from the wild yam)
but this requires a whole factory manufacturing process and chemical
formulations: not what I personally accept as a "natural" substances.

Moreover excess oestrogens are bad for males and equally harmful to
women already suffering from oestrogen dominance, a condition where
oestrogen is not balanced by opposing progesterone, causing bloating,
water retention and extreme mood changes. Therefore oestrogens,
naturally occurring in plants or not, are potentially toxic.

Nerve Toxins

Also known as cholinesterase inhibitors, these affect chiefly animals,
causing paalysis and sometimes death, though humans are occasionally
afflicted. Lathyrism, a condition associated with high intake of
lathyrus bean (chickpea family), is a kind of paralysis.

Poisons

These include prussic acid and its precursors, nicotine, solanin,
atropine and a host of others.

Antinutrients

Antinutrients are substances that interfere directly with the absorption
of vitamins, minerals and other nutrients.

Phytate occurs in several plant groups, particularly grains and also the
pulses. These are known to chelate, that is, combine with and remove,
valuable minerals such as calcium and magnesium and trace elements such
as zinc, copper and iron, which are vital for health.

Flatulence Factors

The pulses (peas and beans) are especially noted for this effect. The
cause is low molecular weight oligosaccharides (simple sugars), namely
raffinose and stachyose. Flatulence is generally attributed to the fact
that humans do not possess the enzyme alpha 1,6-galacto-sidase necessary
for breaking down these sugars. Blowing off? see flatulence section

Psychogenics

There is growing interest in drug-like substances in plans. Well-known
are the psychedelic substances such as those in marijuana and peyote
cactus; the coca plant gives rise to cocaine and the opium poppy is
notorious for its forbidden juices. But there have been opium-like
alkalodis called exorphins, and many other pharmacologically active
substances, found in plants. These may have beneficial effects as well
as unwanted ones.

Alkaloids

These are small organic molecules, usually comprising several carbon
rings with side chains, one or more of the carbon atoms being replaced
by a nitrogen (which confers the alkalinity). About 7 to 10 per cent of
all plants contain alkaloids, of which several thousand are now known.

Famous alkaloids include nicotine, quinine, strychnine, ergotamine and
atropine. The less toxic ones, such as caffeine, are used for pleasant
social effects. The powerful ones are hallucinogens (cannabis, LSD and
mescaline).

The well-known food allergy effect of addiction, where withdrawal from
the food causes unpleasant symptoms, may be due at least in part to the
addictive properties of alkaloids present in the food.

The action of alkaloids on the nervous system is generally to disrupt
electrochemical transmission at nerve junctions (synapses), either
preventing transmission (as in the case of the plant poison curare) or
enhancing it inappropriately (as, for example, physostigmine). Locoism,
referred to above, is of this latter class.

Outbreaks of food poisoning due to solanine (from potatoes), tomatine
(tomatoes) and dioscorine (yams) have all been reliably observed in
either humans or domestic animals. Death due to alkaloid overdose is
fortunately uncommon in humans; in Socrates' case (hemlock) it was
deliberate murder by the state. But subclinical alkaloid intoxication
occurs all the time. The 'edible' nightshades (potatoes, tomatoes,
capsicums, pepers) are especially rich sources, but cabbage, peppercorns
and many other foodstuffs are not far behind.

Exorphins

These are morphine-like peptides derived from partially digested grain,
milk and legume proteins. Pharmacologically they behave, when tested on
isolated tissues, very much like morphine, hence the name. It is
reasonable to propose that in people whose intestinal digestion of these
foodstuffs is incomplete, exorphins are absorbed and have the effect of
a small dose of an opiate drug-for example, patients who take wheat bran
and find their constipation gets worse. On the plus-side, the well-known
effect of pleasant somnolence after a meal is probably also due to
morphine-like activity.

Milk sickness

A disease known as milk sickness, characterized by weakness, nausea and
collapse, has occasionally reached epidemic proportions in certain parts
of the US. It probably caused the death of Abraham Lincoln's mother. The
name derives from the fact that the disease is brought on by drinking
milk from cow made ill with a disease known as the trembles. This was
eventually tracked down to the consumption, by cattle, of a plant known
as snake root (Eupatorium rugosum), containing the chemical tremetone.

Along the same lines, lupin alkaloids have been known to be transferred
to human beings via goat's milk. Birth abnormalities have been reported
and, significantly, lupin alkaloids have the same effect on goat
offspring.

Caffeine Family (Methylxanthines)

It is commonly forgotten that caffeine and theobromine (which occur in
tea and coffee) are toxic substances. Taken in sufficient quantities
they can cause cerebral oedema (so-called 'water on the brain),
convulsions and even death, though no one has ever been able to
establish tissue damage caused by chronic ingestion at normal levels.

Salicylates

Salicylates are aspirin-like chemicals that occur in many fruits and
vegetable. They tend to cause pharmacological rather than allergic
reactions. Adverse reactions are dose-related and only occur in
sensitive individuals who have a constitutional predisposition.

Hypertensive Substances

These are aromatic amino compounds such as serotonin and norepinephrine
(noradrenalin), which constrict blood vessels and thereby elevate the
blood-pressure. Such substances occur in chocolate, pineapple juice,
avocado, alcohol and cheese.

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

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

  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
Oz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !


http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/natural/plant1.htm

Natural Toxins in Food Plants
Some Examples of Natural Toxins
Each toxin is followed by a short list of some (not all) possible
sources
Enzyme inhibitors:
Cholinesterase inhibitors - in potatoes, tomatoes, and eggplant.
Protease inhibitors - in raw soybeans
Amylase inhibitors - in wheat flour
Tannins - in tea, coffee, and cocoa
Cyanogenic glycosides - in cassava.
Goitrogens (glucosinolates) - in Brassica species: cabbage, broccoli,
Brussels sprouts, etc.
Lectin proteins (phytohemagglutinins) - in red kidney beans
Lathyrogens - in chick peas and vetch
Pyrrolizidine alkaloids - in crops contaminated with weeds
Antivitamins:
Although not toxic per se, the anti-vitamins can cause problems as a
result of their interference with the function or absorption of
essential nutrients.
Anti-thiamin compounds - in mung beans, rice bran, beets, Brussels
sprouts
Avidin - in raw egg white

==================

http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/natural/phytoest.htm

'Endocrine Disrupters' (Phytoestrogens) in Food Plants

What are phytoestrogens?
What food crops have phytoestrogens in them?
Are phytoestrogens toxic to animals or humans?
Do phytoestrogens prevent cancer?
How much phytoestrogen is in some common food products?

More information on Endocrine Disrupters.
=================

http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/natural/natpest.htm

Naturally Occurring Toxins used as Pesticides in Organic Farming

In many states, for produce to be labeled 'organic', the producer must
participate in a state certification program than ensures that only
natural pesticides have been used on the produce.

One of the most commonly used naturally-occurring pesticides are the
pyrethrins. The pyrethrins are natural insecticides extracted from
chrysanthemums.

Certification programs usually allow the use of pyrethrums, rotenone,
ryania, and sabadillia as insecticides on organic crops. Some of these
natural pesticides, such as ryania, have not been well studied as to
their toxicity.

In some cases, organically grown produce may contain more natural toxins
than produce grown using conventional pest management. For example,
apple juice from organically raised apples contains more patulin, a
probable carcinogen, than conventionally raised apples.(Jukes TH.
Organic apple juice no antidote for alar. J Am Dietetic Assoc
1990;90(3):371.)

With respect to environmental impact, there is evidence that a mixture
of organic and conventional pesticides may be more effective with less
harmful impact on the environment than purely organic regimes.(Kovach et
al )

=============

etc etc

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

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

  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
Oz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !

David Hare-Scott > writes
>cucubins, so please supply some references.


curcubins are spelt differently by different researchers.
The main article on the poisoning in NZ is

1: Food Chem Toxicol. 1989 Aug;27(8):555-6.

Recent food poisonings from cucurbitacin in traditionally bred squash.

Unfortunately the paper is not on line.

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

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

  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
David Hare-Scott
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !


"rick" > wrote in message news:EbUzf.6837>
==========================
> 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.
>


You made a claim that I hadn't heard anything about so I asked you to give
me a reference for it. Thankyou.

>
> "...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.



I am interested in you making a case to support your assertions. There are
quite enough crazys about who will claim anything to win an argument, I have
no idea if you fit that description or not, so why would I spend time
looking for what could be a chimera? Now that you have supplied some
material I have something to go on.

David




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
David Hare-Scott
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !


"Oz" > wrote in message
...
> David Hare-Scott > writes
> >cucubins, so please supply some references.

>
> curcubins are spelt differently by different researchers.
> The main article on the poisoning in NZ is
>
> 1: Food Chem Toxicol. 1989 Aug;27(8):555-6.
>
> Recent food poisonings from cucurbitacin in traditionally bred squash.
>
> Unfortunately the paper is not on line.
>
> --
> Oz


Thanks for all the other refs anyway

David


  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !


"David Hare-Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick" > wrote in message news:EbUzf.6837>
> ==========================
>> 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.
>>

>
> You made a claim that I hadn't heard anything about so I asked
> you to give
> me a reference for it. Thankyou.
> ============================

The point was that like many that tout organics, they do so from
propaganda. They, like you apparently, have done no real
research into organics, you just like the propaganda you've heard
an feel that that is all you need to know.
And, you're welcome...

>>
>> "...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.

>
>
> I am interested in you making a case to support your
> assertions. There are
> quite enough crazys about who will claim anything to win an
> argument, I have
> no idea if you fit that description or not, so why would I
> spend time
> looking for what could be a chimera? Now that you have
> supplied some
> material I have something to go on.

=====================
The point, again, was that the information is available to anyone
that wants the *facts* about that which they promote.
Most organic-only proponents do NO such research into all aspects
of the 'religion.' They feed off each other, reciting the same
lys and delusions over and over about benefits that aren't there.
As to why you wouldn't look into 'drawbacks' to a religion you
promote is the basis of all faiths.

>
> David
>
>



  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
David Hare-Scott
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !


"rick" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "David Hare-Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "rick" > wrote in message news:EbUzf.6837>
> > ==========================
> >> 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.
> >>

> >
> > You made a claim that I hadn't heard anything about so I asked
> > you to give
> > me a reference for it. Thankyou.
> > ============================

> The point was that like many that tout organics, they do so from
> propaganda. They, like you apparently, have done no real
> research into organics, you just like the propaganda you've heard
> an feel that that is all you need to know.
> And, you're welcome...
>
> >>
> >> "...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.

> >
> >
> > I am interested in you making a case to support your
> > assertions. There are
> > quite enough crazys about who will claim anything to win an
> > argument, I have
> > no idea if you fit that description or not, so why would I
> > spend time
> > looking for what could be a chimera? Now that you have
> > supplied some
> > material I have something to go on.

> =====================
> The point, again, was that the information is available to anyone
> that wants the *facts* about that which they promote.
> Most organic-only proponents do NO such research into all aspects
> of the 'religion.' They feed off each other, reciting the same
> lys and delusions over and over about benefits that aren't there.
> As to why you wouldn't look into 'drawbacks' to a religion you
> promote is the basis of all faiths.
>
> >
> > David
> >
> >

>
>


I have said nothing about organics but you want to lump me in with some
target group that you have in mind. You know nothing about me or my level
of knowledge except that I asked for more information on one topic but you
repeatedly say I am ignorant. You seem to be looking for someone to argue
with more than anything else - well it ain't me. You accuse others of
taking a religous attitude while displaying exactly that yourself.
Regardless of how much you might (or might not) know it's just too tedious
to try to have a conversation with you. End

David


  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
Oz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !

David Hare-Scott > writes

of rik

>You accuse others of
>taking a religous attitude while displaying exactly that yourself.
>Regardless of how much you might (or might not) know it's just too tedious
>to try to have a conversation with you. End


you implied that I was rik, which could hardly be further from the
truth. In fact I have rik killfiled for the reasons you give.

Given that I spent some time getting lengthy references for you it would
be very impolite to simply ignore them without a reply.

You can confirm oz is not rik by asking where I am known (eg ukba,
sciag).

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

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

  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
David Hare-Scott
 
Posts: n/a
Default Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !


"Oz" > wrote in message
...
> David Hare-Scott > writes
>
> of rik
>
> >You accuse others of
> >taking a religous attitude while displaying exactly that yourself.
> >Regardless of how much you might (or might not) know it's just too

tedious
> >to try to have a conversation with you. End

>
> you implied that I was rik, which could hardly be further from the
> truth. In fact I have rik killfiled for the reasons you give.
>
> Given that I spent some time getting lengthy references for you it would
> be very impolite to simply ignore them without a reply.
>
> You can confirm oz is not rik by asking where I am known (eg ukba,
> sciag).
>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
>
> Use functions].
> BTOPENWORLD address has ceased. DEMON address has ceased.
>


I don't know where I implied you were rick, I don't think that you are. It
will take me some time to read the refs that you found me as I am busy
building a house right now and don't want to just skim though it all. I
will get back to you, please be patient.

David




  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
David Hare-Scott
 
Posts: n/a
Default Genetic modification (was: Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !)


Oz

I have now had a chance to read the material that you pointed me towards.
This is (in summary) what I have gathered from it.

1) There are a great many toxins present in plants including some plants
that are grown for food. No surprise there. Some writers go on to say that
it follows that "natural" doesn't necessarily mean safe. No surprise there
either. People have been poisoning themselves with plants for a long time
and the fad that anything called "natural" must be good is an invention of
the advertising world. Nobody knows what "natural" means in that context
anyway, probably nothing at all.

2) One such toxin is cucurbitacin which is found in squash and pumpkins.
There are cases reported of the amout of this toxin being increased through
selective breeding, some instances seem to have been deliberate in order to
create resistence to insects. I had trouble accessing original papers but
there is nothing improbable about that so I accept that it happened.

3) Also this article (that you quoted)
http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/issues/convtoxins.html
refers to the same kind of problem in potatos and celery (different toxins).
Once again I accept that it happened. What I don't accept is the author's
rather sweeping statement

"Conventionally-bred crop varieties may actually pose a greater risk from
increased plant toxins than genetically engineered plants."

I cannot see anywhere that he/she substantiates such a comparison. There is
NO attempt to evaluate the risks of either technique so I cannot see how
anyone can say one is more risky than the other. I take the point however
that being new GM plants are subject to much higher scrutiny and testing
than selectively bred varieties and that the presumption of safety of the
latter is by no means guaranteed. If you know of any articles on line where
the relative risks are evaluated I would be keen to see them.

What do I think of the relative risks? As I pointed out to start of the
thred with Genetic Engineering (GE) and Selective Breeding (SB) are both
Genetic Modification (GM). That does not say anything about their relative
safety. GE involves direct transfer of genetic material including that from
totally unrelated species. SB is the alteration of the frequency of
selected genes in the target population by breeding from organisms showing
favoured characteristic(s). In GE genes are directly modified, in SB
existing genes are selected in favour of others, there is no alteration of
the genes themselves. SB may select for a mutation but it does not create
mutations.

SB is traditional Darwinian evolution being directed by humans by choosing
the environment. By manipulating the environment we manipulate the gene
frequencies in the population much faster than otherwise and in directions
that would never be taken without human intervention. This is where nearly
all our cultivated plant and domesticated animal varieties came from.

Is the SB process 100% free of risk? No way. But as we are only playing
with the frequency of existing genes the scope for a bad result is limited.
If it wasn't people would have be getting poisoned far to often since
agriculture started and neither cultivated species nor the humans that
depend on them would be what they are today. The huge growth of human
population could never have happened if SB was very unsafe.

What about the risks of GE? To me it is an open question, one that we
should put many resources into answering so we can determine the real risks.
This needs to be done over a long period of time with plenty of redundant
cross checking by different parties. The probability of harm from the
technique in general and the safety of each given organism both need to be
studied carefully until we get a handle on it. I don't want to see our
foods end up like some "wonder drugs" that have been pushed out by big
business only to be withdrawn years later when the effects were fully
evaluated. How will a dangerous GE gene be "withdrawn" some years down the
track once it becomes widespread?

David


  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Genetic modification (was: Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !)


"David Hare-Scott" > wrote in message
...


> 3) Also this article (that you quoted)
> http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/issues/convtoxins.html
> refers to the same kind of problem in potatos and celery (different

toxins).
> Once again I accept that it happened. What I don't accept is the author's
> rather sweeping statement
>
> "Conventionally-bred crop varieties may actually pose a greater risk from
> increased plant toxins than genetically engineered plants."
>
> I cannot see anywhere that he/she substantiates such a comparison. There

is
> NO attempt to evaluate the risks of either technique so I cannot see how
> anyone can say one is more risky than the other. I take the point however
> that being new GM plants are subject to much higher scrutiny and testing
> than selectively bred varieties and that the presumption of safety of the
> latter is by no means guaranteed.


But in making that statement you have agreed with the author. GM plants are
far more subject to scrutiny than conventional varieties which receive damn
all. Many conventional varieties we have been eating for generations would
never have recieved clearance had modern regulators been able to check and
ban them when they first appeared

--

Jim Webster.
Pat Gardiner, Five years raving about bent vets and still no result



  #28 (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 !)

David Hare-Scott > writes
>
>Oz
>
>I have now had a chance to read the material that you pointed me towards.
>This is (in summary) what I have gathered from it.


>3) Also this article (that you quoted)
>http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/issues/convtoxins.html
>refers to the same kind of problem in potatos and celery (different toxins).
>Once again I accept that it happened. What I don't accept is the author's
>rather sweeping statement
>
>"Conventionally-bred crop varieties may actually pose a greater risk from
>increased plant toxins than genetically engineered plants."
>
>I cannot see anywhere that he/she substantiates such a comparison.
> There is
>NO attempt to evaluate the risks of either technique so I cannot see how
>anyone can say one is more risky than the other.


Actually that is incorrect. Significantly different varieties are
roughly checked but this would, for 'conventional', only be after
outcrossing with wild (or effectively wild) relations that may contain
(be known to contain) toxins. When crossing like this obviously the
first cross will contain 50% of the 'wild' species, which includes a lot
of unwanted genes most of which do unknown things. After multiple
crossing the breeder hopes to have selected the characteristics required
(pest resistance, colour, shape, whatever), but probably includes some
other 'wild' genes.

All (artificial) genetically modified crops in the west are checked in
feeding trials as far as this can be done. The one big advantage is they
know precisely the gene introduced and that they have introduced no
others. Which is, of course, why its such a valuable tool. It can take
decades to breed out the unwanted wild genes from a cultivar in the
conventional way.


>I take the point however
>that being new GM plants are subject to much higher scrutiny and testing
>than selectively bred varieties and that the presumption of safety of the
>latter is by no means guaranteed. If you know of any articles on line where
>the relative risks are evaluated I would be keen to see them.


They were about, but when this was a hot topic some years ago.

>What do I think of the relative risks? As I pointed out to start of the
>thred with Genetic Engineering (GE) and Selective Breeding (SB) are both
>Genetic Modification (GM). That does not say anything about their relative
>safety. GE involves direct transfer of genetic material including that from
>totally unrelated species. SB is the alteration of the frequency of
>selected genes in the target population by breeding from organisms showing
>favoured characteristic(s). In GE genes are directly modified, in SB
>existing genes are selected in favour of others, there is no alteration of
>the genes themselves.


Of course that's not quite right. In GE genes are not modified, they are
nicked (unmodified) from elsewhere and in SE we note many garden
varieties (eg cereals) are so packed with mutations and polyploidy that
they can no longer breed unaided with wild relatives.

>SB may select for a mutation but it does not create
>mutations.


Frankly an unknown selected mutation is quite a bit more hazardous than
a known artificially introduced gene. Is this splendidly pest resistant
variety a new mutation or a good selection? Ditto nice flavour? etc etc?

We actually don't know.

>SB is traditional Darwinian evolution being directed by humans by choosing
>the environment. By manipulating the environment we manipulate the gene
>frequencies in the population much faster than otherwise and in directions
>that would never be taken without human intervention. This is where nearly
>all our cultivated plant and domesticated animal varieties came from.


I don't think so. Most of the really useful characteristics are
mutations. Just consider the grossly deformed maize plant with teosinte.
Heck it doesn't have male and female bits of flower at the top but has
the female bits grotesquely poking out half way down.

>Is the SB process 100% free of risk? No way. But as we are only playing
>with the frequency of existing genes the scope for a bad result is limited.


Unfortunately not. Mutations happen. They get spotted.

>If it wasn't people would have be getting poisoned far to often since
>agriculture started and neither cultivated species nor the humans that
>depend on them would be what they are today. The huge growth of human
>population could never have happened if SB was very unsafe.


Its more that plant breeding is pretty safe. Unfortunately we don't
actually know if our plant species are safe because most have never been
tested. In fact feeding to animals is probably the only real test and
the species fed is very limited. Even so most feeds are restricted in
the amounts that should be fed due to animals showing negative
reactions. Often the precise reasons are not known but the safe feeding
amounts are.

Some have been known in farming for A VeryLongTime. Not putting tupping
ewes on a clovery/leguminous sward is one very nice example but there
are others.

>What about the risks of GE? To me it is an open question, one that we
>should put many resources into answering so we can determine the real risks.
>This needs to be done over a long period of time with plenty of redundant
>cross checking by different parties.


's OK. Massive worldwide experiment feeding to humans and livestock
worldwide now in its 15th year without problems.


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

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

  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default Genetic modification (was: Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !)


"Jim Webster" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Hare-Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > NO attempt to evaluate the risks of either technique so I cannot see how
> > anyone can say one is more risky than the other. I take the point

however
> > that being new GM plants are subject to much higher scrutiny and testing
> > than selectively bred varieties and that the presumption of safety of

the
> > latter is by no means guaranteed.

>
> But in making that statement you have agreed with the author. GM plants

are
> far more subject to scrutiny than conventional varieties which receive

damn
> all.


Yes but it seems quite reasonable to me that it is so.

Many conventional varieties we have been eating for generations would
> never have recieved clearance had modern regulators been able to check and
> ban them when they first appeared



This is very hard to get a handle on as I cannot see any attempt to quantify
the problems with 'conventional' crops. Yes some cases of toxins being
created/augmented are reported but how significant is that in the overall
scheme of things? If it is only a rare siuation why would you want to
impose regulation on it.

David


  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default Genetic modification (was: Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !)


"Oz" > wrote in message
...
> David Hare-Scott > writes
> >
> >Oz
> >
> >I have now had a chance to read the material that you pointed me towards.
> >This is (in summary) what I have gathered from it.

>
> >3) Also this article (that you quoted)
> >http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/issues/convtoxins.html
> >refers to the same kind of problem in potatos and celery (different

toxins).
> >Once again I accept that it happened. What I don't accept is the

author's
> >rather sweeping statement
> >
> >"Conventionally-bred crop varieties may actually pose a greater risk from
> >increased plant toxins than genetically engineered plants."
> >
> >I cannot see anywhere that he/she substantiates such a comparison.
> > There is
> >NO attempt to evaluate the risks of either technique so I cannot see how
> >anyone can say one is more risky than the other.

>
> Actually that is incorrect.


Sorry where are the evaluations of risk of the two techniques are the
quantitative comparison of them?

Significantly different varieties are
> roughly checked but this would, for 'conventional', only be after
> outcrossing with wild (or effectively wild) relations that may contain
> (be known to contain) toxins. When crossing like this obviously the
> first cross will contain 50% of the 'wild' species, which includes a lot
> of unwanted genes most of which do unknown things. After multiple
> crossing the breeder hopes to have selected the characteristics required
> (pest resistance, colour, shape, whatever), but probably includes some
> other 'wild' genes.
>
> All (artificial) genetically modified crops in the west are checked in
> feeding trials as far as this can be done. The one big advantage is they
> know precisely the gene introduced and that they have introduced no
> others. Which is, of course, why its such a valuable tool. It can take
> decades to breed out the unwanted wild genes from a cultivar in the
> conventional way.
>
>
> >I take the point however
> >that being new GM plants are subject to much higher scrutiny and testing
> >than selectively bred varieties and that the presumption of safety of the
> >latter is by no means guaranteed. If you know of any articles on line

where
> >the relative risks are evaluated I would be keen to see them.

>
> They were about, but when this was a hot topic some years ago.
>


I think we have to leave it there then since I didn't see such.

> >What do I think of the relative risks? As I pointed out to start of the
> >thred with Genetic Engineering (GE) and Selective Breeding (SB) are both
> >Genetic Modification (GM). That does not say anything about their

relative
> >safety. GE involves direct transfer of genetic material including that

from
> >totally unrelated species. SB is the alteration of the frequency of
> >selected genes in the target population by breeding from organisms

showing
> >favoured characteristic(s). In GE genes are directly modified, in SB
> >existing genes are selected in favour of others, there is no alteration

of
> >the genes themselves.

>
> Of course that's not quite right. In GE genes are not modified,


Ok I didn't express this very well but it doesn't alter my point that one is
direct manipulation of genes and the other of their frequencies in the
population. And I want to know why my tomatos can't be made to taste like
salmon too! :-)

they are
> nicked (unmodified) from elsewhere and in SE we note many garden
> varieties (eg cereals) are so packed with mutations and polyploidy that
> they can no longer breed unaided with wild relatives.
>
> >SB may select for a mutation but it does not create
> >mutations.

>
> Frankly an unknown selected mutation is quite a bit more hazardous than
> a known artificially introduced gene. Is this splendidly pest resistant
> variety a new mutation or a good selection? Ditto nice flavour? etc etc?
>
> We actually don't know.
>


So what do you recommend?

> >SB is traditional Darwinian evolution being directed by humans by

choosing
> >the environment. By manipulating the environment we manipulate the gene
> >frequencies in the population much faster than otherwise and in

directions
> >that would never be taken without human intervention. This is where

nearly
> >all our cultivated plant and domesticated animal varieties came from.

>
> I don't think so. Most of the really useful characteristics are
> mutations.


This may be so today, I don't know what modern plant breeders get up to in
any detail. But considering the history of edible plant breeding I would
expect that our ancestors selected for size, flavour, etc as a primary goal.
Most of those sorts of qualities are covered by many genes not single
mutations, which is why takes so many generations to develop them. Does it
really matter if such qualities are single or multi factorial? In both
cases SB is still pushing around genotypes in populations by selecting
phenotypes.

Just consider the grossly deformed maize plant with teosinte.
> Heck it doesn't have male and female bits of flower at the top but has
> the female bits grotesquely poking out half way down.
>
> >Is the SB process 100% free of risk? No way. But as we are only playing
> >with the frequency of existing genes the scope for a bad result is

limited.
>
> Unfortunately not. Mutations happen. They get spotted.
>
> >If it wasn't people would have be getting poisoned far to often since
> >agriculture started and neither cultivated species nor the humans that
> >depend on them would be what they are today. The huge growth of human
> >population could never have happened if SB was very unsafe.

>
> Its more that plant breeding is pretty safe. Unfortunately we don't
> actually know if our plant species are safe because most have never been
> tested.


Hang on, we eat them all the time, isn't that a pretty large scale test?

In fact feeding to animals is probably the only real test and
> the species fed is very limited. Even so most feeds are restricted in
> the amounts that should be fed due to animals showing negative
> reactions. Often the precise reasons are not known but the safe feeding
> amounts are.
>
> Some have been known in farming for A VeryLongTime. Not putting tupping
> ewes on a clovery/leguminous sward is one very nice example but there
> are others.
>
> >What about the risks of GE? To me it is an open question, one that we
> >should put many resources into answering so we can determine the real

risks.
> >This needs to be done over a long period of time with plenty of redundant
> >cross checking by different parties.

>
> 's OK. Massive worldwide experiment feeding to humans and livestock
> worldwide now in its 15th year without problems.
>
>

I must be ultra conservative on such issues.

I am running short of hours again so we might have to leave it until another
day. Oz I think we have both said what we can about this interesting topic.

David




  #31 (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 !)

David Hare-Scott > writes
>
>"Jim Webster" > wrote in message


>> But in making that statement you have agreed with the author. GM plants

>are
>> far more subject to scrutiny than conventional varieties which receive

>damn
>> all.

>
>Yes but it seems quite reasonable to me that it is so.


Indeed, but then don't simultaneously complain its all untested.

>Many conventional varieties we have been eating for generations would
>> never have recieved clearance had modern regulators been able to check and
>> ban them when they first appeared

>
>This is very hard to get a handle on as I cannot see any attempt to quantify
>the problems with 'conventional' crops. Yes some cases of toxins being
>created/augmented are reported but how significant is that in the overall
>scheme of things? If it is only a rare siuation why would you want to
>impose regulation on it.


One needs to be careful here. The argument in pesticides testing is that
nobody should ever be able to receive 1/10th to 1/100th (depending on
the perceived political hazard) of the NoEffectLevel. This leads to all
sorts of anomalies where levels are set assuming a vegetarian will eat
their entire food requirements in (say) carrots containing the legal
minimum which then sets the allowed concentration so its 1/10th of the
NoEL even though if you did this you would die of carotene poisoning.
Furthermore no trace of carcinogenicity is permitted.

Pharmaceuticals have a similar, but much more lax test.

The argument is that these very low levels are needed to ensure nobody
ever gets injured by the pesticide. The problem is that if you applied
the same test to known plant toxins, then you would have to ban the
plant because it contains more than the allowed level (or contains
carcinogens).

Something containing known carcinogens, like say toast, wouldn't even
get to first stage screening as a pesticide, it contains carcinogens so
its out.

What is needed is a proper toxicology of food items so we can properly
evaluate the risks of our foods. Then, somewhat perversely, we could
breed out the most dangerous (but probably most effective) toxins and
cover the pest control using tested safe pesticides.

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

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

  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Genetic modification (was: Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !)


"David Hare-Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "David Hare-Scott" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > NO attempt to evaluate the risks of either technique so I cannot see

how
> > > anyone can say one is more risky than the other. I take the point

> however
> > > that being new GM plants are subject to much higher scrutiny and

testing
> > > than selectively bred varieties and that the presumption of safety of

> the
> > > latter is by no means guaranteed.

> >
> > But in making that statement you have agreed with the author. GM plants

> are
> > far more subject to scrutiny than conventional varieties which receive

> damn
> > all.

>
> Yes but it seems quite reasonable to me that it is so.


why? If something is a danger it is a danger, why should the reason for its'
creation mean it gets more or less scrutiney? Whatever happened to the
precautionary principle?

>
> Many conventional varieties we have been eating for generations would
> > never have recieved clearance had modern regulators been able to check

and
> > ban them when they first appeared

>
>
> This is very hard to get a handle on as I cannot see any attempt to

quantify
> the problems with 'conventional' crops. Yes some cases of toxins being
> created/augmented are reported but how significant is that in the overall
> scheme of things? If it is only a rare siuation why would you want to
> impose regulation on it.


much regulation is imposed to cope with rare situations
--

Jim Webster.
Pat Gardiner, Five years raving about bent vets and still no result



  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Genetic modification (was: Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !)


"David Hare-Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Its more that plant breeding is pretty safe. Unfortunately we don't
> > actually know if our plant species are safe because most have never been
> > tested.

>
> Hang on, we eat them all the time, isn't that a pretty large scale test?


but further down you refute that argument when discussing GM crops, there is
a contradiction in your stance

>
> In fact feeding to animals is probably the only real test and
> > the species fed is very limited. Even so most feeds are restricted in
> > the amounts that should be fed due to animals showing negative
> > reactions. Often the precise reasons are not known but the safe feeding
> > amounts are.
> >
> > Some have been known in farming for A VeryLongTime. Not putting tupping
> > ewes on a clovery/leguminous sward is one very nice example but there
> > are others.
> >
> > >What about the risks of GE? To me it is an open question, one that we
> > >should put many resources into answering so we can determine the real

> risks.
> > >This needs to be done over a long period of time with plenty of

redundant
> > >cross checking by different parties.

> >
> > 's OK. Massive worldwide experiment feeding to humans and livestock
> > worldwide now in its 15th year without problems.
> >
> >

> I must be ultra conservative on such issues.
>

but you just said
Hang on, we eat them all the time, isn't that a pretty large scale test?

--

Jim Webster.
Pat Gardiner, Five years raving about bent vets and still no result



  #34 (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 !)

David Hare-Scott > writes
>
>"Oz" > wrote in message
>> David Hare-Scott > writes


>> >I cannot see anywhere that he/she substantiates such a comparison.
>> > There is
>> >NO attempt to evaluate the risks of either technique so I cannot see how
>> >anyone can say one is more risky than the other.

>>
>> Actually that is incorrect.

>
>Sorry where are the evaluations of risk of the two techniques are the
>quantitative comparison of them?


Oh, its quite clear. Inserting a single known gene with a precise action
means you know what the effect will be (pretty much), whilst inserting a
whole bunch of genes, most of which do unknown things, clearly meas you
don;t know what the result will be.

>> >What do I think of the relative risks? As I pointed out to start of the
>> >thred with Genetic Engineering (GE) and Selective Breeding (SB) are both
>> >Genetic Modification (GM). That does not say anything about their

>relative
>> >safety. GE involves direct transfer of genetic material including that

>from
>> >totally unrelated species. SB is the alteration of the frequency of
>> >selected genes in the target population by breeding from organisms

>showing
>> >favoured characteristic(s). In GE genes are directly modified, in SB
>> >existing genes are selected in favour of others, there is no alteration

>of
>> >the genes themselves.

>>
>> Of course that's not quite right. In GE genes are not modified,

>
>Ok I didn't express this very well but it doesn't alter my point that one is
>direct manipulation of genes and the other of their frequencies in the
>population.


Not necessarily, genes from related plants can be deliberately
introduced to obtain pest or disease resistance. Many food plant
families contain highly toxic relatives with excellent disease
resistance. This is a standard technique as is using primitive varieties
from all over the world.

>And I want to know why my tomatos can't be made to taste like
>salmon too! :-)


The can, just add some smoked salmon.

>they are
>> nicked (unmodified) from elsewhere and in SE we note many garden
>> varieties (eg cereals) are so packed with mutations and polyploidy that
>> they can no longer breed unaided with wild relatives.
>>
>> >SB may select for a mutation but it does not create
>> >mutations.

>>
>> Frankly an unknown selected mutation is quite a bit more hazardous than
>> a known artificially introduced gene. Is this splendidly pest resistant
>> variety a new mutation or a good selection? Ditto nice flavour? etc etc?
>>
>> We actually don't know.
>>

>
>So what do you recommend?


We should evaluate the toxicology of food plants. This won't be as easy
as you think. 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.

>> >SB is traditional Darwinian evolution being directed by humans by

>choosing
>> >the environment. By manipulating the environment we manipulate the gene
>> >frequencies in the population much faster than otherwise and in

>directions
>> >that would never be taken without human intervention. This is where

>nearly
>> >all our cultivated plant and domesticated animal varieties came from.

>>
>> I don't think so. Most of the really useful characteristics are
>> mutations.

>
>This may be so today, I don't know what modern plant breeders get up to in
>any detail. But considering the history of edible plant breeding I would
>expect that our ancestors selected for size, flavour, etc as a primary goal.


Mostly they wanted a secure, reliable, food supply. You were far more
likely to die of starvation or hunger-related disease than worry about a
1:10,000 chance of dying from excessive intake of a plant toxin.

Which is why the NZ organic courgette growers selected the most
resistant cultivars for propogation and poisoned a whole bunch of
people.

But in fact many of the most useful characteristics (particularly
cereals) are mutations, spotted and selected.

>Most of those sorts of qualities are covered by many genes not single
>mutations, which is why takes so many generations to develop them. Does it
>really matter if such qualities are single or multi factorial? In both
>cases SB is still pushing around genotypes in populations by selecting
>phenotypes.


Hang on, why do you assume that traits, like levels of toxin production,
selected by breeders, are safe, when they can clearly be hazardous?
Known to be so, as well.

>Just consider the grossly deformed maize plant with teosinte.
>> Heck it doesn't have male and female bits of flower at the top but has
>> the female bits grotesquely poking out half way down.


No comment?

>> >Is the SB process 100% free of risk? No way. But as we are only playing
>> >with the frequency of existing genes the scope for a bad result is

>limited.
>>
>> Unfortunately not. Mutations happen. They get spotted.
>>
>> >If it wasn't people would have be getting poisoned far to often since
>> >agriculture started and neither cultivated species nor the humans that
>> >depend on them would be what they are today. The huge growth of human
>> >population could never have happened if SB was very unsafe.

>>
>> Its more that plant breeding is pretty safe. Unfortunately we don't
>> actually know if our plant species are safe because most have never been
>> tested.

>
>Hang on, we eat them all the time, isn't that a pretty large scale test?


Indeed. We also eat (and have eaten) vast tonnages of GM varieties too
for many many years with no effect.

But food plant poisoning (as I pointed out at the start) happens and is
a known hazard, particularly in some cultivars (like, say kidney beans).

>In fact feeding to animals is probably the only real test and
>> the species fed is very limited. Even so most feeds are restricted in
>> the amounts that should be fed due to animals showing negative
>> reactions. Often the precise reasons are not known but the safe feeding
>> amounts are.
>>
>> Some have been known in farming for A VeryLongTime. Not putting tupping
>> ewes on a clovery/leguminous sward is one very nice example but there
>> are others.


No comment?

>> >What about the risks of GE? To me it is an open question, one that we
>> >should put many resources into answering so we can determine the real

>risks.
>> >This needs to be done over a long period of time with plenty of redundant
>> >cross checking by different parties.

>>
>> 's OK. Massive worldwide experiment feeding to humans and livestock
>> worldwide now in its 15th year without problems.
>>
>>

>I must be ultra conservative on such issues.


How long do you need?

>I am running short of hours again so we might have to leave it until another
>day. Oz I think we have both said what we can about this interesting topic.


Hardly.

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

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

  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Genetic modification (was: Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !)

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 ?


> whilst inserting a
>whole bunch of genes, most of which do unknown things, clearly meas you
>don;t know what the result will be.


But at least you know they are native to the species, so you'll probably
have encountered their effects in a similar context before.


> 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 !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Genetic modification (was: Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !)

In article >, John Beardmore > wrote:
>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 ?


I reckon it probably does. As with all things, we think we know what we are
doing when we really just have more questions. The concept of gene ecology
may well become a growing field as some of those questions are answered
Likewise the data suggests we know only some of the controls currently.

Is it "better" or "worse" than breeding ? ... probably

Bruce

----------------------------------------
I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good
people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and
only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

Lord Vetinari in Guards ! Guards ! - Terry Pratchett

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

  #37 (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
>
>>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.

>> whilst inserting a
>>whole bunch of genes, most of which do unknown things, clearly meas you
>>don;t know what the result will be.

>
>But at least you know they are native to the species, so you'll probably
>have encountered their effects in a similar context before.


As has been pointed out the toxins of plants are mostly unknown and the
level of expression is variable. So whilst that is usually true, its not
always true. Of course pest resistance tends to be strongly correlated
with toxins and their levels and this is actually the main thrust of
plant selection and breeding. Obviously this is also strongly correlated
with high yielding blemish-free produce.

>> 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 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.

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

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

  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Genetic modification (was: Coming Soon to a Paddy Near You: Frankenrice !)

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
  #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.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pre- St. Paddy's Chat! jmcquown[_2_] General Cooking 0 17-03-2008 02:25 AM
Paddy's Potatoes International Recipes OnLine Recipes (moderated) 0 01-12-2006 05:02 AM
St. Paddy's Day Sheldon General Cooking 44 18-03-2006 04:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"