Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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 > > |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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. > > |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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 > > > |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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 > > |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to sci.agriculture,sci.skeptic,alt.food.vegan,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Pre- St. Paddy's Chat! | General Cooking | |||
Paddy's Potatoes | Recipes (moderated) | |||
St. Paddy's Day | General Cooking |