ExRx.net
http://exrx.net/forum/

Highly Recomended Videos: 1) Food Inc. 2) The Future of Food
http://exrx.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=7270
Page 2 of 3

Author:  frogbyte [ Sun Sep 19, 2010 6:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well, you can't really equate the minor impact of breeding of traits to the sorts of things GMO allows. That doesn't mean it's evil, but if you suddenly have an organism potentially creating proteins or chemicals that have never existed in nature in the history of man, it requires some caution be taken to ensure both efficacy and safety and nutrition.

Author:  Ironman [ Sun Sep 19, 2010 11:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

That's true as I stated, as in the "what". But that has been done and there is no evidence of any problems.

Author:  frogbyte [ Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

Sure, but the FDA found no problems with cigarettes and bread for decades... with anything new (and yes bread is new :) ), caution is warranted. Don't want to turn into Europe though where innovation is impossible - there's a nice middle ground.

Author:  ExRx.net [ Mon Sep 20, 2010 6:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Possible risks of Genetically Engineered Foods

This video raises some possible concerns of GMO:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=156

Author:  Ironman [ Mon Sep 20, 2010 6:50 pm ]
Post subject: 

frogbyte wrote:
Sure, but the FDA found no problems with cigarettes and bread for decades... with anything new (and yes bread is new :) ), caution is warranted. Don't want to turn into Europe though where innovation is impossible - there's a nice middle ground.


That's not the same thing and has nothing to do with it. I have already said twice, and now for the third time I agree it depends on what the modification does.

However there is still ZERO evidence, and a lot of hysterical people trying to BS everyone. That is about the opposite of convincing.

Author:  Jungledoc [ Mon Sep 20, 2010 7:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

The claim that I'm seeing in the press is that most of the data comes from the company that is seeking to market the fish, and that very little truly independent research has been done yet. I would be comforting to have an independent group say that they couldn't find anything different in the GE fish than is in the wild strain.

However, since the genetic modifications are only two, and that they both cause increases of growth hormone, it seems unlikely that it would be harmful to humans (GH is unstable in the human stomach). Heck, maybe somebody would even market it to body builders on the promise of increased hypertrophy!

Remember, this is not some sort of massive random mutation with unknown effects. They have inserted 2 genes. Each gene does 1 thing, not an unpredictable mix of random effects. A GH gene from Chinook salmon, and a genetic switch that "turns on" GH production, obtained from an ocean pout. That's it. I can't imagine where unpredicted effects would come from.

Author:  Rucifer [ Mon Sep 20, 2010 7:26 pm ]
Post subject: 

Maybe they can alter my genes so I can shoot red stuff from my eyes like cyclops :cyclopsani:

Author:  Ironman [ Mon Sep 20, 2010 7:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Possible risks of Genetically Engineered Foods

ExRx.net wrote:
This video raises some possible concerns of GMO:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=156


Problem one, I can see it clocks in at 28 minutes. That's a long time to present clear and concise evidence.

First line in the video is "These are companies with decades and decades of well documented lying to the American public."

That is guilt by association and a baseless assertion.

2nd line is another baseless assertion trying to establish opposition being silenced.

That's 3 logical fallacies in 16 seconds.

More claims, with no evidence.

The third minute contains a lot of claims about the findings of scientists and their supposed views on the topic, with nothing sited, no evidence of any kind.

Next we have some red herrings, plus linking to Monsanto, which no doubt will lead to guilt by association later. Then a PHD is quickly paraded on there to make it more convincing (proof by authority logical fallacy.)

Next they try to say it's the same as smoking and agent orange. That's a classic propaganda technique.

Next claims about soy, without evidence.

Later they try to claim genes may jump from food to gut bacteria. That just isn't possible. You can cause bacteria to evolve by changing their environment, but the genes can't just get into them. That's absurd.

antibiotic resistant bacteria?! LMFAO! This just gets more ridiculous as it goes. I think they are counting on people being convinced by this point and just blindly swallowing the rest.


I clicked on their references link in the FAQ. It was full of testimony and articles people wrote. Even stuff that was labeled as research or a study, but when you clicked on it it was just more testimony.

If there is any truth to any of this at all whatsoever, then why is there no evidence at all? Can they not simply point to even one peer reviewed study? I don't think they can. I have not been able to find any, and no GMO conspiracy theorist can either. Every piece of supposed evidence they point to is this sort of ridiculous propaganda.

They talk about all kinds of studies, and give all sorts of information from these studies. WHERE ARE THEY? With all their links to article after article of testimony, why do they not have links to ANY of these studies? Until I see some, I must conclude that they do not exist.

Author:  Ironman [ Mon Sep 20, 2010 7:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

Jungledoc wrote:
The claim that I'm seeing in the press is that most of the data comes from the company that is seeking to market the fish, and that very little truly independent research has been done yet. I would be comforting to have an independent group say that they couldn't find anything different in the GE fish than is in the wild strain.

However, since the genetic modifications are only two, and that they both cause increases of growth hormone, it seems unlikely that it would be harmful to humans (GH is unstable in the human stomach). Heck, maybe somebody would even market it to body builders on the promise of increased hypertrophy!

Remember, this is not some sort of massive random mutation with unknown effects. They have inserted 2 genes. Each gene does 1 thing, not an unpredictable mix of random effects. A GH gene from Chinook salmon, and a genetic switch that "turns on" GH production, obtained from an ocean pout. That's it. I can't imagine where unpredicted effects would come from.


I'm waiting for the gene to jump to our gut bacteria as they claim is possible, as if the bacteria can genetically modify itself. Then it can produce GH out of glands that it doesn't have.

Subcutaneous salmon injections! It's the next thing to make you heuooooge! lol

Author:  frogbyte [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Possible risks of Genetically Engineered Foods

Ironman wrote:
Later they try to claim genes may jump from food to gut bacteria. That just isn't possible. You can cause bacteria to evolve by changing their environment, but the genes can't just get into them. That's absurd.
Actually that's a biological reality. Bacteria and archaea are excellent at exchanging and incorporating genetic material. However, it does seem fairly implausible that the risk would be greater for genetic transplantation from a GMO, than from a non-GMO.

Author:  Travis [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ironman here is a Nature paper on horizontal transfer of genes in gut bacteria

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 08937.html

Author:  Ironman [ Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Possible risks of Genetically Engineered Foods

frogbyte wrote:
Ironman wrote:
Later they try to claim genes may jump from food to gut bacteria. That just isn't possible. You can cause bacteria to evolve by changing their environment, but the genes can't just get into them. That's absurd.
Actually that's a biological reality. Bacteria and archaea are excellent at exchanging and incorporating genetic material. However, it does seem fairly implausible that the risk would be greater for genetic transplantation from a GMO, than from a non-GMO.


That's not even apples and oranges.... that's apples and aardvarks.... That's another similar *LIVING* organism it can interact with, not something in the DNA of some partially digested food.

Author:  Ironman [ Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:10 am ]
Post subject: 

Travis wrote:
Ironman here is a Nature paper on horizontal transfer of genes in gut bacteria

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 08937.html



?????????

That's about bacteria exchanging genes with each other. That has nothing to do with bacteria taking a gene from some partially digested food. Not to mention the genes in question make changes to things the bacteria don't even have. We're talking apples and aircraft carriers here.

Author:  frogbyte [ Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:03 pm ]
Post subject: 

I was only pointing out that "genes can't just get into them" is a mistake on your part. While "get into them" is a bit of an over-simplification of the process, it in fact can occur even with the exogenous genetic material in free-form, ie not in another living cell at all.

Again, though, it seems fairly implausible that the risk would be greater for genetic transplantation from a GMO, than from a non-GMO.

Author:  Ironman [ Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

frogbyte wrote:
I was only pointing out that "genes can't just get into them" is a mistake on your part. While "get into them" is a bit of an over-simplification of the process, it in fact can occur even with the exogenous genetic material in free-form, ie not in another living cell at all.

Again, though, it seems fairly implausible that the risk would be greater for genetic transplantation from a GMO, than from a non-GMO.


You are taking that phrase out of the context of food to bacteria in order to create a straw man. No it can't get in there from the food matter. How would it do that? How is it going to use something so genetically dissimilar even if it could? You might as well try cross breading a bacterium with a fish.

It's not just implausible it is scientifically impossible. You have not shown how this is possible yet you say it can happen? even if it could what about all the genes in the organic food? What does modifying a gene in the salmon have to do with the bacteria? How is it different from the original genes? How about answering these question before spouting off a lot of nonsense that is obviously physically impossible.

Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/