quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

So let's see who Mr. Bt is...

B. thuringiensis is closely related to B.cereus, a soil bacterium, and B.anthracis, the cause of anthrax.

When insects ingest toxin crystals, the alkaline pH of their digestive tract denatures the insoluble crystals, making them soluble and thus amenable to being cut with proteases found in the insect gut, which liberate the cry toxin from the crystal.[6] The Cry toxin is then inserted into the insect gut cell membrane, forming a pore. The pore results in cell lysis and eventual death of the insect.

In plain english this means that the toxants in Bt affects the guts of the insects who cant digest their food anymore and dies as a result of it.

In studies it's proven with mice Bt soy affects the thyroid, wich stimulates your metabolism and growth. Metabolism, guts... see the connection?
The reason why it takes longer to show up in human tests is simply because we are bigger. But these toxants have a build up effect.
Now do you still like Bt bacteria gene spliced corn and soy?

quote:

I knew those indians had a real way with corn but I never knew they were genetically engineering it. That is very interesting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

I knew those indians had a real way with corn but I never knew they were genetically engineering it. That is very interesting.

Not according to the modern definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetical_engineering

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct human manipulation of an organism's genome using modern DNA technology. It involves the introduction of foreign DNA or synthetic genes into the organism of interest. The introduction of new DNA does not require the use of classical genetic methods, however traditional breeding methods are typically used for the propagation of recombinant organisms.

An organism that is generated through the introduction of recombinant DNA is considered to be a genetically modified organism. The first organisms genetically engineered were bacteria in 1973 and then mice in 1974. Insulin-producing bacteria were commercialized in 1982 and genetically modified food has been sold since 1994.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You're also inaccurate. While maize and wheat have long been domesticated, they certainly began as wild grasses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Sigh.

Well, if "So?" -- why the fuck did you bring it up!

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

For crying out loud, the two of you are arguing semantics, and you both know it.

Yes, cross-breeding is genetic modification. No, that's not what genetically modification means in this instance. You both know that. Knock if the fuck off.

Now, whether introducing genes through means other than cross-breeding is safe, and whether cross-breeding itself proves it's safe (or not), and whether the cat being out into the wild already means nothing can or should be done -- fine, argue away.

No. I'm pointing out that the GMO panic is stupid and not about anything real.

And hybridization with polyploidism is not crossbreeding in the way that term is usually used.

Should gene spliced organisms be tested for safety and efficacy? Yes, it is an emergent and imperfect science and the testing is stringent enough that very few such organisms have entered commercial use.

Should products that contain those products be labeled if found safe enough for the food stream? No. That implies there is something wrong with these crops when they are far more safety tested than traditional crops.

quote:

Therefore, slap a label on them and see what the consumer wants to do. If the consumer runs from the food then the market will abandon the GMOs, and big deal, we will still eat. Labels are far from unreasonable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

A few cites about the possible long term effects of GM plants.

UK anti GMO site
Obviously American GPs know nothing about genetics and are paranoid luddites
Most of the reason for the apparent lack of studies is that Monsanto weren't keen on having the stuff properly tested in the first place...

Yep. Exactly the same as hybridising two cereals to produce wheat, obviously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

So let's see who Mr. Bt is...

B. thuringiensis is closely related to B.cereus, a soil bacterium, and B.anthracis, the cause of anthrax.

When insects ingest toxin crystals, the alkaline pH of their digestive tract denatures the insoluble crystals, making them soluble and thus amenable to being cut with proteases found in the insect gut, which liberate the cry toxin from the crystal.[6] The Cry toxin is then inserted into the insect gut cell membrane, forming a pore. The pore results in cell lysis and eventual death of the insect.

In plain english this means that the toxants in Bt affects the guts of the insects who cant digest their food anymore and dies as a result of it.

In studies it's proven with mice Bt soy affects the thyroid, wich stimulates your metabolism and growth. Metabolism, guts... see the connection?
The reason why it takes longer to show up in human tests is simply because we are bigger. But these toxants have a build up effect.
Now do you still like Bt bacteria gene spliced corn and soy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

For crying out loud, the two of you are arguing semantics, and you both know it.

Yes, cross-breeding is genetic modification. No, that's not what genetically modification means in this instance. You both know that. Knock if the fuck off.

Now, whether introducing genes through means other than cross-breeding is safe, and whether cross-breeding itself proves it's safe (or not), and whether the cat being out into the wild already means nothing can or should be done -- fine, argue away.

No. I'm pointing out that the GMO panic is stupid and not about anything real.

And hybridization with polyploidism is not crossbreeding in the way that term is usually used.

Should gene spliced organisms be tested for safety and efficacy? Yes, it is an emergent and imperfect science and the testing is stringent enough that very few such organisms have entered commercial use.

Should products that contain those products be labeled if found safe enough for the food stream? No. That implies there is something wrong with these crops when they are far more safety tested than traditional crops.

Being opposed to a label is assinine. Do you know beyond a doubt that it is safe? The FDA thought that was the case for so many drugs, from birth control to pain killers, over the years and yet after being on the market awhile they were yanked. I don't think you can ban GMOs that, after reasonable testing, appear safe because you have a fundament disdain for them. If they prove harmful, then yes ban them. But without a minimum of a generation of human consumption of any type of food, you cannot claim they are absolutely safe. Therefore, slap a label on them and see what the consumer wants to do. If the consumer runs from the food then the market will abandon the GMOs, and big deal, we will still eat. Labels are far from unreasonable.

To the point of safety testing. No one needs to safety test an organic watermelon. How many centuries have we been eating watermelon? Sure we have been consuming canola for a long time, but not canola that contains foreign, non-canola related, herbicide resistant genes, which modify the proteins produced within the plant. That's why it is safety tested. But, no matter what, you always run the test on a limited population and will never know the true effects until its use is widespread.

<edited for spelling>

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You're also inaccurate. While maize and wheat have long been domesticated, they certainly began as wild grasses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

Fine Label everything, I don't care, the more info the better

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You're also inaccurate. While maize and wheat have long been domesticated, they certainly began as wild grasses.

Try and find a wild corn then.