toldailytopic: You are what you eat. How do you feel about genetically modified organ

[gcthomas]

Gurucam: you are entirely wrong on MSG on every level.

MSG is a flavour enhancer, AND IS NOT A PRESERVATIVE, so your main problem with it is false. It is a salt made from glutamate and sodium, so when it dissolves in prepared food it does not stay as MSG, but becomes sodium and glutamate separately.

The glutamate you absorb from MSG is IDENTICAL chemically to natural glutamates, so it is a proper food nutrient in a diet.

There are no known side effects of glutamate from MSG. Your worries are therefore, thankfully, groundless.

 

[Doormat]

I recall reading about that particular study and it's instructive to read the letter to the editor to which your quote is replying.

It would be more instructive to read the reply to the criticisms from the study authors that I posted previously. Here it is again:

Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide

Also the original abstract (the paper the letter addresses) appears to be poorly written from first look,

Perhaps you should have several looks until you are convinced.

plus the study used only ten animals per group when at least fifty is typical.

They were conducting the experiment according to the standards.

Necessity to have sensitive strains, recommended by the US National Toxicology Program (King-Herbert et al. 2010). Rats and mice have been preferred experimental models because of their susceptibility to tumor induction (OECD guidelines) ...

OECD 408 (90-day toxicity study) 10 animals per group OECD 452 (Chronic toxicity study) 20 animals per group but at least 10 animals per group are studied for hematological and clinical biochemical function.

Both round up and round-up ready crops have been already extensively tested.

Prove your claim.

Some critics have emphasized that no adverse effects have been reported on either farm animals or in the human population of the USA who have consumed an unknown mixture GMO crop derived food. Such claims are scientifically unsound for the following reasons. First, it is important to note that there have been neither epidemiological studies of the human population nor monitoring of farm animals in an attempt to correlate any ill-health observed with the consumption of a given GM crop. Second, it should be recalled that farm animals are not reared to live for the entire duration of their natural lifespan, and thus usually do not live long enough to develop long-term chronic diseases, which contrasts with the rats in our life-long experiment. If any studies in lactating cows are conducted, biological analyses performed are far less complete than those done in regulatory tests using rodents including in our study. Third, as there is no labeling of GMO food and feed in the USA, the amount consumed is unknown, and no “control group” exists. Thus, without a clear traceability or labeling, no epidemiological survey can be performed.

.....

We recall that in the regulatory assessment of GMOs, chemicals and medicines, tests are conducted by the applying companies themselves, often in their own laboratories. As a result, conflicts of interest exist in these cases. These are even not claimed by authors from the company defending the safety of the tested products (Hammond et al., 2012). Our study does not aim to request commercialization of a new product. In contrast, we wanted to estimate the health risk of these products.

I wonder why anyone would even be interested in round-up ready maize as weed control is usually achieved by canopy cover relatively rapidly.

You will have to ask the developers of Roundup ready corn. Are you wanting to imply that GMO is unnecessary?

 

[Doormat]

There are no known side effects of glutamate from MSG. Your worries are therefore, thankfully, groundless.

Excitotoxicity is the pathological process by which nerve cells are damaged and killed by excessive stimulation by neurotransmitters such as glutamate and similar substances.

 

[gcthomas]

Doormat, that is not a side effect of dietary glutamates, but is the result of injury and caused by the body's own supply of glutamates.

As I wrote, glutamates are a essential nutrient. The body uses them as nuerotransmitters. Your link reinforces this, and lays no blame on glutamates from MSG.

Please read through your own linked Wiki article - it makes this quite clear.

 

[Doormat]

Doormat, that is not a side effect of dietary glutamates, but is the result of injury and caused by the body's own supply of glutamates.

You say.

If not for the blood brain barrier, glutamate would cause destruction to certain brain cells in concentrations normally found in the diet. However, there are certain limitations to that protection.

A recent study suggests that dietary glutamate may be contributing to fibromyalgia symptoms in some patients.

As I wrote, glutamates are a essential nutrient.

Glutamate is a non-essential amino acid.

The body uses them as nuerotransmitters.

Yes, in miniscule quantities.

 

[Doormat]

I'll take a novel, well tested protein over pesticide residue any day.

Are you wanting to imply that spraying pesticides on crops renders the produce unsafe for your consumption? :think:

 

[gcthomas]

You say.

If not for the blood brain barrier, glutamate would cause destruction to certain brain cells in concentrations normally found in the diet. However, there are certain limitations to that protection.

A recent study suggests that dietary glutamate may be contributing to fibromyalgia symptoms in some patients.

Glutamate is a non-essential amino acid.

Yes, in miniscule quantities.

So you've moved from brain nerve cell damage, now you've got a 'might aggravate irritable bowel syndrome, but more research is needed' (to paraphrase your link).

 

[Doormat]

So you've moved from brain nerve cell damage, now you've got a 'might aggravate irritable bowel syndrome, but more research is needed' (to paraphrase your link).

My first paragraph was regarding the central nervous system, my second the enteric nervous system. The original point was that "nerve cells are damaged and killed by excessive stimulation by neurotransmitters such as glutamate." It is known that plasma glutamate levels increase with consumption of MSG. Unlike you, I'm not convinced that an increase in a nuerotransmitter in the blood has no effect on the body.

You have made false statements, claiming there are no known side effects of glutamate from MSG and that glutamate is an essential nutrient. I have shown you one example that there are known side effects to MSG consumption, to the extent that more research is needed. I have also shown you that glutamate is not a an essential nutrient and that it is a non-essential amino acid.

 

[Gurucam]

Gurucam: you are entirely wrong on MSG on every level.

MSG is a flavour enhancer, AND IS NOT A PRESERVATIVE,

Seems that they are both.

There are no known side effects of glutamate from MSG. Your worries are therefore, thankfully, groundless.

Yes there are.

To avoid headache (possible death of brain cells) and stomach discomfort after eating restaurant Chinese food, I do not put msg in my home cooked Chinese food and eat only that Chinese food. It works.

Many times I was given to observe sets of the same food after they sat in the summer air for 8 or so hours. Always the set which had msg did not spoil. Guess what? The other always spoil.

I simply postulated that if that was the circumstances of those food outside my stomach, then that must be same circumstance of these food within my stomach. Food that is inhibited from spoiling cannot be digested.

Get real my friend.

"Do not believe every thing that you read in books" (sound like letters killeth) . . . so said Daniel Shectman after his Nobel prize winning Chemistry discovery totally dismissed past accepted scientific wisdom about crystals. But not before being persecuted, side lined, dismissed and ridiculed, by his equally prestigious peers, for coming forth with this discovery earlier.

Click here for more on Daniel Shectman after his Nobel prize winning Chemistry discovery and his advise to others seeking to be scientific:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/05/nobel-prize-chemistry-work-quasicrystals

Daniel Shectman is an Israelite. He must know, first hand, that 'the letter killeth where as the Spirit giveth life'. Now he might be a Christian.​

 

[moparguy]

I think it's hilarious that people are upset about this stuff.

Hello, what do you think we've been doing with animals and plants for MILLENIA? ... Selecting for certain "genetic" traits to create things that *didn't exist in nature.*

 

[Gurucam]

I think it's hilarious that people are upset about this stuff.

Hello, what do you think we've been doing with animals and plants for MILLENIA? ... Selecting for certain "genetic" traits to create things that *didn't exist in nature.*

Not only man.

The natural order of this is based on evolution of every living thing to meet the ever changing demands of time.

In the past man's invasive intervention into this process of evolution was small and more tolerable.

Recently mankind has taken a quantum leap into interfering with the process of evolution.

Fact is those modern scientist simply do not know enough to be making these interventions.

They are like nuclear scientists who while able to produce greater volumes of energy, with less effort are simultaneously creating crazy forces called nuclear waste which can easily be very destructive to all life on the planet.

And these nuclear scientist do not know how to deal with, contain, dispose of or render harmless, this nuclear waste. This nuclear waste is essentially evil or frustrated spirits. These are just waiting to get out from their inadequate containment and attack every living thing at the level of their spirits.

You should be aware that forces are spirits.

Nuclear waste are frustrated spirit which has gone quite mad.

The natural tendency of the nucleus force of any element is to keep the nucleus together. The job of the nuclear scientist is to frustrate this natural tendency of the nucleus force, through fission.

Then anger, express as heat energy, is released as an expression of displeasure and frustration within the nuclear force or spirit. And the nuclear force or spirit goes crazy or destabilized. Its peaceful, natural and harmonious existence is frustrated by these modern nuclear scientists who do not have the slightest clue of what they have actually done.

Now they fight to contain this crazy force which is really an evil spirit which they created.

Interventions at the level of forces or spirit requires operatives to have a gift of the Spirit which is related to that area of endeavor. Gift of the Spirit comes only to right brain (intuitive) operatives. Our modern scientist (who includes nuclear scientists) are still left brain operatives. They are totally out of their element in this new science reality which is rooted in spirits or forces and which requires right brain operatives.

DNA is at the final frontier of physical make up of all living things. Our dna is hardly differentiable from our own individual spirits be it humans animals or plants. Our dna (and that of all animals and plants) is a direct expression of our own individual inherent spirit or force. Our inherent spirits sustains our dna in a natural configuration with our individual spirits.

Therefore when a genetic engineer mess with the dna of any living thing, he is actually unwittingly messing with the essential and natural spirits (or forces) of those living things. Genetic scientists are really very foolish. Their beliefs and actions are actually blasphemy of the Spirit by 'the dead'. A left brain operative is called 'the dead', in Jesus statement 'let the dead bury their dead'. This is exactly what genetic engineers are doing, they are burying their own kind.

Hear a neuroanatammist on the right and left brain click on this:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92035​

 

[Doormat]

I think it's hilarious that people are upset about this stuff.

Hello, what do you think we've been doing with animals and plants for MILLENIA? ... Selecting for certain "genetic" traits to create things that *didn't exist in nature.*

GM is completely different than natural breeding.

 

[Lon]

I'm Okay with it as long as we each harvest our own vegetables growing out of our ears...

...well maybe not, mark me down as "undecided."

Thanks

 

[gcthomas]

GM is completely different than natural breeding.

Almost completely the same. Both methods introduce novel genes, novel proteins and novel foods that have never been part of our diet.

Some GM crops are herbicide resistant. Some crossbreed crops are herbicide resistant. Spot the difference?

What is the functional difference between the two methods of making the same thing?

 

[Gurucam]

Moparguy,

You will not come to know Truth (i.e. the way things realty are) by operating through your left side brain. You have to operate through your right side brain in order to know Truth. Truth can only be intuited, it cannot be intellectualized.

What Jill Bolt Taylor recognized through her rights side brain was Truth (i.e. the way things really are). What we discern though our physical senses and our left side brain are always delusions. This is never what things really are. ​

 

[BigBoof1959]

When I was an undergraduate, in the 60s, they were discussing the functions of non-coding DNA ("junk DNA" is kind of a joking term for biologists).

So over half a century since they learned that "junk DNA" had some functions.

They knew it had functions, but didn't know what they were, and still felt comfortable messing around with the parts they thought they understood?

It's not like X-Men. No magic. Same stuff as in nature.

You know darn well genetic manipulation is taking place in ways that are impossible for natural breeding to produce. Genes from species totally incapable of interbreeding naturally are being inserted into one another.

Even that happens in nature. It's called "lateral gene transfer" and although it's not common, it sometimes it becomes a factor in evolution.

Lateral gene transfer in nature would have to take place between individuals that shared enough in common to interbreed successfully. Artificially inserting foreign dna sequences (genes) into a creature that normally would not have an opportunity of receiving this gene may seem to you to be something that is not that dangerous. But what happens when two (or likely more than two) animals of the same species, each having genes artificially inserted into their genomes from two different, naturally incompatible other species escape from a lab or research farm and interbreed with each other? Changes can compound rather quickly for quite some time.

These are always concerns, but that's the case with organisms modified by traditional methods as well. The one case that concerns me is the possibility of lateral gene tranfer of the BT inclusion crystal gene from corn to milkweed. The material, found in Bacillus thurengensis, is toxic to moths and butterflies. It provides great protection against some common insect pests on corn, but if it should get established in milkweed, it would devastate the Monarch butterfly population.

This points out one of the big problems with man using knowledge in a way that seems good but produces bad fruit. The scientists working on manipulating plant genomes to include a built in pesticide factory are playing with dynamite. Any naturally occurring examples of plants producing certain compounds with pesticidal properties would have done so over long periods of time and the results of potential interbreeding problems or lateral transfer would be known. Genetic manipulators in the lab are going ahead at such a fast pace, and with such a short-sighted focus, that the results of their work may achieve the goal they set for it, but the side effects are unknown. Who knows, maybe we should just let them manipulate the monarch butterfly's genome so it can withstand the onslaught of their latest achievement. From there they can go on to fixing the next problem they have created. Pretty soon, no one will know what to call any of their concoctions. We are still learning things we don't know about the species that have been around for millenia, and now we will be able to keep track of new additions being added every year or month? And foresee the possible negative effects that could arise in time to control them?

 

[Alate_One]

Lateral gene transfer in nature would have to take place between individuals that shared enough in common to interbreed successfully.

WRONG. Horizontal or Lateral gene transfer is by definition transfer between organisms that cannot interbreed. Examples being Parasitic plants picking up genes from their host plant and Aphids picking up genes from fungi.

Artificially inserting foreign dna sequences (genes) into a creature that normally would not have an opportunity of receiving this gene may seem to you to be something that is not that dangerous. But what happens when two (or likely more than two) animals of the same species, each having genes artificially inserted into their genomes from two different, naturally incompatible other species escape from a lab or research farm and interbreed with each other?

You realize this can happen through traditional breeding? And even if the genes escape, is that necessarily bad if there is no selective advantage for those genes in nature?

 

[Alate_One]

It would be more instructive to read the reply to the criticisms from the study authors that I posted previously. Here it is again:

Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide

And their response mostly consists of variations on "nuh-uh", I can't say I'm impressed.

Perhaps you should have several looks until you are convinced.

Why should I be convinced by bad science? Perhaps you should be willing to be convinced by the weight of evidence rather than cherry picking a paper that supports your conclusion?

Prove your claim.

The EPA considers it low toxicity because of considerable animal testing.

Here is a review of numerous studies showing no risk to human health from glyphosate.

Here's a review from the EU, saying the same thing.

Monsanto is not a good actor in these matters, but Round Up is actually about as good as a chemical pesticide can get.

You will have to ask the developers of Roundup ready corn. Are you wanting to imply that GMO is unnecessary?

Some GMOs are more useful than others. But in terms of human health, round up ready GM crops are among the lowest risk of any GMOs and round up is about as low risk of a pesticide as you can get.

I would be far more concerned about residues from pesticides on non-GM apples and strawberries as well as mercury and PCBs in fish than round up and round up ready crops. The level of risk just isn't there.

 

[Delmar]

If you don't like modern hybrids, do a search on "heirloom plants."

Lots of old varieties still available.

and becoming increasingly popular.

 

[moparguy]

GM is completely different than natural breeding.

How can you call something "natural breeding" when said form of breeding would *not happen without human intervention?*

GMO, bad ... millenia of eugenics programs producing the *exact same sort of results, EEEEVILLLLLLL!

I swear, this is hilarious.