0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
GM corn is thought to have caused a high mortality rate among Monarch Butterfly caterpillars. The Caterpillar does not feed on the corn, but on milkweed growing around and between the plants. Pollen from the corn falling on the Milkweed is suspected of being the culprit in this high mortality rate.
A similar instance to this, as yet unknown, could be the reason for Colony Collapse Disorder in Honey Bees, or might have a detrimental effect on other beneficial insects.We have made mistakes before with pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. DDT is one such mistake. These mistakes can at least be corrected by the withdrawal of the offending substance. Should we find we have made a mistake with a GM crop, perhaps in 10 or 20 years time, it may not be possible to correct the mistake in time to undo the damage.
In any case I am no fan of the thuggish tactics of Monsanto in trying to monopolize the field. They are the people who brought us the Bophal disaster if I remember correctly.
Selecting for natural traits that enhance resistance from disease, or a better yield, from those genes that are naturally there, is, IMHO, a lot better than adding a gene from a bacterium that somewhere codes for a resistance, but also WHY else, in a position that did not kill the host, and at least did allow it to reproduce the desired characteristic somewhat.
GM corn is thought to have caused a high mortality rate among Monarch Butterfly caterpillars. The Caterpillar does not feed on the corn, but on milkweed growing around and between the plants. Pollen from the corn falling on the Milkweed is suspected of being the culprit in this high mortality rate.A similar instance to this, as yet unknown, could be the reason for Colony Collapse Disorder in Honey Bees, or might have a detrimental effect on other beneficial insects.We have made mistakes before with pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. DDT is one such mistake. These mistakes can at least be corrected by the withdrawal of the offending substance. Should we find we have made a mistake with a GM crop, perhaps in 10 or 20 years time, it may not be possible to correct the mistake in time to undo the damage.I am not exactly opposed to GM, but I do think we need to exercise extreme caution when altering the genetics of crops at this level. It may take many generations before a problem becomes evident.
Key genetic catalyst for human diversityThe Jeffreys team has now defined the engine for change in genetic hotspots, one of the key drivers of human evolution and diversity, accounting for changes that occur between different generations of people.
(03/09/2010) Extinctions are currently outpacing the capacity for new species to evolve, according to Simon Stuart, chair of the Species Survival Commission for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).] Experts say the Earth has entered a mass extinction period due to human activities, such as deforestation and habitat destruction. The extinction rate has risen to approximately 100 to 1000 times higher than the background rate. In fact, many species vanish before they are even named and described by scientists, let alone tested for medicinal qualities.
"The toxin is actually coming from the monoculture trees," Scammell said on Australian news show, Today. Bleaney, marine biologist Marcus Scammell, and a group of oyster farmers paid out of their own pockets to have the water in question tested for toxins in the St. Helen's area of Tasmania.
Field trials of genetically modified (GM) canola took place at 57 sites in Tasmania in the late 1990s and in 2000. The trials were conducted by Monsanto Australia and Aventis (now Bayer CropScience) under contractual arrangements with land owners. In 2001 the Tasmanian Government decided to pursue a GMO-free path for commercial agriculture. This policy decision, combined with the persistence of GM canola seed in soil at the former trial sites, created a management challenge.
A new generation of E. nitens genetic material has been captured and assembled into a new seed orchard established at Castra in north-west Tasmania. This new orchard signifies the continuing advancement of the E. nitens genetic improvement, and highlights the value of this research program to increasing the value and productivity of Forestry Tasmania plantations.
Our understanding of the contamination potential from future plantings of GE trees is largely based onknown contamination incidents from GE food crops and experimental plantings of engineered grasses.4While there has not yet been a fully comprehensive study of crop contamination from GE varieties,several well-documented incidents have alerted the world to the seriousness of this problem.
I'm sure this is all very pertinent, but what has it to do with Medicine? There is a plant forum here on the website where I am sure the discussion could receive more informed input.
GM crops specially engineered to produce drugs are to be grown commercially for the first time, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.GM crops specially engineered to produce drugs are to be grown commercially for the first time, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.An American biotech company plans to start growing medicines to treat diarrhoea in modified rice this spring. Its proposals were examined last week by regulatory authorities in California, but they have no power to stop the planting.The rice will usher in a second generation of GM crops, which are bound to polarise opinion even more than those that have already caused controversy around the world. Unlike current crops they could offer real benefits to millions of people - but they also pose far greater health risks.
The point to take home is that science and technology continue on to whatever place they are going. As to you lot, "The dogs bark and the caravan passes on."
GM medicine 'risks the lives of diabetics'http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/may/07/antonybarnett.theobserver
All of this discussion won't change that and all of this "learned discourse" only amounts to an intellectual sploogie race designed to trot out somebody's side of a complex issue.
That's why this topic was formulated with "have you stopped beating your wife yet" syntax away from the botany section where it might meet expert commentary.
Meanwhile it confuses people and hinders genetic research that could be a real help to suffering humanity. It's a real shame.
Quote GM medicine 'risks the lives of diabetics'http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/may/07/antonybarnett.theobserver GM medicine also saved the lives of everyone who has been diabetic.
First Evidence of Genetically Modified Plants in the Wild, Scientists ReportScienceDaily (Aug. 6, 2010) — Scientists currently performing field research in North Dakota have discovered the first evidence of established populations of genetically modified plants in the wild.
It is a shame Science hasn't found a way for us not to get diabetes! Medicine is driven by $$$$$$$
is all it takes.
Actually science (Medical Anthropology) has shown how to not get Diabetes II.
A study this week found that women on diets well-matched to their genes, as defined by the test, lost roughly five times more weight than those on mismatched diets.
Knowing one's genetic code will allow a person to make adequate lifestyle and environmental changes at an early age so as to avoid or lessen the severity of a genetic disease. Likewise, advance knowledge of a particular disease susceptibility will allow careful monitoring, and treatments can be introduced at the most appropriate stage to maximize their therapy.
"Nutrigenomics involves tailoring diets to someone's genetic makeup," said Koushik Adhikari, K-State assistant professor of sensory analysis. "I speculate that in five to 10 years, you would go to a genetic counselor or a physician who could help you understand your genetic makeup, and then a nutritional professional could customize your diet accordingly."
My second post was not intented, obviously, to inform you. I would have thought you could have worked that out for yourself... but the discussion of diabetes arises because someone raised the issue of the genetically modified bacteria used to produce insulin, and echochartreuse' post appeared to imply that (s)he considered insulin to be an unnecessary and harmful mode of treatment, and so it seemed to me relevant to make the explicit distinction between diabetes I and II to explain the importance of insulin (derived from GMOs) to treat the former.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FSAopenmeeting.php Similarly, I was not surprised by the research results released earlier this year by the Food Standards Agency , indicating that transgenic DNA from GM soya flour, eaten in a single hamburger and milk shake meal, was found transferred to the bacteria in the gut contents from the colostomy bags of human volunteers.What I found unacceptable was the way the Agency dismissed the findings and downplayed the risks. The comments, "it is extremely unlikely that genes from genetically modified (GM) food can end up in bacteria in the gut of people who eat them", and "the findings had been assessed by several Government experts who had ruled that humans were not at risk", are seriously misleading.
ScienceDaily (Aug. 26, 2010) — An antibacterial enzyme found in human tears and other body fluids could be applied to certain foods for protection against intentional contamination with anthrax, scientists reported in Boston, Massachusetts on August 26 at the 240th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS).
What, specifically, is the danger of GMF? Thanks for comments. Thanks for comments. Joe L. Ogan
EATING genetically modified (GM) food could give you cancer. That is the stark warning today from one of Scotland's leading experts in tissue diseases.Dr Stanley Ewen, a consultant histopathologist at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, says that a cauliflower [mosaic] virus used in GM foods could increase the risk of stomach and colon cancers.
“There is not one commercial GM crop with increased yield, drought-tolerance, salt-tolerance, enhanced nutrition, a nitrogen-fixing grain or other beneficial trait promised by GM companies for over 25 years. Yet GM crops also hinder the development of real solutions to hunger and climate change by restricting funding and farmer access to seeds and knowledge.“We need new, smarter GM-free farming systems that feed people without wrecking the planet,” Mr Phelps concludes..............“GM is not a global industry. Just six countries dominate GM cropping, with the USA, Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada and China growing 95% of all GM crops. Though 20 other countries, including Australia, grow some GM they are just dabbling.“The Cartagena Biosafety Protocol will be completed this year, giving countries more grounds for saying ‘no’ to GM crops. 156 countries are now members of the treaty but Australia is not among them.”
Dr Chopra said the worst food safety offenders were Canada and the United States, but warns Australia and New Zealand are "not far behind".He said those pushing GM crops were "scientists posing as environmentalists".He said the greatest issue facing the developed and developing worlds were climate change and carbon emissions, while little attention was being paid to food safety and the security of the food supply.
And of course, the shoe can be on the other foot: in North America, biotech companies regularly take legal action against farmers. The most famous case involved Saskatchewan farmer, Percy Schmeizer, who was taken all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court by Monsanto, when GM canola was found in his fields.
Back in 1992, the FDA authority responsible for the decision of whether or not to label GM foods turned out to be a former attorney for none other than Monsanto. His name is Michael Taylor.He went from being Monsanto’s attorney to serving as their vice president, and after that he became a policy maker at the FDA.At this point in time, Taylor serves as the US food safety czar!