Genetic Engineering does indeed have problems

Stelenes at Stelenes at
Tue Feb 22 00:26:37 EST 2000

In a message dated 2/21/00 8:43:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
rcjohnsen at writes:

> Bruce Ames Salmonella bacteria test for mutations might be an appropriate 
test for such treated foods.

To truly begin to understand what possibilities are out there to test, try 
the Academic Press book "Nutritional Oncology." 1999.  Unfortunately 
nutritional science has not yet completely understood cancer mechanisms 
relating to diet let alone developed a Cliff notes versions.  The litmus test 
you mention typically proves nothing.  To apply any scientific understanding 
to the issue, one must first understand first what biomarkers are available 
to study cancer mechanisms and then how they apply to your hypothesis, which 
usually needs to be quite specific.

Regarding "Bruce Ames' test," I think Ames himself will be quick to point out 
(and has frequently) that there is far too much hullabaloo about his test, 
and something to the effect that misinformed have interpreted the main point 
about his test when making statements quite close to yours:  The protective 
effects of eating more fruits and vegetables far outweigh positive Ames Test 
results, whether caused by pesticides and many natural plant chemicals (or 
possibly genetically altered plants using modern bioengineering laboratory 
techniques rather than traditional breeding, though this requires asking 
him), and further the test is not in vivo (hence, if you want to turn your 
fears into systematic understandings you need to start with something like 
the above reference).

Hope this helps.  Sorry if it is off topic somewhat, though I would like to 
know if anyone else has noticed lots of Incisalia henrici's in Austin, TX 
Doug Dawn.
Woodland, CA
Monterrey, Mexico

More information about the Leps-l mailing list