Genetic Engineering does indeed have problems

[Mike Griggs]

In article <3.0.5.32.20000223220825.0080cbf0 at mail.utexas.edu>, 
drdn at mail.utexas.edu wrote:

>At 09:46  22/02/00 +0000, you wrote:
>>Chris J. Durden wrote:
>>
>>> GM/GE products are different from traditionally selected foods because
>>> they are patentable life forms!
>>
>>Chris, that seems to be an economic designation that does not tell us
>whether or not 
>>the newest GE/GM crops now in production would be more likely to fail 
>>special food safety tests as compared to traditionally selected foods.
>- - - - 
>  You are correct. However we have the right to be informed of the
>different economic designation! I am suspicious that we are denied that 
>right.
>- - - -
>>
>>Similarly, even though some GMO food crops now on the market like Bt corn
>>have been federally registered as pesticides with the EPA, that scary
>>designation does not tell us whether or not Bt corn
>>would be more likely to fail special food safety tests
>>as compared to traditionally selected hybrid corn.
>- - - -
>  That is not the question. I do not wish to eat BT corn, nor do a lot of
>other people. I want full disclosure on the packaging! I do not want to 
>eat
>it by accident. I do not eat MSG, BHT, BHA either, knowingly, which means 
>I
>read minute labelling and eat far less of these additives than most
>consumers. I think I feel healthier because of this. This is my right to
>make these choices.
>- - - -
>>
>>> I am willing to take my chances with non patented food but I would like
>>> some safety tests done first on food that is different enough to be
>>> patentable.
>>
>>When you say "different enough" this doesn't explain what's biologically
>>different about the GMO food crops now in production that would make them
>>inherently more likely to fail special food safety tests as compared to
>>traditionally selected food crops.
>- - - -
>  They are different enough to have been afforded legal protection! It is
>up to those who developed them to explain the biological differences and
>convince us they are worth eating. Have food safety tests been done?
>- - - -
>>
>>The reason this distinction is important is that we must consider just 
>>what
>>special "food safety tests" might be conducted. If there is no inherent
>>difference between GMO foods and traditionally selected ones, alot 
>>of traditionally selected food crops that we have safely eaten for years 
>>might fail those special safety tests with the same frequency as the GMO
>>foods now in production if they were tested side by side. 
>- - - -
> Fine, let them fail. We do not need to knowingly eat cycad seeds, or
>aflatoxin tainted peanuts or corn grown or stored at high temperature, or
>the wrong kind of chich peas or lentils, or rare lamb brains (they are
>delicious). Tests provide us with information on which to make our
>decisions, as smokers and non-smokers do. Concealing the nature of new
>foods helps no-one in the long run!
>
>Let's just label products and get back to talking LEPS!
>
>......Chris Durden
>
>>
>>Paul Cherubini
>>
>>
>

I follow this debate with great interest.  20 years ago I took a 
toxicology class where each class period we started by talking about the 
toxic secondary plant compounds as they occur in nature.  Often the 
toxic compounds were from a food plant.

One example I remember somewhat was  psoralin the chemical in potato 
that is from the green tissues.  Tubors have less but the chemical is 
still present and very senitive people sometimes become sick from this 
photo active chemical.

Now I stroll through a super grocery store and I look at the myriad of 
exotic fruits (GMO or not)and vegitables available to the consumers on a 
daily basis, each with a list of species specific secondary plant 
compounds all avaialable for general consumption and I wonder is the 
normal diet today overflowing with minute toxins?  A Our life spans are 
increasing the incidence of chemical induced deaths have not really 
changed.  Is our cytochrome P450 detoxification system dealing with 
these on an efficient basis?  I don't know the answer but I don't see 
the products being removed from the shelves.

The EPA (here in the US) has used the analogy that small traces of 
insecticides from sources fill ones cup.  The cup being the acceptable 
limit.   To reduce the constituent (doses) trace amounts they are 
removing some of the more toxic insecticides thereby decreasing the size 
of the yearly intake.

Now Bt may be classified as an insecticide but the know mamalian 
toxicity of this is far less than that of psoralin.  I just wonder how 
much of the debate is feuled by "feeling" and how much by criticle 
thinking backed up with data.

I vote for the need for more data gathering as this new tool shows 
unlimited usefulness but unlimited potential for destruction if the only 
criteria for evaluation is $$.

just my humble two cents!

Mike

As the quote says---------------------
The gene pool could use a little chlorine ??????????