Skip to main content

View Diary: GMO Foods Are Currently Not Safe. Not Even Close. Period. (65 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  When you equate viral genes with 'highly dangerous (13+ / 0-)

    viral particles' it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

    •  You are correct that "fragments" would have (0+ / 0-)

      been a better choice than "particles." Thank you for pointing that out. The fact that similar fragments have been shown to be active on their own concerns me. Not you?

      "I guess you think you can psych me out by saying really random stuff." -Sora, Hollow Bastion, KH2

      by SphericalXS on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 01:05:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  there are reasons to be concerned about GMO safety (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JerryNA, kalmoth, misslegalbeagle

        but the human genome itself contains much material that originated with viruses: ERVs = endogenous retro viruses.  I encourage you to research  more deeply.  

        I would like to see a thorough discussion of this paper:

        They include the controversial NK603 maize recently reported as causing tumors in rats (Seralini et al. 2012).
        •  The Seralini study is useless. (8+ / 0-)

          See
          http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/...
          Given that critique of this Seralini paper was widespread and published almost 9 months ago, I seriously question whether the diarist intended to present facts or just what supported the most extreme case against GM foods. (In fact, several papers by Seralini have come under severe criticism from other scientists. It's hard to miss even in a simple Google search.)

          Since the discredited Seralini paper is the only proof the diarist offers for any danger from GM foods, the rest of the diary is just fear-mongering.  The diary has no science behind it, mainly misinterpretation of scientific terms.  For example, people are allergic to individual proteins found in specific organisms.  People are not allergic to "soy", they are allergic to one or a very few proteins e.g. SAM22 found in soybeans.  Therefore, one carefully selected gene (out of thousands) from a soy plant transferred to another plant will not automatically make you allergic to that GM plant's seed.

          Of course genes are active in other species.  That's the whole point of putting a new gene into a GM plant.  If it was inactive, then the new crop would be effectively the same as the old one, just tagged with a short DNA sequence (equivalent to marking it with a label), but pretty useless if you want to confer a new trait.

          There are many reasons to criticize the large corporations selling GMO seeds and crop chemicals (herbicides and fertilizers).  Big agribusinesses are contributing to widespread pollution due to over-fertilization and over-use of pesticides, monoculture is weakening resistance to pests, billion dollar businesses profiting off government welfare (farm bill) and they have destroyed family farming.  GM plants and most chemicals in general should be proven to be safe via independent testing, not merely shown to not cause immediate harm in company-designed and -sponsored studies.  That does not make a GM plant automatically Frankensteins's monster and a dire threat to humanity or life as we know it.

          I can go on, but there is no point.  This diary is not factual.  It is an extremist and unscientific viewpoint based upon hyperbole and fear, and should not be taken seriously.

          •  Thank you. I believe you have adequately refuted (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            serendipityisabitch, kalmoth

            my claim that GMO food products are not currently safe. I didn't intentionally mislead, but took the Serelini study at face value based on the story that I linked to (and several others).

            Based on this, I will take the diary down after allowing a bit more discussion.

            I still think this is an area that needs great scrutiny in the years to come, and I'm not sure we are currently regulatorily equipped to handle it.

            "I guess you think you can psych me out by saying really random stuff." -Sora, Hollow Bastion, KH2

            by SphericalXS on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 03:03:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Not at all. (5+ / 0-)

        A fragment is not a virus, and a plant virus is not a human pathogen.

      •  Well, it would be interesting to see what that (4+ / 0-)

        1993 paper actually showed. They couldn't be possibly testing the same gene fragments since they didn't know back then what those fragments would be. And what does 'active' mean? Did it actually have any effects on the phenotype?

        Gene fragments are not even proteins. They are usually not transcribed or translated so I'm not sure what their activity would be. It certainly has nothing to do with 'dangerous viral particles' that necessitate the ban on GMO research.

        •  links in this "diary"... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          T100R, serendipityisabitch

          have nothing whatsoever to do with the claims the diarist makes.

        •  I'm not calling for a ban on GMO research. nt (0+ / 0-)

          "I guess you think you can psych me out by saying really random stuff." -Sora, Hollow Bastion, KH2

          by SphericalXS on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 02:24:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  well... how about one example.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            T100R

            just one - of a plant virus which is also a human pathogen? Pretty please with a cherry on top?

            •  You know, all I'm saying is that the volcano is (0+ / 0-)

              smoking and you insist that since it hasn't exploded yet, that it won't.

              Our current technology does not require that introduced viral fragments only include those from plants.

              But, even if it did, it's not totally out of the realm of possibility that a plant might be mutated sufficiently through introduction of RNA components to transfer to animals.

              But, your position seems to be to let these guys continue to play with this stuff that they don't truly understand yet in any comprehensive manner, and feed it to the world with nobody watching what they're doing.

              "I guess you think you can psych me out by saying really random stuff." -Sora, Hollow Bastion, KH2

              by SphericalXS on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 02:40:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Ok, 'we need to also heavily regulate research in (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kalmoth, T100R

            this area' is not quite the ban. But it can come pretty close depending on how the regulation is done.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site