Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] Fwd: Re: [SANET-MG] GM contaminated honey

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." <venaurafarm@bellsouth.net>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [permaculture] Fwd: Re: [SANET-MG] GM contaminated honey
  • Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:28:32 -0500

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] GM contaminated honey
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:23:29 -0500
From: Michael Astera <michael.astera@GMAIL.COM>
To: SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU

Thanks for the review of the protocol, Joe. Nothing too surprising there, and I don't think that even proof of allergens or toxicity would make a bit of difference. They are out to ruin life on this planet under the guise of progress and profit. I don't see any other explanation, because those in the know are not stupid; it is deliberate.

Makes it difficult to be even and scientific when one's entire future and that of their descendants and all plants and animals are not just threatened but already damaged deliberately. Some very sick puppies are in charge who should not be allowed to run a kool-aid stand.

Michael Astera
http://soilminerals.com

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 3:02 PM, joe cummins <jcummins@uwo.ca> wrote:

Hello Douglas and Michael,
I looked into the interesting questions and forward the following
discussion. Hope this adds something. cheers,joe

The information on the issues discussed below are extensively reported
on in petitions. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html Petitions
for Nonregulated Status Granted The petitions are from 30 tp 500 or mire
pages in length, I will discuss each issue below.
1.- Study of the introduced DNA and the new proteins or metabolites
that it produces; The transgenes are introduced on plasmids , most of those
are Agrobacterium transformations which frequently led to extraneous
segments of the genes on the plasmids to be introduced at distal sites on
the chromosomes of the crop. The DNA inserted are very well characterized
for the most part. The RNA copied from the inserted genes is well reported
for the most parts as are any proteins produced on the inserted gens
including the antibiotic resistance genes used in selecting the transformed
cells.
2.- Analysis of the chemical composition of the relevant plant
parts, measuring nutrients, anti-nutrients as well as any natural toxins
or known allergens; Generally nutrients are studied to established
'substantial equivalence' by comparing the transgenic crop with an isogenic
parental strain. There are frequent statistical difference in nutrients
like amino acids, carbohydrates or minerals but those are just written off
by USDA as being biologically insignificant. I checked and found that none
of petitions included complete analysis of extraneous gene activity induced
by the original transformation leading to extra protein or metabolic
activity. A recent paper using powerful molecular techniques (transcriptome
,proteome and metabolome levels). comparing Bt and roundup ready maize
kernels showed The environment was shown to play an important effect in
the protein, gene expression and metabolite levels of the maize samples
tested where 4extraneous proteins, 65 genes and 15 metabolites were found
to be differentially expressed. The potential toxicity of the unitended
products has not yet been determined. Future approvals should require more
comprehensive analysis transcriptome,proteome and metabolome levels. The
orevious approvals of GM crops showed that APHIS was rather calier about
approving statistically significant changes in nutrients
3.- Assess the risk of gene transfer from the food to microorganisms
in the human gut;None of the approvals involved living human gut studies as
far as I can gather. Such studies should have been done but APHIS seems not
to worry about stuff that ends up in poop.
4.- Study the possibility that any new components in the food might be
allergens; There have been a few reports on potential allergen in the
transgene products alone. In some instances efforts are made to study
transgene DNA sequences looking for sequences likely to make epitopes
leading to allergy. APHIS has been very lax in ignoring the potential
allergens in the transgene or elicited by the transgene. Since the GM crops
are not labeled in the market the human allergens cannot be picked up
5.- Estimate how much of a normal diet the food will make up; I have not
sen that but it may be in some of the petitions.

6.- Estimate any toxicological or nutritional problems revealed by this
data; I have never sen that in a petition and if positive would prevent
approval of the GM crop?
7.- From Additional animal toxicity tests if there is the possibility
that the food might pose a risk:There have been a few short term animal
feeding studies reported in the petitions but most of these have not
included comprehensive tissue necropsy.

On 2/18/2011 10:02 AM, Douglas Hinds wrote:

Thursday, February 17, 2011, Michael Astera wrote regarding a list
(I posted) cited in wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies

published originally in 2003 in "Trends in Biotechnology" which
identifies 7 main parts of what they claim is a Standard Safety
Test:

1.- Study of the introduced DNA and the new proteins or metabolites
that it produces;

2.- Analysis of the chemical composition of the relevant plant
parts, measuring nutrients, anti-nutrients as well as any
natural toxins or known allergens;

3.- Assess the risk of gene transfer from the food to microorganisms
in the human gut;

4.- Study the possibility that any new components in the food might
be allergens;

5.- Estimate how much of a normal diet the food will make up;

6.- Estimate any toxicological or nutritional problems revealed by
this data;

7.- From Additional animal toxicity tests if there is the
possibility that the food might pose a risk.

However, Michael believes:

To the best of my knowledge, not a single item on the list has yet
been applied to any GM crop, at least not in the USA or Canada. So
even a flawed list would be several times better than nothing.

Actually the list's items HAVE been applied (and this is why Biotech
Industry apologists maintain that Transgenic Crops have been
subjected to more scrutiny that any other food crops, to date).

The problem is, the public has no access to the studies, which are
typically performed by either the corporation soliciting the crops
release or a lab contracted by them. (I suggest you read the complete
Wikipedia article, which focuses in part on the complaints those
critical of the process have made).

Previously on sanet, Professor Cummins has explained that the
studies provided by the Industry are NOT performed on the organisms
that will be released to the environment but rather, on the original
gene to be inserted (although in most cases, a synthetic version of
that gene will actually be used) and separately,

In other words, the studies are nothing more than simulations
designed to provide an appearance of scientific competence and
compliance with the law.

So when you state: "even a flawed list would be several times
better than nothing", I have to disagree. The studies performed are
designed to portray an ILLUSION of compliance and this is exactly
what concerned individuals and groups must demonstrate.

Over the weekend, I hope to go over the list point by point and hope
that Joe will help us do that. (I suspect he's already working on
it).

Douglas





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page