permaculture

["Lawrence F. London, Jr." <venaurafarm@bellsouth.net>]

-------- 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