Order of Kilopi
I've never heard that.Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen
Is there a place I can go to see any kind of values to indicate how poisonous?
I'm sure it's not enough to keep me from eating green beans out of my garden, but the level would be interesting to know.
Order of Kilopi
Phytohaemagglutinin from the FDA's Bad Bug Book.
Red kidney beans, which has the highest concentration, can trigger symptoms from just 4-5 raw beans.
And it's by boiling at 100C for 10 minutes they're made safe, just heating to 80C without boiling, as in slow cooking, can actually increase the toxicity up to five-fold.
__________________________________________________
Reductionist and proud of it.
Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain
Order of Kilopi
Henrik. That's interesting. In the book, "Trust Us we're Experts", they recount how lectins have been added to the potato genome so that they no longer have to spray potato fields with pesticides to control for Colorado Potato Beetle, they're too poisonous...(Monsanto, I believe). Your supermarket potatoes, McDonald's French Fries, chips, etc are almost all lectin laced, derived from poisonous Galanthus (snowdrops). HMMM. pete
SEE:http://www.prwatch.org/books/experts.html
Last edited by trinitree88; 2011-Mar-16 at 06:20 PM. Reason: link
Order of Kilopi
Aren't potatoes toxic anyway? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato#Toxicity)
Established Member
Nope, bad scare tactics and misinformation.Henrik. That's interesting. In the book, "Trust Us we're Experts", they recount how lectins have been added to the potato genome so that they no longer have to spray potato fields with pesticides to control for Colorado Potato Beetle, they're too poisonous...(Monsanto, I believe). Your supermarket potatoes, McDonald's French Fries, chips, etc are almost all lectin laced, derived from poisonous Galanthus (snowdrops). HMMM. pete
SEE:http://www.prwatch.org/books/experts.html
Although some lectins have been tested in potatoes (to control aphids not CPB), they have not been approved for commercial use nor is anyone trying to have them so approved. All such transgenic products have to go through rigorous testing to insure safety before they can be released for commercial uses.
Despite all the fear, there is simply no valid evidence that any currently approved products have any risks beyond what is already present in the conventional crops (our food crops "naturally" contain a variety of anti-nutritional compounds -like the PHA of beans).
Order of Kilopi
One of the things that concerns me, after aquiring a severe allergy to pretty much the entire order Cnideria, is I see transgentic fish and plants with the jellyfish genome added.
Anybody have any comforting words about that?
Established Member
Unless you are allergic to the bioluminescent proteins then you are probably safe. That is the main reason you see jellyfish genes being exported. And they are not really common in foodstuffs - who'd want glowing fish fingers?
Order of Kilopi
You don't have any kids, do you?
Order of Kilopi
Okay, far answer, but can you tell me what protiens most of the order has in common that noone else has?
'Cause I've had full blown anaphylaxis from this. Anaphylaxis is something like being on fire. If it happens once, you really, really work to not let that happen again. Since I've been on fire three times, that shows you how good I am at avoiding things bad for me.
(I prefer to be on fire BTW)
Established Member
Afraid not - I don't know a huge amount about them. About as much as I know is that jellyfish are fast enough growing that almost all commercially useful proteins are easier to get from the sea. It makes little economic sense to do the expensive option of engineering them when there are so many jellyfish out there. The glowing ones are used as markers, hence they are engineered in.
Established Member
Most allergenic proteins tend to be: small (for proteins), abundant, and/or resistant to digestion. There are well-established databases with most known protein allergens. Any sequence similarity to such known allergens means that such a protein will not be approved for use in food.
As a practical matter, genetic engineers making food products use the fewest genes possible and carefully screen for any negative effects.
In fact a reasoned argument can be made that genetically engineered foods are "safer" than non-engineered new food varieties - because they have gone through a rigorous testing protocol to insure that no unexpected changes occurred.
Standard breeding or "heirloom" crops have not been so tested!
Order of Kilopi
Interestingly enough there's heavy lobbying from industrial breeders such as Monsanto to get international sale of heirloom seeds and whatnot banned through EU regulations.
Which I find really irritating as I get most of my seeds from Sweden and I do tend to go for heirloom (smal and tasty) varieties rather than the industrial (large and tastes like water).
__________________________________________________
Reductionist and proud of it.
Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain
Established Member
Henrick - that is interesting do you have some citations/report of such actions?
The EU does have strict quality and varietal standards for selling of seeds and the smaller market for heirloom varieties may make such varieties uneconomic to market. Perhaps Monsanto is trying to force heirloom seed producers to follow EU rules? - Or is Monsanto even involved? (they tend to get blamed for such things whether they deserve it or not) I doubt that the major seed companies are concerned about heirloom seeds since such varieties are not competitive with the modern varieties that they produce for use by the larger, commercial farms.
There is, however, an increasing tendency of the producers of seeds for home gardeners to charge higher prices for varieties that are essentially in the public domain (heirloom, i.e. old). The real problem likely has less to do with greed and more with basic market forces and consolidation of the small seed industry - it is simply too expensive to maintain and produce the many seed varieties - so seed sellers buy from others and re-package with their own label. If not enough home growers want particular varieties, they are simply not produced and become unavailable. EU quality standards likely make the economics of such products even harder to market.
Order of Kilopi
I've seen documentaries and such about Monsanto trying to control the market of soybeans here in the US, by suing people who do not pay for Monsanto seeds and use public-domain varieties and keep their own seeds or run seed cleaning businesses. They argue in court that exposure to nearby Monsanto seeded fields creates cross breeding and thus, theft of intellectual property. I don't recall of they actually won any suits, since most people can't afford the long legal process and settle out of court. Or so the story goes. I'm not sure how CT-ish that is or not. And so I'm not sure if this demonstrates increased IQ or, since we're talking about lawyers, decreased IQ.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Established Member
This is closer to the defense given by those that were sued -"that they did not intend to plant seeds with the licensed gene - it just crossed into their own seeds..."
this argument is a bit like "the dog ate my homework"
Monsanto's argument is that the large presence of the licensed trait in the farmers seed was the result of deliberate saving of such seeds for re-planting - in conflict to the agreed contract license when the farmer had purchased the seed the prior year. Incidental mixing of the licensed trait is not against the contract.
oops was this thread about IQ or IP?
Established Member
Actually, here is a document on the FDA's website that indicates otherwise. Please at least see p.68 line 17 through p.70 line 11. Here are 2 excerpts:
The FDA does not
18 reach any independent conclusions regarding the
19 safety of a genetically engineered crop.The FDA wouldn't even have had to go to
6 Monsanto to request this study. It could have
7 gotten it from EPA, but apparently didn't do that.
8 The EPA, in turn, should have consulted with the
9 FDA during its assessment of the Cry1Ab protein
10 expressed in Monsanto's MON810 and also Syngenta's
11 Bt11 corn events.
For those not familiar with the topic, Bt corn is corn that is engineered to actually produce insecticides (washing it will not remove them). On that note, here is an excerpt from this source at CSU which answers some questions about Bt corn:
Q: Are there other types of Bt toxins?
A: Another type of Bt toxins are called vegetative insecticidal proteins, or VIPs. VIPs are also considered relatively safe for non-pest species, however, other classes of toxins produced by Bt have a broader spectrum of toxicity.
Established Member
Transgenic plants in the US are regulated by USDA and EPA. THE FDA does not have statutory authority and only looks at this issue in an advisory role.
Yes crops containing Bt genes produce insecticidal proteins that are specifically active against certain target insect species - that is why they reduce pest damage, increase yield, save farmers money, and result in a cleaner, safer product for human consumption. -- (a clear example of humans putting their intelligence to a good use!)
Remember - all plants produce inherent insecticidal compounds and all crop plants produce compounds that are toxic to humans. What is important is not whether a substance is labeled a "pesticide" but rather if the amount (dose) is a problem or not.
Order of Kilopi
Right, the stipulation seems to be the same, but it's the argument of fault that is different. As far as I could understand, some of the people being sued had never purchased those particular seeds, or any seeds, from Monsanto.This is closer to the defense given by those that were sued -"that they did not intend to plant seeds with the licensed gene - it just crossed into their own seeds..."
this argument is a bit like "the dog ate my homework"
Monsanto's argument is that the large presence of the licensed trait in the farmers seed was the result of deliberate saving of such seeds for re-planting - in conflict to the agreed contract license when the farmer had purchased the seed the prior year. Incidental mixing of the licensed trait is not against the contract.
oops was this thread about IQ or IP?
Which reminds me of something else I've heard... some people are upset about a new GMO grain that has a gene for producing a protien, the design of which was supposedly extracted from humans.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Established Member
Yes, an interesting problem. Certain proteins can protect against diarrhea and other diseases (particularly important in some poor countries with high rates of infant deaths from these diseases) and some of the most effective proteins are human in origin. These can be made in cell culture conditions at high cost or the genes can be inserted into plants (rice in this case) and provide for inexpensive production of this life-saving protein.
Is this an intelligent thing to do? - or is it too icky?
Order of Kilopi
I personally don't have a problem with it, but I think some people are equating it to cannibalism.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Moderator
The preceding posts were moved from the IQ of Ancient Man thread as they seemed to form a separate topic. Report this post if you disagree.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov
Moderation will be in purple.
Rules for Posting to This Board
Established Member
Yes, that sounds icky - do they also think that nursing babies are cannibals??
(The proteins were originally found in milk)
Order of Kilopi
Natural ≠ perfectly safe, although it sometimes seems that this is the belief of some people. Among other things, both potatoes and tomatoes are closely related to deadly nightshade. Rhubarb stalks are edible; the leaves can kill. Peanut allergens are natural compounds. Manioc needs processing or it's toxic.
From what little I know of plant genetics, it's fairly common for genes to naturally jump between species.
Established Member
One of my favorite examples is the presence of psoralens in celery, a "natural" insecticidal compound - with real human toxicity and a good example of "natural," non-transgenic breeding causing problems:
http://everything2.com/title/Psorale...ngerous+celery
"Finally, psoralens sometimes show up used as pesticide. Since they occur naturally in plants, psoralen concentration is a good starting point to breeding pest-resistant plants. A strain of celery was once bred with eight times the psoralen concentration of normal celery, which made it virtually impervious to infection and insect damage. Unfortunately, field workers and produce department stockers both developed skin disorders, and the strain was removed from the market. Considering the psoralens' tendency to be carcinogenic, this is probably a very good thing. Curiously, while the US heavily regulates genetic modifications to food crops, they do very little to regulate breeding for certain traits. Had the FDA been on top of breeding for psoralen content, the dangerous celery would've probably never reached market. "
Established Member
Actually the role of the FDA is to ensure the safety of new foods prior to them entering the market place.
Actually, if you read the last source or excerpt, in my prior post, you would notice that it clearly says that Bt has a broader spectrum of toxicity than vegetable insecticidal proteins. The statement and the context indicates that it can be toxic to more than just pests.
This statement assumes that the genes in GM corn are identical to the natural insecticidal genes. The source that I provided clearly stated that it is not (see p.66 line 13 through p.67 line 10). In fact, the genetic sequence and the resulting protein are noticeably truncated versions of the natural variety. This creates a different protein with different characteristics from the natural versions.
Here is the excerpt:
The first one is that the FDA assumes
14 there is a complete copy of the Cry1Ab gene in the
15 corn, whereas, Monsanto's study shows clearly it is
16 only a partial gene, and what apparently happens is
17 there was the transformation vector ruptured during
18 the transformation process and only a partial gene
19 was incorporated.
20 Secondly, the FDA assumes that there is a
21 NOS termination sequence in MON810, and, in fact,
22 Monsanto's study shows pretty clearly that that
23 determination sequence did not make it into the
24 corn.
25 It is interesting here to note that this
67
1 NOS might have played a role, according to the FDA,
2 in directing messenger RNA adenylation, so the
3 absence of that NOS sequence might have some
4 implications.
5 Third, the FDA assumed that the protein
6 was nature identical, that is, identical to the
7 native protein found in the Bt microbe, whereas, in
8 fact, what we have is it looks like an odd-length
9 protein about 92 kilodaltons, about 70 percent of
10 the folic protoxin.
Established Member
One issue: Does it make allergic people a little unsafe?
Please visit my blog:
http://completereality.wordpress.com
Established Member
The FDA has not traditionally (and still does not) regulate new crop varieties for food safety. When transgenic crops were being first developed in the early 90s, The FDA decided to allow USDA and EPA manage the regulatory and safety issues. The FDA reviews the safety data for new transgenic materials to determine if there are any safety issues not being addressed by the USDA or EPA.
If you feel that this is not the best practice for regulating new crops - talk to the FDA or your congressman.
Bacterial strains of Bacillus Thuringiensis make a variety of insecticidal proteins and compounds. The crystal proteins used in transgenic plants have well-characterized specificity and mode of action against very specific types of insect target pests. The bacteria also produce exotoxins - some of which have broader toxicity than the highly specific proteins used in transgenic plants .
The regulators at EPA, FDA, and USDA are not foolish and know full well when the Bt proteins made in transgenic plants are different than the crystal proteins produced in the bacteria. That is why toxicological studies must demonstrate that they are testing compounds that are biologically equivalent to that produced by the plant.
Of interest is the fact that the intact full-length Bt protein made by the bacteria is not toxic until it is proteolytically cleaved at the amino and carboxyl sides of the protein. The resulting toxic core protein is then essentially the same as the one produced from the plant source. - they begin a bit different in overall sequence but the activated, toxic core is the same. This proteolytic activation of the Bt protein occurs in the alkaline pH of the target insect gut. The toxic core of the Bt crystal proteins is resistant to further proteolysis at alkaline pH but is rapidly degraded at acid pH. The main factor involved in the high specificity of Bt crystal proteins for the target insect is that the protein first must bind to a specific receptor on the gut cells to be toxic. Without the receptor, the protein has no cell toxicity.
Bacterial cultures and extracted crystal proteins have been used safely in agriculture for many years as a sprayable pesticide (it is a mainstay in organic pesticide use). It is likely that higher doses of the Bt toxins are found on food crops as a result of use by "organic" agriculture than from transgenic crops.
The question of allergenicity of Bt proteins perhaps can best be understood by taking a broader view of the question. All foods contain thousands of uncharacterized proteins, Bt proteins are no more likely to be allergenic- and at least they have been sequenced and evaluated for allergenic potential.
Established Member
BioSci, I finally got around to reading your post and I appreciate your candor. In interest of time, I will try to keep it as short as I can. Also, nothing is directed at you personally.
Okay, so we both agree that the FDA did not do any direct testing of GMO products. In fact, they only need summary data. Interestingly, the USDA and EPA also require only summary data. Also, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) review process for GE crops was neither transparent nor scientifically rigorous (due to inadequate peer review). The company was allowed to hide vital scientific data as being confidential.
This is not how the scientific process is supposed to work.
What makes it worse is that there is no testing of these products after they have been brought to market. Can you understand why so many people and so many foreign governments are skeptical of these products (especially when they are produced by the same company who claimed in the past that DDT and agent orange were safe)?
Here are some excerpts from this source.
The National Academy of Sciences panel also concluded that the APHIS review process for GE crops was neither transparent nor scientifically rigorous. NAS experts pointed to a lack of scientific peer review and public input as well as applicants' failure to clearly present their data, methods, analyses and interpretations.15 APHIS does not rely sufficiently on independent scientific experts, especially in potentially precedent-setting decisions.16 Companies are allowed to hide vast amounts of data as Confidential Business Information (CBI); even the NAS Committee was hampered in its review by excessive CBI. In addition, APHIS is chronically understaffed in the area of ecological analysis.17As with the USDA's oversight process, the EPA relies almost entirely on company data, and does not require an approved set of laboratory tests to help assure meaningful results. For example, studies of the potential consequences of Bt toxins for non-target insects (e.g., honeybees) were carried out for only a few days, far from sufficient to detect any possible medium- to long-term health and behavioral effects.36
The National Academy panel proposed a program of ongoing environmental monitoring to assess unanticipated or long-term environmental impacts, as well as "any potential impacts of transgenic plants on regional farming practices or systems in its deregulation assessments."25 This recommendation has not been implemented by USDA.
Yes. But if the insecticides are sprayed on, then they can (at least in theory) be washed off. If the food itself is the insecticide, then that option is not available.
Order of Kilopi
Since it was my question that sparked the discussion, I will accept and endorse the split, and even the title (since I don't have a better suggestion.
It is an interesting discussion.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
