RE: [pf] 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods

by David A

19 December 2000 15:33 UTC

Tom, we can all forward Web links until the cows come home, so that will 
prove nothing. We can all search the Web as well. Do you know anything 
about these sources? Do you have any reason to believe them over any 
other person? 

How do you determine their credibility?

David

Tom Wheeler wrote:
> From: David A <davidnh@visto.com>
> 
> >Just a quick glance at the first few
> >items in this list shows that many are urban legends.
> 
> >#1 is one of the more frequently seen. There's been no evidence that the
> >L-tryptophan's contamination was GM-related. Both the FDA and the CDC
> >have reported they believe GM was not at fault. (McHughen, Pandora's
> >Picnic Basket: the risks and hazards of genetically modified foods,
> >Oxford University Press (2000), pp 116-118).
> 
> >#2. No bean has ever been produced with the Brazil nut gene. Pioneer
> >Hi-Bred, which revived earlier research in this gene while looking at
> >the potential for animal feed, and did their own tests (published) that
> >showed the gene caused allergenicity. They killed the project. (McHughen
> >pp 119-121).
> 
> http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/gmintro.htm
> 
> Q&A w/geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou, and Prof Joe Cummins, Professor
> Emeritus of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario on 
> L-tryptophan
> and the soya bean engineered with a gene from a brazil nut.
> 
> Q: Isn’t GM just an extension of traditional breeding practices?
> 
> A: No - GM bears no resemblance to traditional breeding techniques. The
> government’s own Genetic Modification (Contained Use) Regulations admit 
> this
> when it defines GM as "the altering of the genetic material in that 
> organism
> in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or natural 
> recombination or
> both".
> 
> Traditional breeding techniques operate within established natural
> boundaries which allow reproduction to take place only between closely
> related forms. Thus tomatoes can cross-pollinate with other tomatoes but 
> not
> soya beans; cows can mate only with cows and not sheep. These genes in 
> their
> natural groupings have been finely tuned to work harmoniously together 
> by
> millions of years of evolution. Genetic engineering crosses genes 
> between
> unrelated species which would never cross-breed in nature.
> 
> Q: Could this be dangerous?
> 
> A: Potentially, yes. In one case, soya bean engineered with a gene from 
> a
> brazil nut gave rise to allergic reactions in people sensitive to the 
> nuts.
> Most genes being introduced into GM plants have never been part of the 
> food
> supply so we can’t know if they are likely to be allergenic.
> 
> More seriously, in 1989 there was an outbreak of a new disease in the 
> US,
> contracted by over 5,000 people and traced back to a batch of 
> L-tryptophan
> food supplement produced with GM bacteria. Even though it contained less
> than 0.1 per cent of a highly toxic compound, 37 people died and 1,500 
> were
> left with permanent disabilities. More may have died, but the American
> Centre for Disease Control stopped counting in 1991.
> 
> The US government declared that it was not GM that was at fault but a
> failure in the purification process. However, the company concerned, 
> Showa
> Denko, admitted that the low-level purification process had been used
> without ill effect in non-GM batches. Scientists at Showa Denko blame 
> the GM
> process for producing traces of a potent new toxin. This new toxin had 
> never
> been found in non-GM versions of the product.
> >
> >Since these two top the list, I'm quite dubious about the research that
> >went into preparing it or the care the author took to look below the
> >surface of these accusations.
> 
> Sounds like how most folks feel about some of your absurd accusations!
> 
> >Furthermore, I think it's irresponsible to forward such a list before at
> >least checking it out. This issue has become far too polemical for it to
> >be solved by press release wars, and this kind of thing only makes it
> >worse.
> 
> Not only are we all ignorant, now we're "irresponsible." Sheesh. - Tom
> 
>