Hi Chimpkin, you might find this interesting, I doubt Skeptic/Arthur will though..
I have concerns not only of the reduction of natural biodiversity, the reduction of natural soya in the US to virtually the point of extinction I think is evidence enough of that; Not even of the lack of labelling which was poor, and is not improving; Not even the lack of transparency of (in my opinion) untrustworthy pharma companies, but one of the known characteristics of existing organisms. Horizontal Transfer ~ and the modified viruses specifically designed to make their transition into a foreign genome not just possible but
desirable.
This is called the
Horizontal transfer of GM nuclear material into a genome. This is no miracle of science, and is not in any scientific doubt.
It is the mechanism whereby one eucaryoyic cell passes on drug resistence to another by incorperating the dna of a resistant one into its own genome.
It is believed GM dna can be passed through the gut wall either whole or in part, and thence into the bloodstream exactly the same way. There is a great deal of documentary evidence of this process, this is a link describing the term:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Horizontal_gene_transfer
I for one don't want any of my cells reprogrammed to produce BT toxin or any of the redundant unknown sequences known to exist which could be fungal, bacterial or viral, fish, plant or animal.
The bacteria in the gut are particularly well adapted and readily pass on drug resistance. They readily express relavant DNA so that it can be adopted by any other bacteria, pass through cell walls or be adopted by a variety of methods.
I find it extroadinary that people don't know this.
This is a fun little presentation of how it's usually done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtM8C3VeBO0&feature=player_detailpage
Or more simply,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wa16MZBTDA&feature=player_detailpage
As far as I know, nobody has tested positive for BT toxin, but then, nobody's testing for it as far as I know. BT toxin being commonly implanted into cerials and other plants to impart pest resistance.
Studies showed that during 10 years of crop use BT was responsible for the reduction of 35.6million kg of insecticide, no mean feat. Though some species such as the diamondback moth have already gotten immune to it. ~ wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis They also cite trials possibly linking BT to liver damage in rats, and infertility in mice though the mechanism by which this happens was not known.
But GM companies could easily allay such fears as recombinant virus dna such as BT toxin, plasmid dna, stray dna and non-coded (unknown) dna being expressed by implementing a few relatively easy steps to the vector dna encoding pathway as put forward in this extract:
"To reduce HGT,
non-viral promoters could be used,
transgene sizes reduced, replication origins removed,
protein expression prevented and
gene sequences disabled.
These improvements would probably not impact on transgene effectiveness.
By not requiring applicants to incorporate these safety features, or to justify why they have not done so, regulators are exposing third parties to unnecessary risks."
http://www.econexus.info/publication/gm-gene-flow-b
The
specific level of risk cannot be known until GMOs containing pathogenic dna actually interact with humans, food crops, domesticated animals and/or wildlife. Once released, a crop has to be entirely destroyed in the event of recall. This alone might not prevent transgenic pollen cross breeding with native varieties, or seeds dispersed by birds or rodents, or their infection via HT transmisson. And if it got into Humans, well, it would be too late by then.
So, while I'm not saying there is a specific risk beyond BT toxin that I'm looking at
at this time, there is every reason to be cautious in my view.
Non-specific dna in cloned animals has led to inappropriate expression of proteins, particularly in animals bred to produce medicines in their milk resulting in a high mortality rate of around 65% to 95%. Whilst this does not directly affect humans, it shows that non-specific gene expression can have harmful effects not previously accounted for.
In my view it is something biotech companies
could eliminate from transgenic viruses by eliminating non-specific parts of code or "junk code" as it's often called. This link expands on the problem:
http://www.gm.org/gm-organisms/tiny-genetic-differences-have-huge-consequences/
Death rates in cloned sheep higher/lower
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/alarm-raised-at-mortality-rates-in-cloned-sheep-1139599.html
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2001/Nov/msg00097.html
Of course this is all aside from all of the many claimed deaths and diseases of cloned animals or animals that have just grazed on BT cotton or been fed GM foodstuffs, but I'm just thinking about consequences for humans at the moment. If we're going to have this stuff snuck into our food, as looks likely, I reckon I'll just let those that want to eat it do so, and stick to my local farm produce. And anyway, I know it's fresh and not been given a gene to act as an artificial preservative such as in the Flavr Savr tomatoes. I wonder what ever happened to them? I've not thought of those in years.