Re: Frankenfish

[Stargate]

Lets say they meddle with the genes, the DNA is involved, the way the DNA gets its information comes from the genes. If, lets say the Salmon grows twice as fast as the other fishes, it could disrupt a long chain behind it and again the change would get to us at one point in time. 
The earth pick up the cell changes from the soil and corrects the DNA through what we eat. I might be rehashing some of what you already know. 

[Agartha]

But DNA is digested, not absorbed. We can assimilate a microbe or virus, but not DNA from the fish flesh.

[Stargate]

But DNA is digested, not absorbed. We can assimilate a microbe or virus, but not DNA from the fish flesh.

I do not want you to think I can answer most of the questions on DNA, but I can tell you, the way it works is not so easy for me to understand. One thing is sure, it stands at the door of our development. Science has a lot to understand about DNA, and evolution. 

[Kaere]

Well... I for one welcome the potential end to Malaria

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/scientists-breed-mosquitoes-with-malaria-blocking-genes-1.2671141

Excerpt:

To test their method, researchers inserted a protein that gave the offspring red eyes alongside the malaria-blocking antibodies. This way, they could easily see which mosquitoes inherited the traits.

In the end, they found that the red eyes and anti-malaria genes were passed down to 99.5 per cent of the offspring.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, malaria sickens approximately 200 million people a year and kills nearly half a million annually.

The centre says about 3.4 billion people live in areas where they are at risk of contracting the disease, but children, babies, and pregnant women – mostly in Africa – are the most likely to die from it.

Scientists now hope to introduce a malaria-resistant insect into mosquito populations in the wild, where it can breed and pass on the anti-malaria genes, and potentially help eliminate the disease.

But first, James said, further research and possible field studies are necessary.

"We know the gene works. The mosquitoes are not the final brand, but we know this technology allows us to efficiently create large populations," James said. "This is a significant step."

I do not feel any gmo food is a danger. I really don't. I feel it is the exact same thing as selective breeding or splicing plants together or whatever has been done over the last thousands of years. Making food that can thrive in places where perhaps there may not be enough food? That's a no brainer for me. Feed the people, feed the children, stop war over lack of resources.

[Agartha]

I agree K..... and this is why I am trying to understand the passing of DNA as I was blind against GMOs but the more I study it the more I change my mind.

Mind you, I also believe nature should be left in peace but, big BUT, we need to sort out this planet's priorities....

[Rockhopper]

As Len says bacteria can and do pick bits of DNA from the environment.

This is something completely different from animal and plant husbandry.. In animal husbandry for example, humans take a particular trait that they want and develop it further, they  don't and can't cross-breed a horse with a dog for example.

When we cross breed a horse with a donkey (same Genus, different species) we get a mule. That is an animal that can't produce offspring. In plants it is similar; grapes belong to the Rose Genera and all the thousands of variants of grapes are still roses!  What we couldn't do until recently was was physically change the plant/animal genome structure.

This fish is no longer a Salmon because it has an eel gene in it's genome. Try as we might, in the past we could not ever get a Salmon to breed with an Eel.

The problem with this is that we don't know what the long term ramifications will be, especially if it gets out into the wild population. Once it's out there we can't get it back.

For many years we have used modified E.Coli bacteria to produce insulin to treat Diabetes but they remain in the laboratories. There are very stringent controls on it to keep them out of the environment.

Tim.

[Stargate]

So Tim, if this Eel/Salmon were able to have babies, the new offspring would be something new? 
So there could be damage down the road from the offspring?
There are tremendous dangers in tampering with the speed of complex development in the DNA. I think the danger is time, no one can even slightly predict what kind of development will pop out at the end of a real cycle.

[Lenzabi]

Ok, I have been reading about DNA and digestion and the story is different than I thought. DNA was not absorbed in the intestines: bacteria that live in our guts bonded with a microbe that lives in seaweed. This microbe helped the gut bacteria in Japanese people evolve so that they digest nori as this bacteria releases an enzyme that facilitates the digestion of algae (nori wraps sushi). So the DNA did not pass from the stomach to the blood: the microbe  was assimilated by our own bodies as it helps them function better... we assimilated the microbe and thus its DNA.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100407/full/news.2010.169.html

(This is not the only case where our bodies have assimilated foreign DNA to its advantage: a retrovirus helped mammals' placental development. See:http://schaechter.asmblog.org/schaechter/2014/06/retroviruses-the-placenta-and-the-genomic-junk-drawer.html )

Now, this means that eating Frankenfish cannot pass its DNA onto our blood and change our DNA as cooking kills all the microbes that may be in the fish. DNA is digested into sugars, phosphates etc. Certain microbes are obviously immune to our stomach acid. This means that even if cooking didn't destroy any microbes present in the fish, we could assimilate microbes DNA over time, and not the actual fish DNA  as we digest that.

Right or wrong? Please discuss as I am trying to understand this.
Thank you!

the isues was that  some plant DNA that makes poison to make the crop resistant to the attack of insects can be taken in by our own gut bacteriia and then that in turn makes our guts make the poison, and what ways would that impact us?  

As for the fish, they are seeing this as a way to supply the demand for salmon sushi/sashimi, which is raw fish, and as some folks eat their veggies raw or lightly steamed,,,,,that is why GMO or franken-foods are so scary.

Sushi restaurants serving the frankenfish will be exposing their raw fish eating customers to the uncooked DNA that is raw, allowing the stuff t be absorb able to our own bodies, so there will be a demand to know if the salmon flesh they are about to eat is GMO fish, or "wild caught" which also is a lie half the time.



Oh and why I am not trusting of GMO is that they are splicing genes into things that natue would not have. Tomatoes witht he fish gene to prevent the freezing issues, but as they rush these experiments out for public domain, if I am say fish allergic, yet this plant has a fish gene in it, will it trigger the allergy?

This fish needs far more food to live than normal salmon, so if it escaped and thrived, natural salmon would be in danger of being out-eaten by the frankenfish, and agail, we have not an idea as to any other side effects.

The Big Agri companies have promised much, but GMO crops have bee found to produce less yields han older style crops, are as needy of water as regular crops, and have actually been GMO'd for resistance to their herbicides which are damaging the soil and environment, as well as making toxins that have harmed bees and butterflies which have for millennia helped natural plants grow and seed.

GMO food is strictly a money making scheme for the big companies who do NOT do sufficient research into any possible side effects, another reason I am distrustful, but I live here where it is in all our processed foods, and I would say we are the unpaid guinea pigs of the Big Agro companies like Monstersanto, Bayer, Syngenta, etc. The rise of colon and gut cancer cases may also be explained from such "food'

[Agartha]

the isues was that  some plant DNA that makes poison to make the crop resistant to the attack of insects can be taken in by our own gut bacteriia and then that in turn makes our guts make the poison, and what ways would that impact us?  

But this can't happen, as shown by my post. DNA is destroyed in the stomach. The DNA that was absorbed (the Japanese example you gave) was assimilated by our gut because it assimilated the microbe. The plant DNA was never assimilated or taken by the gut, all plant material was digested, only the microbe survived.

If the crops you mentioned have a microbe we could use, then our bodies could assimilated its DNA too.... but the plant we don't and it's DNA is digested.

See the pickle in my brain?

[Rockhopper]

The whole issue with GM is that there is another often overlooked reason for them. The profit margin for the makers! Monsanto et al wants to control the food supply so that everyone must buy their seeds only.

This fish is supposedly a better deal as it produces more meat but the ultimate reason for it is to make money for the company, not the betterment of humanity. We need to see the difference.

When Monsanto touted it's "Round up" resistant soya as a way of the plant surviving Glysophate spraying which kills weeds. Glysophate is a very dangerous chemical and now the Soya is absorbing high levels of it, and people are eating the Soy so are getting a high level of Glysophate. It is known to cause cancers of the gut and colon.

Tim.

[Kaere]

Ummm... Rockhopper, how do you know Monsanto wants to control the food supply or wants a monopoly on seed?

[Lenzabi]

the isues was that  some plant DNA that makes poison to make the crop resistant to the attack of insects can be taken in by our own gut bacteriia and then that in turn makes our guts make the poison, and what ways would that impact us?  

But this can't happen, as shown by my post. DNA is destroyed in the stomach. The DNA that was absorbed (the Japanese example you gave) was assimilated by our gut because it assimilated the microbe. The plant DNA was never assimilated or taken by the gut, all plant material was digested, only the microbe survived.

If the crops you mentioned have a microbe we could use, then our bodies could assimilated its DNA too.... but the plant we don't and it's DNA is digested.

See the pickle in my brain?

I do Ags, and I am wondering if the concerns are from the use of Microbes to help the process of the GMO in the crops. We only get to know what the Big Agro says as they hide how they do the process as a "proprietary process" and kept as secret as anything our governments or military keep.

[Rockhopper]

Ummm... Rockhopper, how do you know Monsanto wants to control the food supply or wants a monopoly on seed?

Back in the 90's their Boss said so in a leaked memo Ka. Their idea is to control all the food seeds and then everyone would have to go to Monsanto to get their seeds.

A natural plant can't be patented but a man-made GM can be.

Tim.

[Agartha]

Len, it could well be they introduce microbes, but it takes centuries if not thousands of years for the microbes to develop resistance to our stomach acid and for our bodies to assimilate it.

Oh yeah Rock, the famous memo, I remember now: they wanted to create seedless fruits and veg so people could only buy their seeds. Here is a site with that infamous memo, Kae read it and see what you think:

https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/monsanto/monmemo.php

One more thing: Monsanto created agent orange that which destroyed the health of many Vietnam vets.

And I suddenly have a question: if GMOs are safe and ok, why have so many countries in the world banned them?

[Stargate]

I know from planting Monsanto seeds that you need fertilizer or the seeds will not grow. After you have reaped a Monsanto crop you cannot plant a normal crop in that soil, it will not grow. If it attempts to grow, the crop will look sick and diseased.
We in Jamaica do not get any other seeds but from Monsanto. That is why the Rastafarian's do not use seeds from Monsanto, they claim it damages the soil.

[Lenzabi]

One more thing: Monsanto created agent orange that which destroyed the health of many Vietnam vets.

And I suddenly have a question: if GMOs are safe and ok, why have so many countries in the world banned them?

yes they did Ags and then decided to to making crops, and chems that they claim would make for better......everything.

Beside the "terminator seeds" that can't be held and grown due to the unique "fertilizer additive", their crops do not give better yields, or resist drought as they claim. They make crops that are reliant or resistant to their glyposphate herbicide aka round-up, and or make their insecticide. I need to find the study, but the insecticide crops pass on the ability to make that stuff to your gut flora. That tells me they are using a bacterial that can make it past the acid, but wait, if you do not eat Meat, no acid, instead alkaline is used to digest a pure veggy diet, and the bacteria passes on traits as it is used to develoment of getting past alkaline. (This happened to make me sick one day as I had a meat and barley meal that confused my stomach, so the food rotted inside, and I got meat food poisoning, and the barley fermented and got me alcohol poisoned at the same time! Once the digestion confusion ended, I passed it off with lots of water and a hangover from hell.

EU did a actual 2yr study of Monstersanto crops that found horrific reality and how it causes gut cancers and such. No wonder Monstersanto only likes to get a rubber stamp pass after a short 90day in-house study of their GMO's

[Agartha]

Len, do you have a link to that EU study? I'd love to read it.... and also the other study you mentioned.

[Rockhopper]

GM crops have bred superweeds: True
Jay Holder, a farming consultant in Ashburn, Georgia, first noticed Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in a client’s transgenic cotton fields about five years ago. Palmer amaranth is a particular pain for farmers in the southeastern United States, where it outcompetes cotton for moisture, light and soil nutrients and can quickly take over fields.

Free podcast
Case studies reveal the complex truths behind GM crop myths.
00:00
Go to full podcast
Since the late 1990s, US farmers had widely adopted GM cotton engineered to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate, which is marketed as Roundup by Monsanto in St Louis, Missouri. The herbicide–crop combination worked spectacularly well — until it didn’t. In 2004, herbicide-resistant amaranth was found in one county in Georgia; by 2011, it had spread to 76. “It got to the point where some farmers were losing half their cotton fields to the weed,” says Holder.

Some scientists and anti-GM groups warned that GM crops, by encouraging liberal use of glyphosate, were spurring the evolution of herbicide resistance in many weeds. Twenty-four glyphosate-resistant weed species have been identified since Roundup-tolerant crops were introduced in 1996. But herbicide resistance is a problem for farmers regardless of whether they plant GM crops. Some 64 weed species are resistant to the herbicide atrazine, for example, and no crops have been genetically modified to withstand it (see ‘The rise of superweeds’).

http://www.nature.com/news/case-studies-a-hard-look-at-gm-crops-1.12907

Tim.

[Lenzabi]

Sadly it seems, the University of Caen used too few rats for their study, and thus it was pulled. Hopefully the next full study will use several thousand of the test rats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

[Sponsored content]