7/7/2004: Blue roses

[LabRat]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

i know the genetically modify food, and i dont trust that.

why?

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by LabRat

why?

Why not? (not being sarcastic - just asking the inverse question).

When someone alters the DNA of something, there could be unintended consequences. Problem is, layfolk like me and LJ don't have a high confidence level that a) they verified that the plant is an exact duplicate but for the intended change which has been verified as good or b) all unexpected changes aside from those intended have been "cleared."

For example: The much heralded zero fat "fat" Olestra. P&G spent decades perfecting it and assured everyone that it was perfectly fine. Problem is, it was found (by a watchdog) to be vitamin soluble (if that's the correct term). Olestra would absorb any vitamin it came into contact with in the digestive system and, as we all know, would exit the system taking all the nutrients right along with it. After Olestra was released into the marketplace, Proctor and Gamble was confronted with this info (I guess 20 years of research either didn't reveal this dificiency or P&G chose to ignore it - either way it was bad). Their simple solution was to pack it full of vitamins (saturate it) such that it couldn't absorb any more. But they had to be intimidated into doing that. And I'm supposed to trust these people?

Frankenfood is scary. You did see Attack of the Killer Tomatoes did you not?

[LabRat]

Originally Posted by Beestie

When someone alters the DNA of something, there could be unintended consequences.

not could be, usually are! thats why things for human consumption/use are SUPPOSED to be tested fully. the problem is, testing takes money and time, two things CEOs aren't willing to spend a whole lot of. so a lot of things that pass the 'good enough' tests really aren't FULLY tested.

Originally Posted by Beestie

Problem is, layfolk like me and LJ don't have a high confidence level that a) they verified that the plant is an exact duplicate but for the intended change which has been verified as good or b) all unexpected changes aside from those intended have been "cleared."

it's not just layfolk, me too!!! for the very same reasons. i am very wary of some bioengeneered products, because we aren't allowed to test them in the way they should be, IN PEOPLE!! it's a catch22. (if i'm using that right) we use animals to test products/drugs/etc, as MODELS, with the assumption that the human body will react in the same way. however there are some very subtle differences in species that can result in very different outcomes when introduced to specific things. clinical trials are designed to do this for drugs, test them in people after they have been tested in animals. but they are very limited due to the fact that there are so many 'variations' of humans and clinical trials only have a few subjects which represent only a fraction of the possible types of metabolisms out there. but i'm getting off track

Originally Posted by Beestie

You did see Attack of the Killer Tomatoes did you not?

no