>Point being, when the crop expressed the Bt instead of being sprayed with it, it has the same effect, to the target insects (kills them), and to us (nothing). The word "toxin" scares the crap out of everyone, but remember it's the same stuff you're likely to get in organic produce and is harmless.
Respectfully disagree a bit. I think it's called pharmakinetics? It may survive acid in the stomach if protected somehow. If it's only on the surface, the major part may as well get washed off during processing.
Still, ther's said to be no harm on it, ok. I'd rather prefere as little chemicals as well (although mycotoxins are a lot worse and mutagenic than most chemicals)
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Cathal Garvey <cathalgarvey@cathalgarvey.me> wrote:
I can attest to this. I studied plant-sci in Cork, and the department
was mostly doing mutagenesis because it wasn't regulated in EU.
In perspective, though, mutagenesis is no worse than traditional
breeding, just faster. You have to be just as careful with
traditional/mutagenesis-accelerated. GE is better than both for speed,
reliability and predictability, but hey IT'S NOT NATUREL.
Also, animal feed isn't "GM Food" in the EU, so loads of animal feed in
the EU is GE too, and people quietly ignore that their cattle don't
develop massive, buoyant tumours and float away.
On 14/02/14 13:49, SC wrote:
> A comment on the definition of GMO:
>
> Our contract with the European Union, and European Law:
> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32001L0018&model=guichett
>
> Defines GMOs as either the insertion of DNA into a genome, or cell
> fusion. Notably, it does NOT define products of random mutagenesis as
> GMOs. I assume this was an oversight in the drafting of the document, but
> who knows. Random mutagenesis certainly wonks up a genome a lot more than
> any of the methods they do list.
>
> According to this article:
> http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijpg/2011/314829/
>
> There are thousands of plant cultivars which have been develolped using
> random mutagenesis, including wheat, barley, grapefruit, but none of these
> would be considered GMOs by modern standards and would not be restricted
> from trade with the European Union, under their own definition. A year or
> two ago, everyone went bat-crap crazy because GMO wheat might have been
> grown by mistake, and the European Union and Japan destroyed shipments of
> wheat and cancelled orders until it was "resolved." Sorry guys, you've all
> been eating GMO wheat for decades.
>
> I think everyone would be a little better off if they stopped to find out
> the truth instead of just going nuts about everything.
>
>
>
--
Please help support my crowdfunding campaign, IndieBB: Currently at23.1% of funding goal, with 27 days left:
http://igg.me/at/yourfirstgmo/x/4252296
T: @onetruecathal, @IndieBBDNA
P: +3538763663185
W: http://indiebiotech.com
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CAGHxOnRhKB4Z%3D%3Dzsa3GUanTi4y-81FaMA1Ec-KN%2BFT2u4AW%2BNw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment