USMB Coffee Shop IV

[Ringel05]

Oh and the modern, cultivated apple tree is another ancient GMOed plant.

I would guess almost all fruit bearing plants have been cultivated for maximum yields and beautiful fruit. Selective breeding by mixing the best with the best almost certainly isn't a bad thing.

But I continue to be leery of food products that have been modified chemically or unnaturally modified. Think mad cow disease as a result of force feeding in appropriate substances to cattle.

A good article on the subject here:
WHO | Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods

But the question remains, there is no way to determine who is doing this responsibly and who is not.

Excerpt:

. . .
5. What are the main issues of concern for human health?
While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are the potentials to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.

Allergenicity
As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic organisms to non-allergic organisms is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While foods developed using traditional breeding methods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for the testing of GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.

Gene transfer
Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used as markers when creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of gene transfer technology that does not involve antibiotic resistance genes is encouraged.

Outcrossing
The migration of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as “outcrossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. Cases have been reported where GM crops approved for animal feed or industrial use were detected at low levels in the products intended for human consumption. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown. . .​

I was just referring to those GMOed foods that have been modified via "non-chemical" processes. I also understand the reasons for the lab modified processes and the inherent dangers we have and are still discovering involved in that arena. There's even some problems inherent in "natural" modification, for all intent an purposes we've all been unknowing lab rats for decades if not centuries in the search to not only increase yields but to preserve foods for longer periods of time.
It wouldn't surprise me if this modification of foods isn't one of the primary genetic triggers for some forms of cancer.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh and the modern, cultivated apple tree is another ancient GMOed plant.

I would guess almost all fruit bearing plants have been cultivated for maximum yields and beautiful fruit. Selective breeding by mixing the best with the best almost certainly isn't a bad thing.

But I continue to be leery of food products that have been modified chemically or unnaturally modified. Think mad cow disease as a result of force feeding in appropriate substances to cattle.

A good article on the subject here:
WHO | Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods

But the question remains, there is no way to determine who is doing this responsibly and who is not.

Excerpt:

. . .
5. What are the main issues of concern for human health?
While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are the potentials to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.

Allergenicity
As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic organisms to non-allergic organisms is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While foods developed using traditional breeding methods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for the testing of GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.

Gene transfer
Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used as markers when creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of gene transfer technology that does not involve antibiotic resistance genes is encouraged.

Outcrossing
The migration of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as “outcrossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. Cases have been reported where GM crops approved for animal feed or industrial use were detected at low levels in the products intended for human consumption. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown. . .​

I was just referring to those GMOed foods that have been modified via "non-chemical" processes. I also understand the reasons for the lab modified processes and the inherent dangers we have and are still discovering involved in that arena. There's even some problems inherent in "natural" modification, for all intent an purposes we've all been unknowing lab rats for decades if not centuries in the search to not only increase yields but to preserve foods for longer periods of time.
It wouldn't surprise me if this modification of foods isn't one of the primary genetic triggers for some forms of cancer.

I think we're pretty much on the same page here. We both can see the benefit in increasing crop yields and the nutritional value of foods to feed a hungry world, but we are foolish not to understand that there can be good and bad coexisting side by side.

 

[Ernie S.]

Nearly closing time at Doc's. Just me and my bartender in the place. Nice uneventful evening I didn't have to break up any fights (as usual) and didn't have to chase any drunks out, (unusual) We'll close out the register in 10 minutes and be out of here before 3 AM. Then out to breakfast at Waffle House and in bed about 4. Sleep well, my friends!

Once upon a time, long ago, I worked at a Waffle House...mid-night to early am shift. Loved the folks who came in during those hours...

Yup. and we love the people who come in from restaurants and bars that close earlier than we do. Aside from the fact that they want to pack as much fun into the short time they have to spend, they tend to tip very well because they know what we go through and how we earn our money.

 

[Ernie S.]

Oh and the modern, cultivated apple tree is another ancient GMOed plant.

I would guess almost all fruit bearing plants have been cultivated for maximum yields and beautiful fruit. Selective breeding by mixing the best with the best almost certainly isn't a bad thing.

But I continue to be leery of food products that have been modified chemically or unnaturally modified. Think mad cow disease as a result of force feeding in appropriate substances to cattle.

A good article on the subject here:
WHO | Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods

But the question remains, there is no way to determine who is doing this responsibly and who is not.

Excerpt:

. . .
5. What are the main issues of concern for human health?
While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are the potentials to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.

Allergenicity
As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic organisms to non-allergic organisms is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While foods developed using traditional breeding methods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for the testing of GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.

Gene transfer
Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used as markers when creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of gene transfer technology that does not involve antibiotic resistance genes is encouraged.

Outcrossing
The migration of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as “outcrossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. Cases have been reported where GM crops approved for animal feed or industrial use were detected at low levels in the products intended for human consumption. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown. . .​

I was just referring to those GMOed foods that have been modified via "non-chemical" processes. I also understand the reasons for the lab modified processes and the inherent dangers we have and are still discovering involved in that arena. There's even some problems inherent in "natural" modification, for all intent an purposes we've all been unknowing lab rats for decades if not centuries in the search to not only increase yields but to preserve foods for longer periods of time.
It wouldn't surprise me if this modification of foods isn't one of the primary genetic triggers for some forms of cancer.

I think we're pretty much on the same page here. We both can see the benefit in increasing crop yields and the nutritional value of foods to feed a hungry world, but we are foolish not to understand that there can be good and bad coexisting side by side.

I just don't see a difference between naturally occurring hybrids and man made hybrids. We're, for the most part, using our God given talent to do what he hasn't gotten around to yet.
Were people afraid of crops grown on irrigated land?

 

[ChrisL]

I'm not bothered at all by most foods. The only thing that really seems to bother me is too much chocolate.

And yet in moderation chocolate, especially dark chocolate, is very good for most of us. In truth, most processed foods are nutritionally deficient compared to natural foods and contain way too much salt, sugar, and other additives. And I say that as one who loves and craves salty foods and who has a sweet tooth that won't quit. But again all things in moderation I think. A handful of potato chips is no big deal nutritionally unless I make a meal of them.

Exactly. I can eat SOME chocolate, but not a whole box of chocolates. Lol.

 

[Ernie S.]

Nearly closing time at Doc's. Just me and my bartender in the place. Nice uneventful evening I didn't have to break up any fights (as usual) and didn't have to chase any drunks out, (unusual) We'll close out the register in 10 minutes and be out of here before 3 AM. Then out to breakfast at Waffle House and in bed about 4. Sleep well, my friends!

Sounds like a good night, Ernie!

A great night, Chris. Well, except for the fact that I had lunch (5 Guys' burger) and supper (Waffles, eggs and bacon) out side of the house. I live on restaurant food these days. Other than that, single is good.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh and the modern, cultivated apple tree is another ancient GMOed plant.

I would guess almost all fruit bearing plants have been cultivated for maximum yields and beautiful fruit. Selective breeding by mixing the best with the best almost certainly isn't a bad thing.

But I continue to be leery of food products that have been modified chemically or unnaturally modified. Think mad cow disease as a result of force feeding in appropriate substances to cattle.

A good article on the subject here:
WHO | Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods

But the question remains, there is no way to determine who is doing this responsibly and who is not.

Excerpt:

. . .
5. What are the main issues of concern for human health?
While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are the potentials to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.

Allergenicity
As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic organisms to non-allergic organisms is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While foods developed using traditional breeding methods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for the testing of GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.

Gene transfer
Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used as markers when creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of gene transfer technology that does not involve antibiotic resistance genes is encouraged.

Outcrossing
The migration of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as “outcrossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. Cases have been reported where GM crops approved for animal feed or industrial use were detected at low levels in the products intended for human consumption. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown. . .​

I was just referring to those GMOed foods that have been modified via "non-chemical" processes. I also understand the reasons for the lab modified processes and the inherent dangers we have and are still discovering involved in that arena. There's even some problems inherent in "natural" modification, for all intent an purposes we've all been unknowing lab rats for decades if not centuries in the search to not only increase yields but to preserve foods for longer periods of time.
It wouldn't surprise me if this modification of foods isn't one of the primary genetic triggers for some forms of cancer.

I think we're pretty much on the same page here. We both can see the benefit in increasing crop yields and the nutritional value of foods to feed a hungry world, but we are foolish not to understand that there can be good and bad coexisting side by side.

I just don't see a difference between naturally occurring hybrids and man made hybrids. We're, for the most part, using our God given talent to do what he hasn't gotten around to yet.
Were people afraid of crops grown on irrigated land?

I think where GW comes from is in response to his research in which some pretty ugly stuff is being doing to products that wind up not being good for us and possiibly even dangerous. I used the deadly mad cow disease as an excellent of GMOs gone awry in the worst way. And I'm glad some folks are researching that.

But I think Ringel and I have been arguing that there is an upside as well as a downside and it is okay to trust some GMOs while prudence might be in order in regards to others.

 

[Spoonman]

the problem with gmo's is what they are engineered for. i.e. resistant to herbicides. that way they can spray the fields and the plants with herbicides, kill the weeds and not kill the plants. the fruit and vegetables contain much higher levels of these poisons. you then ingest these poisons.

 

[Spoonman]

Preparing the firewood for this year

 

[blackhawk]

 

[Foxfyre]

Good night darlinks. I really do love you guys.

And we're still keeping vigil for

Harper (Save's granddaughter),
Pogo’s friend Pat and special comfort for Pogo,
TK, and TK's grandma,
Spoonie, Ringel, 007, Hombre, Sheila, Alan, & GW's sore backs,
Sherry’s Mom,
Becki and Becki’s hubby,
Noomi’s Auntie Marj,
The Ringels in difficult transition,
Mrs. BBD's knee,
Mrs. O and SFCOllie and Colonel,
GW's daughter, her friend Sachendra, and Sachendra's husband Bob and son Gary.
Noomi!!!
Ringel for wellness, rest, healing, and extra strength,
Nosmo's mom,
Foxfyre's sore back and painful shoulder,
Mrs. Ringel's knee,
Pogo's brother,
Ernie's stop smoking project,
Chris's new job,
GW's new job,
Gracie's fur friend Karma,

All of us and those we care about who are looking for work,

And the light is left on for Againsheila, Alan1, Noomi, and all the others who we miss and hope to return.

P.S. Sometimes in the editing of the vigil list or when I have switched computers, somebody gets dropped that is supposed to be on it. This will always be inadvertent and if ya'll would call it to my attention, it would be much appreciated.

 

[peach174]

Happy Thursday !
Everybody have a safe and good time tonight if any of you are celebrating this evening.

 

[ChrisL]

the problem with gmo's is what they are engineered for. i.e. resistant to herbicides. that way they can spray the fields and the plants with herbicides, kill the weeds and not kill the plants. the fruit and vegetables contain much higher levels of these poisons. you then ingest these poisons.

I've known people who have been ingesting this type of food and are in their 80s. This fear of genetically modified food products reminds me a lot of the fear of vaccinations where a lot of misinformation is spread.

 

[ChrisL]

So if this food is so poisonous, why aren't we all dropping like flies?

 

[Ringel05]

So if this food is so poisonous, why aren't we all dropping like flies?

Never took biology didja.
The quantities ingested are very small but build up over time, some are flushed via the kidneys, some are not. When the quantities reach a certain concentration one of two things happen, either the actual poisons start affecting the person making them very ill with multiple symptoms or the concentrations trigger cancer. We're still learning how the triggers work. Our bodies constantly produce cancer cells, the bodies immune system takes care of them, kills them off until some genetic "trigger" is activated that stops or prevents the body's ability to kill the cancer cells.

 

[ChrisL]

So if this food is so poisonous, why aren't we all dropping like flies?

Never took biology didja.
The quantities ingested are very small but build up over time, some are flushed via the kidneys, some are not. When the quantities reach a certain concentration one of two things happen, either the actual poisons start affecting the person making them very ill with multiple symptoms or the concentrations trigger cancer. We're still learning how the triggers work. Our bodies constantly produce cancer cells, the bodies immune system takes care of them, kills them off until some genetic "trigger" is activated that stops or prevents the body's ability to kill the cancer cells.

People are living longer than they did in the past.

 

[Ringel05]

Also the way adding chemicals, etc to food is approached is from the statistics/measurement standpoint, how many parts per 100/1000/million/billion will the human body be able to take without ill effect on average. That's great except for two problems, cumulative toxicity and genetic predisposition (which includes genetic differences).

 

[ChrisL]

Also the way adding chemicals, etc to food is approached is from the statistics/measurement standpoint, how many parts per 100/1000/million/billion will the human body be able to take without ill effect on average. That's great except for two problems, cumulative toxicity and genetic predisposition (which includes genetic differences).

My grandmother is in her late 80s and she is quite healthy for a person of her age. She eats the same foods I eat. She never really drank or smoked. She was never overweight and always did things in moderation.

 

[Ringel05]

So if this food is so poisonous, why aren't we all dropping like flies?

Never took biology didja.
The quantities ingested are very small but build up over time, some are flushed via the kidneys, some are not. When the quantities reach a certain concentration one of two things happen, either the actual poisons start affecting the person making them very ill with multiple symptoms or the concentrations trigger cancer. We're still learning how the triggers work. Our bodies constantly produce cancer cells, the bodies immune system takes care of them, kills them off until some genetic "trigger" is activated that stops or prevents the body's ability to kill the cancer cells.

People are living longer than they did in the past.

We also have more cancer than ever before. We just sequenced the human genome in 2003, we are learning soooooo much now it's amazing.
As for living longer much of that has to do with what we've learned and can apply medically over the last 60 years. Medications that extend our lives well past what that of someone even 60 years ago would have known, surgeries that save lives not just from accidents (look at heart surgery).
We are discovering that some things we thought were safe may not be as safe as we once thought conversely other things that we thought were dangerous may not be as harmful as once thought.

 

[Ringel05]

Also the way adding chemicals, etc to food is approached is from the statistics/measurement standpoint, how many parts per 100/1000/million/billion will the human body be able to take without ill effect on average. That's great except for two problems, cumulative toxicity and genetic predisposition (which includes genetic differences).

My grandmother is in her late 80s and she is quite healthy for a person of her age. She eats the same foods I eat. She never really drank or smoked. She was never overweight and always did things in moderation.

Right there is the primary key. But look at what I posted;

That's great except for two problems, cumulative toxicity and genetic predisposition (which includes genetic differences).

What that means is you and your grandmother may never ever have a problem from the added chemicals, your bodies may be quite efficient at expelling toxins, the people next door my not be so lucky with their genetic makeup.
It's all genetics related.