Hang on a minute, didn't global tempatures spike in 1998, not long after the introduction of commercial GM plants?
Agronomist can you categorically deny GM had anything to do with that while you're at it?

No, I'm not serious.

Greg
What you claim "All these factors are excluded by the central reductionist dogma of the biotech industry, which prefers to adhere to the “one gene, one protein, one function” model of yesteryear." is totally ridiculous to anyone with a modern training in genetics. It's so ludicrously absurd it’s difficult to know where to start. Do you know any one in the indusry who actually believes what you say they believe. Have you ever asked they? Give us an example we can check.

But putting that aside, there are many measurement over the last few years that show that in addition to your comments about genes being nonsense, your ideas are factually wrong. Conventional breeding techniques such as radiation to make mutations have been measured by many biologists to be less precise than genetic engineering.

By the way, since radiation scrambles DNA when it is used to make mutant plants , why does the organic movement allow GMOs made with radiation in their produce? Seems a bit inconsistent to me, to worry about precise genetic engineering and not pay any attention to imprecise random radiation used to make 3000 different foods that are sold in shops, and grown on organic farms.

GMO Pundit

Response to rstuart..."...GM foods are subject to the same rigorous tests that vaccines are."

If vaccines are subject to to the same 'rigorous tests' as GM foods, we are all very deeply in trouble!!

For example, in respect of allergencity...

1. GM foods are not tested at all.

2. If the GM crop developers can work out what intended novel protein/s is/are produced in the plant, and if they can purify a sufficient quantity from the food source (typically the seed), then that/those protein/s alone may be subjected to some tests.

3. Typically, the actual novel proteins produced in the plant are not subject to any tests at all, and the developers haven't looked for unintended proteins.

From the Monsanto data: In their GM Roundup Ready canola the intended GOX-related protein was not only not tested, but Monsanto couldn't determine what the plant made.

Simply, the wild-type bacterial gox gene was mutated once to produce a gene called the gox standard, and after further mutagenesis the gox variant 247 gene was selected.

A genetic sequence coding for an additional 88 amino acid peptide was added so the bacterial protein would get to the chloroplasts in the plant cells.

It is thought that typically, a transit peptide is cleaved (in full or part) from the functional protein when it arrives at the chloroplast. But Monsanto couldn't determine what happened to the GOXv247.

They tried to sequence the end of the protein - couldn't find it. Instead, they used some results they had from a GM tobacco plant - Monsanto gave the reference for this as "Monsanto notebook page 4546593, Mary Taylor".

Mary had written something about GM tobacco in her notebook - hardly peer reviewed science.

The theoretical GOXv247 wasn't even tested for allergenicity in an on-paper sequence analysis. They assessed the GOX standard protein which wasn't an intended plant protein.

Tested!!??!! They didn't even know what they made. And yes, refined oil contains protein.

Contact me through the MADGE network (Mothers are Demystifying Genetic Engineering) at info@madge.org.au if you would like to review the Monsanto data yourself.

gmo Pundit, Could you please tell me exactly what crops I might be growing on my organic farm that have been derived from radiation caused genetic mutations.I have never heard of this.

Ah Madeleine, yet some more myths to bust.

1) The GM protein testing for allergenicity is generally first an in silico test, because scientists understand reasonably well what are most likely allergenic proteins http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2008/12/allergen-protein-top-ten.html. If evidence of potential allergenicity emerges, then other tests may be done. Whole food allergenicity testing is a very inexact science littered with false negatives. This is why regulatory agencies prefer in silico testing.

2) Health testing for GMOs takes a 4 pronged approach. The introduced proteins are tested for toxicity in animal models. Changes in composition of known toxins, antifeedants and other compounds are tested. Nutritional composition of the product is compared with products already in the marketplace. Whole food safety assurance testing is conducted.

The GM crop developers know what the protein produced is. It is pretty easy to find out. If your assertion that the crop developers don’t know were true, then there would be evidence of this in the literature. After all, these crops are subject to more intense study than any other. So where is this evidence that crop developers don’t know what proteins are produced?

As for your screed about the GOX gene, I strongly suspect you are attempting to create more out of this than there really is. Whether there are 4 or 33 amino acids left from the chloroplast transit sequence is immaterial, because the transit peptide is known to be safe. And as far as I can see, toxicity testing used GOXv247.

Bronwyn, the allegation was that GM soy specifically caused the increase in allergies. This allergation is simply an invention. I can categorically state that it is an invention. http://www.gene.ch/genet/1999/Mar/msg00056.html

Rojo, unfortunately I can’t give you that assurance. According to Irina Ermakova, recent darling of the anti-GM movement, GM crops are directly responsible for global climate change. http://irina-ermakova.by.ru/eng/art/art12.html

agrominist you knoew there are better and worse methods being used by these cowboys after an exclusive new trait that will make them rich

removing ALL the AGRO bacterium is difficult
because it is SO agressive

quote from
http://www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=596_70

>>DECONTAMINATING TREATMENTS ON AGROBACTERIUM-INOCULATED INTERNODE EXPLANTS OF ‘BARTLETT’ PEAR
Authors: P. Negri, L. Manzecchi
Keywords: Pyrus communis, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, genetic transformation, lysozyme
Abstract:
In Agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation experiments the antibiotics commonly added to culture media are often unable by themselves to completely overcome bacterial contamination of explants. After co-cultivation with A. tumefaciens C58C1 pGV3850, ‘Bartlett’ internodes were exposed to vacuum-infiltration with different filter-sterilized washes: either lysozyme (2 mg/ml) or plain water were employed at two pH levels (7, or lowered to 3 with HCl) and, only at pH 7, cefotaxime (500 mg/L). Residual contamination of the explants was assessed on samples, transferred to an antibiotic-free substrate for bacterial growth immediately after the washes (day 0) and after 15, 42, 92 and 133 days of incubation on a cefotaxime-containing plant tissue culture medium.

Although none of the treatments by itself was able to eradicate the bacteria, all of them, combined with explant culture on the cefotaxime-containing substrate, assured a faster decontamination than the pH 7 water control.

The low pH washes were the most effective, but had inhibitory effects on plant cell proliferation; in contrast, lysozyme at pH 7 provided good decontamination without adverse effects on tissue culture.<<

but i know you gotta protect the way your chosing to earn your livin