GMO Toxins and Pregnant Women

[Autumnlicious]

I hope you already gave me that benefit of the doubt before you wrote that.

Wouldn't have it any other way.

I just like to hear myself be pedantic sometimes.

---

Conventional Ag relies on hard physical science. Organics actually get a pass, because it's an ad campaign, not science. This is the official stance of the USDA on the subject matter, and they wrote the NOP.

You, of all people, should know that the "hard physical science" should be "hard physical science AND/OR legal chicanery."

Judging by the history of litigation and corruption in our government and major corporations, it is not unreasonable to assert.

Still, I regard the "organic" movement the same way I regard "global warming evironmental activists" -- with annoyance and irritation at taking legitimate concerns (I use that word very specifically) and turning them into a circus that can be disregarded on bias grounds.

---

To put the whole thing bluntly, squid/bacteria/what-have-you DNA is already in the crops we eat. Always has been. We have no complete model of toxin buildup over time and the effects of the same, but this actually applies to our non-GMO food sources and procedures as well. At the end of the day we have to eat.

One mode of chronic viral pertussis infection that has been observed in infants occurs from the genetic fragments of the virus floating freely in the blood, recombining and becoming infectious, ignoring capsid construction entirely.

The above example serves to illustrate that DNA simply is, like your statement above Rhythm. But just because it is every where does not mean anything other than the phrase "mostly harmless".

I do not care for the "at the end of the day" statement -- it is obvious. People will proceed and operate with partial models all the time -- why must you express a pragmatic observation with a fatalistic "it will happen anyways" tone? Does that somehow invalidate my analysis, that because we lack information, we might as well proceed?

I've not stated anything to the contrary (or even for), merely noted that the science is incomplete and necessitates caution (as you've already stated with the USDA -- they do have a history of such, and I will not ignore it). Then again, however, I was under the impression that the USDA has not dealt with the massive over use of anti-biotics in live stock raising to substitute for sanitary conditions.

Nothing is truly fool proof.

I'd hate for the existence of fools to allow for foolish things to get through though.

[The Grand Nudger]

Absolutely, I failed to specify "conventional ag done right and not hijacked by an industry rep and his buddies in congress." Well reminded, thank you. I have the same opinion of the organic movement. Legitimate concerns, legitimate product, garbage activists tarnishing the whole thing with mostly good intentions (not to say there aren't some hucksters around, of course).

The antibiotics are a product of corn-as-feed in cattle btw. A situation brought about as much by subsidy and politics as science. The conditions (though inhumane by some standards) are usually incredibly "sanitary" as a result of production concerns. That's in this country, not that we get our food from our own farms or anything, and I won't even begin to defend farms in the shitholes we import some of our food from. People don't always live up to the standards, but corruption actually isn't the rule in Ag. Just so happens that cattle fed corn get incredibly sick. They also become vessels for pathogens which they would not normally encounter or harbor and which we can actually become a host for. Milking cows get treatment to prevent mastitis due to excessive milking. It's an issue of literally not being able to provide the product at all without the antibiotics. Not an ideal siuation. The "end of the day" bit was more my frustration on the immediacy and urgency of our need to eat, and how it doesn't leave us time to really think these things through the way we'd like. We've done some foolish things in the name of ag since we started, but we'd be fucked without it. Double edged sword. I probably do lean towards the pragmatic when it comes to ag because ag is primarily a pragmatic solution. As you've said, nowhere near ideal or foolproof.

Summer, help me out, Michael Pollan write a fantastic book about this (antibiotics and livestock, specifically cattle)

[thesummerqueen]

Omnivore's Dilemma?

---

wtf, I didn't even get the notification that someone had responded to this thread, but I felt like Rhythm must need something...must be psychic...

[kılıç_mehmet]

"GMO" toxins?

[thesummerqueen]

Genetically Modified Organisms.

[Autumnlicious]

Why did I read that as "Genetically Modified Orgasms"?

Fuck, I forgot to drink my coffee...

[kılıç_mehmet]

Genetically Modified Organisms.

I know. Let me get this, the "corn" produces it's own toxin against the undesirables, yes?
Well, they need to modify the plant's DNA as to produce a toxin that only hurts what it's supposed to hurt, like if they plan to use it, I mean.

[thesummerqueen]

that's what the goal is, dear.

[kılıç_mehmet]

that's what the goal is, dear.

Well, it clearly didn't work(not that it won't).
However I'd say that meddling with nature's affairs in such ways is not the way.

[thesummerqueen]

Tell me, Kilic...how much do you know about agriculture? It's history? It's practices? Do you know anything about propagation and breeding of plants? I'm just curious.