GMO Foods - Safe? Effective?

[Jackmannii]

@RaftPeople

So you think a product can require labeling and be banned at the same time?

Apparently you do.

@RaftPeople

If it’s found that some food has a mild allergic reaction to some portion of the population, then it should be labeled as such.

Then a short time later we have this:

@RaftPeople

I answered your exact question.
By stating that mild allergic reaction shouldn’t necessarily result in the ban of even that one product

I then noted that you had shifted your position (in the space of a few posts) from just requiring labeling to contemplating possible banning of the product altogether. Or maybe you support labeling the product and maybe banning it too, which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

So why are you all upset at this contradiction being pointed out to you?

And I still don’t see an answer to my question about whether or not you agree with distribution of golden rice in countries where many children are at risk of blindness from vitamin A deficiency.

[RaftPeople]

@Honesty

This is partly true but the problem is that humans have very efficient proteases. So efficient that these proteases at optimal pH and temperature can turn a steak into a fluff of amino acids and oligopeptides in less than a few hours. There are, of course, exceptions, prions which causes scrapie in sheep, mad cow in cows, and kuru in people are due to ingested proteins that escape proteolytic cleavage in the duodenum. It’s theoretically possible but very unlikely that GMO foods cause disease.

It sounds like you are saying that DNA methylation due to food ingested does not happen much, but it is happening all the time.

There are lots of studies out there, and much is still unknown.

Here is just one example from an article about a recent study:
“The findings, published in the journal Aging Cell, showed that men tended to have a higher frequency of these epigenetic changes than women, which is consistent with men being at a greater risk of bowel cancer. Volunteers with higher vitamin D status tended to show lower levels of methylation, and a similar effect was observed for selenium status. Again, this is consistent with the known links between higher vitamin D and selenium and reduced bowel cancer risk.”

[RaftPeople]

@Jackmannii

Apparently you do.Then a short time later we have this: I then noted that you had shifted your position (in the space of a few posts) from just requiring labeling to contemplating possible banning of the product altogether.

As stated in the original answer:
1 - The allergy product got labeled.
2 - The cancer product got banned.
That means that, by definition, an allergic reaction does not necessarily mean GM foods should be banned - BECAUSE THERE EXISTS AT LEAST ONE EXAMPLE OF AN ALLERGY PRODUCT THAT JUST GOT LABELED, NOT BANNED.
If you want me to type slower so you can follow it, just let me know and I will do that.

[GIGObuster]

I only notice how the last question is always omitted and not answered, the one about if there is agreement with the distribution of golden rice in countries where many children are at risk of blindness from vitamin A deficiency.

[Honesty]

@RaftPeople

It sounds like you are saying that DNA methylation due to food ingested does not happen much, but it is happening all the time.

There are lots of studies out there, and much is still unknown.

Here is just one example from an article about a recent study:
“The findings, published in the journal Aging Cell, showed that men tended to have a higher frequency of these epigenetic changes than women, which is consistent with men being at a greater risk of bowel cancer. Volunteers with higher vitamin D status tended to show lower levels of methylation, and a similar effect was observed for selenium status. Again, this is consistent with the known links between higher vitamin D and selenium and reduced bowel cancer risk.”

You can’t really use Vitamin D is an example. Vitamin D status is very complex, difficult to measure, and it’s not wholly dietary. There’s a focus on dietary Vitamin D in the United States because our daylight hours and regional differences do not permit optimal Vitamin D synthesis throughout the year. The reason vitamin D has an effect on epigenetic markers is because it vitamin D binds to to a class of nuclear transcription factors called uh, I think, Vitamin D receptors or VDRs. VDRs combine with other VDRs as a homodimer (or a heterodimer with RXRs that bind vitamin A, but we’ll leave this out for now) in the cytoplasm and tumble into the nucleus where they direct the synthesis of all sorts of genes that including histone demethylases. These molecular machines essentially uncouple DNA from histones by removing methyl groups that act as molecular rivets. Once DNA is freed from histones, genes can be transcribed by RNA pol II. It’s beautiful thing, I wish all things in life was just as efficient. In any case, the paper you cited is essentially a recapitulation of what we already knew: the presence of Vitamin D affects expression of genes by increasing the expression of demethylases, leading to lower levels of methylated DNA.

• Honesty

[Farin]

@RaftPeople

It sounds like you are saying that DNA methylation due to food ingested does not happen much, but it is happening all the time.

Methylation happens all the time. Methylating a gene sequence means that it will not be transcribed by RNA into proteins. It is a natural function of our own bodies.

@RaftPeople

There are lots of studies out there, and much is still unknown.

Here is just one example from an article about a recent study:
“The findings, published in the journal Aging Cell, showed that men tended to have a higher frequency of these epigenetic changes than women, which is consistent with men being at a greater risk of bowel cancer. Volunteers with higher vitamin D status tended to show lower levels of methylation, and a similar effect was observed for selenium status. Again, this is consistent with the known links between higher vitamin D and selenium and reduced bowel cancer risk.”

First, link your studies or synopsis of studies. If you are going to the trouble of copy and pasting a quote, you can do it a second time for the link brackets.

Second, you will also find that the skin cells have heightened methylation. Methylation occurs (after developmental speciation from a stem cell) in tissues as cells are damaged. Parts of the genetic structure that get damaged get methylated to prevent expression.

As for bowels, that’s generally considered the large intestine (Ascending, descending, transverse and sigmoid colons), which is the part of your body that deals with solid wastes. As the solid waste forms, it repeatedly impacts the side of the bowel and causes damage. Over a life time, this damage can accumulate causing methylation of the damaged bits and can eventually lead to cancer (usually by between ten and 30 genes getting mutated). Men tend to eat a different diet then women, which is why they have a larger risk for colon cancer.

However, this is true for all diets and not related in any way to GMOs, their expressed proteins, or the genes inserted into the edible portions of the GMOs. Concentrating the wastes of your diet into hard, lumpy pieces will ultimately doom you over time to horrible cancers of the bottom bits. Some people are just lucky enough to die before it gets them.

As a bit of extra knowledge, I have read in the past that the most aggressive cancers have actually stripped methylation off of the genes in it’s cells, allowing for things like telomerase to be produced en mass, division to run amok, and signals for angiogenesis to take place.

[Jackmannii]

@GIGObuster

I only notice how the last question is always omitted and not answered, the one about if there is agreement with the distribution of golden rice in countries where many children are at risk of blindness from vitamin A deficiency.

Anti-GMOers typically try to avoid discussing this issue.

The research and testing have been exhaustive, the cost of not distributing and growing the rice is starkly evident, and alternatives for amping up vitamin A intake are not practical, so it should be a no-brainer. And yet we have Greenpeace and other anti-GMO groups still bitterly opposing golden rice for one reason only - its success will further legitimize use of GM technology. The people it will save from blindness and death are of limited consequence.

At least Greenpeace addresses the subject, faulty as its arguments are.

[RaftPeople]

Jackmannii, what is your goal with posting in this thread?

When I answer concretely with “absolutely” you call that evasive.

When I answer your exact question and provide you even more information than you asked, you call it evasive and you appear unable or unwilling to follow basic logical inference.

Despite explicitly stating that I’m not anti-GMO you state that I am.

Despite stating that I have no evidence or even an opinion of current problems you state that I want to ban GM foods.

Your posting behavior is not normal for an adult conversation - care to explain?

[RaftPeople]

@Honesty

You can’t really use Vitamin D is an example.

• Honesty

Ok, I just chose the first one I hit out of thousands, my point was that DNA methylation is occurring all the time due to diet.

Would you agree that it is happening regularly?

The implication being that food consumed impacts gene expression, meaning it’s a mechanism for food to be linked to long term issues.

This is not to claim it’s anything new or GM food specific, merely that this is one avenue for a GM food (or any food) to cause problems.

[Jackmannii]

@RaftPeople

Jackmannii, what is your goal with posting in this thread?

As of now, it’s just to marvel at your continuing to duck my question about golden rice.

Also to post a link to this article exploding the “top five” GMO myths (featured on that bastion of corporate apologism, npr.org).

[GIGObuster]

@Jackmannii

Anti-GMOers typically try to avoid discussing this issue.

[Looks at the last reply by RaftPeople]
Indeed, that post is still avoiding the golden rice question and expects that others would not notice. Like with the anti-freeze item, it is really hard not to point out that, if not an anti-gmo, he is relying or looking at sources that are. Many points that are in reality iffy are acquired by osmosis.

[RaftPeople]

@Farin

Methylation happens all the time. Methylating a gene sequence means that it will not be transcribed by RNA into proteins. It is a natural function of our own bodies.

Yes.

My point was that we know that diet causes methylation, which is a change in gene expression, and gene expression can be linked to negative side-effects.

Therefore it’s an avenue for GM foods (and non-GM foods) to have side-effects (negative or positive, really).

Furthermore, it’s not well understood what methylation changes may be linked to side-effects. Much is unknown due to relatively recent (20-30 years) knowledge that methylation alters gene expression.
Finally, it’s not just dna methylation, but histone modification and rna silencing (so far) involved in epigenetics.

This is the summary of my point:
1 - There are existing known avenues of altering gene expression due to diet
2 - Some are negative (some appear to be linked to some cancers)
3 - Some are positive (some appear to be linked to prevention of some cancers)
4 - Scientists are just beginning to understand this area - much is still unknown (2006 for pulling together the different info on RNA silencing into one picture)
Do you disagree with any of those 4 points?

It really just goes to completeness of our current knowledge.

[CurtC]

@RaftPeople

This is not to claim it’s anything new or GM food specific, merely that this is one avenue for a GM food (or any food) to cause problems.

… And?

Since this issue is about food in general, and not specifically GM, what do you propose to do about it?

Maybe put a warning label on every item of food? “Warning: this product contains chemicals, most of which have not been exhaustively tested in human subjects. Eat it at your own risk.”

[Jackmannii]

@GIGObuster

[Looks at the last reply by RaftPeople]
Indeed, that post is still avoiding the golden rice question and expects that others would not notice. Like with the anti-freeze item, it is really hard not to point out that, if not an anti-gmo, he is relying or looking at sources that are. Many points that are in reality iffy are acquired by osmosis.

Speaking of using memes from the “anti” camp - the bit about we-need-more-research is a familiar rallying cry from those unwilling to acknowledge a large body of existing research that doesn’t fit in with their prejudices.

*"Every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies—in some cases numbering in the hundreds—in coming to the consensus conclusion that GMO crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods. But until now, the magnitude of the research on crop biotechnology has never been cataloged. In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists summarized 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods—a staggering number.

The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded."*

Those studies are expected to be added to a public database, making a total of about 2000 studies demonstrating GMO safety (around half generated by independent scientists).

Of course we need more research. We need continued studies on lots of things. But it’s disingenuous to suggest that the extensive work that’s been done to date on GMOs is somehow rushed or inadequate.

By the way, here’s an article featuring a golden rice skeptic’s questions - and well-considered answers.

[RaftPeople]

@GIGObuster

Like with the anti-freeze item, it is really hard not to point out that, if not an anti-gmo, he is relying or looking at sources that are.

The source of my logical analysis is my own brain based on my limited but non-zero understanding of the complexity of biological systems.

“antifreeze” came from a pro-GMO article reviewing the state of studies/information regarding GM safety written by a scientist that works for Dow that appeared in the Journal of Toxicology (if I remember correctly).

I generally try to avoid anti-GMO and pro-GMO articles.

If you actually want to add some sort of actual point to the debate, you could start by countering my points regarding epigenetics and the possibility for long term negative side-effects.

[GIGObuster]

@RaftPeople

If you actually want to add some sort of actual point to the debate, you could start by countering my points regarding epigenetics and the possibility for long term negative side-effects.

I already did link to long term studies, but everyone can notice that they were deftly avoided by you.

[RaftPeople]

@CurtC

… And?

Since this issue is about food in general, and not specifically GM, what do you propose to do about it?

Maybe put a warning label on every item of food? “Warning: this product contains chemicals, most of which have not been exhaustively tested in human subjects. Eat it at your own risk.”

You’re new to the thread and may not have read the whole thing, and it’s possible you are getting the wrong impression from Jackmannii’s and GIGO’s posts that don’t really relate very well to my opinions, so I will restate for you:

1 - “GM Foods Safe?”
My primary disagreement is with people making blanket statements like “GM foods are safe”.

Each new change has new possibilities for side-effects and you can’t just make some blanket statement about these new products. Each one requires testing and it’s a legitimate area of concern as to whether we can properly predict the testing required for each new product.
2 - My Opinion about Current GM Foods
I have no evidence or opinion that there are existing problems.
I have no opinion that they should be banned.
3 - Future GM Foods
I have a strong opinion that there is much scientists still do not understand about the relationship between things we ingest and their impact on our biology.

Epigenetics is fairly new, some study has linked to both positive and negative side effects, which implies we don’t really know if new things that can alter gene expression will end up causing long term side effects.
4 - Hybrids or non-GM methods
You asked about this before and others mentioned it and it’s a great question.
My point #3 would logically apply to these as well.
I can’t say that GM represents more risk than Hybrid, the best I can say is to rely on an article that appeared to be neutral that indicated one concern is wider variability, but I really haven’t looked into or found evidence that GM represents greater risk.
5 - My Proposal
I don’t think any reasonable proposal can be made without properly understanding the risk level, and it’s my opinion that, especially w.r.t. epigenetics, the risk is not fully understood.

So the only thing concrete I can say about proposals would be something like:
1 - Increased long term testing
2 - If a product is determined to have a mild problem - labeling would make sense
3 - If a product is determined to have a severe problem - banning that product would make sense

[Jackmannii]

@RaftPeople

The source of my logical analysis is my own brain

Is this a variant of “my post is my cite?”

“antifreeze” came from a pro-GMO article reviewing the state of studies/information regarding GM safety

None of your linked articles referred to “antifreeze” in GM foods. That was your construct.

I generally try to avoid anti-GMO and pro-GMO articles.

So you avoid contact with all articles reporting negative or positive findings? That would explain a lot about knowledge gaps.

[Farin]

@RaftPeople

Finally, it’s not just dna methylation, but histone modification and rna silencing (so far) involved in epigenetics.

No, it’s not just methylation. However, you are repeatedly expressing the body’s own functions as something that could be effected by GMO. Adding additional epigenetic vectors to your list isn’t really helping your case in this regard.

@RaftPeople

This is the summary of my point:
1 - There are existing known avenues of altering gene expression due to diet

These mentioned alterations are the body’s own functions in response to stimuli. I have read nothing to say that any GMOs actively target these functions in any way or effectively alter the functioning of these epigenetic vectors to achieve any effect.

To put it this way: The moon could smash into the earth in six hours. I have seen no evidence, however, that this is in process or that it will happen.

@RaftPeople

2 - Some are negative (some appear to be linked to some cancers)

Cancer is ultimately a disease of either defect or progressive damage. Anything that causes cellular damage will eventually cause cancers to develop. This can even be caused by simple cellular replication.

Note, however, that this is everything. Accidentally choking on a glass of water can cause damage to your bronchial tubes, which can eventually lead to lung cancer. We do not currently have the technology to assess each particular object’s function on damage within a body. The best we can do is petri dish and rat exposure. However, there are a lot of problems with these tests. They can give indications, but they have well-known limitations.

@RaftPeople

3 - Some are positive (some appear to be linked to prevention of some cancers)

In relation to the above, anything that prevents cellular damage will reduce the chance of cancer.

@RaftPeople

4 - Scientists are just beginning to understand this area - much is still unknown (2006 for pulling together the different info on RNA silencing into one picture)

Much of this information is indeed new. However, it doesn’t change the fact that you are concentrating on functions of our own bodies that specifically react to the presence and general makeup of our diet to somehow call for either labeling or banning the new-form GMOs. These reactions, changes, and other such things would be present even if we never bred any animal or plant for specific characteristics, much less complaining now, thousands of years after we started messing with organisms.

@RaftPeople

Do you disagree with any of those 4 points?

It really just goes to completeness of our current knowledge.

I disagree with your application of the points to your argument of calling for labelling and/or banning. Almost every potential criteria we could use, including “genetically modified” can apply to all crops. The only one that can readily be needed is an allergen label…which is already required in the United States.

[RaftPeople]

@Farin

No, it’s not just methylation. However, you are repeatedly expressing the body’s own functions as something that could be effected by GMO.

These mentioned alterations are the body’s own functions in response to stimuli. I have read nothing to say that any GMOs actively target these functions in any way or effectively alter the functioning of these epigenetic vectors to achieve any effect.

I’m not following your objection.

Here’s the logic:
1 - Our diet impacts gene expression.
2 - A GMO food is part of our diet.
3 - Therefore a GMO food can impact gene expression

Is there something incorrect about that logic?

Much of this information is indeed new. However, it doesn’t change the fact that you are concentrating on functions of our own bodies that specifically react to the presence and general makeup of our diet to somehow call for either labeling or banning the new-form GMOs. These reactions, changes, and other such things would be present even if we never bred any animal or plant for specific characteristics, much less complaining now, thousands of years after we started messing with organisms.

It sounds like maybe you are saying that specific foods do not alter gene expression and therefore we should not be concerned with the level of safety of specific foods.

Is this correct?