Stop Frankenfish?

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

http://www.organicconsumers.org/fish/

OMG (GMO)... Just came across this :P 

It's just ridiculous. 

Firstly, they "throw all GM salmons in one bottle". If you add junk DNA, it will not grow faster than others. Only if you add growth hormone, it will. 

>MORE CARCINOGENIC: GMO salmon has 40% more IGF1, a hormone linked to prostate, breast and colon cancers in humans.

This is just bullshit. Yes, they have the protein. If you eat 40% more salmon, you also consume 40% more of the hormone. 

The hromone is likely degraded in the stomach, under acidic conditions. Just saying. 

LESS NUTRITIOUS: GMO salmon has the lowest omega-3 to omega-6 ratio of any salmon.

I am sure, if you feed a "GM salmon" (Which modification in this particular case?!) with Omega6 rich algae, it contains more omega6 than salmon feed with monoculture corn. 

LIKELY TO CHANGE THE BACTERIA OF YOUR GUT: Horizontal gene transfer, where the bacteria of the human gut takes up modified DNA from GMO foods during digestion, has been shown occur with soy and is likely to happen with GMO salmon, too.

So what?! 

Not to add, it is highly!!! unlikely. But not impossible. 

It is as likely that the bacteria take up unmodified DNA as that they take up the modified DNA. They should learn about genetic engineering before posting bullshit. The DNA is stably integrated into the genome. 

IIRC, this study took a kanamycin marker and selected for gene uptake. Else even more unlikely to propagate succesfully. 

Ok, let's assume the bacteria have taken up the growth hormones. Do they even express it? If so fine. The bacteria won't be toxic. And you won't grow by eating them, leave alone by touching them. 

>ALL MESSED UP: GMO salmon has increased frequency of skeletal malformations like "humpback" spinal compression, increased prevalence of jaw erosions or "screamer disease," and multisystemic, focal inflammation in its tissues.

If they give a good source for this I'd believe them. "too much" growth hormone may case the skeleton to grow abnormal. But no 2 fish in nature with exactly same growth hormon level :P 

However, they are just speaking of GM in general, so this statement is just junk too. 

Tissue inflamation due to growth hormone? Don't think so. At least, somatotropin was/is sold as an anti-aging drug, doing exactly the opposite. 

>NOT GOING TO SAVE WILD SALMON: The main justification for GMO salmon is that it could reduce the pressure on wild fish stocks, but consumption isn't the primary pressure on wild Alaskan salmon, destruction of their habitat is.

Ok, but not allowing GMO fish also won't helo the natural stocks :P 

• >Ate wild fish for feed (though the make up of the diet can vary considerably)

Is this smart? Each step in the food chain only accumulates 10%. 

100kg Algae -> 10 kg fish1 -> 1 kg salmon.

Why not consume fish1 instead? 

>The farm did not contain wastes - uneaten feed, feces and possibly harmful chemicals

• A professor of mine stated once: 

"Just have a look at how much organic products there are. Organic food means much more efforts to grow - so it's just not realistic that they really all were grown according to organic standards" 

Their page also does not feature a comments feature - usual for superstituos GMO opponents. 

Any thoughts? 

[Cathal Garvey]

Most of the effects they cite are likely due to farming conditions, not
modification. But I do agree that it won't save wild salmon, that's
bullshit.

> - >Ate wild fish for feed (though the make up of the diet can vary

> considerably)
>
> Is this smart? Each step in the food chain only accumulates 10%.
> 100kg Algae -> 10 kg fish1 -> 1 kg salmon.
> Why not consume fish1 instead?
>
>> The farm did not contain wastes - uneaten feed, feces and possibly harmful
> chemicals
>

> -
>
>
> - A professor of mine stated once:

>
> "Just have a look at how much organic products there are. Organic food
> means much more efforts to grow - so it's just not realistic that they
> really all were grown according to organic standards"
>
> Their page also does not feature a comments feature - usual for
> superstituos GMO opponents.
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>

--
Please help support my crowdfunding campaign, IndieBB: Currently at
20.7% of funding goal, with 32 days left:
http://igg.me/at/yourfirstgmo/x/4252296
T: @onetruecathal, @IndieBBDNA
P: +3538763663185
W: http://indiebiotech.com

[Koeng]

Most GMO conspiracies are NOT because of the GMOs, but because of the companies that make and use them. Monstanto crops are almost like any other crop except they are resistant to roundup. They do no harm to the environment. However if you grow some more from seeds, oh boy, you got a lawsuit on your hands. The GMO crops aren't killing the wildlife, the overuse of roundup is.

I find it depressing that almost all arguments against GMOs are 

A) Bullshit

B) Against the company selling them or the chemical used with them

-Koeng

[Patrik D'haeseleer]

Heh - kinda reminds me of this story about a GMO-free corn supplier:

How American Food Companies Go GMO-Free In A GMO World

The company in question started out in the pre-GMO days by encouraging their farmers to practice mono-culture, so they could offer a more uniform product to their customers. So today they can use those same contacts with their farmers to deliver a guaranteed GMO-free product.

Ironic, no? The supplier who pushed monoculture because it would make them more money, can now offer GMO-free monocultured corn to make more money. And they're the good guys?

Patrik

[SC]

Hi Keong,

 

I breathed a sigh of relief when I read your post.  I've been trying to explain this to my family for YEARS.  They're all convinced GMOs cause cancer and will pay crazy money for "organic" foods because they think they don't conatin modified ingredients.  My least favorite person on the planet now is the d-bag who published the fake data with the pictures of the tumor-ridden mice.  Those mice (JAX) probably had tumors when he took them out of their shipping box.  But, none of that matters, because *everyone knows* that GMOs cause cancer, and he had to retract his fake data because Monsanto threatened him or whatever.

 

I'd love to see the day where every little family farm had their own home lab, and produced their own cultivar of tomato or pepper, or whatever.  Like microbreweries, but for GMOs.
Maybe one day.

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

Hopefully. That would be a bright future.

But I would rather expect this to happen on Mars (if humankind takes the leap) - because there you have the choice: allow GMO or die of oxygen depletion/starvation :P

[Alex]

+1 to that!

Alex

On Feb 10, 2014 5:29 PM, "Mega [Andreas Stuermer]" <masters...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hopefully. That would be a bright future.

 But I would rather expect this to happen on Mars (if humankind takes the leap) - because there you have the choice: allow GMO or die of oxygen depletion/starvation :P

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@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+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@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/2e5963c7-d80d-40d6-adca-223414ff76fa%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Koeng]

I just sent their organization a link to this discussion

Lets hope they respond :)

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 2:26:50 PM UTC-8, Mega [Andreas Stuermer] wrote:

[Cathal Garvey]

+1 +1 +1
I really do want to see farmers hack their own crops. Patent-free,
climate-optimised, genetically diverse crop improvement like in the good
old days! But, faster. Because actually, the good old days weren't so
good, when you think about it (Irish guy thinks of Irish Potato Famine).

--
Please help support my crowdfunding campaign, IndieBB: Currently at

21.4% of funding goal, with 31 days left:

[Simon Quellen Field]

I must respectfully disagree with Jonathan.

While I understand how he can come to the conclusion he did, I actually come to almost the opposite conclusion.

There are people who would want to know if a product were produced by people they don't like, so they could avoid buying it, and thus harm those people. Should we have labels on everything that state whether they were touched by people of color, or by people whose sexual orientation, religion, nationality, or stance on women's rights fall into some category, so that we can allow people to harm others more easily?

Labeling of food should be limited to things that actually matter to health and nutrition. Allowing someone's politics, religion, or prejudice to dictate what foods are available in the marketplace is a bad idea. The people who want to prevent genetic modification simply because it is genetic modification are the ones pressing hardest for the labeling laws. They are not making their decisions based on whether there is any actual harm or not.

Putting a label on food that may contain peanuts is one thing. Putting a label on food that may have been touched by illegal immigrants is another. One is related to health, the other to politics. If there is a genetic modification that affects the safety or nutrition of the food, that specific problem should be labeled. But how the modification to the food was made is not relevant. If I created a plant with extra phenylalanine, when that plant normally had none, I should label it as containing phenylalanine, so that phenylketonurics can avoid it. But does it matter whether I did it by crossbreeding or by genetic modification? I think not, although crossbreeding is more likely to be harmful, since I have less control over what actually ended up in the plant.

Labeling products as GMO is not about preventing harm. It is about allowing people to harm growers who choose a particular method of improving crops, based on no scientific data showing harm. It is a political statement, based on prejudice. That prejudice creates harm, by preventing companies from providing food at lower costs to people for whom the cost of food is a hardship. Making plants that don't need to have toxic pesticides sprayed on them prevents harm to farmworkers. Making plants that don't need as much water helps the environment. Making plants that fix their own nitrogen prevents eutrophication of streams. Putting a label on such products to allow wealthy people to boycott them for political reasons harms those who work in the fields and can't afford expensive "organic" food.

-----

Get a free science project every week! "http://scitoys.com/newsletter.html"

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Jonathan Cline <jnc...@gmail.com> wrote:

GMO food is evil until the day comes when food sourcing and food packaging is reliable enough for the consumer to make a choice regarding whether or not to purchase the product.  The evil is in the nefarious method of either forcing or sneaking products into the consumer's hands, which the consumer might not prefer or would not pick if given the choice. 

-- 

## Jonathan Cline

## jcl...@ieee.org

## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223

########################

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@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+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@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/8e1e914b-b9b8-49f0-a76f-fe9dd65aec59%40googlegroups.com.

[Maria Chavez]

Just a few cents on this discussion.  One of the issues I have with the label "organic" being thrown in with "GMO" is that I generally have no problem with GMO food, whereas pesticides greatly concern me so the vagueness of the "organic" label can be confusing to even informed consumers.  

How to educate about these topics is something that has vexed me for quite some time and thank you for the points  this discussion has raised.

-Maria C.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CAA0yOM7vrXNOJwj6MjmaeD48WVO5u6oc-QDgdfrEM341%2BWrK4w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

That's why I would want to see "organic GMOs"

[Jonathan Cline]

There is no scientific data showing harm from
genetically modified foods yet. Emphasis on the YET.
Maybe it is completely harmless, or maybe not.

Science has repeatedly shown in the medical realm
especially regarding basic nutrition that the scientists
are often incorrect or naive or biased. If any intelligent
conversation is had on this topic, then all parties will
eventually agree that it is a medical/nutrition experiment
which will take decades to complete (that is, monitoring the
health impact on humans throughout their lives, which takes
many years).

Consumers have not forgotten the evils of false labeling or
poorly tested food products marketed as safe.

It is the political agenda which specifically forces improperly
or sneakily labelled products into consumers hands, by bending
or biasing legislation typically enacted for beneficial purposes
(look at the corruption of FDA regulations for political and
corporate aims).

High fructose corn syrup instead of sugar.
Splenda.
Saccharine.
Aspartame.
Lead acetate as sweetener.
Multi-vitamins.
Arsenic in US rice
Olestra

How many more examples should we care to list? Feel like
putting the health of your children's lives in the hands of some
corporations opinions of what should or shouldn't be "good
marketing" on the product label?

I'm not any expert on nutrition scandals by far yet only superficially
paying attention to the news I know of dozens of these far reaching
examples.

How about the purposely evil ones, like,

Melamine in milk
plasticizer - DEHP in fruit juices


If consumers want to experiment with their health, and purposely
eat GMOs or the above ingredients, then more power to the
consumer for the freedom to do so. The evil is in hiding ingredients
whereby the fundamentals of capitalism are destroyed:
free market choice.

Only in an open market will evidence regarding merits or harms
truly flourish long term, and this can not be accomplished by hiding
the phrase "Contains Genetically Modified Materials" from the product
packaging. Consumers must be able to make reliable choices about
the fundamental aspect of life: what they are eating.


How about this recent timely article?

The Guardian, Friday 7 February 2014
"Fake-food scandal revealed as tests show third of products mislabelled"

"Consumers are being sold drinks with banned flame-retardant
additives, pork in beef, and fake cheese, laboratory tests show"

"Consumers are being sold food including mozzarella that is less than
half real cheese, ham on pizzas that is either poultry or "meat
emulsion", and frozen prawns that are 50% water, according to tests by
a public laboratory."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/07/fake-food-scandal-revealed-tests-products-mislabelled


And now you want to trust a corporation who is splicing
who-knows-what-gene into who-knows-what-ingredient of
your breakfast cereal for your kids, as a public medical
experiment? On the basis of science not YET demonstrating
that there is any regulatory network involved with that gene?
What!
Geneticists can't even measure what they are purposely looking
for, let alone measure what they aren't looking for! Sound nuts?

It's your choice, and my choice too, only with a valid product label
can I make that choice one way or the other.


On 2/13/14, Simon Quellen Field <sfi...@scitoys.com> wrote:
>
> Labeling products as GMO is not about preventing harm. [...]

> based on no scientific data showing harm.

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

But then you would have to write:

contains foreign DNA:
nptII (e coli transposon)
GFP (aquorea voctoria)
vitaminA synthase (xxx)

Just writing that it contains GM DNA does not give you ANY information. It could be perfectly safe or perfectly toxic.

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

I stand corrected by myself.

Contains recombinant DNA:
Class 1 ("organic GMO): GFP (A.victoria)
Class 2(herbicide resistance): roundup resistance
Class 3 ("antibiotic resistance, toxins"): nptII (E.coli transposon).

So I would decide to only eat class1 because I know they're perfectly safe. class 2 should also be ok, but you gotta draw a line somewhere.

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

So that would give you the information that your gut bacteria cannot become resistant to antibiotics if you eat a GMO that only contains class1 and class2 genes.

Not to mention horizontal gene transfer is unlikely, but it gives you valuable information.

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

Or the information if you have a product only containing class1 genes, there will be no roundup/herbicide residues on the plant. that may be good for your health.

[Cathal Garvey]

> High fructose corn syrup instead of sugar.

This is marketing, and was never "suggested" by dieticians or
"scientists". It was adopted because it's economical, sweeter, and
addictive. "Scientists" and Dieticians, who you seem hell-bent on
blaming for everything, are the group who spent the most time denouncing
the use of HFCS.

Seeing as you're aligning yourself with anti-GMO hippies in this
discussion, perhaps you've heard of "Coconut Sugar" and "Agave Syrup",
often touted as "NATURAL" and "WHOLESOME" alternatives to "conventional"
AGRICHEM sweeteners. One is just sugar, the other high-fructose syrup.

So, glass houses, etc.

> Splenda.
Find proof of harm, please.
(Though I'll grant you the marketing is blatant lies; it's not "made
from sugar", and saying so should be illegal.)

> Saccharine.
Find proof of harm, please.

> Aspartame.
Find proof of harm, please.

> Lead acetate as sweetener.
Can't comment; don't know enough. Suspect this is a very antique
example, though.

> Multi-vitamins.
This isn't "forced on" anyone, it's marketed to people to voluntarily
choose, or not, by regular marketing. The only vitamins and minerals
"forced" on anyone are those with extensive proof of public benefit;
iodised salt, folic acid in staple foods, etc.

> Arsenic in US rice
Nobody ever suggested this was safe. It's a natural consequence of
growing an Arsenic accumulator in arsenic-rich regions while extracting
increasing amounts of groundwater from arsenic-laced aquifers.

> Olestra
Find proof of harm. Nobody wants it anymore of course, because of the,
ahem, side-effects, but I've never heard of it causing significant (in
the scientific sense) harm. Nor have I heard of it being "forced" on
anyone or its use supported by false evidence.

Please help support my crowdfunding campaign, IndieBB: Currently at

22.7% of funding goal, with 28 days left:

[Cathal Garvey]

Also, what the hell is this?

> Melamine in milk
> plasticizer - DEHP in fruit juices

Are you equating the use of GE food crops, which have been more
thoroughly tested for safety than *any other technology I've yet seen*,
with deliberate, illegal adulteration of food with plastics by people
who *know they'll kill children doing so*?

Please explain.

On 13/02/14 19:58, Jonathan Cline wrote:

[Cathal Garvey]

Roundup shouldn't be used as heavily as it is, but I wouldn't concede
the point that it's pretty safe, as herbicides go. It degrades quickly
in moisture, sunlight, or oxygen. So I wouldn't worry about Glyphosate
residues in food, nor much about run-off from fields (as it binds clay
in soil very strongly and degrades in soil).

I would however still choose foods farmed with minimal chemical
application overall, and preferentially I'd choose "permaculturally
grown" food, rather than "organic".

"Organic" is only marginally better than "Biodynamic" and means "grown
according to strict, arbitrary restrictions on some things, with no
restrictions on actually harmful practices, and certified as Organic by
huge organisations that fund animal cruelty and fake science".

"Permaculture" is not "certified" by anyone, so if you trust the seller,
it just means "food grown according to methods believed in good faith by
the provider to be valid methods of growing food indefinitely with
minimal impact", or some variation on that theme. Half the time, this
happens to include complete nonsense like Biodynamics, anti-GMO, etc.,
but there are plenty of permaculturalists out there (myself included)
who are entirely comfortable with the use of technology.

On 13/02/14 21:47, Mega [Andreas Stuermer] wrote:
> Or the information if you have a product only containing class1 genes, there will be no roundup/herbicide residues on the plant. that may be good for your health.
>

[Sebastian Cocioba]

Or lab grown controlled hydroponics? Never touches dirt or
pesti-herbi-omnicides. All nutrient doses controlled using ultrapure
macro and micronutrients. Packed aseptically in a clean environment.
Strains can for once be modified for taste and nutritional content (few
GMO plants focus on consumption quality) rather than resistance to bug
x and chemical y. If anything, a micro propagated hydrofarm the size of
a modest skyscraper could feed a city year round and be somewhat
sustainable if built using solar, wind, high efficiency lighting,
greenroofs, and recycle the water. Using fiber optics to pipe light
from sun during the day can supplement lights. That would technically
be a kind of organic beyond organic. Ultra-Pure veggies? Just a
thought. Sorry for off topic. :)

I know it won't work as a centralized source of crops for mass
production or export but one or two per metropolis would be a nice
addition. At least fresh vine and bush crops like legumes and
nightshade family year round sounds good. I've eaten some tomatoes I've
grown to fruition invitro (microtomato) and they tasted great. Its more
expensive to do so but if hipsters in Brooklyn can charge a super
premium for tomatoes grown in their backyard or silly queens roof top
garden crops selling to high end restaurants for 10x the street price
can find a market so can this. Again pardon the digression and way off
topic post.

Sebastian S. Cocioba
CEO & Founder
New York Botanics, LLC
Plant Biotech R&D From: Cathal Garvey
Sent: 2/14/2014 6:55 AM
To: diy...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [DIYbio] Re: Stop Frankenfish?

[SC]

A comment about engineering "toxins" in crops:

 

Certified organic farmers are allowed to use pesticides, just certain ones.  One of the pesticides they are allowed to use is Bt.  This is normally applied as live bacterial culture, which when eaten by insects disrupts their gut lining and kills them. It acts by binding to gut receptors, which are specific to the species of insect and the strain of Bt.  A farmer must know which type of insect they are attempting to kill so they can choose the correct strain.  Bt specific for beetles won't work on Leps, and sometimes even more specific than that.  No Bt has any effect on any vertebrate.  When humans eat crops with Bt on them, we just digest it and use the amino acids like we would any protein, which is why Bt is OK for organic use.

 

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.

[Cathal Garvey (Phone)]

Also, when sprayed, anti-lep Bt can harm all leps in the field, even non-pest species, whereas in-plata Bt kills only pest species. Score one for GE environmental benefits.

There's plenty out there on the synthetic pesticides like rotanone permitted for "Organic" farming too. Nothing "kind to nature" about that stuff.

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[SC]

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.

 

 

[Cathal Garvey]

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.

--
Please help support my crowdfunding campaign, IndieBB: Currently at

23.1% of funding goal, with 27 days left:

[Andreas Stuermer]

>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)

[Cathal Garvey (Phone)]

More importantly it's irrelevant whether it survives acid. Toxicity is entirely specific to the larval insect midgut. It simply does nothing to nontarget species.

That's quite different to small-molecule toxins which are usually toxic to everything, but mostly to target species: at which point you're juggling doses and wondering about pharmacokinetics.

[Cathal Garvey (Phone)]

Contrast this with glutens, by the way, which DO survive digestion and cause low-grade harm to most, higher to some.

On 16 February 2014 13:58:11 GMT, Andreas Stuermer <masters...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Keys Wolfram]

this won't happens. lab is what make money.

--

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@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+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@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/31d35ef6-82a1-42f6-95d0-b0d5660de92e%40googlegroups.com.

[Koeng]

I will have to disagree with you. If there is enough tools available, it will get there. 

I will assume that by "Lab is what make money" you mean that labs make money and they likely need large infrastructure to do this. I agree, but I think that eventually if the DIYbio community works together to create all of these tools it will be cheap enough to do this. I'd love to be part of this revolution, but unfortunately everything costs money. Regrettably, the DIYbio is a small community without large funding. 

Remember at one time computers were restricted to large facilities and now everyone has them, usually in their pockets at all times.

It would be great if someone could make an open source DNA registry. I have been planning on doing this for a long time (even ordered primers and synthesis for it), but my other projects have pushed this away for a long time. I hope I'll be able to do it this summer

-Koeng

[Patrik D'haeseleer]

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 11:58:20 AM UTC-8, Jonathan Cline wrote:

If any intelligent
conversation is had on this topic, then all parties will
eventually agree that it is a medical/nutrition experiment
which will take decades to complete (that is, monitoring the
health impact on humans throughout their lives, which takes

But then the same could be said of any new tropical fruit introduced on the global market, or of any of the crazy new hybrids that are being produced by traditional crossbreeding (check some of these beauties). Heck, we're still discussing whether coffee is good for you or not. Any new food is an experiment - often one to be savored. 

When I first saw starfruit, I didn't bother asking whether it was safe for me to eat, even though until that point it had essentially only been eaten by people with a very different genetic and nutritional background. A tomato with a single extra gene inserted will be far, far more similar at the metabolic level and its effect on my physiology than an oddball heirloom tomato I've never seen before. Some naturally bred potato varieties contain high levels of solanine, which can increase to toxic levels if the potatoes are stored in the light. Wikipedia: "In the 70s, Solanine poisoning affected 78 school boys in Britain. Due to immediate and effective treatments, no one died.[6]"

"Generally Recognized As Safe" doesn't mean "guaranteed not to cause any unexpected side effects two decades later". Just that they're no more likely to cause issues than conventional foods. Heck, I would love to see much more long-term research on *all* foods. Then again, I would also love to see more long-term research on all of the thousands of novel and poorly characterized chemicals we're exposed to on a daily basis - that seems like a much higher priority to me.

Patrik