jdlancaster
-
Posts
376 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by jdlancaster
-
-
It's absolutely unethical... student teacher... police prisoner. .. psychiatrist patient... military officer and young enlisted soldiers. ... all wrong. It's also wrong to assume it's all male teacher female student... it can go the other way... or male-male female- female. I understand that some subordinates may try to goo down that road but it part of the job to say no.... I can't imagine banging students fits into best practices
-
#11 fails for a variety of reasons, mostly due to food choices and testing methods. They didn't actually measure inflamation and many other issues. I've attached this as to why it doesn't pass muster to avoid more long posts: http://parrottlab.uga.edu/ProfParrott/pigs2013.html
#12 An ok article even if it over reaches a bit... makes claims such as gmo food compared to non-gmo food showed microscopic differences comparable to eating different foods... no danger issues.. but an ok article... some issues with the article were published here (among other places): http://www.goldenrice.org/PDFs/Crop_conundrum_Dubock_Nutr_Rev_2009.pdf
-
This is political and not a reflection of the technology... much as rice schemes or giving in to protesting taxi drivers.... but it is relevant given it may be related to the OP.
-
#9 and 10 also about pesticides and not GMOs
-
#7 is about an insecticide and not GMOs, it is also from an antigmo website with no data or peer reviewed references... #8is a report on pesticides and not GMOs...
-
#5 is a retracted article... if an article is retracted from a scientific journal it means there are SERIOUS issues with it... if not outright lies or fabricated data, the methodology has been debunked.
#6 is not about GMOs at all and irrelevant.. it is about pesticides... yes.. pesticides are bad and any reducing their use is good...
-
#3 and 4 are not scientific journal articles... they are articles from antigmo websites with no references to peer-reviewed journal articles. They are not references.
-
tomacht8... after going through 2 articles I noticed that what you called the articles and there actual names are not the same... for example #2 is called
Complete Genes May Pass from Food to Human Blood not DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them... you are misrepresenting the papers as something they are not...I'm not sure the appropriate word... but it is tantamount to lieing... though I know it's not on purose.. it was most likely a copy and paste
-
#2 a great article but not relevant to GMOs.. its about DNA passing from the stomach to the blood... GMOs don't have any special genes you don't already eat... are you worried about turning into a cow from eating beef.... you eat bacillus thuringiensis all the time... if you eat golden rice which has a carrot gene for beta-carotene is it more dangerous that a carrot? the article states this comes from everywhere.. what you breathe, what you eat, what you drink... its not an issue with GMOs but with life in general... your stomach is full of bacteria you need to live... but we don't fear horizontal gene transfer... there is no evidence of danger in the article... and the article isn't about GMOs
-
Addressing toamtchat8's articles
#1 the paper didn't actually implicate the presence of the protein as from GMOs, but could be from the cosmopolitan bateria Bacillus thuringiensis which is used in organic nonGMO farming. also the paper states detection levels below the sensitivity of the equipment which is shown in another paper (listed below) meaning the results can be a false positive. Also the levels detected aren't in line with the levels in bt corn... one would have to consume more than a pound of bt corn every day to reach these levels... unlikely as an average for every individual... meaning some people eat no corn and others must eat 2 lbs. a day and this is assuming none of the protein breaks down which is known to happen in the stomach... Then the testing method is not to be used on blood... it is referenced that the test is not validated for blood...
Expert Answer
By: David Tribe Ph.D., Senior Lecturer, Agriculture and Food Systems/Microbiology and Immunology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia on Friday, 3/07/2014 11:53 amDr. David Tribe, Senior Lecturer on Agriculture and Food Systems and Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia, addressed the study conducted by Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc in an article on the Biofortified Blog. The full article is posted below.Here are a few key points:
- “The authors of the study claim to have detected the Cry1Ab protein in the blood of pregnant and nonpregnant Canadian women, and in umbilical cord blood of fetuses.”
- "A number of methodological and interpretive limitations of this paper limit the relevance of the reported findings and conclusions about food safety.”
- “The authors do not provide any evidence that GM foods are the source of the [Cry1Ab] protein. No information was gathered on the diet of any individual in the study, so the assertion that the detection of Cry1Ab is linked to ingested GM food is, at best, speculative.”
A recent publication by Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc in the journal Reproductive Toxicology (“Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in eastern townships of Quebec, Canada”) claims to have detected traces of herbicides (used on herbicide-tolerant “genetically modified” plant varieties) or their major metabolite and the insecticidal protein Cry1Ab (produced by certain varieties called Bt-resistant insect pests) in the blood of Canadian women, pregnant or not pregnant, and in umbilical cords.
Th[e Kuntz] site will publish any credible information about the validity of these claims, and this article will be updated periodically.
A publication lacking credibility
Only claims of Aris and Leblanc on Cry1Ab are discussed here for the time being.
The Cry1Ab protein is produced by some Bt cotton and corn (e.g., MON810).
Aris and Leblanc claim they detected this protein in 93 percent of pregnant women and 69 percent of nonpregnant women tested and believe that this is linked to the consumption of foods derived from Bt varieties, which in Canada must mean corn, rather than cottonseed oil.
Surprisingly, the authors do not consider that the origin of Cry1Ab could be food from organic farming (which sprays Cry1Ab, or bacteria producing it, on fruit or vegetable crops) or from its use in gardening (CryA1b is part of available “natural insecticide” formulations).
If we examine the possibility of a Bt corn food origin for Cry1Ab, since these proteins do not bioaccumulate, it is necessary to consider recent consumption.
First question: Do 93 percent of pregnant women in Canada actually consume corn almost daily?
Second question: Are the values in blood reported by Aris and Leblanc consistent with the levels present in Bt corn kernels?
The answer is no. Here’s why:
The authors reported average values of 0.19 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) of blood from pregnant women. Knowing that, in corn MON810, for example, levels of Cry1Ab in the grain are between 190 and 390 ng/g fresh weight, assuming that 1 percent will pass into the blood (which is on the high side, taking into account losses during corn storage, cooking and gastric digestion and the intestinal barrier), this would require a woman of 60 kg to consume 120 g of corn (for the mean blood value of 0.19 ng/ml, assuming a plasma volume of 2.5 liters) and about 1.5 kg (for the maximum reported blood values of 2.28 ng/ml), which seems unrealistic—and even more if one takes into account all extracellular fluids (10 liters, which would imply an average consumption of 490 g of corn and 5.8 kg in order to reach the maximum value in blood).
Third question (which follows logically the above-mentioned findings): Is the Cry1Ab detection method used by Aris and Leblanc reliable?Note first that the test used, marketed by Agdia, is claimed to detect the protein Cry1Ab from 1 ng/ml (read the introduction to this article), while Aris and Leblanc claim to have detected average concentrations lower than the detection limit, e.g., 0.04 ng/ml in umbilical cords!
One can cite the publication by Lutz et al. (J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53 (5): 1453–6) showing that the ELISA test used by Aris and Leblanc is not sufficient to guarantee the identity of positive signals (to avoid misinterpretation, samples tested positive for Cry1Ab protein by ELISA should be reassessed by another technique).
Note that Aris and Leblanc did not discuss this issue, nor the results of Chowdhury et al. (J. Animal Sci. 2003, 81: 2546–51), which indicate that these ELISAs do not work for blood (from pigs).
Moreover, they do not cite the publication by Paul et al. (Analytica Chimica Acta 2008, 607: 106–13) that discusses the validity of the tests available on the market. (Provisional) answers to the questions that arise: in the absence of the validation of the detection of Cry1Ab, it is likely that the authors incorrectly conclude that any signal was indicative of the presence of the Cry1Ab protein, whereas they most likely correspond to false positives.
A possible validation, which, surprisingly, is lacking in the work of Aris and Leblanc, is the electrophoretic separation of plasma proteins and immunodetection of the protein Cry1Ab (“Western blot,” a common laboratory technique).
It therefore appears that this publication, in its present state, is of insufficient quality to be convincing. It has not undergone a proper review process according to the standards of a scientific journal, which would have required the validation of the results and their discussion in relation to available literature.FSANZ response to study linking Cry1Ab protein in blood to GM foods. Accessed May 30, 2011.
There has been some media speculation about a recent paper published by Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc titled “Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in eastern townships of Quebec, Canada” (Reproductive Toxicology, 2011).
What is the paper about?
The paper deals with two herbicides, glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium, that are sprayed on both genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops, and an insecticidal protein, Cry1Ab, that is produced by the naturally occurring soil bacteriumBacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki (Btk). The gene encoding this protein has been used to genetically modify some crops so that they contain the protein and are thus protected against certain insect pests. The protein is also extensively used in organic and conventional farming as a direct-application pesticide.The authors of the study claim to have detected the Cry1Ab protein in the blood of pregnant and nonpregnant Canadian women, and in umbilical cord blood of fetuses.
What are the concerns about the paper?
A number of methodological and interpretive limitations of this paper limit the relevance of the reported findings and conclusions about food safety. The key limitations include insensitivity of the assay method used and unsubstantiated and invalid assumptions regarding the source of the Cry1Ab protein in the diets of test subjects. Media speculation arising from this paper has also presented conclusions about the human-health relevance of this paper that are not supported by either the paper itself or the broader scientific literature. These issues are discussed in more detail below.
The assay method
The assay method (ELISA) used for Cry1Ab protein was not tested (validated) for its suitability to measure Cry1Ab in human blood. Other reports in the scientific literature have shown that the ELISA assay is not suitable for this purpose.In mammals, the Cry1Ab protein is degraded in the stomach. If any fragments of the Cry1Ab protein were to pass through into the bloodstream, they would be present at levels much lower than could be quantified by the assay method used in the study.
The assumption that GM foods are the source of the Cry1Ab protein
The authors do not provide any evidence that GM foods are the source of the protein. No information was gathered on the diet of any individual in the study, so the assertion that the detection of Cry1Ab is linked to ingested GM food is, at best, speculative.Several insecticidal formulations (e.g., Delfin, Dipel) contain a blend of crystallised proteins (including Cry1Ab and living Btk spores) that germinate into the bacterium that then produces the proteins. These formulations have been applied worldwide, including in Australia, for decades. They are applied to crops such as broccoli, cauliflower, celery, melons, potatoes, spinach, tomatoes, cucumbers, turnip, grapes, kiwifruit, citrus and avocados. They are used both commercially and by home gardeners and are permitted for use on organically certified crops.
In comparison, the consumption of food derived from GM corn containing the Cry1Ab protein (no other currently commercialised GM crop species contains this gene) is recent and relatively minor. The corn lines containing the Cry1Ab protein are used mostly for animal feed and for processing into refined products, such as corn syrup and cornstarch, which, because of processing, contain negligible levels of any protein. None of the GM corns produced so far is from the popcorn or sweet-corn lines and is therefore not consumed directly. Therefore, ingestion of Cry1Ab by humans via GM corn is not likely to be significant compared with conventional and organic produce sources.
Interpretation by the media that Cry1Ab protein is a human safety issue
There have been claims in the media that the paper proves that GM foods are not safe for human consumption.However, the paper does not discuss the safety implications of finding Cry1Ab in the human body, and the authors make no mention of any abnormalities in either the subjects or, in the case of those who were pregnant at the time of the study, the subsequent process of birth or the health of the mothers and babies postpartum.
The Cry1Ab protein, whether ingested via Btk-sprayed conventional or organic crops or via GM corn products containing the protein, is safe for human consumption at the levels likely to be found in these sources.
For more information, see this report, prepared under the auspices of the World Health Organization. It is about Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), the organism used in the spray formulations, and from which various genes have been isolated for use in genetically modified crops. Chapter 7 deals with a whole range of exposures to the organism (and, hence, the proteins produced by it) and their effects in humans. -
The GMO giants work with lobbying, influence opinion, arguing scientifically only with excerpts, employ blog writers on mass,
Try to get as much patents on plants.
Hopefully Thailand throws out these GMO loan sharks.
What is wrong with GMOs... How are they dangerous? What threat do they pose? How many people get sick a year from them? Which GMOs do it? How?
I guess you don´t know, but:
Monsanto Going to Trial for Crimes Against Humanity
In the Hague, Netherlands, International Criminal Court
Monsanto, the US-based, transnational company responsible for introducing multiple genetically modified crops and numerous toxic chemicals into our environment – including saccharin, aspartame, polystyrene, DDT, dioxin, Agent Orange, petroleum based fertilizers, recombinant bovine growth hormones (rGBH), Round Up (glyphosate), Lasso, Bt toxic plants, and more.
The proceedings will take place on World Food Day, October 16, 2016.
You have been tricked... that is not the International criminal court... it is just a group of people having a mock trial at the Hague... and you have mentioned what they introduced... but you haven;t mentioned the threats of GMOs... Bt toxic plants.. what are the problems? the other stuff isn't about GMOs... I saw a post a few back with references... I will check them out.. maybe legit
-
You didn't establish anything... you did the opposite... you avoided establishing anything at any cost....the only attempt to frame anything was you.... you have been allowed to give any argument. .. but you have failed to make any claim and support it by evidence. .. it is amazing... you have managed in almost 30 threads to not say anything... to add anything... the logical fallacies from you...
-
The amazing thing about this thread... is I wasn't progmo beforehand. .. my research is mostly about nematode bacterial associations (add in a little malaria stuff during my army reserve time)... I assumed there would be some dangers to gmos... but this thread made me look at the papers and all the good things theyre used for... the ngos trying to help the poor.. companies giving up rights to their patents in the developing world... and the amount of research done showing the safety of gmos... I didn't know the dangers of hybrids before... or the amount of deaths from vitamin A deficiency. ... I tried to find problems...
And of course I knew about the damage antivaxxers do... but now I know how dangerous antigmo groups are too...
-
Can't agree? Can't agree on what? What are you talking about? How does anything your saying support the use or non use of gmos in thailand? I can't agree or disagree with you. .. why can't you state your views in a few simple statements. ... ? Nobody knowa your views because you won't state them... you purposely obfuscate everything you say...
-
What is this nonsensical babble you are sputtering. ....? What are you claiming for or against gmos? Nothing you say makes sense.. gmos are safe .... and good for the economy save lives andgood for farmers.... thats my claim restated. .... nobody knows whatbyou are talking about.... you are implying things are in a debate because people talk about them? Thats what it aounds like.... I know its not what you mean.... but its what you are saying.... I talk about many things... and they surely aren't debates.... you don't make any sense.... give me a thesis statement or something. ...
-
You have established nothing... in order for you to establish something it would require you to make a claim and then support it with evidence. .. you are avoiding making a claim again.... there are no issues.... you present no evidence.... listen... I understand. ... there is no evidence against gmos.... I get it... you have no evidence to show... I was hoping you could show me something but you can't. ..
-
I do have access... and I have posted multiple peer reviewed journal articles showing the benefits of gmos.... the articles are all on one side.... the side of gmos... you again avoid posting an argument and supporting it.... issue is defined as an important topic for debate or discussion. ... there is no debate or discussion because there is no evidence has been presented here against gmos
-
Never said that.. just don't know what your thesis is on... you didn't say.... so I didn't want to guess... im not an engineer. . So I really don't know what you do all day with a thesis chair in the mathematics department. ... I don't care to speculate....
-
Yes... good luck with thesis in engineering... or math... or science whichever you are doing ... I can't remember. ..
-
Concede? Ya .... um... ok? I just disagreed with you.. or did I? Because you're incapable of putting argumt together. ... I've been asking for one since the beginning. ... all I do is wait...(you promised several pages ago) this is a one sided discussion. .. all of the arguments are on the progmo side... some antigmo claims have been made... but claims arent included in debates or discussion with evidence. . Any debater knows ive won by default. .. you amaze me... you have to be a troll... to conaciously avoid stating a position .... I find it difficult to believe you are serious
-
I answered your question. .. no... as you no arguments have been presented on the antigmo side.... so we are not in agreement. .... you can put me in agreement by presenting an argument. ... as of right now no argument has been presented on the side of the antigmos... that is the basis of any debate or policy discussion. .... so again we are not in agreement based on the academic definitions
-
An argument is defined (in a debate)as an opinion that is supported with evidence. Debatesare based upon arguments. I thought id thow that in there to preempt avoiding stating your arguments
-
Your asking a loaded question that your preparing to use for a logical fallacy... but to answeryour question... idk if its on both sides of the debate or if there is one unless you present the arguments first... I don't think there is a real debate because you haven't presented any arguments for your position. ..I don't know if they exist and therefore cannot answer your question prior to you stating your position. .. then when there are two sides to the argument then I can answer.... so far I only see one and therefore it is not a debate
-
The list is whatever you consider it to be.... what people discuss is irrelevant. ... Iran debates the existence of the Holocaust.... doesn't mean it didn't happen ... I stated my opinion already on gmos.... you state yours... ive asked you since the beginning. .. any argument u want to use is fine by me... youve only used logical fallacies so far
Relationships with Students
in Teaching in Thailand Forum
Posted
And to add... ethics aren't there just to protect the student and the teacher... They are there to protect to organization and the profession. To use the most ethically ambiguous example... a university student not in your department... If the community at large to include parents know professors are sleeping with students it damages the university's reputation and enrollment... something you are expected to protect... as is often in your contract or in a code of conduct (though they shouldn't have to give you a book).