Greenpeace Warns Over Gmo Cookies

[ZZZ]

So what you are saying is that any gene has one function only?

A gene provides the template for the production of a protein

As far as I know a gene can have several functions, direct and indirect. The protein that is produced could, but not necessarily, have a part to play in a variety of biochemical systems

Exactly, the lack of knowledge in what part this protein is playing in various biochemical systems may cause various problems.

The same thing goes for the enzyme, it's more than likely that this enzyme has several functions. Many enzymes in food are necessary for proper digestion of this food and are also used in the human body for other processes.

Enzymes are biological catalysts, they are usually quite specific for the substrates on which they act. There are many different enzymes. In the example i gave polygalacturonase is an enzyme which catalyses the degradation of large sugar molecules derived from galactose. This is it's specific purpose.

"usually quite specific" but not always, and this is as far science know today, tomorrow could be a different story when other purposes are discovered.

Also you are only talking about the properties of the tomatoes, not what happens to the insects, animals or people eating it or birds eating insects that have eaten the tomato or other vegetation growing where the tomato have fallen to the ground or to honey from bees collecting pollen from the tomato flowers. The chain of events is endless.

Pectin is not harmful to you, otherwise we wouldn't be able to eat tomatoes in the first place, the fact that it retains its integrity longer in the tomato makes no difference to you or any other animal eating it. Your sentence seems to suggest that some toxic substance is now going to be miraculously produced out of thin air because of this modification, but that is quite simply not the case.

What I'm talking about is that nature is a delicate system and a small change could have dramatic effects, often very hard to predict. In the example above the protein could have other important functions along the chain of events.

Also, in the tomato example it seems to me that this will produce tomatoes where the cell walls stay intact longer giving the appearance of a fresh tomato. I'm not sure how these works but guess that even if the cell walls stay intact longer other parts of the tomato will start to go bad.

Personally I would like a rotten tomato to look rotten.

Believe it or not, scientists who have studied biochemistry and molecular genetics for years, do have a very advanced understanding of what they are doing. It seems to be the common opinion of people on the street that they are altering things that they have little understanding of, but that is not the case.

I'm sure the scientists working with this have a very good understanding of what they are doing. Problem is that most scientists I know fit in the old definition of scientists: Someone who knows everything about nothing and nothing about everything. What happens in nature with all the diverse biosystems is usually completely outside the GM scientists frame of knowledge. Same as a brick layer don’t know everything about plumbing and electrical wiring even if he works in the same industry.

Of course, careful regulation of this industry needs to occur, because the technology if misused could have harmful effects, but people need to come to terms with the fact that it also has very beneficial uses if used correctly, and it can be 100% safe.

Like others have said, NOTHING is 100% safe, everyone knows that.

Everyone is saying that careful regulation of the GM industry needs to occur, but where is it? It is completely irresponsible to carry out these modifications with the current lack of regulation, especially in the US. The US FDA have a long history of corruption, just the other month the latest boss quit as they were going to check his holdings in a pharmaceutical company. . There are several previously high ranking officials in the FDA now holding well paying positions in pharma companies they helped, the NutraSweet scandal was just one of these incidents.

Having said that, i think it's good that the public are willing to demonstrate a concern, that means that the industry is under intense scrutiny which is in all of our best interests. However, it can be irritating to see people in outrage about a product that is perfectly safe, just because they have no understanding of what's involved.

What is irritating, to put it mildly, is the industries arrogant behavior. There are millions spent in lobbying governments to release GMO. The industry have done everything they can to minimize any kind of regulation and safety procedures. The industry have been against all safety measures so far including very basic things like labeling.

The big question is why do they oppose safety and regulation if it’s so safe????

The lack of choice is the big problem, once it’s out there is no stopping it. You can read in the papers about GMO popping up everywhere, one day in papayas next day in cookies what’s next??

[richard10365]

Could the cookies do more harm to me than drinking a few beers every night, salting my foods, eating lots of sugar, eating junk food every day, or living in a big smoggy city?

There are so many things we eat on a daily basis that are probably more harmful to you than cookies. Cookies, for most people, is not the main staple of a persons diet. It's something you eat for a snack.

I'll take my chances with the cookies. I think greenpeace is making a mountian out of an imaginary mole hill.

[Fast Eddie]

So what you are saying is that any gene has one function only?

A gene provides the template for the production of a protein

As far as I know a gene can have several functions, direct and indirect. The protein that is produced could, but not necessarily, have a part to play in a variety of biochemical systems

Exactly, the lack of knowledge in what part this protein is playing in various biochemical systems may cause various problems.

There is no lack of knowledge about the function of the protein in the example i gave you, which i explained in the following answer

The same thing goes for the enzyme, it's more than likely that this enzyme has several functions. Many enzymes in food are necessary for proper digestion of this food and are also used in the human body for other processes.

Enzymes are biological catalysts, they are usually quite specific for the substrates on which they act. There are many different enzymes. In the example i gave polygalacturonase is an enzyme which catalyses the degradation of large sugar molecules derived from galactose. This is it's specific purpose.

"usually quite specific" but not always, and this is as far science know today, tomorrow could be a different story when other purposes are discovered.

I have explained that this enzyme has a specific purpose. What enzymes are and how they function is not particularly complicated, i suggest you look it up.

Also you are only talking about the properties of the tomatoes, not what happens to the insects, animals or people eating it or birds eating insects that have eaten the tomato or other vegetation growing where the tomato have fallen to the ground or to honey from bees collecting pollen from the tomato flowers. The chain of events is endless.

Pectin is not harmful to you, otherwise we wouldn't be able to eat tomatoes in the first place, the fact that it retains its integrity longer in the tomato makes no difference to you or any other animal eating it. Your sentence seems to suggest that some toxic substance is now going to be miraculously produced out of thin air because of this modification, but that is quite simply not the case.

What I'm talking about is that nature is a delicate system and a small change could have dramatic effects, often very hard to predict. In the example above the protein could have other important functions along the chain of events.

It doesn't, it has a specific function. If it is not present then it does not perform that function. That is it. It has no effects 'further along the chain of events'.

Also, in the tomato example it seems to me that this will produce tomatoes where the cell walls stay intact longer giving the appearance of a fresh tomato. I'm not sure how these works but guess that even if the cell walls stay intact longer other parts of the tomato will start to go bad.

Personally I would like a rotten tomato to look rotten.

I could write an essay for you on the ripening process of fruit, but i'm not going to bother. There is a ton of information available on the internet if you actually want to learn about what really happens. You are correct to say that you do not know how it works.

Of course, careful regulation of this industry needs to occur, because the technology if misused could have harmful effects, but people need to come to terms with the fact that it also has very beneficial uses if used correctly, and it can be 100% safe.

Like others have said, NOTHING is 100% safe, everyone knows that.

That's only a true statement if it is a fact that tomatoes are not 100% safe in the first place. As far as i'm aware a tomatoe in full health is safe to eat. The small modification in the example i gave does not make it any less so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Without meaning to sound insulting, you do not appear to have an adequate grasp of the science involved which seems to have caused you to misinterpret what i have said and what is actually happening. That is making it very difficult for me to try and explain to you my example.

I don't feel that i have anything more to add now as it's starting to feel like i am repeating myself. I was only attempting to provide an example to show that some genetic modifications are very simple and do not result in the doomsday scenario that some people imagine. Maybe i haven't done that very well.

However, i do understand your concerns about the regulation of the industry. As a consumer, i would like to be reassured that companies are not able to rush their genetically modified food onto the market without rigorous testing of it's safety.

[plachon]

Could the cookies do more harm to me than drinking a few beers every night, salting my foods, eating lots of sugar, eating junk food every day, or living in a big smoggy city?

There are so many things we eat on a daily basis that are probably more harmful to you than cookies. Cookies, for most people, is not the main staple of a persons diet. It's something you eat for a snack.

I'll take my chances with the cookies. I think greenpeace is making a mountian out of an imaginary mole hill.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No Richard, I can safely say that you'll die from the salt, sugar and junk food first.

p.s. Perhaps you might benefit from reading a few of the other posts first to get a gist of what the thread has been discussing.

[ZZZ]

Without meaning to sound insulting, you do not appear to have an adequate grasp of the science involved which seems to have caused you to misinterpret what i have said and what is actually happening. That is making it very difficult for me to try and explain to you my example.

However, i do understand your concerns about the regulation of the industry. As a consumer, i would like to be reassured that companies are not able to rush their genetically modified food onto the market without rigorous testing of it's safety.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We are probably equally guilty of misinterpreting each other.

Simply put my main arguments against are:

1. It is impossible to know what will happen with any system (human body, wildlife, vegetation or all of nature) if you don’t know exactly how that system works in the first place. Science has only scratched the surface on how the human brain works and on what the importance and functions are of different enzymes, proteins, trace elements and others. (Just look at all the perfectly safe medicines that later have been banned due to unforseen complications).

2. Once GM is out there it will be virtually impossible to contain and control so there will be no choice, most things will be contaminated by GMO. A dangerous medicine can be banned but we may get stuck with a bad GMO out there.

3. This we agree on and that is the present lack of regulation and control.

[richard10365]

Could the cookies do more harm to me than drinking a few beers every night, salting my foods, eating lots of sugar, eating junk food every day, or living in a big smoggy city?

There are so many things we eat on a daily basis that are probably more harmful to you than cookies. Cookies, for most people, is not the main staple of a persons diet. It's something you eat for a snack.

I'll take my chances with the cookies. I think greenpeace is making a mountian out of an imaginary mole hill.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

p.s. Perhaps you might benefit from reading a few of the other posts first to get a gist of what the thread has been discussing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Read all that! The world pays scientist to do all this research so I don't have to read all the technical mumbo jumbo. I'm really not smart enough to follow along with what the other people are saying. Where I am on the food chain, all I want to know is, are the cookies ok to eat. I'll leave the tech talk to you guys.

[lomatopo]

Does anyone know what the GMO ingredients are? I'm guessing flour but am not sure. (Soy lecithin or corn syrup are other candidates I imagin?)

Chips Ahoy info.:

Ingredients: ENRICHED FLOUR (WHEAT FLOUR, NIACIN, REDUCED IRON, THIAMINE MONONITRATE [VITAMIN B1], RIBOFLAVIN [VITAMIN B2], FOLIC ACID), SEMISWEET CHOCOLATE CHIPS (SUGAR, CHOCOLATE, DEXTROSE, COCOA BUTTER, SOY LECITHIN - AN EMULSIFIER, SUGAR, PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED SOYBEAN OIL, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, LEAVENING (BAKING SODA, AMMONIUM PHOSPHATE), SALT, WHEY (FROM MILK), NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, CARAMEL COLOR.

Amount Per Serving

Calories 160 Calories from Fat 70

% Daily Value*

Total Fat 8g 12 %

Saturated Fat 2.5g 12 %

Trans Fat 2g

Cholesterol 0mg 0 %

Sodium 105mg 4 %

Total Carbohydrate 21g 7 %

Dietary Fiber 1g 3 %

Sugars 10g

Protein 2g

Vitamin A 0 %

Calcium 0 %

Vitamin C 0 %

Iron 4 %

[plachon]

Could the cookies do more harm to me than drinking a few beers every night, salting my foods, eating lots of sugar, eating junk food every day, or living in a big smoggy city?

There are so many things we eat on a daily basis that are probably more harmful to you than cookies. Cookies, for most people, is not the main staple of a persons diet. It's something you eat for a snack.

I'll take my chances with the cookies. I think greenpeace is making a mountian out of an imaginary mole hill.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

p.s. Perhaps you might benefit from reading a few of the other posts first to get a gist of what the thread has been discussing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Read all that! The world pays scientist to do all this research so I don't have to read all the technical mumbo jumbo. I'm really not smart enough to follow along with what the other people are saying. Where I am on the food chain, all I want to know is, are the cookies ok to eat. I'll leave the tech talk to you guys.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, the cookies are just fine Rich. And don't worry, the men in white coats are doing a great job in keeping your best interests at heart, in making sure that the Chips Ahoy are as safe as houses and tasty as tottie. Don't worry about the mumbo-jumbo, it's not important anyway. Leave everything to the scientists and politicians and she'll be right. You see if I'm not wrong.............