DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Are Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them

reply to post by markosity1973

1) DNA does not get into the blood stream. Fragments of DNA do.
2) People eat scorpions.
3.bp.blogspot.com...

reply to post by Phage


Haha, as I was typing that I thought, hmmm I bet somewhere in the world people eat scorpions. The thing is though, we humans remove the poisonous parts before we eat them.

So, if it's fragmented DNA making it through, then one would presume it's fairly inert due to it's incomplete state. I imagine it would be as useful as a torn up page of sheet music - you might be able to get a few bars of the original tune, but as most if it's missing, you won't be able to play the whole song unless you go find the rest of the sheet and put it back together.

reply to post by markosity1973

Lateral gene transfer does occur. It doesn't take a complete DNA molecule for that to happen.
Whether or not it happens between foreign genes found in human blood and human cells is an open question. Whether it would be harmful is also an open question.

But a gene is a gene, where ever it comes from. A scorpion gene is still a scorpion gene even if it gets to your bloodstream from a plant instead of a scorpion.

reply to post by Phage


Hey can I ask you if you know that is, what is the significance of all of this, apparently this has happened since people ate things, knowing this what does it really change or how does this help us other then some professor can tell some smart ass kid, "thats why smartass."

markosity1973
This is actually very interesting. I have debated with scientists before who were adamant that DNA was destroyed un the digestive tract, therefore we only absorbed proteins, minerals etc directly from food into the bloodstream.

The point this article la making is that if it's now proven that DNA from all food makes it into the bloodstream, what are the implications off genetically modified DNA making it through? It has to be understood that non gmo DNA would be relatively harmless as the human body has been exposed to whatever is in out food for as long as have humankind had been eating it.

However, GMO DNA comes from places like scorpions in tomatoes and scorpions are not usually on our menu.

The next study that needs to happen in one on whether the DNA passes into our bloodstream actually does anything, or whether it it's simply inert.

edit on 15-2-2014 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)

All DNA, whether "natural" or GMO, and whether corn scorpion, or carrot, is made from the same stuff - oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, and phosphorus. And of course it does things. It makes our tissues and fat and blood. What it does not do is become part of our genome.
Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach said "Der Mensch ist, was er ißt." He didn't mean it literally, for good reason. Otherwise, frieswe would be a nation of Burgers, pizza slices and carbonated sugar waters.

reply to post by Brotherman

I can't come up with any immediate significance but I'm not a geneticist. But it would seem to fall into the category of "Wow. Look at that. I did not know that." at this point.

In any case, trying to relate it to GM is pretty ridiculous since the study has nothing to do with GM.

On the one hand the anti-GM crowd says that gene transfer is risky business and unnatural while with the other hand pointing to studies which show that inter-species gene transfer does indeed occur naturally. It would seem that if anything artificial gene-splicing would be safer since it is known exactly what genes are being transferred. With nature it's a crap shoot.

Some people can't eat peanuts or shellfish, GMO will have its share of problems no doubt,
I know I'm talking allergies rather than something more sinister I think this will be a future problem
for GMO, or anyone who does react badly (if it is something more sinister) they'll be placed
under the allergy banner to hide the facts.

reply to post by Phage


I read the study and saw that, thats why I am asking what it is due to change if anything. I was just curious I thought maybe you had more insight into it then what I would cause I am not a geneticist either. Things like the actual study are sometimes treacherous to murk through having to google and wiki every other term and make sense of whole segments of info without the understanding. I kind of figured it was another just cause I said so and this is why type of study, I do not fall into anti gmo or pro gmo I am not sure I fully grasp what it is the arguement is about when "evidence" keeps looking like this threads op I read an article follow the source and don't find the relevance I guess thats why I don't always venture to these types of "science" threads

the next study should be to put GMO foods in the cafeteria and restaurants where all the people of Congress work and let them eat it and see what happens.
I bet they won't even eat the food that they are trying to push down our throats.

reply to post by JHumm

If they're eating anything with corn or soy (among other things) in it chances are they are eating GM food.
And so are you, unless it says "GMO Free" on it or its "organic". You have been for a long time now.

you are what you eat! *duh*

s&f

All the world's a s̶t̶a̶g̶e̶ experiment.

reply to post by gardener

That's why I going to stop eating vegetables. And meat. And Dairy. And bread.
I don't think I'll mind being whiskey. I might be rather pleasant.

purplemer
reply to post by Phage

 

It's pretty scary actually.
I think I'll stop eating carrots. All that carrot DNA might make me turn into one.

It is certainly possible that bastardised DNA sequences that our bodies are not use could react badly with our bodies. The presumption use to be that this stuff did not pass into our blood stream. We now know it does..

I fail to see the issue or even relevance of this article. I always assumed that when I ate something, my stomach and intestines broke it down to it's constituent parts for absorption into my bloodstream, with whatever's DNA being part of the whole soup of various bits being consumed.

As far as "GMO" being bastardised or even dangerous, again I fail to see why. They more often than not use genes from other plants or animals which you can safely consume, so the eating those DNA fragments is not going to pose a risk. Surely, if there was a problem with DNA fragments in our Blood, this would have manifested long ago seeing as we've been eating things since, well, forever - it matters not if it is GM or not, the body clearly has no problem.

Surely, if it was that easy for DNA to enter another creature after consuming something else and then alter that creatures genetic make up, we'd all be freaks..

Besides, we've been "genetically modifying" our food for millennia - what's the big problem now?

reply to post by purplemer


Yes it does happen. The first time I heard about it was in reference to rice DNA.

F&S&

BrothermanHey can I ask you if you know that is, what is the significance of all of this, apparently this has happened since people ate things, knowing this what does it really change or how does this help us other then some professor can tell some smart ass kid, "thats why smartass."

Phage
I can't come up with any immediate significance but I'm not a geneticist. But it would seem to fall into the category of "Wow. Look at that. I did not know that." at this point.

It doesn't really change anything. As other people mention, we've been eating everything for millions of years and it also happened before. Since macropinocytosis (Bulk uptake of stuff from the stomach if you will) happens in the endomembrane system, it was just a matter of time before this was discovered. And yes, I am a geneticist.

PhageIn any case, trying to relate it to GM is pretty ridiculous since the study has nothing to do with GM.

On the one hand the anti-GM crowd says that gene transfer is risky business and unnatural while with the other hand pointing to studies which show that inter-species gene transfer does indeed occur naturally. It would seem that if anything artificial gene-splicing would be safer since it is known exactly what genes are being transferred. With nature it's a crap shoot.

Absolutely. This paper has *nothing* to do with GMO per se, and people who try to pull that term over it, don't know what they are talking about.

Taggart
Some people can't eat peanuts or shellfish, GMO will have its share of problems no doubt,
I know I'm talking allergies rather than something more sinister I think this will be a future problem
for GMO, or anyone who does react badly (if it is something more sinister) they'll be placed
under the allergy banner to hide the facts.

Heck, allergies are of the slightest concern for GMO crops, as they will be found during phase 3 trials anyway. People can even be allergic to water, so it is bound that some people will be no matter what is produced.

soficrow
reply to post by purplemer

 

Yes it does happen. The first time I heard about it was in reference to rice DNA.

I'll be glad to see your reference of lateral gene transfer from rice into humans.

Thain Esh Kelch
It doesn't really change anything. As other people mention, we've been eating everything for millions of years and it also happened before. Since macropinocytosis (Bulk uptake of stuff from the stomach if you will) happens in the endomembrane system, it was just a matter of time before this was discovered. And yes, I am a geneticist.

One of the arguments used by GMO scientists is - their is no risk the DNA is destroyed by the digestive system. What a surprise that they were wrong, I was reporting this eight years ago.

It has been shown that the novel gene in a GMO is more likely to be taken up by another organism, it has been shown that GMO's have multiple unintended insertions of the novel gene into the organisms genome. The method of gene insertion uses viral materials and bacteria which also raises questions on whether these genes can be taken up by the human genome.

We don't know what is happening the testing has not been done - you people are saying this is irrelevant - really?

reply to post by Taggart


And there are probably many more things humans are allergic or intolerant to that have not been tested, therefore as yet unknown, because they haven't been tried as a foodstuff before.

Same for gene spliced foods, who knows which reactions could occur as these have not been tried as part of the food chain significantly.

Some examples, the intolerance to milk and alcohol in nations whose typical haplogroup do not have the necessary genetic mutations that enables them to tolerate such things.

Playing guessing games with food, especially those that can contaminate other foods known as safe via their pollen etc is probably not good.

I have become allergic /intolerant to various foods / materials / metals over the years for no apparent reason.

Humanity has survived so far from knowing which food stuffs are safe, I believe the most intelligent way forward is to keep to that which has been tested over thousands of years and known as safe.

Brotherman
reply to post by Phage

 

Hell I quit eating carrots years ago when I discovered Sam Adams I'm glad to hear that you will also be boycotting them nasty little orange things!

Best beer.

I ate beets, and when the weather got cold my face turned red. I think I was becoming one.

Peter BrakeOne of the arguments used by GMO scientists is - their is no risk the DNA is destroyed by the digestive system. What a surprise that they were wrong, I was reporting this eight years ago.

It is being destroyed by the digestive system! DNA uptake into the blood is fragments only, and by no means anything that can be translated. And that would even require genomic insertion, which is also not possible.

It has been shown that the novel gene in a GMO is more likely to be taken up by another organism

That is not true.

it has been shown that GMO's have multiple unintended insertions of the novel gene into the organisms genome.

That is also not true.

The method of gene insertion uses viral materials and bacteria which also raises questions on whether these genes can be taken up by the human genome.

Again, they are not genes but fragments. And we do use bacterial or viral proteins for genomic integration in genetic research - That does not mean it happen in vivo with random stuff. Genomic engineering is a highly complicated process, that doesn't happen by randomly all the time.