GMOs are they hazardous to health? The study accuses

[Obamot]

Bein woui ... as they cannot patent a grain of wheat, they modify it ... Not so stupid. So they can declare the peasants "outlaw" if they seek to replicate transgenic seeds (if at all possible by them) ... But it already exists without GMOs, except that with them, it will be worse (or "better"for their wallet, it therefore depends for whom ... since by making the populations die slowly, they will have to be treated well afterwards, but that they do not say in "Their plan" ...)

[dedeleco]

The global deregulation at all costs, current in fashion, without requiring worldwide to prove the total absence of hidden indirect danger, which removes any responsibility for crimes, financial, economic, chemical, biological, industrial, is the main reason for these criminal behavior !!

If the criminal consequences were to be borne by the criminal trusts and their insurance, worldwide, every time, for lack of proof of absence of danger, by independent research on at least 3 generations (a life is not enough, given the epigenetic effects on future generations of any food, even bread or milk !!)
Life with the epigenetic 80 to 90% of the genome is of a frightful complexity that will take centuries to be thinned:
Read this issue of Nature of the project ENCODE:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/ ... 4664a.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODE
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-09-e ... -gene.html
http://www.nature.com/news/encode-the-h ... ia-1.11312

Some, such as Hiroaki Kitano, a systems biologist at the Systems Biology Institute in Tokyo, point out that systems seem to grow more complex only because we continue to learn about them. "Biology is a defined system," he says, "and in time, we will have a fairly good understanding of what the system is about."

Others demur, arguing that biologists will never know everything. And they may not matter terribly what they do not. Bert Vogelstein, a cancer-genomics researcher at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, has watched first-hand as complexity dashed one of the biggest hopes of the genome era: that knowing the sequence of healthy and diseased genomes would allow researchers to find the Genetic glitches that cause disease, paving the way for new treatments. Cancer, like other common diseases, is much more complicated than researchers hoped. By sequencing the genomes of cancer cells, for example, researchers now know that a patient's cancer has about 50 genetic mutations, but that they differ between individuals. So the search for drug targets that could help many patients have shifted away from individual genes and towards drugs that could interfere in networks common to many cancers.

Even if we never understand biology completely, Vogelstein says, we can understand enough to interfere with the disease. “Humans are really good at being able to take a bit of knowledge and use it to great advantage,” Vogelstein adds. "It's important not to wait until we understand everything, because that's going to be a long time away." Indeed, drugs that influence those bafflingly complex signal-transduction pathways are among the most promising classes of new medicines being used to treat cancer. And medicines targeting the still-mysterious small RNAs are already in clinical trials to treat viral infections, cancer and macular degeneration, the leading cause of untreatable blindness in wealthy nations.

The complexity explosion, therefore, does not spell an end to progress. And that's a relief to many researchers who celebrate complexity rather than wring their hands over it. Mina Bissell, a cancer researcher at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, says that during the Human Genome Project, she was driven to despair by predictions that all the mysteries would be solved. "Famous people would get up and say, 'We will understand everything after this'," she says. "Biology is complex, and that is part of its beauty." She need not worry, however; the beautiful patterns of biology's Mandelbrot-like intricacy show few signs of resolving.

[Janic]

sen no sen hello

it is however necessary to differentiate GMO drug and GMO for food purpose, because the purposes are not quite the same.

Not all that different since the "pretext" is the same in both cases: to help humanity.
It is like wanting to distinguish in arms, the good weapons that kill the bad guys and the bad weapons that kill the good guys, while it is the weapons that cause problems and not their pseudo-humanitarian justification.

[sen-no-sen]

sen no sen hello

it is however necessary to differentiate GMO drug and GMO for food purpose, because the purposes are not quite the same.

Not all that different since the "pretext" is the same in both cases: to help humanity.

If the basic pretext is the same, there is a notable difference between the two uses: GMO food is strictly useless, GMOs used in the pharmaceutical sector can have potential uses, there is a nuance.
It's like the difference between electro-nuclear and medical nuclear.

[Ahmed]

I see another difference which seems to me more important: GMOs for pharmaceutical purposes (those used to produce insulin) are confined in laboratories, so they do not interact in an undesirable way with other organisms (no dissemination) and on the other hand only serve as a manufacturing intermediary and are not present (from what I understand) in the final substance which is consumed.

The danger of this GMO is that it serves as a "stepping stone" for other frankly questionable uses.
Even if this was not the case, from a theoretical point of view, the approach which is at the basis of the creation of GMOs is open to criticism in the sense that it validates the currents of thought which work for a "remodeling" living in general and man in particular ...
Particularly dangerous scientist drifts which aim at adapting the man to constraints for which he is responsible, instead of attacking the causes which create these constraints.

I can't resist the pleasure of quoting again Bossuet:

God laughs at those who deplore the effects whose causes they cherish.

This word has not aged and has never found as many applications as today!

[sen-no-sen]

Even if this was not the case, from a theoretical point of view, the approach which is at the basis of the creation of GMOs is open to criticism in the sense that it validates the currents of thought which work for a "remodeling" living in general and man in particular ...
Particularly dangerous scientist drifts which aim at adapting the man to constraints for which he is responsible, instead of attacking the causes which create these constraints.

Absolutely, GMOs are nothing more or less than a step forward towards transhumanism.

God laughs at those who deplore the effects whose causes they cherish.

This Bossuet sentence should be engraved above all city hall and school doors!

[Ahmed]

Sorry Bossuet, the exact quote is as follows (but that doesn't change the meaning):

God laughs at those who deplore the effects whose causes they cherish.

The reflexivity applied to the verb laugh indicates a somewhat old-fashioned turn.

This phrase by Bossuet should be engraved above all city and school doors!

There are already other slogans registered which seem to have no impact on reality, better to have it in mind by a voluntary approach ...

Transhumanism, "damn it, but it is of course!", That is the term I was looking for!

[sen-no-sen]

This phrase by Bossuet should be engraved above all city and school doors!

There are already other slogans registered which seem to have no impact on reality, better to have it in mind by a voluntary approach ...

Yes like "Liberty, equality, fraternity,"and my c ...!

Otherwise I really like the Japanese proverb:"Misfortune comes from our own weakness", simple, effective, like a katana.

Transhumanism, "damn it, but it is of course!", That is the term I was looking for!

Adapting man and nature to the market is the ideology of tomorrow.

[Janic]

sen no sen

If the basic pretext is the same, there is a notable difference between the two uses: GMO food is strictly useless, GMOs used in the pharmaceutical sector can have potential uses, there is a nuance.
It's like the difference between electro-nuclear and medical nuclear.

The question is not only whether they are useless or not, ("GMO scientists" claim the opposite) but that GMOs released into the wild can have a large impact (little known) on animal populations and plant. While GMO pharmaceutical products will only have a limited impact (a few people treated as in nuclear medicine) as Hamed points out.
This does not however establish the safety of the product since the GMO recoil is insufficient. The same goes for medical irradiation, of which it suffices to question the people who have passed through it to get an idea.

I see another difference which seems to me more important: GMOs for pharmaceutical purposes (those used to produce insulin) are confined in laboratories, so they do not interact in an undesirable way with other organisms (no dissemination)

et

on the other hand only serve as a manufacturing intermediary and are not present (from what I understand) in the final substance which is consumed.

This is also what I understood, but what is missing are independent and comparative studies between natural insulin and insulin produced by these processes and therefore the health impact that this represents over several generations. This brings us back to the experience of a rat life rather than a limited part of it.

[Obamot]

Yes, and when it comes to "causes", we may well wonder why we would have so much insulin, when our body is capable of producing it! And theoretically to control what he eats ...

=> and again =>