Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Non-GMO foods aren't any safer or healthier
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »suzyjane1972 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.
Why? There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason.
Just because something punches a hole in one thing doesn't mean you can just transfer that concern to anything you don't want holes punched into. That was my point and I think it stands.
If you think that is silly then what is the specific mechanism by which BT is going to poke holes in the cell walls of commensal prokaryia or our own intestinal lining that has you concerned?
It's silly because comparing two living organisms consuming the same thing is a very far cry from trying to put ozone into a hole punch. It's not just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a manual drill press.
If you want to compare living organisms consuming the same thing:
Garlic is toxic to cats
Theobromine (found in chocolate) is poisonous to dogs and cats
Avocados are toxic to some birds
Shall I go on?
Just because one thing is bad for a certain living thing does not mean it's bad for all living things.
There are more concrete concerns involving our food supply that are real things to worry about right now.
Go on as long as you like, but you might want to check your facts first.
Chocolate is not poisonous to dogs (not sure about cats). It's a common allergen for dogs. Many dogs can eat chocolate without any negative reactions.
And then if you could somehow relate your list to the threads topic that would also be cool.
Sorry to burst your bubble but Chocolate is poisons to dogs. The theobromine is a toxin
Someone should tell that to all the dogs out there safely eating chocolate.
No, they are eating relatively low dosage for their side.
Milk chocolate contains less theobromine. Larger dogs would have to eat a very large amount of milk chocolate to reach toxic levels. But it is still toxic to them.
Dark chocolate and bakers chocolate is more of a concern.
The size of the dog matters as well.
Just because a large dog can eat a piece of milk chocolate without immediate negative effects does not make chocolate safe for dogs.6 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »suzyjane1972 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.
Why? There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason.
Just because something punches a hole in one thing doesn't mean you can just transfer that concern to anything you don't want holes punched into. That was my point and I think it stands.
If you think that is silly then what is the specific mechanism by which BT is going to poke holes in the cell walls of commensal prokaryia or our own intestinal lining that has you concerned?
It's silly because comparing two living organisms consuming the same thing is a very far cry from trying to put ozone into a hole punch. It's not just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a manual drill press.
If you want to compare living organisms consuming the same thing:
Garlic is toxic to cats
Theobromine (found in chocolate) is poisonous to dogs and cats
Avocados are toxic to some birds
Shall I go on?
Just because one thing is bad for a certain living thing does not mean it's bad for all living things.
There are more concrete concerns involving our food supply that are real things to worry about right now.
Go on as long as you like, but you might want to check your facts first.
Chocolate is not poisonous to dogs (not sure about cats). It's a common allergen for dogs. Many dogs can eat chocolate without any negative reactions.
And then if you could somehow relate your list to the threads topic that would also be cool.
Sorry to burst your bubble but Chocolate is poisons to dogs. The theobromine is a toxin
Someone should tell that to all the dogs out there safely eating chocolate.
How do you how many dogs safely eat chocolate? Did you poll all the canines in your neighborhood? Between my family and close friends, 14 dog owners, none feed them chocolate.
Also, milk chocolate contains far less theobromine than bakers chocolate. So the all the numerous dogs you know safely consuming chocolate may be eating milk chocolate. It is also weight dependent.
Exactly! When I was a kid, our family dog got a hold of my chocolate Easter bunny and ate most of it. He was a 110lb Rottweiler and the bunny was cheap milk chocolate. He was fine. Had he been a 15 lb chihuahua eating a square of baker's chocolate? Yeah, that probably wouldn't have ended well. With any poison, the dose matters.
Just highlights the poor quality of common chocolate candy.
When I was a kid, my friend's teacup poodle (~5 lb dog) loved chocolate and would steal Hershey's kisses when she could. Never got more than one or two at a time, so she was fine.
One winter, she got into a 5 lb Crunch bar that had been wrapped and not-too-intelligently put under the Christmas tree. Ate more than half of it. Her family rushed the dog to the vet. She was fine, not even a hint of illness. Vet figured she was saved by the extremely low quality of chocolate*, the rice crispies slowing the absorbtion, and possibly from building some tolerance from her chocolate stealing habits.
* I mean, really? The dog didn't so much as skip a beat after eating that much chocolate. For shame, Nestle.1 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »@Need2Exerc1se are you concerned about wearing clothes made with BT cotton? Because the likelihood of harm is about the same
I don't wear clothes.
Just kidding. I usually do. No, I'm not concerned about it. I already said BT is not a concern for me.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.
Why? There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason.
Just because something punches a hole in one thing doesn't mean you can just transfer that concern to anything you don't want holes punched into. That was my point and I think it stands.
If you think that is silly then what is the specific mechanism by which BT is going to poke holes in the cell walls of commensal prokaryia or our own intestinal lining that has you concerned?
It's silly because comparing two living organisms consuming the same thing is a very far cry from trying to put ozone into a hole punch. It's not just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a manual drill press.
If you want to compare living organisms consuming the same thing:
Garlic is toxic to cats
Theobromine (found in chocolate) is poisonous to dogs and cats
Avocados are toxic to some birds
Shall I go on?
Just because one thing is bad for a certain living thing does not mean it's bad for all living things.
There are more concrete concerns involving our food supply that are real things to worry about right now.
Go on as long as you like, but you might want to check your facts first.
Chocolate is not poisonous to dogs (not sure about cats). It's a common allergen for dogs. Many dogs can eat chocolate without any negative reactions.
And then if you could somehow relate your list to the threads topic that would also be cool.
Theobromine is not poisonous to dogs?
And you can't see the relation between BT killing specific insects but not our intestinal flora, and theobromine being toxic to some animals but not to humans?
I don't see the relation between your list and my comment about a silly post comparing 2 completely different things. I also don't see the relation to the OP (GMO being safe/unsafe).
Aaron_k123 said "There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason."
You said: "It's silly because comparing two living organisms consuming the same thing is a very far cry from trying to put ozone into a hole punch. It's not just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a manual drill press."
I gave examples of living organisms that will die if they eat foods that are harmless to humans, just like corn borers die if the eat BT which is harmless to our intestinal flora. (maybe I should have spelled out that I was comparing humans to birds, cats and dogs?)
You say this has no relationship to the OP/topic at hand. I don't see how it could be more relevant.
Because my post was about the ridiculousness of the example given.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.
Why? There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason.
Just because something punches a hole in one thing doesn't mean you can just transfer that concern to anything you don't want holes punched into. That was my point and I think it stands.
If you think that is silly then what is the specific mechanism by which BT is going to poke holes in the cell walls of commensal prokaryia or our own intestinal lining that has you concerned?
It's silly because comparing two living organisms consuming the same thing is a very far cry from trying to put ozone into a hole punch. It's not just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a manual drill press.
But comparing the eukaryotic cell envelope in an insects midgut to a prokaryotic cell wall in our gut is not just an apples/oranges comparison...they are vastly different.
Might I suggest that why one sounds silly to you while the other sounds plausible is simply that you are very familiar with the operation and possible usages of a hole punch while you are not as familiar with enterotoxins and bacterial cell walls and peptidoglycan. It is equally silly. Neither are at all reasonable concerns.
Even if somehow Cry/Crt could get through the lipopolysacchride capsule layer, even if it could get through the outer membrane, even if it could get through the peptidoglycan even if it could bind to a phospholipid integral membrane protein that is not an insect midgut cadherin and therefore it does not recognize how in the world would it proceed to form a pore the size of which would fit a bacteria within the membrane of a bacteria? That is physically impossible.
It makes as much sense as trying to punch a hole in the ozone with a hole punch and if you don't see that my assumption is you don't know all that much about microbial cell walls or enterotoxins.7 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »@Need2Exerc1se are you concerned about wearing clothes made with BT cotton? Because the likelihood of harm is about the same
I don't wear clothes.
Just kidding. I usually do. No, I'm not concerned about it. I already said BT is not a concern for me.
Still confused. Back on page 9, you specifically replied to the conversation about BT GMOs saying they were scary for you. Now you're saying you're not concerned. Which is it?5 -
mskessler89 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »@Need2Exerc1se are you concerned about wearing clothes made with BT cotton? Because the likelihood of harm is about the same
I don't wear clothes.
Just kidding. I usually do. No, I'm not concerned about it. I already said BT is not a concern for me.
Still confused. Back on page 9, you specifically replied to the conversation about BT GMOs saying they were scary for you. Now you're saying you're not concerned. Which is it?
I know the answer. pick me pick me4 -
People bury a ridicuolus statements in terminology and jargon that most don't understand so that it sounds like a plausible concern.
Concern that the BT enterotoxin is going to disrupt the plasma membrane of a prokaryote is a ridiculous notion. The reason that fact is obfuscated is simply because most people don't know anything about microbiology or enterotoxins so they don't recognize the inherient physical impossibility of that claim.
There is zero, none, no reason at all to be concerned about that happening and I stand by my analogy that for the exact same reason there is no reason to be concerned that hole punches might affect the ozone layer.
The "concern" is based solely on the idea that these things punch holes in other things without taking into consideration at all how they actually function.
So I will repeat my analogy again for emphasis. The idea that the BT enterotoxin would "punch a hole" in a prokaryotic cell membrane makes as much sense as the idea that a hole punch could "punch a hole" in the ozone layer. It is taking the idea that they "punch holes" and just applying that to things they clearly cannot punch holes in and then acting like that is somehow a valid concern.
It is not a valid concern.4 -
mskessler89 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »@Need2Exerc1se are you concerned about wearing clothes made with BT cotton? Because the likelihood of harm is about the same
I don't wear clothes.
Just kidding. I usually do. No, I'm not concerned about it. I already said BT is not a concern for me.
Still confused. Back on page 9, you specifically replied to the conversation about BT GMOs saying they were scary for you. Now you're saying you're not concerned. Which is it?
I had to go back and read page 9. My post was about plants genetically engineered to produce any type of pesticide, not BT specifically. I can understand the confusion, though a few posts later I did say that I wasn't concerned about BT.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.
Why? There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason.
Just because something punches a hole in one thing doesn't mean you can just transfer that concern to anything you don't want holes punched into. That was my point and I think it stands.
If you think that is silly then what is the specific mechanism by which BT is going to poke holes in the cell walls of commensal prokaryia or our own intestinal lining that has you concerned?
It's silly because comparing two living organisms consuming the same thing is a very far cry from trying to put ozone into a hole punch. It's not just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a manual drill press.
But comparing the eukaryotic cell envelope in an insects midgut to a prokaryotic cell wall in our gut is not just an apples/oranges comparison...they are vastly different.
Might I suggest that why one sounds silly to you while the other sounds plausible is simply that you are very familiar with the operation and possible usages of a hole punch while you are not as familiar with enterotoxins and bacterial cell walls and peptidoglycan. It is equally silly. Neither are at all reasonable concerns.
Even if somehow Cry/Crt could get through the lipopolysacchride capsule layer, even if it could get through the outer membrane, even if it could get through the peptidoglycan even if it could bind to a phospholipid integral membrane protein that is not an insect midgut cadherin and therefore it does not recognize how in the world would it proceed to form a pore the size of which would fit a bacteria within the membrane of a bacteria? That is physically impossible.
It makes as much sense as trying to punch a hole in the ozone with a hole punch and if you don't see that my assumption is you don't know all that much about microbial cell walls or enterotoxins.
Not sure if you really don't get my point or you are purposely avoiding it, either way I don't think repeating myself will help you.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.
Why? There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason.
Just because something punches a hole in one thing doesn't mean you can just transfer that concern to anything you don't want holes punched into. That was my point and I think it stands.
If you think that is silly then what is the specific mechanism by which BT is going to poke holes in the cell walls of commensal prokaryia or our own intestinal lining that has you concerned?
It's silly because comparing two living organisms consuming the same thing is a very far cry from trying to put ozone into a hole punch. It's not just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a manual drill press.
But comparing the eukaryotic cell envelope in an insects midgut to a prokaryotic cell wall in our gut is not just an apples/oranges comparison...they are vastly different.
Might I suggest that why one sounds silly to you while the other sounds plausible is simply that you are very familiar with the operation and possible usages of a hole punch while you are not as familiar with enterotoxins and bacterial cell walls and peptidoglycan. It is equally silly. Neither are at all reasonable concerns.
Even if somehow Cry/Crt could get through the lipopolysacchride capsule layer, even if it could get through the outer membrane, even if it could get through the peptidoglycan even if it could bind to a phospholipid integral membrane protein that is not an insect midgut cadherin and therefore it does not recognize how in the world would it proceed to form a pore the size of which would fit a bacteria within the membrane of a bacteria? That is physically impossible.
It makes as much sense as trying to punch a hole in the ozone with a hole punch and if you don't see that my assumption is you don't know all that much about microbial cell walls or enterotoxins.
Not sure if you really don't get my point or you are purposely avoiding it, either way I don't think repeating myself will help you.
You are stating that comparing an insects midgut epithial layer to a prokaryotic cell wall is not a crazy comparison to make. That at worst it is "apples and oranges". That my holepunch analogy was hyperbolic because clearly there is no relation between hole punches and the ozone layer while (I guess in your mind) it is fair to compare insect midgut epithelium and prokaryotic cell walls when it comes to efficacy of enterotoxins.
That is what you are saying right?
My point, as a microbiologist, is that no...that is not a fair comparison to make at all and you may as well be talking about hole punches and the ozone layer because it makes about as much sense.
Explain to me why you think that is a legit comparison to make because that I do not understand at all.
One you have an exposed phosophlipid bilayer decorated with cadherins specifically recognized by the binding domain of an alkaline activated Cry/Crt domain of the BT enterotoxin which interacts specifically with those proteins to form a pore capable of allowing bacterial entry and the other is a lipopolysaccharide capsule or a peptidoglycan layer than has no caderins whatsoever and whose surface area is tens of thousands of times smaller.
Is it possible that you only think its a laughable comparison because you don't know enough about eukaryotic tissue layers and prokaryotic cell walls to understand the fundamental differences that exist between the two?3 -
Tangentially, what I can't stand is seeing big "GMO-free!" food labels on things that obviously wouldn't have GMOs in it.
I've noticed the same kind of ridiculous labelling in regards to "Gluten Free."
Products that wouldn't contain gluten in a million years are now labelled "Gluten Free" as if the producers of it did something magically wonderful to remove the gluten. Except that gluten was never present in the product to begin with.
Saw a bag of "Gluten-Free, Non-GMO Certified Organic Popcorn" the other day and laughed my *baby rhino* off. It was three times the price of a regular bag of popcorn kernels.
If someone is genuinely gluten intolerant or celiac, (instead of just trying to be trendy) they know enough to read an ingredient label instead.
2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.
Why? There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason.
Just because something punches a hole in one thing doesn't mean you can just transfer that concern to anything you don't want holes punched into. That was my point and I think it stands.
If you think that is silly then what is the specific mechanism by which BT is going to poke holes in the cell walls of commensal prokaryia or our own intestinal lining that has you concerned?
It's silly because comparing two living organisms consuming the same thing is a very far cry from trying to put ozone into a hole punch. It's not just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a manual drill press.
But comparing the eukaryotic cell envelope in an insects midgut to a prokaryotic cell wall in our gut is not just an apples/oranges comparison...they are vastly different.
Might I suggest that why one sounds silly to you while the other sounds plausible is simply that you are very familiar with the operation and possible usages of a hole punch while you are not as familiar with enterotoxins and bacterial cell walls and peptidoglycan. It is equally silly. Neither are at all reasonable concerns.
Even if somehow Cry/Crt could get through the lipopolysacchride capsule layer, even if it could get through the outer membrane, even if it could get through the peptidoglycan even if it could bind to a phospholipid integral membrane protein that is not an insect midgut cadherin and therefore it does not recognize how in the world would it proceed to form a pore the size of which would fit a bacteria within the membrane of a bacteria? That is physically impossible.
It makes as much sense as trying to punch a hole in the ozone with a hole punch and if you don't see that my assumption is you don't know all that much about microbial cell walls or enterotoxins.
Not sure if you really don't get my point or you are purposely avoiding it, either way I don't think repeating myself will help you.
Are you referring to this point?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »TheFair0ne wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Couldn't you say what you just said about literally anything and everything we consume? You could say what you just said about almonds or brocolli and it would be true. It is overly vague...what specifically about genetic engineering as a tool warrants concern and suspicion about a negative affect on our gut flora?
Scientists don't just study any and all possible combinations and measure the effects on any and all biological processes....there has to be a reason.
What is the reason you have concerns about the effect of apparently any "GMO" on your microbiome yhat wouldnt be an equal concern for anything else you consume and why?
Largely the introduction of genetic trades from wildly different species such as taking the BT toxin production of certain species of bacteria and adding that to plans, so that hey generate their own pesticide.
So genetically modifying plant to produce its own BT toxin is scary, but spraying a plant with BT is somehow ok.
Because we've been doing the latter on organic farms for 50 years.
http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/organic_farming.html
I can't speak for anyone else, but it is scary to me. I can choose whether to eat the plant sprayed with it. If the plant genetically modified to produce it is in no way distinguished from plants not genetically modified to produce it then I cannot choose. And not being able to choose is scary to me.
Why does not being able to choose scare you if you aren't concerned about BT?0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.
Why? There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason.
Just because something punches a hole in one thing doesn't mean you can just transfer that concern to anything you don't want holes punched into. That was my point and I think it stands.
If you think that is silly then what is the specific mechanism by which BT is going to poke holes in the cell walls of commensal prokaryia or our own intestinal lining that has you concerned?
It's silly because comparing two living organisms consuming the same thing is a very far cry from trying to put ozone into a hole punch. It's not just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a manual drill press.
But comparing the eukaryotic cell envelope in an insects midgut to a prokaryotic cell wall in our gut is not just an apples/oranges comparison...they are vastly different.
Might I suggest that why one sounds silly to you while the other sounds plausible is simply that you are very familiar with the operation and possible usages of a hole punch while you are not as familiar with enterotoxins and bacterial cell walls and peptidoglycan. It is equally silly. Neither are at all reasonable concerns.
Even if somehow Cry/Crt could get through the lipopolysacchride capsule layer, even if it could get through the outer membrane, even if it could get through the peptidoglycan even if it could bind to a phospholipid integral membrane protein that is not an insect midgut cadherin and therefore it does not recognize how in the world would it proceed to form a pore the size of which would fit a bacteria within the membrane of a bacteria? That is physically impossible.
It makes as much sense as trying to punch a hole in the ozone with a hole punch and if you don't see that my assumption is you don't know all that much about microbial cell walls or enterotoxins.
Not sure if you really don't get my point or you are purposely avoiding it, either way I don't think repeating myself will help you.
You are stating that comparing an insects midgut epithial layer to a prokaryotic cell wall is not a crazy comparison to make. That at worst it is "apples and oranges". That my holepunch analogy was hyperbolic because clearly there is no relation between hole punches and the ozone layer while (I guess in your mind) it is fair to compare insect midgut epithelium and prokaryotic cell walls when it comes to efficacy of enterotoxins.
That is what you are saying right?
No, not exactly. But it doesn't matter. I gotta go pick my car up at the shop.0 -
I tend to opt for organic items more out of an ethical standpoint than anything else. The patenting and without bar approach to GMOs via corporations, especially Monsanto, is something that in the long run I don't see as bringing any good. Immediate side effects for GMOs are mostly nill, but long-term is still unknown.
Exactly. Absolutely no one can prove GMOs (and all the other junk being put into our food) are safe or harmful in the long-term because we straight up - DO NOT KNOW. Personally, I'm going to opt for the organic food that has been proven safe for generations. The things our bodies were meant to ingest.
And yet gluten intolerance appears to be more prevalent than ever lately. Even though... it's the same food we've been eating for hundreds of years..
So much for long term proof.
I agree with what most people tend to be saying in that all GMOs cannot be lumped together. I'm pro GMO for somethings like corn (which someone earlier said wasn't GMO unless it's fed to animals... which is not true, it is GMO or else people would die from the fungus it carries naturally). Haven't yet found a GMO I'm not pro for, but if I find it I won't have it. One GMO at a time...1 -
Okay perhaps some illustrations from scientifically published work would illustrate this.
Here is a paper on the method of action of BT that can be extrapolated for any Cry domain enterotoxin
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2012.00341.x/pdf
Check figure 5, that is a model of the transmembrane helix inserting across the bilayer of the plasma membrane, that is going to be your core pore-forming unit. Multiple Cry domains will bind multiple cadherins and polymerize to form the pore body.
The pore depth is a function of the size of that alpha helical portion of the protein and that depth is specific for a eukaryotic phosolipid bilayer.
Bacterial cell walls, peptidoglycan layers and even their interal cell envelope do no have the same depth.
Here is a quick figure of a basic eukaryotic plasma membrane familiar to anyone who took basic science courses even in highschool
http://images.tutorvista.com/cms/images/38/plasma-membrane.png
That layer is about 4 nanometers thick for eukaryotes which means the Cry-proteins helical pore forming domain is about 4nm in length. Any eukaryotic integral membrane protein will have transmembrane helixes about this lenghth in order to span that membrane.
http://book.bionumbers.org/what-is-the-thickness-of-the-cell-membrane/
This is the structure of a bacterial cell (two different diagrams). The outer layer is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
http://healyourselfathome.com/SUPPORTING_INFORMATION/MICROBES/BACTERIA/BACTERIA_IMAGES/comparison.gif
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/content/dam/sigma-aldrich/articles/biology/Glycobiology/bacterial-peptidoglycan.jpg
Bacteria fall into two basic camps (there are other varients like mycobacteria) of Gram positive and Gram negative.
In either case the total cell well/peptidoglycan/cell envelope/capsid structure is MUCH thicker than 4nm and sheathed in layer upon layer of proteins and polysaccharides. Ranging from 20 to 80nm thick
Ignoring the fact that the cell wall and cell membrane structures aren't even formed from the same molecules and therefore wouldn't have the same interactions even then how in the world is a 4nm transmembrane helix going to span that and form a pore through something that is going to be at least 20nm thick?
It is not physically possible.
Okay you don't like hole punches fine.
Saying BT enterotoxins threaten the commensal prokaryia in our gut because BT pokes holes in cell membranes is like saying you are worried that that sword that is 4 inches long is going to stab you through a 4 foot thick wall because swords stab things.
4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.
Why? There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason.
Just because something punches a hole in one thing doesn't mean you can just transfer that concern to anything you don't want holes punched into. That was my point and I think it stands.
If you think that is silly then what is the specific mechanism by which BT is going to poke holes in the cell walls of commensal prokaryia or our own intestinal lining that has you concerned?
It's silly because comparing two living organisms consuming the same thing is a very far cry from trying to put ozone into a hole punch. It's not just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a manual drill press.
But comparing the eukaryotic cell envelope in an insects midgut to a prokaryotic cell wall in our gut is not just an apples/oranges comparison...they are vastly different.
Might I suggest that why one sounds silly to you while the other sounds plausible is simply that you are very familiar with the operation and possible usages of a hole punch while you are not as familiar with enterotoxins and bacterial cell walls and peptidoglycan. It is equally silly. Neither are at all reasonable concerns.
Even if somehow Cry/Crt could get through the lipopolysacchride capsule layer, even if it could get through the outer membrane, even if it could get through the peptidoglycan even if it could bind to a phospholipid integral membrane protein that is not an insect midgut cadherin and therefore it does not recognize how in the world would it proceed to form a pore the size of which would fit a bacteria within the membrane of a bacteria? That is physically impossible.
It makes as much sense as trying to punch a hole in the ozone with a hole punch and if you don't see that my assumption is you don't know all that much about microbial cell walls or enterotoxins.
Not sure if you really don't get my point or you are purposely avoiding it, either way I don't think repeating myself will help you.
You are stating that comparing an insects midgut epithial layer to a prokaryotic cell wall is not a crazy comparison to make. That at worst it is "apples and oranges". That my holepunch analogy was hyperbolic because clearly there is no relation between hole punches and the ozone layer while (I guess in your mind) it is fair to compare insect midgut epithelium and prokaryotic cell walls when it comes to efficacy of enterotoxins.
That is what you are saying right?
No, not exactly. But it doesn't matter. I gotta go pick my car up at the shop.
Wear clothes.
9 -
I tend to opt for organic items more out of an ethical standpoint than anything else. The patenting and without bar approach to GMOs via corporations, especially Monsanto, is something that in the long run I don't see as bringing any good. Immediate side effects for GMOs are mostly nill, but long-term is still unknown.
Exactly. Absolutely no one can prove GMOs (and all the other junk being put into our food) are safe or harmful in the long-term because we straight up - DO NOT KNOW. Personally, I'm going to opt for the organic food that has been proven safe for generations. The things our bodies were meant to ingest.
And yet gluten intolerance appears to be more prevalent than ever lately. Even though... it's the same food we've been eating for hundreds of years..
So much for long term proof.
I agree with what most people tend to be saying in that all GMOs cannot be lumped together. I'm pro GMO for somethings like corn (which someone earlier said wasn't GMO unless it's fed to animals... which is not true, it is GMO or else people would die from the fungus it carries naturally). Haven't yet found a GMO I'm not pro for, but if I find it I won't have it. One GMO at a time...
It's probably not more prevalent than ever. It's a mix of more people even knowing it exists and getting tested for it on the one hand, and people wrongly thinking they have it because of unproportional amount of media coverage of it on the other.4 -
(which someone earlier said wasn't GMO unless it's fed to animals... which is not true, it is GMO or else people would die from the fungus it carries naturally).
@VeryKatie I said that and that is true if we are using "GMO" in the way those who take an anti-"GMO" stance are using it to mean foods that have been modified with modern molecular biology techniques to be transgenic.
Sweet corn, the kind you get at the grocery store to eat, is not GMO in that sense, it is field corn (the kind used for animal feed or high fructose corn syrup) is now 90% transgenic owing to typically either BT toxin addition or glyphosate resistance.
So no I stand by that statement.
If you are using GMO in terms of just anything that has been genetically modified including any sort of artificial selective pressure or hybridization then yes all corn is "GMO" in that sense, as is every crop plant.
As for the "fungus" thing I'm not sure what you mean by that.1 -
I think another important distinction should be made about BT with regards to the difference between spraying it and having it as a transgenic that I don't think people point out for whatever reason.
BT as a transgenic is the gene for the BT toxin expressed by the plant. It is just the protein.
BT as a spray is an emulsion of the bacteria itself...they are literally spraying the entire bacillus thuringiensis onto the plants. So you get BT toxin, but you also get the entire bacterium and every single gene and molecule therein.
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/BTgen.pdf
So the transgenic is just the protein, the pesticide spray is the entire bacterium. Not sure if people realize that.5 -
Think we are all tired of talking about it so I'll drop it as well. Will say this one more thing though.
Simply put I know enough about microbiology, biochemistry, molecular biology and genetics to not at all be concerned about a risk to our health with regards to use of BT toxin either as a sprayed pesticide or as a transgenic. I'm not saying that to say "therefore you should feel that way too" I'm just explaining the reason that I am not concerned by it is because I understand it.
One could make arguments about the ethics of creating transgenic that kill certain species and safety as in regards to potential environmental effects...I can see that, but if you are talking about straight up health concerns about ingesting it then no, really no reason to be concerned about that at all...it doesn't pose a health risk, its a protein that doesn't affect us or our commensual prokaryia at all
4 -
@Aaron_K123 Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge. I've learned new things and have a better understanding of how it all works.3
-
Thanks Jane. Enterotoxins are actually really neat (inner geek sorry). They are one of the few molecular toxins that work in a purely mechanical way. Most poisons or toxins bind to and inhibit the function of enzymes in critical biochemical processes but enterotoxins are pore formers, they form structures that through their formation essentially produce a hole in the balloon that is the cell membrane.
Given that life requires a boundry between "outside" and "inside" where equilibrium with the enviornment is essentially death that is all it takes to be fatal. As more and more holes form in the cell via this pore formation the cell comes to equilibrium with its surrounding and can no longer produce the energy it needs to survive much like an alternate path for water in a hyrdroelectric dam would mean electricity would cease to be produced as more and more holes formed in the dam.
They can't just form a magic hole in anything and everything, they are very specialized and very tailored to not only affect on a single type of membrane but often only a single species or even subspecies through interactions with specific proteins at the cell surface.
There are enterotoxins that cause us harm, cholera toxin is one as an example...but BT isn't one. It is alkaline activated, binds specific proteins found only in certain insect species midguts and its transmembrane domain is not long enough to pore-form in a bacterial cell wall even if it were to bind.3 -
@Aaron_K123 thank you for your explanation of this issue. I found it educational and helpful.2
-
@Aaron_K123 thank you for your explanation of this issue. I found it educational and helpful.
Sure. Although I was getting the sense you knew the subject matter yourself. Are you in the sciences?0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »suzyjane1972 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.
Why? There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason.
Just because something punches a hole in one thing doesn't mean you can just transfer that concern to anything you don't want holes punched into. That was my point and I think it stands.
If you think that is silly then what is the specific mechanism by which BT is going to poke holes in the cell walls of commensal prokaryia or our own intestinal lining that has you concerned?
It's silly because comparing two living organisms consuming the same thing is a very far cry from trying to put ozone into a hole punch. It's not just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to a manual drill press.
If you want to compare living organisms consuming the same thing:
Garlic is toxic to cats
Theobromine (found in chocolate) is poisonous to dogs and cats
Avocados are toxic to some birds
Shall I go on?
Just because one thing is bad for a certain living thing does not mean it's bad for all living things.
There are more concrete concerns involving our food supply that are real things to worry about right now.
Go on as long as you like, but you might want to check your facts first.
Chocolate is not poisonous to dogs (not sure about cats). It's a common allergen for dogs. Many dogs can eat chocolate without any negative reactions.
And then if you could somehow relate your list to the threads topic that would also be cool.
Sorry to burst your bubble but Chocolate is poisons to dogs. The theobromine is a toxin
Someone should tell that to all the dogs out there safely eating chocolate.
How do you how many dogs safely eat chocolate? Did you poll all the canines in your neighborhood? Between my family and close friends, 14 dog owners, none feed them chocolate.
Also, milk chocolate contains far less theobromine than bakers chocolate. So the all the numerous dogs you know safely consuming chocolate may be eating milk chocolate. It is also weight dependent.
Exactly! When I was a kid, our family dog got a hold of my chocolate Easter bunny and ate most of it. He was a 110lb Rottweiler and the bunny was cheap milk chocolate. He was fine. Had he been a 15 lb chihuahua eating a square of baker's chocolate? Yeah, that probably wouldn't have ended well. With any poison, the dose matters.
Just highlights the poor quality of common chocolate candy.
When I was a kid, my friend's teacup poodle (~5 lb dog) loved chocolate and would steal Hershey's kisses when she could. Never got more than one or two at a time, so she was fine.
One winter, she got into a 5 lb Crunch bar that had been wrapped and not-too-intelligently put under the Christmas tree. Ate more than half of it. Her family rushed the dog to the vet. She was fine, not even a hint of illness. Vet figured she was saved by the extremely low quality of chocolate*, the rice crispies slowing the absorbtion, and possibly from building some tolerance from her chocolate stealing habits.
* I mean, really? The dog didn't so much as skip a beat after eating that much chocolate. For shame, Nestle.
It was many years ago, but it seems to me they should have put on the box: "no actual cocoa beans were harmed in the making of this novelty confection"
1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »Tangentially, what I can't stand is seeing big "GMO-free!" food labels on things that obviously wouldn't have GMOs in it.
I've noticed the same kind of ridiculous labelling in regards to "Gluten Free."
Products that wouldn't contain gluten in a million years are now labelled "Gluten Free" as if the producers of it did something magically wonderful to remove the gluten. Except that gluten was never present in the product to begin with.
Saw a bag of "Gluten-Free, Non-GMO Certified Organic Popcorn" the other day and laughed my *baby rhino* off. It was three times the price of a regular bag of popcorn kernels.
If someone is genuinely gluten intolerant or celiac, (instead of just trying to be trendy) they know enough to read an ingredient label instead.
So... my gluten-free water isn't special?2 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »Tangentially, what I can't stand is seeing big "GMO-free!" food labels on things that obviously wouldn't have GMOs in it.
I've noticed the same kind of ridiculous labelling in regards to "Gluten Free."
Products that wouldn't contain gluten in a million years are now labelled "Gluten Free" as if the producers of it did something magically wonderful to remove the gluten. Except that gluten was never present in the product to begin with.
Saw a bag of "Gluten-Free, Non-GMO Certified Organic Popcorn" the other day and laughed my *baby rhino* off. It was three times the price of a regular bag of popcorn kernels.
If someone is genuinely gluten intolerant or celiac, (instead of just trying to be trendy) they know enough to read an ingredient label instead.
So... my gluten-free water isn't special?
Only if you want it to be. 1 -
It was an awesome analogy.Aaron_K123 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Worrying that BT toxin is going to poke holes in our commensal prokaria or our own gut lining because it pokes holes in specific insects midguts is like worrying that a holepunch is going to punch holes in the ozone layer because it punches holes in paper.
This may be the most ridiculous post I've seen to date on this site.
Why? There is about as much reason to worry that an insect midgut enterotoxin is going to poke holes in a bacterial cell wall as there is to worry that a hole punch is going to hurt the ozone layer. In otherwords...no reason.
Just because something punches a hole in one thing doesn't mean you can just transfer that concern to anything you don't want holes punched into. That was my point and I think it stands.
If you think that is silly then what is the specific mechanism by which BT is going to poke holes in the cell walls of commensal prokaryia or our own intestinal lining that has you concerned?
1 -
I'm tired of hearing about how GMO's are completely safe.
But I guess it does make sense, I mean why would the people making a huge profit off of them lie to us?
Why should they have to prove they are safe, I mean it's only FOOD and the environment.
you know what I am really tired of? This whole 'wash your hands to prevent disease' trend.
GMO's are purposely changed.
Other food is genetically modified randomly by UV from the sun, and other sources of mutation.
I think GMOs will gain acceptance when the fungus that attacks Cavendish bananas spreads enough to make them uneconomical to grow, and the only alternative is a GMO variety.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions