Comments on: Natural RNA, Transgenic DNA, and What They Actually Mean for Our Food

By: Genetically Modified Shitstorm | Flash in the Pan

Genetically Modified Shitstorm | Flash in the Pan — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 04:28:54 +0000

[...] Even where the re-write was acknowledged, all focus remained on my initial, rough argument. A Discover Magazine blog post at least acknowledged my main point, that the regulatory practice of substantial [...]

By: David

David — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:50:21 +0000

No thanks to the organic, heirloom wheat I grow in my own field and hello GMO wheat from the perennial winner of ‘The Most Responsible Company On The Planet’ award Monsanto!!!

While I’m at it I’ll skip the truly free range, organic chickens I raise in my yard and have a double helping tonight of some wonderful factory farmed Tyson-brand chicken fed some of these wonderful GMO grains that are going to allow us to save the world by adding a few more billion to the planet’s population.

By: Steve Savage

Steve Savage — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 04:40:24 +0000

There is no logical connection to existing GMO foods on this topic. You did pretty well on the science up to that

By: Christian

Christian — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 17:42:58 +0000

The USDA, particularly APHIS, is the agency in charge of making the decision to deregulate GMOs. The FDA would only have a hand in the matter if the plant/animal were modified to produce pharmaceuticals. The real issue is that none of the GMO producers have long-term studies on the health effects of their products. I’m talking about generational/multi-generational studies in something other than mice. Humans thrived on a food supply developed naturally over the course of billions of years, and more recently (within the last 10,000) on a food supply selected by desirable traits. Introducing genes from foreign organisms, that could never have bred in nature, and subsequently releasing these organisms into nature–well, that is a cause for alarm given the lack of long-term knowledge concerning these organisms in nature.

By: Discover Magazine disses and discusses my column | Flash in the Pan

Discover Magazine disses and discusses my column | Flash in the Pan — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 17:06:09 +0000

[...] continued attacks on my original piece, even while the updated one was available. Unfortunately, Discover Magazine did this as well. After acknowledging the rewrite, and patting me an the back for doing so, my [...]

By: Diana

Diana — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 06:23:41 +0000

So this is one way rice increases risks of cardiac failure in humans?

By: Ari LeVaux

Ari LeVaux — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:48:51 +0000

Thank you for understanding that my column was about substantial equivalence. The adequacy, or lack thereof, of this concept is a discussion worth having. Unfortunately, the holes in my science in the first draft distracted from my point.

And thank you for acknowledging the new version of my piece. I’m sorry to see that, other than patting me on the back for doing it, you chose to ignore it.

Oddly, you chose to paraphrase me here, as arguing:

“‘Genetically modified organisms will have miRNAs that could be dangerous to us’ (paraphrasing here).”

I’m curious why you did not use an actual quote to support that assertion. Could you not find one?

You also wrote:

“At the heart of the fracas is LeVaux’s claim that a class of molecules called miRNA is a reason to fear GMOs specifically, more than any other food plant or animal”

You claim to have read the rewrite, which clearly states:

“This study had nothing to do with genetically modified (GM) food, but it could have implications on that front. The work shows a pathway by which new food products, such as GM foods, could influence human health in previously unanticipated ways.”

I would like to ask, what is the point of rewriting a piece, other than a pat on the back, if I’m still held to my original, inferior argument?

Please address my new argument. Shoot holes in it then, I’m sure you could. And paraphrase responsibly.

By: Dr. Lombardo

Dr. Lombardo — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:22:04 +0000

This kind of news demonstrates that is like we were little children playing with fire. It’s necessary more and more a prudential approach when one handles cells and their nuclei.