OCCUPY WALL STREET

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by persiphone

[COLOR="Purple"]there are antibiotic resistant genes in GMOs as well. what i find interesting is that there was DNA specifically engineered to be antibiotic resistant in a lab in America and then it was pumped into the food supply all nice and quiet.

Can you explain what you mean by "DNA specifically engineered to be antibiotic resistant" and "pumped into the food supply"? I ask for a couple of reasons:

1) Antibiotics do not, strictly speaking, affect 'naked' DNA. (Here I mean DNA that isn't in some living thing.) Antibiotics affect, well, bacterials but not viruses (RNA) and DNA is RNA with an extra strand, some sugar and one different base (T in DNA is U in RNA). So what doesn't effect RNA also doesn't effect DNA.

2) What do you mean by "pumped into the food supply" in the context of DNA? This seems to violate the central dogma of molecular biology. Put simply, DNA codes for proteins. So DNA that isn't coding for something in the context of being in the presence of a living thing isn't' doing anything. So how can DNA, absent a body in which to express itself, be *doing* anything? Are you saying that it is making antibiotic resistant proteins? That doesn't really make sense unless you are talking about it being inside a living thing.

3) Are you saying that someone cooked up DNA as a bacteriophage (a virus that infects bacteria)? If so, why on Earth would they have it code for resistance to antibiotics since the whole purpose of a bacteriophage would be to try to kill a bacteria not make it more resistant to antibiotics. What's more, there's a far less expensive way they could get the same effect. Simply have people take too many antibiotics, not use them correctly, use a lot of antibacterial soaps so that we're constantly turning the selective volume on bacteria up to eleven. Wait, that's what we're doing now.

I will admit that I do not read all of the literature but I do try to keep up with what is happening in molecular genetics particularly as it relates to our ongoing battle against pathogens. I'm not aware of the work you're talking about and really am not sure that I understand what you're saying. I don't want to derail the thread so if you want to write me privately or put it on its own thread, I really would like to understand what it is you're saying. Thanks.

meanwhile, the media is all about telling us that OVERuse of antibiotics is the real problem...not that that ISN'T a problem...but i suspect it's not THE problem. same with the use of antibiotics in meat. is it a good practice? no. is it bad for you to eat meat that has been grown with antibiotics? probably. but what we're NOT talking about is the specifically engineered DNA that was specifically made to be antibiotic resistant floating around in GMO foods that are neither labeled on products nor regulated.

Actually, the explanation that it's because of the overuse of antibacterials is actually the most simple and the most likely. Since bacteria are living things and since all living things are subject to variation, Darwinian selection operates on bacteria just as it does everything else. Since antibiotics literally kill bacteria and do so by making various chemical tricks happen, any variation that made a bacteria more resistant to that chemical attack would cause it to leave around more descendants than others. What has been going on since we first started using antibiotics is we have been selecting for antibacterial resistance in TB, staph, e. coli, and every other bacterial pathogen we care about. We've been using antibacterials since 1940 so just over 70 years. Given the very fast generation times of most bacteria (every 24 minutes for e. coli, under ideal conditions) and the fact that bacteria are gregarious with their genes and will just share and pick them up from any old bacterial colony we should expect resistance to naturally evolve in a population. It would be remarkable if it didn't happen.

So here I have to ask which is more likely? That bacteria are subject to Darwinian selection and that introducing antibiotics into the ecology of bacteria would inevitably (and rather quickly) lead to strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics OR someone for no good reason introduced antibiotic resistance into the ecology of mammal infecting bacteria *knowing* that resistance was already evolving? (It's been known that it was happening all of my adult life, I first encountered this in 1991.)


Cheers
Aj

[Cin]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Can you explain what you mean by "DNA specifically engineered to be antibiotic resistant" and "pumped into the food supply"? I ask for a couple of reasons:

1) Antibiotics do not, strictly speaking, affect 'naked' DNA. (Here I mean DNA that isn't in some living thing.) Antibiotics affect, well, bacterials but not viruses (RNA) and DNA is RNA with an extra strand, some sugar and one different base (T in DNA is U in RNA). So what doesn't effect RNA also doesn't effect DNA.

2) What do you mean by "pumped into the food supply" in the context of DNA? This seems to violate the central dogma of molecular biology. Put simply, DNA codes for proteins. So DNA that isn't coding for something in the context of being in the presence of a living thing isn't' doing anything. So how can DNA, absent a body in which to express itself, be *doing* anything? Are you saying that it is making antibiotic resistant proteins? That doesn't really make sense unless you are talking about it being inside a living thing.

3) Are you saying that someone cooked up DNA as a bacteriophage (a virus that infects bacteria)? If so, why on Earth would they have it code for resistance to antibiotics since the whole purpose of a bacteriophage would be to try to kill a bacteria not make it more resistant to antibiotics. What's more, there's a far less expensive way they could get the same effect. Simply have people take too many antibiotics, not use them correctly, use a lot of antibacterial soaps so that we're constantly turning the selective volume on bacteria up to eleven. Wait, that's what we're doing now.

I will admit that I do not read all of the literature but I do try to keep up with what is happening in molecular genetics particularly as it relates to our ongoing battle against pathogens. I'm not aware of the work you're talking about and really am not sure that I understand what you're saying. I don't want to derail the thread so if you want to write me privately or put it on its own thread, I really would like to understand what it is you're saying. Thanks.



Actually, the explanation that it's because of the overuse of antibacterials is actually the most simple and the most likely. Since bacteria are living things and since all living things are subject to variation, Darwinian selection operates on bacteria just as it does everything else. Since antibiotics literally kill bacteria and do so by making various chemical tricks happen, any variation that made a bacteria more resistant to that chemical attack would cause it to leave around more descendants than others. What has been going on since we first started using antibiotics is we have been selecting for antibacterial resistance in TB, staph, e. coli, and every other bacterial pathogen we care about. We've been using antibacterials since 1940 so just over 70 years. Given the very fast generation times of most bacteria (every 24 minutes for e. coli, under ideal conditions) and the fact that bacteria are gregarious with their genes and will just share and pick them up from any old bacterial colony we should expect resistance to naturally evolve in a population. It would be remarkable if it didn't happen.

So here I have to ask which is more likely? That bacteria are subject to Darwinian selection and that introducing antibiotics into the ecology of bacteria would inevitably (and rather quickly) lead to strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics OR someone for no good reason introduced antibiotic resistance into the ecology of mammal infecting bacteria *knowing* that resistance was already evolving? (It's been known that it was happening all of my adult life, I first encountered this in 1991.)


Cheers
Aj

I don't want to derail the the thread either, but I do want to understand this as well. From what I can gather, and believe me gathering hurts my head, DNA used as markers in genetic engineering are somehow or other antibiotic resistant. I don't think it is a purposeful thing, it is a by product of using markers. At least that is what it sounded like to me. Then there is something about it being able to possibly do some kind of horizontal gene transfer thing, especially surrounding e-coli, which seems to be useful for genetic modification and we all have some so when we eat gmos that have this antibiotic resistant dna we might be developing it also. Or something like that anyway. Not sure how proven it is. Europe seems more disturbed by it than we are in the U.S. But even there some study decided it wasn't much of a threat to humans but two scientists disagreed and wanted an addendum added to the study. Or something like that. I can't find the study anymore. Read about it awhile ago. Anyway it doesn't sound like a great idea to me. And it seems like a more direct way to find oneself resistant to antibiotics. I think they have been doing this since 1970 or so. Does this make any sense?

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I don't want to derail the the thread either, but I do want to understand this as well. From what I can gather, and believe me gathering hurts my head, DNA used as markers in genetic engineering are somehow or other antibiotic resistant. I don't think it is a purposeful thing, it is a by product of using markers. At least that is what it sounded like to me. Then there is something about it being able to possibly do some kind of horizontal gene transfer thing, especially surrounding e-coli, which seems to be useful for genetic modification and we all have some so when we eat gmos that have this antibiotic resistant dna we might be developing it also. Or something like that anyway. Not sure how proven it is. Europe seems more disturbed by it than we are in the U.S. But even there some study decided it wasn't much of a threat to humans but two scientists disagreed and wanted an addendum added to the study. Or something like that. I can't find the study anymore. Read about it awhile ago. Anyway it doesn't sound like a great idea to me. And it seems like a more direct way to find oneself resistant to antibiotics. I think they have been doing this since 1970 or so. Does this make any sense?

antibiotic resistant genes are 'selected' and then 'farmed' in labs. perhaps i should have used those words. to me that is creating, or advancing the existence of antiobiotic resistant bacteria.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by persiphone

antibiotic resistant genes are 'selected' and then 'farmed' in labs. perhaps i should have used those words. to me that is creating, or advancing the existence of antiobiotic resistant bacteria.

You know I can't really say I completely understand this stuff. What you posted in response to dreedgeek is the easiest to follow I've read so far. But i must be missing some important basic information that would enable me to follow what is being explained more easily. I don't usually have reading comprehension issues but...

What I do get is that I would like to avoid consuming this crap. However, it doesn't seem like there is any way for me to know if the food I am eating has been genetically modified or if it has if it contains antibiotic resistant genes. At least I think that's true.

anyway thanks for the information.

[atomiczombie]

Hmm, they might be starting to notice that a little backlash is happening. It will be interesting to see what happens by Nov.5th - national Bank Transfer Day.

It looks like Bank of America might be on its own. After the nation’s second-largest bank by assets got excoriated by consumers and politicians for planning to charge debit-card users an additional fee for purchases, other major banks indicated Friday they are canceling their plans to adopt similar programs. JPMorgan Chase, one of the first big banks to test such fees, has decided it won't adopt them. U.S. Bancorp, Citigroup, PNC Financial Services, and KeyCorp also say they won't use the fees. Wells Fargo, however, is still testing a $3 monthly fee in five states. "I generally think customers don't want to be nickeled and dimed," said the head of retail products at PNC.

LINK: http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/...ebit-fees.html

[Toughy]

I wish they would get Olsen OUT of Highland Hospital and over to the SF VA Medical Center where they have tons of experience with traumatic brain injury. I am sure he is stable enough for a 45 minute ambulance ride to the VA or they could fly him in a helicopter....I believe both Highland and the VA have landing pads.

[Toughy]

Wells Fargo is eliminating it's free checking accounts except for those with $5,000 balances starting Nov 15 (in CA for sure....don't know about the rest of the country). You can still get a free savings if you transfer $75 bucks a month from your (not free) checking to your (free) savings. Both used to be free if you had direct deposit to checking and transfered the 75 to savings.

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

You know I can't really say I completely understand this stuff. What you posted in response to dreedgeek is the easiest to follow I've read so far. But i must be missing some important basic information that would enable me to follow what is being explained more easily. I don't usually have reading comprehension issues but...

What I do get is that I would like to avoid consuming this crap. However, it doesn't seem like there is any way for me to know if the food I am eating has been genetically modified or if it has if it contains antibiotic resistant genes. At least I think that's true.

anyway thanks for the information.

it's not you. it's complicated crap. there are lists of processed foods that are GMO. a good guidleline is that if it has corn, soy, or canola and hfcs (which is like 90% of what's on store shelves then you can pretty much bet it's a GMO product. lemme see if i can find a current list....

ok i found a pretty complete one here:

http://opposingdigits.com/forums/about52.html

edited cuz i'm tired and therefore repeating myself.

*sigh* last edit i swear. so a recent study was done on the levels of antibiotic resistant bacteria on commercial meat. the levels were astonishing. turkey ranked the worst, followed by pork, then beef, then chicken. and they tell you not rinse your poultry anymore because the splash spreads this antibiotic resistant bacteria around your kitchen.

[SoNotHer]

To put it simply, there are proverbial genies pressure-popping out of bottle after bottle. Our food and medicine production has become like climate change - a runaway experiment that has vaulted the petri dish and headed for open ground. We are in terra incognito in more ways than we know.

There is no road map for where we are heading.

Originally Posted by persiphone

it's not you. it's complicated crap. there are lists of processed foods that are GMO. a good guidleline is that if it has corn, soy, or canola and hfcs (which is like 90% of what's on store shelves then you can pretty much bet it's a GMO product. lemme see if i can find a current list....

ok i found a pretty complete one here:

http://opposingdigits.com/forums/about52.html

i think the scarier scenario is our meat supply. GMO products are fed to our meat and dairy supply while simultaneously being raised on regular antibiotics. we then eat that meat and in some cases some of that meat is not always cooked beyond recognition. so live bacteria can survive. interestingly, a study was recently done on levels of antibiotic resistant bacteria on grocery store meat and the numbers were astonishing. turkey ranked the highest, followed by pork, then beef and then chicken. and we eat that! it's so bad that they tell people now not to rinse poultry in your sink cuz the splash from the water droplets will spread that antibiotic resistant bacteria around your kitchen.

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

To put it simply, there are proverbial genies pressure-popping out of bottle after bottle. Our food and medicine production has become like climate change - a runaway experiment that has vaulted the petri dish and headed for open ground. We are in terra incognito in more ways than we know.

There is no road map for where we are heading.

i agree and i love that visual. and yanno this has been going on for quite some time. but like i said in an earlier post, we weren't taught this stuff and the generations after us aren't being taught either. i don't think that's an accident. and navigating this info to get a clear understanding of exactly the whys and the hows of GMOs can be daunting, even with some heavy microbiology knowledge, let alone without it. you can see why they are so against labeling these products on store shelves. when i walk into a grocery store now, i feel surrounded by inedible products and my choices are severely limited if i wish to remain gmo free without the expense of buying all organic.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by persiphone

it's not you. it's complicated crap. there are lists of processed foods that are GMO. a good guidleline is that if it has corn, soy, or canola and hfcs (which is like 90% of what's on store shelves then you can pretty much bet it's a GMO product. lemme see if i can find a current list....

ok i found a pretty complete one here:

http://opposingdigits.com/forums/about52.html

edited cuz i'm tired and therefore repeating myself.

*sigh* last edit i swear. so a recent study was done on the levels of antibiotic resistant bacteria on commercial meat. the levels were astonishing. turkey ranked the worst, followed by pork, then beef, then chicken. and they tell you not rinse your poultry anymore because the splash spreads this antibiotic resistant bacteria around your kitchen.

Wow that is an insanely long list of foods with genetically engineered ingredients. I kind of laughed when I saw so many Healthy Choice products.

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Wow that is an insanely long list of foods with genetically engineered ingredients. I kind of laughed when I saw so many Healthy Choice products.

i know! it's so depressing. the Pepperidge Farm products sent me right over the edge. and Oreos ffs! how am i sposed to live without Oreos? i found an alternative, but STILL!

[Cin]

Originally Posted by persiphone

it's not you. it's complicated crap. there are lists of processed foods that are GMO. a good guidleline is that if it has corn, soy, or canola and hfcs (which is like 90% of what's on store shelves then you can pretty much bet it's a GMO product. lemme see if i can find a current list....

ok i found a pretty complete one here:

http://opposingdigits.com/forums/about52.html

edited cuz i'm tired and therefore repeating myself.

*sigh* last edit i swear. so a recent study was done on the levels of antibiotic resistant bacteria on commercial meat. the levels were astonishing. turkey ranked the worst, followed by pork, then beef, then chicken. and they tell you not rinse your poultry anymore because the splash spreads this antibiotic resistant bacteria around your kitchen.

Thank you for this list. And for the information.

I can't imagine what to do now though. Cheerios and 3 Musketeers bars - say it ain't so. The staples. I can't even imagine life without cheerios.

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Thank you for this list. And for the information.

I can't imagine what to do now though. Cheerios and 3 Musketeers bars - say it ain't so. The staples. I can't even imagine life without cheerios.

i know! the horror! i really miss Wheatables, Milanos, Oreos, Snickers, and Capn' Crunch Berries. i found alternatives and even some new things at Trader Joe's. but i grew up on some of those items that are now GMO products so it's painful.

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Can you explain what you mean by "DNA specifically engineered to be antibiotic resistant" and "pumped into the food supply"? I ask for a couple of reasons:

1) Antibiotics do not, strictly speaking, affect 'naked' DNA. (Here I mean DNA that isn't in some living thing.) Antibiotics affect, well, bacterials but not viruses (RNA) and DNA is RNA with an extra strand, some sugar and one different base (T in DNA is U in RNA). So what doesn't effect RNA also doesn't effect DNA.

2) What do you mean by "pumped into the food supply" in the context of DNA? This seems to violate the central dogma of molecular biology. Put simply, DNA codes for proteins. So DNA that isn't coding for something in the context of being in the presence of a living thing isn't' doing anything. So how can DNA, absent a body in which to express itself, be *doing* anything? Are you saying that it is making antibiotic resistant proteins? That doesn't really make sense unless you are talking about it being inside a living thing.

3) Are you saying that someone cooked up DNA as a bacteriophage (a virus that infects bacteria)? If so, why on Earth would they have it code for resistance to antibiotics since the whole purpose of a bacteriophage would be to try to kill a bacteria not make it more resistant to antibiotics. What's more, there's a far less expensive way they could get the same effect. Simply have people take too many antibiotics, not use them correctly, use a lot of antibacterial soaps so that we're constantly turning the selective volume on bacteria up to eleven. Wait, that's what we're doing now.

I will admit that I do not read all of the literature but I do try to keep up with what is happening in molecular genetics particularly as it relates to our ongoing battle against pathogens. I'm not aware of the work you're talking about and really am not sure that I understand what you're saying. I don't want to derail the thread so if you want to write me privately or put it on its own thread, I really would like to understand what it is you're saying. Thanks.



Actually, the explanation that it's because of the overuse of antibacterials is actually the most simple and the most likely. Since bacteria are living things and since all living things are subject to variation, Darwinian selection operates on bacteria just as it does everything else. Since antibiotics literally kill bacteria and do so by making various chemical tricks happen, any variation that made a bacteria more resistant to that chemical attack would cause it to leave around more descendants than others. What has been going on since we first started using antibiotics is we have been selecting for antibacterial resistance in TB, staph, e. coli, and every other bacterial pathogen we care about. We've been using antibacterials since 1940 so just over 70 years. Given the very fast generation times of most bacteria (every 24 minutes for e. coli, under ideal conditions) and the fact that bacteria are gregarious with their genes and will just share and pick them up from any old bacterial colony we should expect resistance to naturally evolve in a population. It would be remarkable if it didn't happen.

So here I have to ask which is more likely? That bacteria are subject to Darwinian selection and that introducing antibiotics into the ecology of bacteria would inevitably (and rather quickly) lead to strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics OR someone for no good reason introduced antibiotic resistance into the ecology of mammal infecting bacteria *knowing* that resistance was already evolving? (It's been known that it was happening all of my adult life, I first encountered this in 1991.)


Cheers
Aj

when creating GMO food, a gene selected for antibiotic resistance is spliced into DNA of plant cells. i'm gonna copy and paste a couple things for you:

Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes in Genetically Engineered Foods
2002-06-19

Executive Summary



No federal laws have ever been passed to govern the regulation of genetically engineered foods and crops. The regulations in place, cobbled together under existing statutes, require no mandatory pre-market or post-market health testing. When the regulations were legally challenged in the 1980s, the court found they were flawed but did not set them aside, reasoning that they were only an initial effort to set policy. Instead, the regulations remain largely in place, although weakened over time. One result of this lax oversight is that potentially unsafe practices, such as the inclusion of antibiotic resistance marker genes, have gone forward with far too little scientific and public debate and scrutiny.

Many genetically engineered crops on the market currently contain antibiotic resistance marker genes because of the imprecision of the gene insertion process. Scientists use these genes to determine whether a gene has inserted itself into a target organism. As a result of incorporating these antibiotic resistance genes, these crops threaten the already growing problem of antibiotic resistance, which the world medical community acknowledges as a serious public health concern. Infectious diseases are responsible for one-quarter of all the deaths in the world, second only to cardiovascular diseases. As new strains of bacteria and viruses emerge that are resistant to drugs and antibiotics, infections become more difficult to treat.

The market for genetically engineered crops hinges in large part upon their acceptance by food processors. Food companies such as Kraft Foods, the largest food company in the United States and the second largest in the world, can join the call for an end to antibiotic resistance marker genes and tell biotechnology companies they do not want to put their customers at risk. Corporations have set a precedent for this type of action: McDonald's and other large corporate consumers of chicken have played a significant role in reducing in the use of antibiotics fed to chickens for non-therapeutic purposes. If food processors, as potential customers, clearly articulate that antibiotic resistance marker genes are unacceptable, manufacturers will have no incentive to continue their use.

Antibiotic resistance marker genes are just one example of how genetically engineered crops should be better regulated, so products that should never make it to market do not, and health concerns are addressed before, not after, products are commercialized. In order to accomplish this goal with regards to antibiotic resistance marker genes, products on the market with them should be removed, and no new products should be approved that contain antibiotic resistance marker genes. In addition, the state Public Interest Research Groups, along with our coalition partners in Genetically Engineered Food Alert, have issued the following call to action:

Genetically engineered food ingredients or crops should not be allowed on the market unless:

1) Independent safety testing demonstrates they have no harmful effects on human health or the environment,
2) They are labeled to ensure the consumer's right to know, and
3) The biotechnology corporations that manufacture them are held responsible for any harm.



~and to answer the technical questions (and thanks i know what a phage is lol!)


Horizontal gene transfer

Horizontal gene transfer has been reported between distantly related bacteria, and from bacteria to
yeast, mammalian cells and plant cells.
The few examples of transfer from plants to bacteria indicated by DNA sequence comparisons and
the lack of experimental confirmation suggest that the frequency of evolutionary successful gene
transfer from plants to bacteria is extremely low. However this inference is based on a small number
of experimental studies and indications in the scientific literature.
Detection of horizontal gene transfer events is difficult due to the limitations of the techniques
available. Unequivocal proof requires isolation of the putative transformed bacteria for thorough
genetic characterisation.
The rate of gene transfer from plants to bacteria is insignificant compared to gene transfer between
micro-organisms. Almost any type of bacterium has the potential to transfer DNA to any other type
of bacterium if it contains a broad host range gene transfer element.

Antibiotic resistance genes and human health

The presence of the antibiotic resistance gene by itself is not associated with any adverse health
effects.
There is in vitro evidence that free DNA in human saliva is capable of transforming a naturally
competent human oral bacterium (Mercer et al, 1999). Since the regions preceding the stomach are
likely to have the highest concentrations of intact DNA entering with the diet further research is
needed to establish whether transformation of oral bacteria occurs at significant frequencies in vivo.
Although most ingested DNA is likely to be degraded and diluted in the human gastro-intestinal
tract, natural transformation of gut epithelial cells or micro-organisms cannot be completely ruled
out.
Research in mice indicates that DNA can survive digestion and uptake by gut epithelial cells occurs,
however at levels of DNA intake unlikely to be encountered in a normal diet (Schubbert et al, 1997).
The mechanism of DNA uptake by gut epithelial cells is unknown and its significance is unclear.
If DNA uptake does occur in humans critical factors are the presence of regulatory sequences that
allow gene expression and the presence of selective pressure. Without selective pressure it is highly.......

......blahblahblah.....i can attach that entire pdf to your email if you like.


i understand that by the act of processing foods...let's take a box of Cheez-Its for example (a common GMO containing food)....clearly bacterias and therefore their DNA would not survive the process of the making of a Cheez-It. so the bacteria itself dies, but where does the DNA litter go? also, GMO food products are being fed to our meat supply, while simultaneously being fed antibiotics or being injected. (actually i think it's strictly in the feed now cuz injections are too expensive) we then, eat that meat, and not always overly well done. to me, it seems like the bacteria or even the DNA litter of said bacteria were to survive it would be here. however, stranger things have happened.

[Ebon]

Occupy Update from RT (the only real news station left)



Added another video

[SoNotHer]

Ain't that the truth. What would we do without RT and Democracy Now?

Originally Posted by Ebon

Occupy Update from RT (the only real news station left)

[SoNotHer]

"The police protect and serve the one percent." Great interview and context for this. Olsen is going to need brain surgery - quite a price to pay for standing peacefully in support of a movement he was selfishly committed to.

This movement is bringing some festering issues to a long-in-coming head.

Originally Posted by Ebon

Occupy Update from RT (the only real news station left)



Added another video

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by Ebon

Occupy Update from RT (the only real news station left)



Added another video

That Tea Party guy in the second video is ON CRACK. O.o