Newsgroup: it.discussioni.folli
Titolo: What are you having for dinner tonight

Techno-foods
Sara Chamberlain dissects the food that we eat - and finds some alarming
ingredients.
What are you having for dinner tonight? Pasta with tomato sauce? Tortillas
with beans, or maybe vegetable curry with rice? Foods that people around the
world rely on to fill them up and make them feel good.
What would you think if I said that your dinner resembles Frankenstein ­ an
unnatural hodgepodge of alien ingredients? Fish genes are swimming in your
tomato sauce, microscopic bacterial genes in your tortillas, and your veg
curry has been spiked with viruses. You might think I was a sensationalist
at best and a liar at worst ­ a deranged environmentalist making mountains
out of molehills. But, unfortunately, genetically engineered foods are not
science-fiction. They were not invented by environmentalists. They are being
sold in your food shops and grocery stores right now, and their health risks
are almost entirely unknown.
Corporations that produce genetically engineered foods claim they can make
crops resistant to herbicides, pesticides and diseases; fruits and
vegetables that grow in inhospitable climates and soil conditions; fish that
grow at twice their average speed to twice their average size. You may have
already eaten one of these 'new products' (sometimes called 'Novel Foods').
Calgene corporation's 'Flavr Savr' tomato is being sold fresh in US
supermarkets while in Britain genetically engineered tomato puree is being
sold under the Safeway and Sainsburys store brands. Even if you only eat
tomatoes from your own garden or local store, you still may have consumed
genetically engineered materials. For example, up to 60 per cent of our
processed foods contain soya beans. Monsanto corporation's
herbicide-resistant 'Roundup Ready' soya beans are now being used by
processed-food manufacturers in the European Union (EU), the US, Canada,
Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand.
So what? Fruit and vegetables that don't rot, soya that resists pesticides,
salmon that grow in leaps and bounds ­ sounds great, right? But who really
benefits from these developments, and what risks are involved? The gene-food
industry is driven by corporations for profit ­ not for the benefit of
consumers, or the world's poor.
In fact, consumers could be at substantial risk from genetically engineered
foods. In nature, crossbreeding only takes place between very closely
related species. Any genetic changes occur very gradually, over time. But
genetic engineering allows the joining and transfer of genes between totally
unrelated organisms. Going against nature can have dangerous consequences:
the actual process of genetic engineering can create toxic by-products in
our foods. For example, in 1989 a new disease called Eosinophilia Myalgia
Syndrome (EMS) hit the US. Out of an estimated 5,000 people who contracted
the disease, 37 died and 1,500 were permanently disabled. EMS was linked to
the consumption of a dietary supplement called L-tryptophan. According to
the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the batch of L-tryptophan
implicated in the outbreak was traced back to one manufacturer, Showa Denko,
which had recently introduced a new genetically engineered bacterium into
its production process.
Genetic engineering can also introduce known and unknown allergens into
common foods. For example, Pioneer Hi-Bred International injected normal
soya beans with genes from Brazil nuts to increase their protein content.
The desired result was achieved, but the new 'improved' beans were never
approved for sale. Why? Because scientists discovered that anyone allergic
to Brazil nuts (and quite a few people are) is allergic to the genetically
engineered beans. In this case, scientists knew what allergen to look for ­
but many genetically engineered foods contain genes from bacteria and
viruses that have never been a part of the human food-chain. Nobody knows
what allergic reactions people might have to them.
Genetically engineered foods could also spread resistance to antibiotics in
animals and human populations, thus undermining their effectiveness in
treating diseases. When geneticists inject foreign genes into plant or
animal cells, they often link them to other genes, called 'trackers'. For
experimental reasons, tracker genes are usually resistant to antibiotics.
Genetically engineered maize approved for sale in the European Union, US and
Canada contains tracker genes that are resistant to ampicillin. Naturally
there is concern that this resistance could be transferred to bacteria in
the intestines of livestock and human beings. This could create 'super
bacteria' that no amount of antibiotics could kill. For this reason,
governments in Italy, Austria, Luxembourg, Britain, France and Germany have
banned farmers from growing genetically engineered maize. However, it
continues to be grown in the US, where it is an ingredient in many processed
foods and is also fed to livestock.
Despite the risks of toxins, allergens and antibiotic-resistance, over 3,000
genetically engineered foodstuffs are poised to enter food stores around the
world. If the current trend continues, in five to eight years almost
everything we eat and drink will contain genetically engineered materials,
according to Dr Antoniou, a senior lecturer in molecular pathology at one of
London's leading teaching hospitals.
So what sort of precautions are corporations and governments taking to
ensure that these foods are safe for consumption? What testing is being done
and who's doing it? The answers to these questions leave a lot to be
desired. What tests do not look for and cannot reveal is the existence of
new, unknown toxins and allergens. Canadian geneticist Richard Wolfson
states that current testing methods 'are completely incapable of detecting
the unsuspected or unanticipated health risks generated by genetic
engineering'. Furthermore, most tests are conducted for a short period of
time on laboratory animals. Wolfson argues that genetically engineered foods
should be subjected to clinical tests, like pharmaceutical drugs. Clinical
tests screen for 'general toxicity' rather than for specific toxins, are
long-term and include extensive trials with human volunteers. Wolfson says
that 'animal tests provide virtually no useful information regarding the
allergenicity of food to humans'.
Another problem with current safety-testing procedures is that most tests
are carried out by the same corporations that produce and market genetically
engineered foods. These tests are accepted as unbiased and legitimate by
governments in Britain, the US, Canada and some EU countries. But it seems
risky to entrust our health to the corporations that have spent millions of
dollars developing genetically engineered foods and stand to lose so much if
they are rejected
Testing, no matter how comprehensive, cannot possibly prove the safety of
gene foods for consumption by everyone, everywhere. Labelling is desperately
required. 'Consumers want standardized information,' says Diane McCrea, Head
of Food and Health Research at the British Consumers Association. 'We have a
right to know what we are eating, so that we can protect our health and make
informed decisions about our diets.'
At present, only three types of genetically engineered foods have to be
labelled worldwide. Food or drink containing 'live' genetically engineered
organisms, such as bacteria in yoghurt or genetic materials from humans (yes
humans!) or animals have to be labelled. Foods and drinks that are
considered 'substantially different' from their non-engineered counterparts
also have to be labelled. This means that only gene foods containing more
than five-per-cent genetically engineered materials will be labelled. This
system is deeply flawed. That same food supplement that killed and injured
people in 1989 in the US was 99.6-per-cent pure. It required no testing or
labelling.
Fortunately, all this may be about to change, at least in Europe. The
European Commission has decided to endorse, in principal, the labelling of
all genetically engineered foods, including processed foods that contain
products derived from genetically engineered crops. In order to achieve
this, they plan to make producers and distributors separate genetically
engineered crops and foods from their unmodified counterparts.
To date, producers and suppliers have resisted separation, claiming that it
would be prohibitively expensive. Supermarkets and processed-food
manufacturers have consequently been unable to label genetically engineered
foods. 'We've been shafted by Monsanto, to put it bluntly,' said Tony
Combes, Public Affairs Manager for Safeway PLC when I spoke to him about
this. 'We can't trace Monsanto's soya unless it has been segregated and
suppliers in America will not segregate.'
If the European Commission's decision becomes law, producers such as
Monsanto, which sell up to 50 per cent of their soya beans to Europe, will
be forced to segregate. Segregation could raise the price of such foods,
making them unattractive to consumers and financially unviable. This would
be a major blow not just to Monsanto but to all genetically engineered
crops. The US plans to fight the European Commission's decision, claiming
that the mandatory labelling of all genetically engineered foods is
'unreasonable' and an illegal barrier to trade.
At this juncture it is vitally important that consumers make their fears or
reservations about genetically engineered foods heard. After all, are the
benefits ­ longer shelf-life, pesticide resistance, faster growth ­ worth
the risks? The British Consumers Association is cautious: 'BSE has taught us
that what looks like simple changes in food production can have devastating
effects in years to come. Some of the gene modifications that are possible
may seem harmless, but it's important to be cautious.' Greenpeace is more
forceful: 'It is quite clear even from existing research that a ban on
genetically engineered foods and a moratorium on the release of all
genetically modified organisms is essential for the protection of health.'
I, for one, think this particular Pandora's box should remain as nature
intended, firmly shut.
Sara Chamberlain is Editorial Assistant at the New Internationalist and
edits Oxfam's website.
Comments? Quetions? Drop us a line... 
sa...@newint.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Cut the crap, theres nothing wrong with biotechnology, stop being paranoid
Sorry, but no one is trying to poison you with their food
James ('s view)

Sorry, but no one is trying to poison you with their food
james i love you, but ehe naked ox who
lay splayed out on his face beside the
swimming pool might have been dead.
' j


yeah, except who is trying to poison us with our* food

 Lisa--

 



the butter must be spead on a
cat, if you want to solve electrical
energy world-problem. then, said
the idf old guard, above a persian
carpet you should whirl the butter
cat, after connected the wires to
an capacitor, of course.
you will have an engine !!!  the
*butter cat engine*, gopirait idf.
' j


thought ''What the heck'  and wrote:-

Apple butter *and* balti curries.
Hank
******************************************
Remove everything in brackets to e-mail 
(spamlovelyspam.)

*butter cat engine*, gopirait idf.
ROFL!

Lisa--
weeee, too fat
http://www.freeweb.org/arte/AT/Lcpers
I ain't gonna work for peanut butter's farm anymore

> Lisa--
Lisa, apple butter is better, especially on white cows

> swimming pool might have been dead.
Orders from the D.A.

*butter cat engine*, gopirait idf.
Excuse me Mister 'j, they are not used to these, they are americans,
maybe in the 21st century they will accept it as a matter of facts
but now, let them
use
the ol' good ole ways
The *butter cat engine* is just a futuristic thing,
I think that maybe if we began with cows at the spot of cats and apple
butter at the spot of the simple butter, we can do it
And maybe we should insist in the fact that this buttered cat engine finds
its way thanks to a Murphy's law
Maybe they will believe in it, maybe not
or maybe they will put patent on that, and so we would be fucked off cause
we won't earn a cow from that, after all the time and brain that the idf old
guard(but wasn't it the C.S.M.'s? the Mental Saws Club?) has spent and fired
come on
od yeah

 ' j

I have already applyed for a pattend, however you will get a cow still
as long as you bow to the great ox and demand Lucky Charms be flung at
your upper arms through the gate to total ox.  If this is done outside
of 269 degrees West of the gate the ox shall scorch the marshmellows and
you shall be reincarnated.  Good luck great ox.
Ben Tolsky
http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~tolsky/rem.html





into a pool naked, and the rest of the ox just live.


ROFL!
oxen of course are not only human.
they are pure spirits and animals,
and have a very ancient and ramified
culture, as butter cat engines have,
and fishes, and even snakes.
' j

The Oxen know, they sense the change, they embrace the change, the
dawning of a new era...
(James)

Comments? Quetions? Drop us a line... 
sa...@newint.org
1) mi scoccio a leggere un messaggio cosi' lungo.
2) mi scoccio a leggere un messaggio cosi' lungo in inglese.
3) mi scoccio a leggere un messaggio cosi' lungo in inglese e probabilmente
delirante.
Chi mi fa un sunto?
ciao
gelty
----------
visita 
http://www.sifor.it
elimina *toglimi.* per le risposte

keroppi
keroppi posts here?
wahey!
i prefer keroppi to hello kitty (thom yorke's preference) or miffy (my mate
lozza's favourite) or badtz-maru (my mate nikki's favourite) or any other
sanrio gift from god. i'm totally into keroppi. i have pencils and pens (they
don't work, though, but it doesn't matter, they're just for show) and all
things keroppi. except for a bag i saw once, i really want that badly. it's
green. if you see it, please steal it for me. i'd pay for shipping and for your
trouble.
wonder what michael stipe's favourite is...
Gayl




ah! james don't say you agree
with me... i really think that every
ox loves what he is good at.
' j


quanto mi paghi?
mi dai la buonuscita, un posto assicurato, l'aspettativa, e le vacanze?


ROFL!
THE BUTTERED CAT ENGINE
Since the legend of this engine
has made his apparition on these ngs,
I think it deserves a little bit of explanation.
Here, the instructions how to devise the engine:
Material Needed:
Cat (1)
Slice of Bread (1)
Butter (50 g)
Knife or some other butterspreader (1)
Ancient Persian carpet (1) 
The Algorithm:
1) Butter very carefully one slice of bread,  on ONE SIDE ONLY of the bread.
2) Apply the cat on the BUTTERED slice.
3) Drop the whole thing on the persian carpet. Attention: the carpet OUGHT to be
ANCIENT and OF GREAT VALUE.  The more the carpet is valuable the more the engine
will be powerful.
 
3) Now, for the well known laws of nature, a cat always falls on all his legs,
wether a slice of bread falling on a precious carpet always land on the BUTTERED
SIDE. Therefore the complex Buttered Slice / Cat  (BC/S) will be suspenced in
mid-air whirling with increasing velocity,  trying thus to solve the conflict
between the laws of nature.
4)  If you connect the BS/C to a current generetor, you can obtain electrical
power proportionally to the quantity of spreaded butter, to the surface of the
slice and to the value of the carpet.
--
keroppi
(There are also rumors about a similar engine where butter is replaced with
margarine and the cat with an ox, but it is not proved whether such an engine
allows to reach better results).

I though apple butter was know the official food of this newsgroup.
the official food on our newsgroup si margarine.

dawning of a new era...
This is exactly what Bertrand said about oxen.
Are you brothers or whatelse?

trouble.
Of course I've the bag. And not only I have it, but I am *on* the bag and I am
*in* the bag.  In a sense, *I* am the bag.
Since I won't ship myself overseas I'm sorry I can't satisfy your desire.

keroppi posts here?
Quanto gli\le hai dato?
npan_
    ...tanto ci sarà sempre, lo sapete, un musico fallito, un
pio, un teorete, un bertoncelli o un prete, a sparare cazzate.
Ma se io avessi previsto tutto questo dati causa e pretesto,
forse farei lo stesso...
______________________________________________________

the official food on our newsgroup si margarine.
everyone has its own official food

-- >

Okay, but you can clone it, ehm you
and then he would pay
but the fact is... how really someone would pay?

Quanto gli\le hai dato?
e' un transessuale, non si vede?

wonder what michael stipe's favourite is...
I wonder, therefore i wonder?


everyone has its own official food
I guess yours is tuna.

Chi mi fa un sunto?
Sunto e Bisunto:
ti stai semplicemente perdendo il piu' bel 3d che sia mai apparso su idlm.

but the fact is... how really someone would pay?
Let's do like Ugo Manzini:  let's use a *dainer*!

Let's do like Ugo Manzini:  let's use a *dainer*!
I'm against the use of credit card
If i had a credit card, I would not have it

If i had a credit card, I would not have it
Perhaps you wouldn't have it, 
but certainly you *might* have it.

Quanto gli\le hai dato?
non penso che paghi se stesso
oddio, certo c'e' chi e' disposto a farlo
ma non ne vedo il motivo
se non, forse per vedersi diminuire le tasse