You won't see me hewing to some paleo diet or otherwise worshipping my bark-eating forebears. But I think people do themselves a disservice with all the crud they put in their skin. Some of these things are required only because of the previous thing applied to their skin. Hand washing is nice and I recommend it but equally important (in terms of disease transmission) are the discipline to not pick your nose and rub your eyes. Basic stuff.
Agreed, I'm a happy modern human that isn't particularly worried about potential harms from chemicals or GMOs. I do though use baking soda and vinegar for my hair and its so much better than using shampoo and conditioner. Aggressively stripping oil from your hair and then putting it back didn't make sense once I learned about it.
Thanks for the down-vote, but seriously do you have an argument here? Even Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" GMOs merely express a modified version of an enzyme that allows them to synthesize essential amino acids even in the presence of the pesticide. There is no rational argument for why modifications to the DNA region that regulate production of the enzyme or modifications to the enzyme could be dangerous in any way... Even when ingested, these macromolecules would be digested rather than absorbed, as in the case of a bioactive small molecule that is readily absorbed from consumer plastics (e.g. BPA).
Your assuming GMO's where modified in exactly the way intended. Realistically, attempting to insert segment X into something’s DNA and verifying the organism produces Y in no way insures that the only DNA modification was inserting X or that the only change from X is producing Y.
PS: My sister created GMO's for a while in her words the process is way less controlled than generally portrayed.
> Your assuming GMO's where modified in exactly the way intended. Realistically, attempting to insert segment X into something’s DNA and verifying the organism produces Y in no way insures that the only DNA modification was inserting X or that the only change from X is producing Y.
Both the processes and the regulatory compliance requirements around GMOs provide a lot stronger (though, still, not perfect) assurance of that for GMOs than the processes and (near complete lack of) regulatory clearance requirements around crop modifications that result in rapid genome changes but which are considered "traditional breeding" rather than "GMO" because they don't involve directly inserting genetic material from a different organism.
(I have an immediate family member who works doing both kinds of crop modifications, and has been involved providing science support for regulatory clearance of products, as well.)
Who cares even if it's not well controlled and changes many things? DNA mutates all the time with little effect. Every human born has a few novel mutations. There's no argument from this to a comparison with bioactive small molecules.
Unlike normal mutations genetic modifications can change a lot of things at the same time and are often focused around biologically active chemicals. That's not to say that GMO foods are unsafe just that new modification are far from risk free and should have stringent review before using them to feed 100+ million people. If for no other reason than they can produce a lot of a completely unknown and unresearched chemical.
Consider a recent (1992) example that has nothing to do with DNA modification. Hedysarum alpinum is now known to be toxic, but was not noted to be so in a field guide which may have contributed to Christopher McCandless death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McCandlessEXTREMELY WEAK. FAULT OF POT[ATO] SEED. MUCH TROUBLE JUST TO STAND UP. STARVING. GREAT JEOPARDY.
I agree with what you say about pesticides -- note I said BPA is not comparable with GMO, not that BPA is not comparable with pesticide. In this case, the genetically modified organism would be safe, but chemicals used to treat the organism could be harmful.
> If for no other reason than they can produce a lot of a completely unknown and unresearched chemical.
I don't think this is true. Metabolic engineering is really hard. In other words, getting an organism to produce a new small molecule is really hard. If it weren't, we would have large scale biosynthesis of lots of stuff, instead of relying on chemical synthesis or isolation. Most enzymes have very specific functions. E.g. an enzyme will add a carbon at a particular location on a very specific substrate molecule. There's not really the possibility for unforeseen byproducts.
What you describe isn't really plausible, which is why biologists agree GMOs are safe. A plausible hypothetical for how something bad could happen, and then not be noticed until the product is fed to millions of people, probably doesn't exist (based on the fact that one has yet to be proposed).
The only exception I know is allergenicity, but this is a general risk. People are allergic to stuff. Any new product is potentially allergenic. All of a sudden quinoa is in vogue.... people could be allergic to quinoa. No unique risk.
The toxicity of _Hedysarum alpinum_ is an evolved trait, like most toxicities, that confers some benefit to the host organism. It's hard to accidentally create a beneficial new trait in organisms. It's even an academic problem in the field--evolution of novelty. Most genetic changes you make either break stuff or if you're lucky do one specific thing.
"In other words, getting an organism to produce a new small molecule is really hard."
A large part of why this is hard is they tend to produce something other than what you want. Getting a protean to fold the right way 95% of the time is a huge achievement, but it also means your producing something else 5% of the time. In point of fact quite a bit of your DNA is focused on getting other sections to fold correctly.
As to population risks Prion's are probably a risk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion For one thing there unlikely to be undetected in the food supply as normal toxicity tests will miss a novel one. (EX: Mad Cow Disease)
Anyway, all I am really just suggesting GMO’s are introduced more slowly. Something like food for 100k people in the first year, 1M the next, then 10M and then you’re good to go. Granted, that would be really hard to do with the way the current food supply works, but simple acreage limits could have a similar effect.
PS: The point about Hedysarum alpinum toxicity was it's not all that uncommon and people had been eating it, but it was not known to be toxic. The point being Toxicity can be more complex issue than is generally assumed.
Proteins misfold constantly, prion diseases are very rare, and creation of a novel prion would constitute a massive gain of function for a protein, therefore it is very unlikely to occur.
Food shortage is a real problem that affects a billion people.
Food supply massively outpaces needs. It's true that first world's desire to eat lots of meat is economically more powerful than 1+ billion poor people’s desire to eat something. But, increasing supply does little to change that equation.
Just the difference between people in the US eating beef and chicken costs aproximately enough to feed the entire US population a subsistance diet.
I actually did this experiment. I had the chance to be alone for 3 months so I accepted the challenge.
It actually worked. I used only and only water to wash. In the beginning hot, then slowly working to a quite cold shower. That helped out too.
The effect? My hair is since then never better. I have no more dandruff, no rash or other headskin condition.
The body took it very well. Using only water and a turkish rubbing cloth. I didn't smell. I even asked a few colleagues ( female too ) to tell me if they noticed something about me, and there was nothing out of the ordinary. My armpits were sweating but no unpleasant smell would be produced. Some women found me even more attractive ;), but this might be subjective.
Reason for the lack of smell is most probably the natural bacteria that eat all of my body output ( sweat, dead skin, etc ). The cold shower was keeping this bacteria alive, since hot water has some effect ( dilutuing fat and killing some of them ).
In the end, was a positive experiment. I stopp it after this 3 months, due to home arrival of my significant other :).
>>Reason for the lack of smell is most probably the natural bacteria that eat all of my body output ( sweat, dead skin, etc ). The cold shower was keeping this bacteria alive, since hot water has some effect ( dilutuing fat and killing some of them ).
But....this is exactly what produces the smell. Sweat, dead skin - they have absolutely no smell. Zero. Smell is produced by bacteria feeding off your sweat, and their waste is smelly - that's why you are very unlikely to smell straight away after intense physical exercise, where you are literally covered in sweat - but leave it on for a few hours and it turns super smelly.
