I can see that you all have been at this longer than I have, but APHIS's approval of Ventria BioScience's rice has really enraged and enlightened me.  The dockets were against at 1000 to 1.  Can you imagine that?  I think this docket, from American Rice Federation makes a lot of intelligent, evidence based claims.  They represent the people who grow our rice.  If you are interested, read the March 29 entry IN newsitems or enter Ventria BioScience and then click on full text at the bottom.  It is complicated, but this is genetics.

http://www.usarice.com/sitesearch/search.cgi

Why didn't the press cover this?  29,005 against, 29 for.  There have been more cross-contaminations since USARice wrote their docket.  Oh well, the environmental assessments say otherwise.  And just one more question---What beverages will Ventria be marketing these enzymes in?  And why?  How necessary are sports drinks, which there are ad nauseum--to risk the cross-contamination.  We already have adequate anti-diarrheal meds which are only deficient in logistical ability. Why would this be any different?

db,

Now that you have placed these questions on the board, I admit I have been waiting to see when/if these issues would be raised! 

I have always believed that which distinguishes humankind from any other life form on the planet is the possession of free choice within the inhabitants.  We inherit this character trait when we are born and exercise it as we see fit.  It is this inborn free will that categorizes humankind as unique amongst the class of species we share this planet with, though Darwinists and many in the scientific community would disagree with me, I am sure. 

Each and every time I have made a choice that has affected the core of my very being a certain stirring is invoked deep within me, and that which I call my spirit is given an affirmation, or a feeling of burden.  Naturally, all the choices I have made were not always for the better.  Yet, whether they were in conjunction with family or spiritual matters, political or social stances, the fact remains it was still a choice I chose to make freely, as no one or any entity forced my hand to follow that particular path in life.

This freedom of choice by far distinguishes me from you or my neighbor, as each and every one of us has our own innate quality of personal choice, coupled with our own set of affirmations and consequences.  That is to say, you and I can make the same choice regarding the same premise, but the feeling you receive within your own spirit would surely not be the same my spirit would experience.  And, the impact of that choice may apply a whole set of circumstances entirely, to the both of us.  If one feels the impact of the choices he or she makes, then I believe it is safe to say, one possesses a sense of right and wrong, or innocence and guilt.  Yes, in other words, a conscience. 

From ETC Group and J. Craig Venter’s institute Application for a Patent (MINIMAL BACTERIAL GENOME) we learned replicated life forms will be “fully working organisms programmed for particular tasks” [emphasis mine]. 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company definition is as follows:  “adj.   pro·grammed or pro·gramed: Of, relating to, or resulting from programmed instruction: programmed learning”. 

B.F. Skinner stated, “The purpose of programmed learning is to manage human learning under controlled conditions.” http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch06/prolearn.mhtml

This concept of “ programmed learning” invokes a repeated pattern introduction in which the learning process is rewarded with negatives or positives.  In other words, it is a controlled and taught set of principles with a learned response factor.  Skinner states, “A response must first occur for other reasons before it is reinforced and becomes an operant. It may seem as if a very complex response would never occur to be reinforced, but complex responses can be shaped by reinforcing their component parts separately and putting them together in the final form of the operant.” He further states, “Operant reinforcement not only shapes the topography of behavior, it maintains it in strength long after an operant has been formed.”  http://www.bfskinner.org/briefsurvey.html

If the artificial life form has gained all its directives from a controlled and programmed learning environment, is it safe to presume, then, that the artificial life form made its own choice as to a response?  Or, can we affirmatively state the artificial entity possesses the innate ability of exercising free will in making the decision to perform the response?  Considering programmed learning responses are made in conjunction with express intentions of teaching a “proper” response with a reward or punishment given, I say, no.  This methodology proves no different than the salivating dogs of Pavlov, in my opinion.  Conditionally programming the entity would only impart that which the programmer chooses to teach the artificial life form, not what the artificial life form chooses for itself.  Therefore, the lack of freedom of choice makes allowance for no choice availability except for the “only” choice the entity has “program-ably learned” through reward and punishment conditioning, or operant reinforcement.  Such being the case, the replicated life form would not “feel” the impact of the decision made, nor would it understand the repercussions if it failed to complete its directive.  It would simply be eliminated and another would assume its position.   

Unless I have missed something completely in the advances of science, I am not aware of any other species upon this Earth which experiences remorse for actions, other than that of humankind.  In my opinion, this makes our species exclusively sentient.  I believe a statement such as, “a lion is a sentient creature, therefore, in possession of an elevated sense of cognizance,” cannot nor would be uttered with absoluteness.  I accept the same as truth, with respect to the artificially created life form.

Sincerely,
Donna


~ The dead cannot cry out for justice; it is a duty of the living to do so for them. ~
    Lois McMaster Bujold, 2002 Diplomatic Immunity, US Science Fiction Author

Donna

Heavy stuff for early in the morning.

If I am reading you correctly then you believe that the artificial life forms would not be sentient. However what if the artificial life form "learns" above its programming a conscience? Then what?

What if it becomes aware and "hides" its true identity, performs its "programmed tasks" until it realizes right and wrong? What then?

Do they collectively revolt? Fool their creators into thinking that they have control when they don't?

This was the premise of "Jurassic Park", the creators thought they had control of the dinosaurs, they didn't. Chaos theory comes into play here. These are very complex systems that can not be predicted or controlled.

I don't know if anyone is familiar with Chaos Theory so here is a link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

This is some heavy stuff. I wonder if the "creators" have given thought to any of this??

db

Donna are u saying you agree that this 'doctored rice' is ok and people should eat and drink it? Thank goodness we still all have choice in what we will and will not put into ourselves. Aspartame also has GRAS and look what is starting to happen with some countries banning it and others taking a very serious look at this substance. Just cause someone invents it does not mean its good for the overall people to use or consume. This rice is just one more attempt at some form of possible franken food. The article I posted the link to on here says quite a different thing when they produced this rice as a medicine. I'm not picking on you so no harm meant just stating a few things.

No way, JJ!  I was simply supplying an explanation of the two specific human proteins Ventria planned to "splice" into rice, which ALREADY have GRAS status, and the foodstuffs it could, will or may be found in, including infant formula.

I receive emails from FoodProductionDaily.com and I began to watch the news unfold on this issue.  Being inquisitive, I started to do some researching on my own about Ventria, as they had received approval for the "mutated" rice, despite the fact it sparked concern amongst GM opposition globally, including USC (Union of Concerned Scientists - another great awareness organization - their emails are definitely worth receiving, too). 

On March 2, 2007 The Washington Post reported Ventria would seek permission to grow the potted plants of rice outside, much to the chagrin of scientists and “watchdog groups”.   USC, amongst others, raised concerns about planting the rice out of doors and Jane Rissler (USC) stated, “This is not a product that everyone would want to consume," Rissler said, adding that other companies grow such plants indoors or in vats. "It is unwise to produce drugs in plants outdoors."  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030101495.html?nav=emailpage http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2007/may/19274.htm

Additionally, on March 6, 2007, despite opposition on both the American http://www.usarice.com/industry/communication/Final_Ventria_Kansas_comments.pdf and European front, Food Production Daily ran their announcement - "Genetically modified rice containing human genes has received preliminary approval in the US, sparking new concerns and fears on both sides of the Atlantic. California-based Ventria Bioscience has received approval from the US Department of Agriculture to cultivate over 3,000 acres of the rice in Kansas."  Human genes in rice spark new GM row http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?id=74725 

Also see:
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0504&L=sanet-mg&P=8933 http://www.saynotogmos.org/ud2005/uapr05b.html

UCS offered valid opposition after "Bayer Crop Sciences in July notified the agency that it had discovered trace amounts of an unapproved GM rice in samples of commercial rice seed.

The organization, which says it combines independent scientific research and citizen action for a safer consumer environment, also said the USDA was taking consumer health risks by approving the first commercial production of a food crop - again rice - engineered with human genes.

The new rice is genetically engineered to produce lactiva and lysomin - two proteins found naturally in breast milk, and reported to have significant potential against diarrhea. California-based Ventria Bioscience this month received approval from the agency to cultivate over 3,000 acres of the rice in Kansas.

But the news sparked new concerns and fears from the global anti-GM lobby, and UCS added its voice to these. According to the group, pharmaceutical crops such as Ventria's rice pose a threat to the food supply and public health because the proteins they contain are intended to be biologically active in humans and may be harmful if eaten accidentally."  USDA accused of lax food safety measures  http://www.foodqualitynews.com/news/ng.asp?id=74899
 http://www.foodqualitynews.com/news/ng.asp?n=69991-bayer-cropscience-ge-rice-contamination-rice
 http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?n=70468-bayer-gm-rice-gm-contamination

Also see:
http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?id=74888
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/18/AR2006081801043.html
http://www.usarice.com/industry/communication/Final_Ventria_Kansas_comments.pdf  
http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?id=74725
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0831/p15s01-sten.html

Still curios, that led me to the next step and I found out Ventria began their quest for modifying the rice stating the proteins in the rice would be helpful to African children requiring medication for diarrhea.  The proteins, it appears, were not in the plan to introduce the rice into the food chain for consumption purposes rather they were planning to extract the proteins within the rice, itself.  The extracted proteins would then be part of a composition introduced into an oral medication or PDP (See link to USDA/APHIS Environmental Assessment). To further their research for approval purposes, they conducted a "test" of the GM rice and its effect upon diarrhea on Peruvian children.  Do we really need rice containing human genes?http://www.foei.org/en/campaigns/gmo/human-gm-rice

Ventria applied for and received permission to run field tests of the rice in 2005. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2005/February/Day-23/i701.htm.  APHIS stated, “These field tests are scheduled to begin in March/April 2005, on a site in Scott County, Missouri. These tests should be completed in the fall of 2005. Similar plantings are planned in future years with an increase in acreage over time.”  However, APHIS allowed the field test permit drawing conclusions based on their scientific references and the fact that these proteins already had GRAS status with the FDA.  They additionally stated there was no evidence of an impact environmentally upon wildlife in the area, that the rice would not contaminate commercial rice fields, that researchers have been interested in PDP’s and the cost effective aspect, the human digestibility factor, etc., etc. All of this information can be found in the Assessment. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/04_30901r_ea.pdf

However, in Milwaukee stands one very large corporation that balked at this, and said, No!  The corporation was Anheuser-Busch, the nation’s largest rice buyer.  They were concerned about public approval of using the modified rice, in addition to stating they would not purchase commercial rice grown in Missouri (if this happened) because of the potential contamination factor.  Kansas City Star, Scott Cannon, 2005, Anheuser-Busch to Boycott State's Rice If Genetic Alterations Allowed http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/MO-Anheuser-Busch-Rice12apr05.htm.  I give Anheuser-Busch credit for their staunch position, but at the same time, as a huge corporation and the largest rice purchaser, they also contribute to both the community’s economy, as well as the nation’s, so I can see how this could have been a “let’s not piss Anheuser-Busch off” scenario, but that is only my opinion, of course. 

Side Note: Previous research revealed the Texas [edited]’s dropped the “C” from their name years and years ago, so naturally, ponderance began!

With the help of the powers that be in Missouri, both companies arrived at a “compromise” and an agreement was reached regarding the location of where the rice would be grown to prevent contamination of commercial rice fields.  http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Anheuser-Busch-Caves15apr05.htm. However, Ventria pulled out of the agreement and withdrew its plans to grow rice in Missouri  “due in part to a dramatic reduction in the amount of financial support offered by the state government.” http://www.answers.com/topic/ventria-bioscience

It was at this point, I began looking for “research grants” to Ventria and landed on Open Secrets lobbying database, amongst others. Open Secrets clearly reveals Ventria’s lobbying in 2006 pales in comparison to lobbying amounts in 2005.  Being a naturally curious individual, I would honestly like to know whose “listening ears” were up their ass on this momentous acceptance and exactly what did the company, or others for that matter, stand to gain.  Such was the time I drew my conclusion (just as you stated previously), “money talks and bullchit walks” with respect to Ventria’s plans to grow GM Rice “enhanced” with human proteins (not that I agreed with it in the first place).  http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?year=2005&txtname=Ventria+Bioscience

However, despite the fact that organizations, pro-active groups, scientists and concerned citizens had voiced trepidation about genetically modified rice, not only with Ventria’s protein “spiked” rice, but with all genetic modifications upon grains in general, it became glaringly apparent to me that the “community at large” does not count and still continues within this status not only with GM Rice, but with a large category of other food products, nutrients and additives and I then offered my P.S. suggestion on the board as to the public commenting policy on FDA approvals.  I also believe this is a problem with additional government agencies’ public comment policies, as it seems, to me, that they either do not want us to know about their pending “approvals” or they seriously want us to go hunting for every single item offering public comment times.  A clear case is the public comment time on cloned foods, which was advertised for one day and only in The Washington Post.

Again, no, I do not agree with the enhanced rice, especially since these “enhancing proteins” are already created in the human body, and I wonder why they need to be improved or enhanced, or extracted for that matter, out of their normal environment for “quality or quantity” by “artificial” means.  Nor am I in favor of any of the GM foodstuffs we have been finagled into eating.  In my opinion, the Ventria issue simply produces an alternative method of boosting big business by cutting their production costs and passing exuberant amounts onto domestic and foreign consumers, “experimenting” with medications the government deems as “cost-effective” thereby reducing the subsidy amounts for healthcare, providing research cost relief for big businesses in the quest of producing drugs to relieve epidemics such as Cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer, etc. and lastly, but most critical creating an open avenue for additional biotechnology to produce further GM food products with extraction purposes, and the resulting ability of biopharmaceuticals entering into the US market only to be sold to foreign markets for MEGA profits.

Sincerely,
Donna

P.S.  Did you read the FDA will be reviewing aspertame, again?

"The dead cannot cry out for justice; it is a duty of the living to do so for them."
 Lois McMaster Bujold, 2002 Diplomatic Immunity, US Science Fiction Author

Donna, Klondike

Vandana Shiva, along with Jeremy Rifkin and 200 organizations around the world, sued W.R. Grace, an American transnational corporation for the patents it holds on the Indian neem tree for its pesticidal and fungicidal properties. Then they sued the European Union for allowing those patents on life. They lost the first case, since they could not prove that this patent was not novel. In an unprecedented move, the EU rescinded a patent on the neem on May 9. They won the case!

http://www.mindfully.org/WTO/Shiva-India-Primlani.htm

Shiva, Rifkin and Ralph Nader are part of the International Forum for Globalization.

http://www.ifg.org/

Hi Klondike and JJ!

K, that link is a send, thank you!  I have been "looking" for unbiased links that can supply the information I am looking to incorporate, so if you run across any in your travels concering the wonderfully spiraling economical condition due to ANYTHING, I would be most appreciative if you could enlighten me, with a HUGE THANKS!

Ventria's original plan WAS TO GROW both rice and barley with the express intent of introducing the proteins for extraction purposes, and we can be very GRATEFUL they did not receive approval for their initial intent, animal feed, because then WE SURELY would not know we were ingesting this crap.  Anyway, they received permission to grow the rice, but the barley was not mentioned.  Perhaps, it is a "one step at a time" procedure to see the products "buy-a-bility" factor, or to run more guinea pig testing on poor, unsuspecting children, who in the long run can, may or will suffer end results.  Or, maybe they are just keeping it quiet for now with all the flack this is causing in the brewery businesses - my gosh, imagine anyone without beer!  How would Americans get through football games?  It surely does not seem like a fair match Ventria vs. American Sports Fans, as the odds for Ventria are not very good!  But, check out these questions and answers re DeltaFarmPress and Ventria, as they are enlightening.  As a matter of fact, all of their articles re Ventria are interesting and I meant to mention DeltaFarmPress.com in my second post.
http://deltafarmpress.com/ar/050322-ventria-pharmrice2/

I read this morning that the Humanpapiloma Virus Innoculation recently hospitalized young teenage girls and a couple died as a result of being innoculated.  Interestingly enough, TEXAS mandated this vaccine for all school kids, just as they are pushing for Immigration hot and heavy (though, I do understand the Southern Belts dilemma with "able" or should I say, "non-able" farm laborers), but what the f*&k?  Why ALWAYS Texas ... it seriously gets my mind going.  See Mercola.com and Delta Farm Press Daily - Southwest Edition.

This reminds me of the testing the companies do on third world country children, which I think is selfish and inhumane, and I only ONE thing to say, which is MY HONEST OPINION ...

Test it on your OWN frigging kids, Scott Deeter, President and CEO of Ventria, and ALL you biopharm scientists and wanna be companies.  STOP experimenting with children you apparently don't seem to give two chits about, inflict the backlash on your own families and yourselves, NOT upon others at their expense.  Oh, but I forgot that IS the bottom line - YOUR EXPENSE.
http://www.ventria.com/aboutus/board.asp

Man, oh, man, I have to wonder, is it because the US companies just do not give two chits about the lives of innocence, or do they truly believe that they are helping the children and convincing the parents, missionaries, etc. that these are "life saving measures for their youngsters"?  I know my children did just fine on the old "BRAT" diet when they were experiencing intestinal issues, and I understand these foods may not always be available, but bananas, rice, applesauce and toast (bread), cannot be that expensive to bring to the kids, in addition to the vital salts they require for such illness.  However, I STILL and will continue to recommend this diet to my kid's friends who have infants/toddlers vs. medicinal remedies.

Another disturbing fact I found out this morning was "they" now want to take the surplus of jelly fish and extract what they are terming, MUCINS, out for various purposes, including cosmetics ... here come the open avenues.

Here is a partial quote from FoodProductionDaily.com - European

"Writing in the Journal of Natural Products, researchers from Riken (the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research) in Saitama and Shimva Chemical Industries in Kyoto, describe a process for extracting high yields of a protein substance called mucin that could be used as a starting material for production of designer mucins with multiple uses. ...

Dr. Ushida and co-workers report that this mucin could be used as a starting point for the production of "designer" mucins for various purposes, but noted that further research would be necessary to explore this area fully.

"The mass production of qniumucin is possible because a large number of jellyfish can be obtained as waste," wrote the authors.

"Various applications are expected for this substance considering the present commercial use of gastric mucin from porcine stomachs and mucin from bovine submaxillary glands, substitution for human mucus… moisture retainers for cosmetic materials, and food additives," they concluded."  http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?n=77811&m=1FPD702&c=vpobwciwbvodmzy
http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?id=59401

If the US gets a wind of this one, I wonder how long it will be before jelly fish on the coasts or gulfs will be researched, and more than likely allowed for testing on innocence. Again, I sit and shake my head at these "discoveries" because like many here, I am opposed to pissing Mother Earth off (anymore than SHE has been), despite the "excess of jellyfish", which has no doubt been caused by humankinds' bad habits of pollution, greed, dissemination, etc.

Oh, this is just a can of worms for me, and you can see how this whole frigging scenario pisses me right the F**K off, but this won't stop, it will only get worse now that it has received its "seal of approval" from the big brothers.

Shibadiva, I checked out the first site you provided a day or two ago, and was thrilled to see a victory with a HUGE defeat! I will definitely check out the second.

Sincerely,
Donna

"The dead cannot cry out for justice; it is a duty of the living to do so for them."
 Lois McMaster Bujold, 2002 Diplomatic Immunity, US Science Fiction Author

I have been writing to the FDA, USDA, APHIS, etc, trying to see if they have any response to the newer Studies done on GMO's that indicate they may not be safe, asking them to speak specifically to certain cited studies.  After many references to unrelated material, I finally found this and think I understand it all now.
================================

http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?recflag=&accno=A03410&rptno=GAO-02-566


Genetically Modified Foods: Experts View Regimen of Safety Tests as Adequate, but FDA's Evaluation Process Could Be Enhanced GAO-02-566  May 23, 2002
PDF

Genetically modified foods pose the same risks to human health as do other foods. These risks include allergens, toxins, and compounds known as antinutrients which inhibit the absorption of nutrients. Before marketing a genetically modified food, company scientists seek to determine whether these foods pose any heightened risks. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published guidelines in 1992 to ensure that companies worked with the agency to assess the safety of genetically modified foods. GAO found that FDA's evaluation process could be enhanced by randomly verifying the test data provided and by increasing the transparency of the evaluation process, including communicating more clearly the scientific rationale for FDA's final decision on an assessment of genetically modified food. Scientists expect that genetic modifications will increasingly enhance the nutritional value of genetically modified foods. Although current tests have been adequate for evaluating the few genetically modified foods that have, so far, undergone relatively simple compositional changes, new technologies are being developed to evaluate the increasingly complex compositional changes expected. Monitoring the long-term health risks of genetically modified foods is generally neither necessary nor feasible. No scientific evidence exists, nor is there even a hypothesis, suggesting that long-term harm, such as higher cancer rates, results from these foods. Moreover, technical challenges make long-term monitoring infeasible.

Subject Terms
Health hazards
Genetics
Food industry
Evaluation methods
Evaluation
Agricultural research
Safety regulation
Health research programs
========================================

Finally, I understand.  Here was my response:

I FEEL MUCH BETTER NOW. THE WORLD YOU ARE CREATING AND LEGISLATING IS LIKE A BIZARRE SALVADOR DALI DREAM.  I COMMEND YOU AND YOUR COMMITMENT TO MANKIND.

(no insult to Dali intended, but I wouldn't want to live in his mind.)