Terrifying New Study Links Coffee to Glaucoma

[Charli]

Good thing I'm not too heavy of a drinker...

 

[Yopaz]

Care to explain the difference to me then, besides what I already stated above?

The difference is that you strengthen genetic expression that was already present in the organism you are modifying rather than introducing a foreign gene that never required the existence of any natural occurrence of the gene. It's possible to introduce a gene in a tomato plant that will make it resist cold weather. Genetic modification gives us the possibility to make things nature never would. Selective breeding uses what nature is already using. Is there really no difference?

We're still talking about producing plants and animals with traits we desire, so no.

So there's no difference in introducing genes that would never ever occur in in an organism and using genes already present in the organism?

Can you please explain the reasoning behind that?

E. Coli could never have started producing human insulin without a genetic modification. A tomato could and have naturally evolved to have 3 carpels. With selective breeding we just used that mutation because it gave us bigger fruits.

What you're saying here is that there's no difference between possible and impossible.

No I am not, but I've already said I'm done derailing this thread and as such done with this discussion!

Are you done because you're unable to explain your reasoning when you face someone who knows the difference or are you done because you actually believe you don't want to derail the thread further?

I'm done because a) I actually don't want to derail this thread any further. And b) Because arguing on the Internet is a futile waste of time. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine so there is no bloody point.

This is what you said and added a post further derailing the thread.

I don't want you to convince me. I just want your reasoning behind saying that there's no difference from something that impossible for nature to ever accomplish and something that nature is already doing.

Your reply was that we use it to suit ourselves so the end result is the same.

If I steal an item I will end up having an item that I didn't pay for. If I receive a gift I will have an item that I did not pay for. By your reasoning I can say there's no difference between stealing and receiving gifts because the end result is the same.

 

[antipirate]

If it's not associated with other caffeine products than perhaps it's linked to something else in the coffee. Should of had a decaff control.

They couldn't have any control because it was an observational study aka not really even worth talking about unless there is a really sensible mechanism that explains it or you're a scientist studying glaucoma who's thinking about designing a animal or human experimental trial.

 

[antipirate]

Care to explain the difference to me then, besides what I already stated above?

The difference is that you strengthen genetic expression that was already present in the organism you are modifying rather than introducing a foreign gene that never required the existence of any natural occurrence of the gene. It's possible to introduce a gene in a tomato plant that will make it resist cold weather. Genetic modification gives us the possibility to make things nature never would. Selective breeding uses what nature is already using. Is there really no difference?

We're still talking about producing plants and animals with traits we desire, so no.

So there's no difference in introducing genes that would never ever occur in in an organism and using genes already present in the organism?

Can you please explain the reasoning behind that?

E. Coli could never have started producing human insulin without a genetic modification. A tomato could and have naturally evolved to have 3 carpels. With selective breeding we just used that mutation because it gave us bigger fruits.

What you're saying here is that there's no difference between possible and impossible.

The reason why there isn't really a difference between GM and selective breeding is because all living things (that we know of) make their proteins and DNA out of the same building blocks.

any GM food we make could only be as different from a natural food as say two video games made in the same engine by different developers.

That is to say there is alot of potential for difference but only really to the extent that one is trying to make one.

That being said when we make a game (GMO) in the engine (DNA) we should probably test for bugs (negative health effects) but we shouldn't mistake that for being a fundamental flaw in the process it is just a possible outcome of introducing a new element into a complex system.

Regards,
Jordan

 

[Covarr]

"500mg or more of caffeine per day"

That's a lot. What of people who have a cup or two before work in the morning and leave it at that? I consume an average of maybe 150-200mg a day.

P.S. Thanks

 

[Yopaz]

Care to explain the difference to me then, besides what I already stated above?

The difference is that you strengthen genetic expression that was already present in the organism you are modifying rather than introducing a foreign gene that never required the existence of any natural occurrence of the gene. It's possible to introduce a gene in a tomato plant that will make it resist cold weather. Genetic modification gives us the possibility to make things nature never would. Selective breeding uses what nature is already using. Is there really no difference?

We're still talking about producing plants and animals with traits we desire, so no.

So there's no difference in introducing genes that would never ever occur in in an organism and using genes already present in the organism?

Can you please explain the reasoning behind that?

E. Coli could never have started producing human insulin without a genetic modification. A tomato could and have naturally evolved to have 3 carpels. With selective breeding we just used that mutation because it gave us bigger fruits.

What you're saying here is that there's no difference between possible and impossible.

The reason why there isn't really a difference between GM and selective breeding is because all living things (that we know of) make their proteins and DNA out of the same building blocks.

any GM food we make could only be as different from a natural food as say two video games made in the same engine by different developers.

That is to say there is alot of potential for difference but only really to the extent that one is trying to make one.

That being said when we make a game (GMO) in the engine (DNA) we should probably test for bugs (negative health effects) but we shouldn't mistake that for being a fundamental flaw in the process it is just a possible outcome of introducing a new element into a complex system.

Regards,
Jordan

I have studied cell biology so there's no need to treat me like I'm some ignorant kid here. We're all made of the same building blocks? Seriously? Is that your reason why selection and GMO is the same?

I can breed carrots for all my life, and let my children and grandchildren keep breeding them. No matter what we do, that plant will never be able to produce human insulin. It doesn't need to gene, so it will never occur in its genetic code. No matter how hard you breed, you can't force a difference the plant wouldn't be able to do in nature.

You say there is potential for a difference. Getting E. Coli to produce insulin is one of the biggest breakthroughs in dealing with IDDM and clearly an example that the difference is there.

 

[antipirate]

I have studied cell biology so there's no need to treat me like I'm some ignorant kid here. We're all made of the same building blocks? Seriously? Is that your reason why selection and GMO is the same?

I can breed carrots for all my life, and let my children and grandchildren keep breeding them. No matter what we do, that plant will never be able to produce human insulin. It doesn't need to gene, so it will never occur in its genetic code. No matter how hard you breed, you can't force a difference the plant wouldn't be able to do in nature.

You say there is potential for a difference. Getting E. Coli to produce insulin is one of the biggest breakthroughs in dealing with IDDM and clearly an example that the difference is there.

I don't really see your point, If I drank an human insulin solution made from e.coli and a human insulin solution made from a human pancreas they'd have the same effect on me if they were pure enough. (Not that drinking insulin makes any sense.)

How about this:

I have a purple eggplant and a pink eggplant the genetic difference between the two happens to be only a single DNA nucleotide and for no reason in particular I want to turn the purple eggplant's progeny pink so I artificially modify that single nucleotide so that now I have two identical lines of eggplant that are nutritionally identical even though one was genetically modified.

That brings me back to my point: It isn't the fact that a food was genetically modified that is the problem it is the implications of the specific genetic modification that was undertaken.

Therefore any new genetic modification should be tested to see if it is safe but there isn't any broader problem than that.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

Science! why do you keep ruining my pleasures you cruel, cruel mistress?

 

[Yopaz]

I have studied cell biology so there's no need to treat me like I'm some ignorant kid here. We're all made of the same building blocks? Seriously? Is that your reason why selection and GMO is the same?

I can breed carrots for all my life, and let my children and grandchildren keep breeding them. No matter what we do, that plant will never be able to produce human insulin. It doesn't need to gene, so it will never occur in its genetic code. No matter how hard you breed, you can't force a difference the plant wouldn't be able to do in nature.

You say there is potential for a difference. Getting E. Coli to produce insulin is one of the biggest breakthroughs in dealing with IDDM and clearly an example that the difference is there.

I don't really see your point, If I drank an human insulin solution made from e.coli and a human insulin solution made from a human pancreas they'd have the same effect on me if they were pure enough. (Not that drinking insulin makes any sense.)

How about this:

I have a purple eggplant and a pink eggplant the genetic difference between the two happens to be only a single DNA nucleotide and for no reason in particular I want to turn the purple eggplant's progeny pink so I artificially modify that single nucleotide so that now I have two identical lines of eggplant that are nutritionally identical even though one was genetically modified.

That brings me back to my point: It isn't the fact that a food was genetically modified that is the problem it is the implications of the specific genetic modification that was undertaken.

Therefore any new genetic modification should be tested to see if it is safe but there isn't any broader problem than that.

I agree, there's no sense in drinking insulin. We get insulin by using injections.

The difference between human insulin made in the human pancreas and by E. Coli is next to none. That's the point of it. You might not be aware of it, but there's a disease called IDDM (Insulin dependent diabetes mellitus) where the pancreas doesn't produce insulin. Before GMO they used insulin taken from cows or pigs which in some cases caused allergic reactions that could be almost as fangerous as the disease itself.

Now that has nothing to do with discussion, it was just an example of what we can accomplish with GMO.

Now you your example. Yes, we can change the colour and the size of a crop with both GMO and breeding, in this process GMO is simply faster. However the example I mentioned is impossible by breeding. Adding genes to an organism is only possible with GMO. Amplifying gene expression can be done with both.

Do you see the difference or do I need to give you an analogy fit to tell a kid?

 

[Webb Myers]

I have studied cell biology so there's no need to treat me like I'm some ignorant kid here. We're all made of the same building blocks? Seriously? Is that your reason why selection and GMO is the same?

I can breed carrots for all my life, and let my children and grandchildren keep breeding them. No matter what we do, that plant will never be able to produce human insulin. It doesn't need to gene, so it will never occur in its genetic code. No matter how hard you breed, you can't force a difference the plant wouldn't be able to do in nature.

You say "it will never occur", then immediately follow that up with "you can't force a difference the plant wouldn't be able to do in nature." What kind of an silliness is that?

Sure, the likelihood of a spontaneous mutation producing insulin in a carrot is astronomically low. But there are about 100 Billion carrots grown EVERY YEAR. We don't test every carrot grown for insulin content, but it would not be the least bit surprising for some Ukrainian farmer to discover that the "spontaneous remission" of his diabetes was due to the carrots he grows in his garden.

Now your example. Yes, we can change the colour and the size of a crop with both GMO and breeding, in this process GMO is simply faster. However the example I mentioned is impossible by breeding. Adding genes to an organism is only possible with GMO. Amplifying gene expression can be done with both.

Do you see the difference or do I need to give you an analogy fit to tell a kid?

"We" can't change crap with breeding. All we can do is pick which seeds go back in the soil. If we want to boost our odds a little we can pick the seeds that display the most genetic instability.

"Adding genes to an organism is only possible with GMO." Yes, but WE don't have to be the ones doing the genetic modifications. Nature does trillions of genetic modifications a day without our help.

What's my point? I am genuinely pleased to see rational, scientific discussion taking place, but don't use the words "never" or "impossible" when you mean "very, very, unlikely". The universe is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very large place, so "never" probably means "just a few dozen times this month".

 

[Yopaz]

I have studied cell biology so there's no need to treat me like I'm some ignorant kid here. We're all made of the same building blocks? Seriously? Is that your reason why selection and GMO is the same?

I can breed carrots for all my life, and let my children and grandchildren keep breeding them. No matter what we do, that plant will never be able to produce human insulin. It doesn't need to gene, so it will never occur in its genetic code. No matter how hard you breed, you can't force a difference the plant wouldn't be able to do in nature.

You say "it will never occur", then immediately follow that up with "you can't force a difference the plant wouldn't be able to do in nature." What kind of an silliness is that?

Sure, the likelihood of a spontaneous mutation producing insulin in a carrot is astronomically low. But there are about 100 Billion carrots grown EVERY YEAR. We don't test every carrot grown for insulin content, but it would not be the least bit surprising for some Ukrainian farmer to discover that the "spontaneous remission" of his diabetes was due to the carrots he grows in his garden.

Now your example. Yes, we can change the colour and the size of a crop with both GMO and breeding, in this process GMO is simply faster. However the example I mentioned is impossible by breeding. Adding genes to an organism is only possible with GMO. Amplifying gene expression can be done with both.

Do you see the difference or do I need to give you an analogy fit to tell a kid?

"We" can't change crap with breeding. All we can do is pick which seeds go back in the soil. If we want to boost our odds a little we can pick the seeds that display the most genetic instability.

"Adding genes to an organism is only possible with GMO." Yes, but WE don't have to be the ones doing the genetic modifications. Nature does trillions of genetic modifications a day without our help.

What's my point? I am genuinely pleased to see rational, scientific discussion taking place, but don't use the words "never" or "impossible" when you mean "very, very, unlikely". The universe is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very large place, so "never" probably means "just a few dozen times this month".

Actually it is an impossibility for a carrot to start producing human insulin because the mechanisms around producing insulin requires extremely specific reaction mechanics. The glucose metabolism is also so widely different from plants and animals that it's out of the question. Plants store their polysaccharides as cellulose while we store them as glycogen. Insulin signals to the body that we''ll start assembling glucose molecules. There probability that a plant will change its entire physiology, and turn millions of years of years of evolution in a random mutation is about as big as me having a kid with wings that actually allows him to fly.

I don't know here, but it seems like you think I am pro GMO. Well, I am not completely against it, but I am vary of it, since there's the chance of seeds ending up in the wild ruining conditions for natural species. I am not debating why we should use GMO, I am simply trying to explain that there's a major difference between selection and GMO.

Now if you want to keep believing that a plant can randomly become an animal because of a random mutation feel free to do so. Who knows you could wake up with chloroplasts tomorrow and only need and some carbon dioxide because random mutations obviously make anything possible.

 

[uncanny474]

Wow, talk about your slanted titles.

The study links people who consume more than 500 mg of caffeine to glaucoma. You want to know why? It's not the caffeine; it's the dehydration from having that much in your system.

To put this in perspective:

The absolute darkest cup of coffee you can buy is 200 mg of caffeine. A Starbucks latte (which is made of soymilk and ESPRESSO) is 125 mg. We're talking about 2-5 cups of coffee depending on darkness of roast, or

To sum up--if you're drinking 500+ mg of coffee on a regular basis, glaucoma is the LEAST of your problems. I'd be more worried about heart conditions.

 

[antipunt]

Hint: everything in moderation is key.

Also I always take these 'studies' with a massive pillar of salt.

People freak out about these things all the time and it's (as my friend would put it) 'going full retard'. These studies contradict each other all the time; nothing to get worked up about

Also, this

Wow, talk about your slanted titles.

The study links people who consume more than 500 mg of caffeine to glaucoma. You want to know why? It's not the caffeine; it's the dehydration from having that much in your system.

To put this in perspective:

The absolute darkest cup of coffee you can buy is 200 mg of caffeine. A Starbucks latte (which is made of soymilk and ESPRESSO) is 125 mg. We're talking about 2-5 cups of coffee depending on darkness of roast, or

To sum up--if you're drinking 500+ mg of coffee on a regular basis, glaucoma is the LEAST of your problems. I'd be more worried about heart conditions.

 

[Vivi22]

"500mg or more of caffeine per day"

That's a lot. What of people who have a cup or two before work in the morning and leave it at that? I consume an average of maybe 150-200mg a day.

P.S. Thanks

Even if you were drinking the 500mg per day, nothing in the abstract for that study indicated to me it's actually worth worrying about. You can see my last post if you want details, but unless the absolute risk shoots to something ridiculous like 50% from 1-2%, which is highly doubtful, it's probably not worth giving up coffee.

 

[Baresark]

snip

You win the award for thread derailment.

Seriously though, this has nothing to do with genetics. To put it in perspective, you are arguing the finer points of another article/articles that have their own forum threads attached to them.

I can't even drive a car until I've consumed at least three cups in the morning.

What.

Please tell me that's hyperbole.

Of course it is. You really need to ask. I'm not her, but talk about an obvious hyperbolic statement.

 

[Icehearted]

500mg per day?! Did these people sleep?

As with anything, whether you buy into this study and it's results or you don't; everything in moderation.

 

[Darth Sea Bass]

So let me get this straight coffee may have caused my rheumatoid arthritis and now it's trying to send me blind? Goddamn it coffee i should hate you but your just too damn adorable to stay mad at.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

How about checking their moldy, stained and dirty coffee machines at home and/or at work for their influence on health?

Yet again, I feel this is one of those rather useless studies.

I've been drinking coffee for thirty years and counting, I've been on binge coffee trips during crunch time, I've gone cold turkey and caught myself overdosing on Red Bull, tea or chocolate instead. I've been on and off coffee for quite a while now, and I really enjoy a cup or two in the morning or a spiced up one in the evening. No Tiramisu is proper without some strong coffee.

Stop the whining and get real. Oh, that's not funded as well as crackpot random stuff collected by hardly motivated students that will make up numbers anytime they're too drunk, lazy or plain not interested in whatever it is you're trying to prove? Tough luck.

Captcha: What planet are we on? (Please answer)... wow. That's a new low.