Lectins, GE Debate v0.2, archive 2275
- To: Roberto Verzola <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Lectins, GE Debate v0.2, archive 2275
- From: Rick Roush <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:48:52 +0930
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
- In-Reply-To: <199911291355.VAA14125@phil.gn.apc.org>
- Resent-From: email@example.com
>Let me clarify that Pusztai did not raise the issue that Bt toxin can
>be harmful *because* it is a lectin. He only said that the Bt toxin
>*is* a lectin. It's me who's raising the argument that if a GE lectin
>like GNA can be harmful, then it could also implicate other lectins
>like the Bt toxin. I do intend to rework this portion, based on their
>published article in The Lancet, Oct 1999...
Bt is a lectin only in as much as it binds sugars. To make this claim is
so broad that you might as well claim that all proteins are risky because
lectins are proteins.