This deserves a proper reply, but after clearing my inbox (2+ hours!) I really need to get _some_ work done... so I'll toss a bit off the top, and be more exact later.
--- Dan Minette wrote: > From: "Deborah Harrell" > Subject: Re: GM Genes Found In Human Intestinal > Bacteria > > > > Gene Flow in the Field > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > A field study of the extent of gene flow from > > genetically modified plants into surrounding crops > > through cross-pollination is presented by Rieger > et > > al. (p. 2386; see the news story by Stokstad). A > > strain of canola (rapeseed oil) modified to be > > resistant to herbicides was first grown > commercially > > in > > Australia in 2000. An analysis of surrounding > fields > > across widely dispersed geographical samples > revealed > > a low level of cross-pollination between canola > > fields. The range of long-distance pollination was > > more random than expected. > > But, not any canola-other species pollination, > right? > Correct. > > > > The notion of 'controlling' any robust, > reproducing > > species in the field seems to me ludicrous. > Nutria in > > Louisiana, cane toads in Australia, golden snails > in > > Vietnam...spurge (among many others) in the US > West, > > kudzu in the US South - the list is extensive. > And > > now we're adding GM flora and fauna to the mix? > > _Especially_ herbicide and antibiotic resistant > ones?! > > But, one has to understand the differences between > species. There is such > a thing as cross pollination. No doubt. But, this > cross pollination does > not occur between different species (with the > exception of course of > different species that are different only because > there are strong barriers > like distance to interbreeding or cross > pollination.) For example, one can > have a variety of different types of flowers in > one's garden without, say, > a rose-petunia hybrid springing up out of nowhere. > > The real risk of cross pollination is between the > new genetically > engineered variety and other varieties of the same > species. But, there's > been experience limiting this with hybrid species: > bagging corn, etc. We've > been adding specially tailored hybrids into the > environment for years. How > many have cross bred with natural vegetation? It doesn't have to cross-breed to have a deleterious effect (see below). > > Further, we need to understand the result of our > "tampering with nature." > Corn yields have risen a factor of 5 or more since > the early '30s. Not all > of this increase is due to the use of hybrids, but > my step father in law, > who's been on the farm since the '30s, has said that > the hybrids are the > main reason for the increase. Without this > "tampering, we would have a > significantly lower world population, due to the > fact that starvation would > have kept it down. > I have little problem with Mendalian hybridization, which is using members of the same species or genera to improve a particular plant, and which theoretically could happen in nature. I _do_ have issues with splicing in foreign DNA, because of unintended consequences - e.g. monarch butterflies and the deadly pollen of certain GM corn (having either Bacillus thuringensis (sp?) or some other pesticidal DNA inserted, if I recall correctly). > > > > Of course some (perhaps most) of the non-resistant > GMs > > should not have a significant impact, but if > > introduced foreign species are any guide, a few > > _would_. > > Why should the introduction of foreign species be a > guide instead of the > history of hybrids? Its a far different > phenomenon. Lets say humanity > were to leave the earth tomorrow. How likely is it > for crops to take over > all the wild; compared to the wild taking over farm > land? I'd argue the > history of hybrid corn or soybeans taking over > natural vegitation is a far > better analogy. Hybrids are not the same as cross-species/trans-species constructs. There has been debate about a genegineered salmon that grows many times as fast as its wild cousins; at least one mathematical model predicts that if breeding specimens of this 'supersalmon' escaped, it would in short order overwhelm the wild population. > Finally, let me argue about the relatively small > risk due to the > possibility of bacteria becoming antibiotic > resistant due to picking up > genes from these crops. Right now, we have hundreds > of millions of > "factories" churning out antibiotic resistant > bacteria. Its all those > folks who take antibiotics, but stop taking them > before the 10 days is up. > That's the big problem. > Not to mention the vast quantities of antibiotics used regularly in many livestock feeds (which stems from the abysmal crowding/treatment of these animals that necessitates the use of mass antibiotics in the first place). And of course, my favorite: people who demand antibiotics when I know that they have a viral infection, or allergies (some got so angry that I wouldn't give them "their" medicine that they complained to my 'superiors' - not that it changed my actions). I'll hunt down the references later this week. Debbi who's avoiding further commentary on several other thread topics because they seem so...schoolyard. Prairie Chicken Maru __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
