RE: [Biofuel] GM Cotton that People Forgot
Hello Keith. I do like this kind of updates on cotton technology. I have forwarded the links to some friends of mine so they can translate to Spanish using Google translator funtion. Here, as far as I know, we not not using this tipe of seeds and I take as a warning agains GM Cotton, there are many insects in this world besides lepidopters and finally the farmer has to buy the insecticide anyway and I suppose these seed are more expensive and potencially brings the problem of antibiotic resistance of common patogen bacteria in the long run. Best Regards. Juan Pilar - Paraguay -Mensaje original- De: Keith Addison [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Enviado el: Viernes 21 de Enero de 2005 2:15 PM Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: [Biofuel] GM Cotton that People Forgot The Institute of Science in Society Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 20/01/05 GM Cotton that People Forgot GM cotton has aroused relatively little resistance outside the Third World for the simple reason that it is wrongly perceived to be a non-food crop. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Prof. Joe Cummins and mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Dr. Mae-Wan Ho report A longer, http://www.i- sis.org.uk/full/GMCTPFFull.phpfully referenced version is posted on ISIS members' website. http://www.i- sis.org.uk/membership.phpDetails here. GM cotton a triple-threat Cotton is a triple-treat (or threat) crop because it produces fibre, food and feed. Fibre is recovered from the flower bolls, while the seeds are pressed to yield oil for the kitchen and cake for animal feed. Monsanto Corporation has been a major source of genetically modified (GM) cotton lines. Bollgard cotton A line called Bollgard was first marketed in the United States in 1995, followed in later years by Canada, Australia, China, Argentina, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, India and the Philippines. In 2002, an enhanced line called Bollgard II was approved in the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan and the Philippines. Bollgard II was made from Bollgard simply by inserting into the plant cells a gene cassette containing a Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin, Cry2Ab, different from the one in the original Bollgard, Cry1Ac. From the transformed cells, a line containing the two different Bt toxin genes were selected. Two toxin genes were more than twice as effective in pest control than the original Bollgard and theoretically, far less likely to allow insect resistant mutants to evolve. The Bt toxin genes, unlinked, are reported to be driven by different versions of the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter: that of crylAc has a duplicated enhancer, while that of cry2Ab has the enhancer and also the leader sequence from petunia heat shock 70 gene as an extra booster. CrylAc is accompanied by the kanamycin resistance marker gene, nptII, while cry2Ab is accompanied by the marker gene uidA that produces a staining reaction. CrylAc confers resistance to lepidopteran-insects in general, and cotton bollworm, tobacco budworm, and pink bollworm, in particular. Upon ingestion of this protein by susceptible insects, feeding is inhibited, eventually resulting in death. The Bt toxin genes are both synthetic versions of the natural genes in the soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki, with coding sequences modified to improve expression in plants. The synthetic genes have not been subject to evolution and their recombinational and other properties relevant to safety are unknown and untested. Thus, Bolgard II has two separate transgene insertions with some regions of DNA homology (similarity). Such regions could act as recombination signals for somatic or meiotic recombination, leading to drastic chromosome rearrangements. The claim to genetic stability reported in the governmental reviews is simply the finding that the insertions segregate according to Mendelian ratios in a few crosses and does not consider molecular and chromosomal instability associated with inter- and intra-chromosomal recombination at sites of DNA homology. Signs of instability and other failures have been observed in the field (see http://www.i-sis.org.uk/AAGMC.phpAustralia adopts GM cotton and http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCFATW.phpGM cotton fiascos around the world, this series). Seed distribution is controlled by the licenses of the patentee, and seed lines can, and should be screened at that point for translations, duplications or deficiencies resulting from intra- and inter chromosomal recombination. Furthermore, in evaluating safety to humans and the environment, the toxin proteins are frequently isolated from liquid culture of the bacteria to avoid having to carry out the more expensive isolation of the toxins from cotton plants. As the toxin transgenes are synthetic approximations of the natural genes and the toxin proteins are not identical, the test results with bacterial proteins do not truly represent the impact of the toxins from the transgenic cotton
[Biofuel] GM Cotton that People Forgot
Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 20/01/05 GM Cotton that People Forgot GM cotton has aroused relatively little resistance outside the Third World for the simple reason that it is wrongly perceived to be a non-food crop. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Prof. Joe Cummins and mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Dr. Mae-Wan Ho report A longer, http://www.i- sis.org.uk/full/GMCTPFFull.phpfully referenced version is posted on ISIS members' website. http://www.i- sis.org.uk/membership.phpDetails here. GM cotton a triple-threat Cotton is a triple-treat (or threat) crop because it produces fibre, food and feed. Fibre is recovered from the flower bolls, while the seeds are pressed to yield oil for the kitchen and cake for animal feed. Monsanto Corporation has been a major source of genetically modified (GM) cotton lines. Bollgard cotton A line called Bollgard was first marketed in the United States in 1995, followed in later years by Canada, Australia, China, Argentina, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, India and the Philippines. In 2002, an enhanced line called Bollgard II was approved in the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan and the Philippines. Bollgard II was made from Bollgard simply by inserting into the plant cells a gene cassette containing a Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin, Cry2Ab, different from the one in the original Bollgard, Cry1Ac. From the transformed cells, a line containing the two different Bt toxin genes were selected. Two toxin genes were more than twice as effective in pest control than the original Bollgard and theoretically, far less likely to allow insect resistant mutants to evolve. The Bt toxin genes, unlinked, are reported to be driven by different versions of the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter: that of crylAc has a duplicated enhancer, while that of cry2Ab has the enhancer and also the leader sequence from petunia heat shock 70 gene as an extra booster. CrylAc is accompanied by the kanamycin resistance marker gene, nptII, while cry2Ab is accompanied by the marker gene uidA that produces a staining reaction. CrylAc confers resistance to lepidopteran-insects in general, and cotton bollworm, tobacco budworm, and pink bollworm, in particular. Upon ingestion of this protein by susceptible insects, feeding is inhibited, eventually resulting in death. The Bt toxin genes are both synthetic versions of the natural genes in the soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki, with coding sequences modified to improve expression in plants. The synthetic genes have not been subject to evolution and their recombinational and other properties relevant to safety are unknown and untested. Thus, Bolgard II has two separate transgene insertions with some regions of DNA homology (similarity). Such regions could act as recombination signals for somatic or meiotic recombination, leading to drastic chromosome rearrangements. The claim to genetic stability reported in the governmental reviews is simply the finding that the insertions segregate according to Mendelian ratios in a few crosses and does not consider molecular and chromosomal instability associated with inter- and intra-chromosomal recombination at sites of DNA homology. Signs of instability and other failures have been observed in the field (see http://www.i- sis.org.uk/AAGMC.phpAustralia adopts GM cotton and http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCFATW.phpGM cotton fiascos around the world, this series). Seed distribution is controlled by the licenses of the patentee, and seed lines can, and should be screened at that point for translations, duplications or deficiencies resulting from intra- and inter chromosomal recombination. Furthermore, in evaluating safety to humans and the environment, the toxin proteins are frequently isolated from liquid culture of the bacteria to avoid having to carry out the more expensive isolation of the toxins from cotton plants. As the toxin transgenes are synthetic approximations of the natural genes and the toxin proteins are not identical, the test results with bacterial proteins do not truly represent the impact of the toxins from the transgenic cotton plants. Some feeding studies indicated that Bollgard II cotton controlled insect pests more effectively. One research group predicted that the need for supplemental insecticides would be reduced or eliminated for lepidopteran pests. Another research group indicated, however, that insect-resistance to Bollgard II could best be controlled with an overspray of chemical insecticide. Further studies showed that resistance to the two Cry toxins seemed to evolve simultaneously, raising considerable doubt over the efficacy of gene stacking in delaying insect resistance. Studies reported by researchers from Monsanto Corporation showed that the Cry1Ac toxin and the Cry2Ab toxin were produced in equivalent amounts in Bollgard II, but that Cry2Ab was
