Genetically engineered food

Soil erosion is a critical issue to understand. Accoording to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the chief reason for soil erosion worldwide is “the spread of modern, commercial agriculture.” For example, Brazil is the next market (after the US) Monsanto is looking to for their Roundup Ready soybeans. The expansion of soybean fields is already a leading cause of rainforest destruction (and consequent soil erosion) in Brazil, as well as displacing subsistence agriculture with a crop primarily used for animal feed for export beef – while 5-6 million Brazilians starve to death each year. Monsanto’s engineered crop is a prescription for more hunger and environmental destruction, not a solution.

Dan has referred to me as “sneaky” and “a snake.” I identified myself in my first post, while Dan uses information from Monsanto press releases and passes it off as his independent fact checking. I’ll leave it to readers here to judge who has been more forthcoming.

And on the subject of “independent” perspectives, here’s some background on the Nuffield Council’s “independent” (according to Dan) findings.

The following are key members of the Nuffield panel:

i) Professor Mike Gale FRS: biotechnologist and director of the The John Innes Centre (JIC), the UK’s leading plant biotech centre. The JIC has recently entered into a deal with biotech giants Zeneca and DuPont
guaranteeing it 60-70 million pounds worth of investment. Prof Gale is on record as saying that a prolonged moratorium would be a massive blow to the JIC and the Norwich Research Park and that it would choke off the
grants it is currently getting from industry. Prof Gale has said of a
moratorium, “It would be very, very serious for us.”

ii) Professor Derek Burke: former Vice Chancellor of the University of
East Anglia (UEA), former Council member of the John Innes Centre, and Chairman for nearly a decade of the Advisory Committee for Novel Foods and Processes (1988-97), the regulatory body which approved the first GM
foods to come into the UK. Prior to UEA, Prof Burke worked on cloning for a biotech company.

iii) Brian Heap FRS: a leading member of the Royal Society - its ‘Foreign Secretary’. Like Burke and Gale, Heap helped produce the Royal Society’s report 'Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use’ which was used at an earlier stage to reassure government ministers that there were no significant problems with GE.

Also, this excerpt from the UK Sunday Herald, May 30, 1999 –

GM report ‘misleading’, say health
campaigners
By Pennie Taylor, health editor

EXCLUSIVE: CONSUMER groups and environmental campaigners have accused a prestigious scientific think-tank of misleading the public and “watering down” its report on genetically modified crops, which was published last week.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has declared that the genetically modified food currently on the market is “safe”, and has
criticised the media for whipping up public concern.

But the Sunday Herald understands that key recommendations contained in an earlier
draft of the working party’s report were dropped following “fact-finding” meetings with a range of bodies, including leading GM [biotech] firms….

Welcome back, Charles.

(Charles said)
Soil erosion is a critical issue to understand. Accoording to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the chief reason for soil erosion worldwide is “the spread of modern, commercial agriculture.” For example, Brazil is the next market (after the US) Monsanto is looking to for their Roundup Ready soybeans. The expansion of soybean fields is already a leading cause of rainforest destruction (and consequent soil erosion)

(My comment)
I’m glad to see we can agree on something. Specifically, given a deficit of arable farmland in other parts of the world, it’s true that Brazil is more than happy to meet increased demand. And as you point out, rainforest (or cerrado) will be dug out to do this.

Given this, don’t you think it is wise to encourage Brazil to use techniques which conserve soil and land, which are viable within Brazil’s shaky economy? No-till farming is the best answer in this case, using herbicide-tolerant crops.

Moreover, because Greenpeace’s has paved the way to set up new trade channels between European food giants and (so-called) “gene-free” crop growers in Brazil, they are actually contributing to development in Brazil. Yep! The EU giants are steering away from the US, and towards Brazilian suppliers. Also, Greenpeace and the EU are removing the choice of the Brazilian farmers to plant no-till soy, compounding the problem, because of soil loss. Going forward, even more environmentally friendly (and economically viable) crops may be precluded due to Greenpeace’s meddling.

So it appears that in the case of Brazil, Greenpeace is contributing to the problem of deforestation, rather than helping. I’m sure they didn’t intend to do this, but because they don’t understand all the complex variables involved in agriculture and world trade, they really screwed up when they started on soy campaign.

As for the Nuffield panel, and any connections with industry, it is to be expected. There is a normal interchange between the private, corporate, and academic sectors in all research-oriented fields. In fact, this is one of the things allows the world to move forward. Shall we put kindergarten teachers on NASA scientific boards?

There is no point in attacking the composition of a panel anyway, if the facts hold up. Why divert focus from the issues at hand?

(Also, charled posted)
GM report ‘misleading’, say health
campaigners
By Pennie Taylor, health editor
EXCLUSIVE: CONSUMER groups and environmental campaigners have accused a prestigious scientific think-tank

(My comment)
C-R-E-D-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y, and comprehensive perspective are the key. The above headline is humorous.

Scientific groups rely on specific methods to arrive at conclusions. On the other hand, consumer and environmental groups “accuse” for emotional reasons, often unrelated to any logic or perspective.

I wasn’t attacking the composition of the panel, merely pointing out the fallacy Dan promotes that this is an “independent” body.

As for soybeans in Brazil, if there’s a growing market for non-GE soybeans, it’s the biotech companies that have created it, not Greenpeace. Our campaign is a response to THEIR meddling in the complex interplay of world trade. They knew that people didn’t want to eat genetically engineered food (there were numerous surveys that showed this), yet they decided they could force feed the world. Farmers in Brazil aren’t forced by Greenpeace to do anything; rather, they are responding to a situation created by the biotech industry.

Mr. Margulis, farmers in the US also respond to market forces. In the US it is legal to
plant herbicide tolerant soybeans. In Brazil
it was not legal until recently, too recently
for this growing season. I suspect that if left to choose freely, they would make choices similar to their US counterparts.

Here is a question to you, similar to Mr. Spillane’s but more general. Why is there a
difference in Greenpeace’s position on
crops whose genetics is manipulated using
genetic engineering, versus crops (or
bacteria) whose genetics is manipulated by
old methods? Certainly our experience with
organisms transported from distant parts of the world shows that they can run wild and transform an ecology – something that has not happened with genetically engineered
organisms. And it is less likely to happen with genetically engineered organisms precisely because they are subjected to special scrutiny.

Please don’t give me the argument that this is a new technology and scientists don’t really understand it. That is far more the
case with the old gene modification technologies, e.g. hybridization and
selection.

[I picked out some of the most interesting items from the recent Nuffield report, the entire document is huge. Incidentally, so much for Monsanto being a giant which controls world agriculture – with THREE percent of the worlds seed!]

Selected sections from “Nuffield Council on Bioethics Genetically Modified Crops: The Ethical And Social Issues” 27 May 1999

(“Organic” food is tiny)
The primitive ancestors of almost all modern food crops are barely recognisable to the lay person; maize ears, for instance, were half an inch long rather than the eight or nine inches of their modern descendants.

(Monsanto the “food giant”)
The fact that Monsanto supplies only three percent of the world’s seed (10) belies the image of a new industrial revolution sweeping through agriculture under the impetus of a few multinationals. A well-informed consensus on the facts would resolve some of the arguments and reduce some of the public unease.

(“Industrial agriculture”)
There is a further defence of a morally conservative view of the environment to be considered. It stems from the notoriously difficult philosopher, Heidegger, (18) but its appeal is wide. His idea is that the world possesses a meaning that we can only understand if we approach the world in a receptive mode, in the way the poet, the artist or the traditional peasant does, not in an ‘industrial’ way. On Heidegger’s view, technology is a moral disaster. We become manipulators of things and lose touch with their sense. It does not follow that no use of the natural world is permissible or worthwhile, but many are not. All forms of industrialised agriculture are culturally impoverishing and GM crops would be another step further down an already disastrous road. This may be so, but there seems little justification in banning GM crops on these grounds when the rest of society travels so substantially in the direction Heidegger opposed.

1.50. There is obviously a need to ensure that agriculture follows a sustainable path, so that the immense productivity gains that have been secured in the post-war period in the developed world are not purchased at the cost of loss of agricultural resources for the future. However, this is not the same as saying that it is possible to return to a previous, often highly romanticised, form of agriculture. Industrial methods, in some form or another, are here to stay. Concern for the poor and dispossessed in, say, Russia or sub-Saharan Africa, mean that the developed world must recognise that there are likely to be difficult choices to be made in the less developed world’s search for the same productivity gains in agriculture that the developed world now enjoys.

(Insect-resistance genes have been in crops for some time.)
For example, breeders have been using disease- and pest-resistance genes for decades. In effect, the new insect-resistance genes (6) are unlikely to be different from insect-resistance genes already in use, such as the leafhopper resistance used in rice or hessian fly resistance in wheat. ‘Natural’ tolerance to herbicides was used in maize in the late 1980s, and again, very recently, in Pioneer Hi-bred’s ‘Smart Canola’. (7) The new GM crops which are tolerant to Roundup (8) are unlikely to be different in their effects on the environment. Thus, although GM crops may pose novel pressures on the environment there is, as yet, no reason to consider GM varieties as qualitatively different from non-GM varieties.

(New species have already been created, Triticale)
2.7. At the current stage of its development, genetically modified or transgenic technology does not offer the means of targeting where transgenes are integrated into the chromosomes; integration into the plant chromosomes appears to be more or less random. However, conventional plant breeding is usually a matter of putting two sets of about 25,000 genes together, allowing them to segregate at random and then selecting the best. Indeed, entirely new species have been manufactured using this approach. An example is Triticale, a synthetic hybrid between wheat and rye grown extensively in Eastern Europe over this century, which is the result of combining 50,000 largely untested genes, 25,000 from each species.

(“Untested” technology?)
2.42. During the period from 1986 to 1997, approximately 25,000 transgenic crop field trials were conducted on more than 60 crops with 10 traits in 45 countries. No adverse effects on food safety or the environment have been noted, relative to production in non-GM current varieties. Of this total of 25,000, 15,000 field trials were conducted during the first 10-year period and 10,000 in the last two-year period. Seventy-two per cent of all transgenic field trials were conducted in the US and Canada. By the end of 1997, 48 transgenic crop products, involving 12 crops and six traits, were approved for commercialisation in at least one country by 22 owners of technology, of which 20 were private-sector operators. (23) The crops include soybean, cotton, oilseed rape, potato, maize, tomato and pumpkins, and the traits insect, virus and herbicide tolerance, delayed ripening, male sterility and changes in oil composition (Table 2.1).

(Already life-saving rice developed using biotech, and more)
4.18. Apart from under-nutrition, it could well prove feasible to greatly reduce malnutrition through the development of micronutrient-rich GM crops (such as the Vitamin A-enriched rice developed by the Rockefeller Rice Biotechnology Programme). Vitamin A deficiency affects over 200 million people and over 14 million children have consequent eye damage. Iron deficiency affects some two billion (2100 million) people, impairing physical and mental work and increasing risks in pregnancy. Iodine deficiency affects some 1100–1500 million people, of whom over 600 million are goitrous. (18)

4.29. Despite the small amount of GM research resources devoted to developing-country agriculture, there is ample evidence that GM crops could significantly improve nutrition in developing countries. For example, researchers in Mexico have inserted a gene which enables crop plants to secrete citric acid from their roots. This increases their tolerance to aluminium toxicity, which affects a significant proportion of arable land, and which often reduces yields by over 30%, and sometimes by as much as 80%. In GM rice, inserting genes from two wild rice relatives into the best performing Chinese rice hybrids has raised yields by 20-40%. Research funded by the Rockefeller Foundation has produced a GM rice variety resistant to the tungro virus; very promising GM vitamin A-enriched rice varieties, and a tissue which is giving up to 25% higher yields in China. (32) Other GM crop examples relevant to developing countries include potato varieties bred in Peru with stable multigene resistance to late blight, (33) a wild wheat cross yielding 18 tonnes/ha (34) and virus-resistant sweet potatoes in Kenya, conservatively estimated to raise yields by 15%. (35,36)

Members of the Working Party
Professor Alan Ryan (Chairman) is Warden of New College, University of Oxford
Professor Derek Burke CBE is a former Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia and was Chairman of the Advisory Committee for Novel Foods and Processes (1988-97)
Professor Mike Gale FRS is Director, The John Innes Centre, Norwich
Professor Brian Heap CBE FRS is Master of St Edmund’s College, University of Cambridge, Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society and a member of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics
Miss Prue Leith OBE is Vice President of the Royal Society of Arts
Ms Julie Hill is Programme Adviser to the Green Alliance, an environmental charity and is a member of ACRE (Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment) until June 1999
Professor Steve Hughes is the Unilever Research Professor at the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Exeter
Professor Michael Lipton is at the Poverty Research Unit, University of Sussex
Mr Derek Osborn CB is Chairman of the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development, Cha

Charles, the problem is we need to BAN everyone’s corn and only grow MONSANTO’s – your favorite company. Why don’t you quit your non-profit job, and take up one selling this “butterfly-saving” Monsanto corn?

[Monsanto’s corn SAVES the butterfly, it DOESN’T have the BT in the pollen.]

“DEKALB Genetics, now owned by Monsanto, developed hybrids with the DBT 418 event, marketed under the BtXtra brand. In these the Bt Cry1Ab toxin gene is used. This produces a slightly different toxin with different insect specificity, and it is not expressed in pollen, but only in the leaf, kernel, stalk and silk.”

(Full story)
The Bowditch Group
03 June 1999

Bt Corn And Monarch Butterflies

Cornell University researchers, in a letter to the journal Nature, May 20 issue, reported that pollen from Bt corn harmed monarch butterfly larvae in laboratory tests. In the Cornell study, one group of monarch (Danaus plexippus) caterpillars fed on milkweed (Asclepias curassavica) leaves dusted with pollen from Bt corn, another group fed on milkweed leaves dusted with pollen from non-genetically-modified corn, and a third group fed on leaves without added pollen. The researchers found that the caterpillars that ate leaves with pollen from the Bt corn ate less, grew more slowly and died sooner. Results were similar to those reported earlier by Hansen and Obrycki (http://www.ent.iastate.edu/entsoc/ncb99/prog/abs/d81.html) who used leaves collected in corn fields. The Cornell researchers (Losey, Rayor and Carter, who can be contacted at jel27@cornell.edu) collected pollen and applied it to lab-raised milkweed leaves.

The Cornell researchers used pollen from Novartis Seeds’ hybrid N4640-Bt, which contains the Cry1Ac Bt gene in Monsanto’s Bt11 event, sold under the YieldGard brand. The hybrid is designed to be resistant to European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis), a common and destructive pest of corn (Zea mays). In Bt hybrids using this event, Bt toxin is produced at high levels, throughout the growing season, in the leaves, pollen, tassel, silk and kernel. This provides excellent corn borer resistance, but as the Cornell researchers discovered strong expression of the toxin gene in pollen may lead to effects on non-target insects.

Other commercial Bt corn varieties have been developed and are being marketed by a number of different companies. Although the Bt11 event and the very similar Mon 810 event, both sold under the YieldGard brand, are widely used, there are other events with different characteristics. DEKALB Genetics, now owned by Monsanto, developed hybrids with the DBT 418 event, marketed under the BtXtra brand. In these the Bt Cry1Ab toxin gene is used. This produces a slightly different toxin with different insect specificity, and it is not expressed in pollen, but only in the leaf, kernel, stalk and silk.

Bt corn was also developed by Ciba (now part of Novartis) and Mycogen (now part of Dow AgroSciences) called KnockOut or NatureGard. This also contains the toxin gene Cry1Ab, but in the event 176. In hybrids with this event, green pollen and stalk tissue produce the Bt toxin. The toxin level in tissue is high early in the growing season, and declines rapidly as the growing season progresses. This may mean that pollen of these hybrids would be harmless to monarchs, but at the same time the corn plant is exposed to more potential damage from late-season feeding by corn borers. However Hansen (lrhansen@iastate.edu ) tells us that the Bt pollen in her study was from Novartis’ hybrid MAX 454, which uses the 176 event. It will be interesting to see how her continuation of this research comes out this year.

AgrEvo has recently introduced its Bt event, based on the Cry9c toxin gene. This event is also strongly expressed throughout the plant for the full growing season, but may have different specific toxicity to monarchs than the Cry1Ab toxin.

Thus there are several variables in the Bt hybrids themselves that will affect whether their pollen might be harmful to monarchs (butterflies, that is): the specific Bt toxin expressed, the location of expression, and the timing of expression. Since monarch larvae feed only on milkweed, they will only be exposed to Bt toxin if it is deposited on the leaves of milkweed plants.

Although corn is wind-pollinated, and its pollen may travel considerable distances, the vast majority of corn pollen falls very close to the plant that sheds it. The transport of corn pollen is well understood, since production of hybrid corn seed depends on cross-pollination between pollen-shedding plants and ear-bearing ones. To get adequate yields of seed these generally cannot be placed more than several meters apart. Also, it is important in hybrid seed production to isolate the production of a specific hybrid from sources of pollen of other parents, to avoid off-types in the seed product. The isolation distances necessary to reduce off-types to very low levels are well known. Research to learn the amounts of pollen that might be deposited on milkweeds by corn is under way (see Hansen and Obrycki).

Monarch butterflies are very widely distributed, in their summer breeding range. They feed on milkweed plants in open meadows and grasslands from Southern Canada south through all of the United States, Central America, and most of South America. They are also present in Australia, Hawaii, and other Pacific islands. Those in North America overwinter as adults in California and in central Mexico, and these overwintering habitats are seriously threatened. According to recent studies about half the monarchs in North America hatch and feed as larvae in a band from Nebraska to Ohio, which coincides with the “corn belt” (see Wassenaar and Hobson ,PNAS 1998 95: 15436-15439).

Milkweed is regarded as a noxious weed by farmers, and weed-control practices generally prevent it from growing among crops in fields. There are many herbicides used in field crops such as corn, soybeans and cotton that will kill milkweed. In fact, the advent of herbicide-tolerant crops, with the more complete weed control they can provide, has been noted as another potential threat to milkweed populations (see Hartzler at http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/weednews/monarchs.htm ).

Since weed control costs money, farmers do not control weeds growing where they will have no economic effect. Thus milkweed might not be welcome in a field, but is widespread in disturbed sites such as roadsides, fallow fields, uncultivated areas, and field boundaries.

Industry officials have called the Cornell study inconclusive because the researchers did not precisely measure the amount of pollen that was put on the milkweed leaves. The researchers reported that pollen density was set to visually match densities on milkweed leaves collected from corn fields, and that pollen was applied by gently tapping a spatula of pollen over milkweed leaves that had been lightly misted with water.

There are a number of other variables that should be considered. The Bt toxin is notoriously unstable to UV light. It breaks down very rapidly in sunlight. Is this also true for Bt toxin in pollen grains? What fraction of monarch larvae would be exposed to corn pollen, considering that in any specific region the corn is shedding pollen for only a week to ten days each year. If monarch larvae are emerging and feeding during that time, and no other, that would suggest a greater potential impact than if larvae emerge over a longer period, or at a different time. The laboratory studies used laboratory-raised larvae and deliberately exposed them to heavy pollen loads.

According to Dr. Val Giddings, Vice President of Food and Agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry Association, ''Monarch migration and egg laying pattern ensure that the primary period of larval feeding and growth throughout nearly all the Monarch range takes place well before any nearby corn produces pollen. Ongoing monitoring of Bt corn fields by companies since their introduction further shows that very little pollen lands on adjacent milkweed plants. . . . Ongoing monitorig

The caterpillars wouldn’t want to eat pollen anyway, according to this scientist:

  • Jeremy Rifkin (Commentary, June 1) took a giant leap by suggesting that a laboratory study with monarch butterflies justifies a worldwide ban on agricultural biotechnology.
    The study showed that when monarch caterpillars eat enough pollen from corn containing a bacterial gene, they can be adversely affected. However, the study also showed that caterpillars apparently don’t like to eat corn pollen, with or without the gene.
    In the laboratory, the caterpillars had no choice during four days of observation. Two groups were fed milkweed covered with pollen (genetically modified or normal) and another had undusted leaves. Caterpillars on the plain milkweed started eating sooner and ate more leaves than either group that had to eat pollen. This suggests that in their natural setting the monarchs would steer clear of pollen on their only food–milkweed leaves.
    Caterpillars should have no trouble avoiding corn pollen in their natural environment. Milkweeds have many large leaves and tend to grow in clumps. If the top leaves were dusted by windblown pollen, the caterpillars could simply feed on lower leaves or move to another plant. Furthermore, monarchs prefer mature milkweeds, which are more commonly found in ditches, forest edges and stream banks remote from production fields.
    In nature, timing is everything. For any harm to occur, the caterpillars have to be present during the brief time when corn is pollinating. They have to consume the pollen before rain washes it away.
    WARREN DOUGLAS
    STEVENS PhD, Senior Curator
    Missouri Botanical Garden
    St. Louis

http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/COMMENT/t000051344.html

[[ Now you are playing dumb; otherwise perhaps this explains why you work for a non-profit organization?!?]] DanSpillane
What was the point of this idiotic and obnoxious aside?

Trace the message history…

I made a point twice, related to a specific item in a report, and the individual in question was not reading the words as they were printed on paper. Got a little frustrating.

Dan
(You posted)
[[ Now you are playing dumb; otherwise perhaps this explains why you work for a non-profit organization?!?]] DanSpillane

What was the point of this idiotic and obnoxious aside?

Inherently, I find no problem with GE crops. The world does, though: see the May 24 issue of Barron’s, where the Commodities Corner column points out that a tiered market for GE crops is developing, where commodity crops are commanding a premium over GE crops. So the market may soon eliminate GE crops from commercial production, because of the vast mistrust of GE foods that exists out there.
GE does solve a problem, though, and does so in a reasonably safe way. The problem is insecticides and their widespread use in agriculture, and GE does provide a solution. BT-engineered crops are only the beginning, as Monsanto itself has hinted. I have no doubt that crops able to resist multiple pests are being developed, and that these would materially reduce the amount of insecticide used in farming.
All new technologies, to be accepted, have to pass two tests: they have to solve a problem, and do so economically. BT-engineered crops solve a pest problem and an insecticide-use problem, and do so in a way that has been economical up until now, or it would not have found a market.
We spend huge amounts of time and energy debating what farmers should do, a subject on which most of us are completely ignorant, and very little on looking at what the vast majority of us do, as homeowners.
The largest problem we face in soil use, insecticide, herbicide and fertilizer use, and water waste, is not in agriculture but in our own backyards. Literally in our own backyards. Suburban gardeners use more water, insecticide, herbicide, and fertilizer per acre than farmers do. Mostly, they are used for lawns. Virtually 100% of the products and water used are wasted. Here’s why:

1 - If you’re growing a lawn where you get enough water to grow one, then all you have to do is mulch when you mow instead of bagging, and you will cut back on the amount you have to water tremendously. If you don’t get enough water in your area to grow a lawn, don’t grow one. Use some other ground cover.
2 - The effect of the above can be multiplied if you grow a few trees. Their shade will protect your lawn from the sun and will suppress weeds. Strategically placed, they’ll also help with your air-conditioning bills. And they won’t block you from throwing a Frisbee or batting a ball around or anything else if you do apply a little thought as to their placement.
3 - Mulching will provide your lawn with most of the nutrients it needs to grow. You will have to supplement occasionally with fertilizer if you want perfect green, but it will be far less than you would otherwise need.
4 - Cutting your lawn at the highest setting on your mower, instead of in the middle or the lowest setting, will allow your grass to grow deep roots that will allow it to last longer between waterings and will help, once again, in the suppression of weeds.

I have proven all of these things to myself. I live in a house surrounded by five fully grown maple trees. I never water, I always mulch, and have very few weeds despite never having used a herbicide. The grass looks great, and I rarely turn on the air-conditioning.
The problem lies not with the farmers, who are doing what they must to earn a living and feed us. The problem, instead, is staring back at each and every one of us suburban homeowners every time we look in the mirror.

Trace the message history…
I made a point twice, related to a specific item in a report, and the individual in question was not reading the words as they were printed on paper. Got a little frustrating.

Dan
(You posted)
[[ Now you are playing dumb; otherwise perhaps this explains why you work for a non-profit organization?!?]] DanSpillane

What was the point of this idiotic and obnoxious aside? >>

Well, I knew it was a swipe at his smarts, I was just wondering about it’s basis in working for non-profits( yes, I “get” the idea, false, of a profit-seeking concern being more rigorous in hiring).

Have you people ever heard of evolution? Mother natures splices genes all the time. Where do you think you came from? A cabbage patch? Every time you catch cold, viruses patch their genetic code into some of your cells to make baby viruses. Bacteria, even of different species, get together and swap genes all the time.

What’s amazing about the gene-splicing industry is not how many harmful by-products they’ve developed, but how few. Genetic engineering represents hope not only for profits, but probably the only realistic hope of curing diseases like AIDS and cancer, not to mention genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis.

Get a grip.

>see the May 24 issue of Barron’s, where the
>Commodities Corner column points out that
>a tiered market for GE crops is developing,
>where commodity crops are commanding a
>premium over GE crops. So the market may
>soon eliminate GE crops from commercial
>production, because of the vast mistrust
>of GE foods that exists out there.

I saw that article too. Your conclusions are off track though. It’s interesting how this was reported in Barron’s, because I know more about what they are talking about than Barron’s does.

The major case where so-called “non-genetic” crops are being sold at a premium to European customers is in the case of soy (“DuPont STS”) – I believe the amount is over ten million acres. Ironically, although it is being labeled as “non-genetic”, it is indeed genetically modified to be herbicide tolerant, just like the Monsanto Roundup-Ready variety! The only difference is they used some science other than genetic engineering to get the herbicide-resistant genes into the soy plant – according to the US government, these “other” scientific methods include use of radiation or chemicals. Is that safer than genetic engineering?!? What a joke on the Europeans, they are paying a premium for genetically modified soy! And my understanding is that the STS soy requires MORE herbicide, which DOES NOT even make up for the premium as compared to the Monsanto soybeans! And how does the use of more herbicide affect the environment?

This story is really funny, and I am surprised no one else has picked up on it yet.

How Greenpeace/fascism works:

(From article describing tactics of fascists, link below)

“Books, videotapes, and audiotapes can function as recruitment devices either for a naive audience, or to bring committed members of groups to a higher level. All three of these media have the capacity to present what appears to be reasoned argumentation based on what appears to be a factual foundation. Their persuasiveness relies on the ability of the author to render half-truths and outright falsifications in such a light that the conclusions appear to be irrefutable.”

[Should add “Internet” to “books, videotapes, and audiotapes” in sentence above. - Dan]

(Full article)
ftp://ftp.nyct.net/pub/users/tallpaul/docs/tactics/tac014.txt

:::::::::: sigh ::::::::: Those of you who have “THE” answer scare me because you really have no answer and will never get one.
Knowledge has never been successfully stamped out or stopped. Dr Tom’s attitude should become more the norm.
:::::: soap box back under desk :::::::::

BBC/UK Peanut allergy athlete dies/Friday, June 18, 1999

[This was a good-looking guy with so much potential. I am posting this for two reasons. Firstly, to warn those that may be allergic to peanuts – your tongue swells up and you can die within minutes. Secondly, because one of the things they are working on using genetic engineering is peanut plants – to remove the deadly allergen chemical, so that things like this won’t happen.]

Ross Baillie: A bright prospect

Scottish hurdler Ross Baillie has died in hospital after suffering a severe allergic reaction.
Baillie, 21, who was allergic to peanuts, collapsed with anaphylactic shock after eating a chicken sandwich during a break in training in Bath.

The BBC’s Jane O’Brien: “One of Britain’s most promising athletes”
The Scottish senior record holder and finalist in the 110m hurdles in last year’s Commonwealth Games, was taken to the Royal United Hospital in Bath where he died at 1100 on Friday.

Baillie was with international swimmer Mark Foster during training on Wednesday and both chose a sandwich with a coronation chicken filling for lunch.

Minutes after he bit into his sandwich, Baillie realised there were peanuts in it as his tongue started to swell and he began coughing.

Colin Jackson: Athlete’s mentor
He was taken to doctors at the nearby University of Bath where he was given an adrenalin injection before being taken to hospital where he failed to regain consciousness.

His mother Sheila and father Hugh, who were both athletics stars, travelled from their home in Clydebank and were at his bedside when he died.

The athlete was training alongside hurdler Colin Jackson and his coach Malcolm Arnold and had been sharing a flat with Jackson.

Baillie broke the Scottish record for the 110m hurdles at the Commonwealth Games in 1998.

He was a member of the Victoria Park Athletic Club in Glasgow and twice broke the 60m hurdles record during the winter.

Natural successor

Welshman Jackson considered Baillie his natural successor in the 110m hurdles race and tipped him to run under 13.20 secs this year, which would have put him among the world’s best male hurdlers.

He was due to take part in an international competition at Mannheim in Germany at the weekend, in the run-up to the European Junior Championships in Finland this summer, where he was tipped to win gold.

A spokeswoman for the hospital said: "Ross Baillie tragically died in the intensive care unit at 1100 today. His family were at his bedside.

“The staff in the Intensive Care Unit who cared for him over the last three days wish to extend their deepest sympathy to his family and friends.”

Director of Sport at the University of Bath, Ged Roddy, said: “Ross Baillie was a talented young athlete and very popular with us all here. We are devastated by his loss and he will be greatly missed.”

Sandy Sutherland: “One of Scotland’s brightest prospects”
Leading Scottish athletics journalist Sandy Sutherland described the news as “horrific” and said it will “throw a huge gloom” over this weekend’s competition.

He said: "He was one of our brightest prospects and was all set to go to this year’s World Championships.

Chris Baillie: Following family tradition
“He had already broken the Scottish record, his own record and was looking forward to getting a qualifying time for the Olympics in Sydney next year.”

“But athletics is a minor consideration when you think of the effect this will have on his family,” he added.

David Joy, Chief Executive of the Scottish Athletics Federation, said staff and officials were “devastated”.

He said: "Ross was a young man who was liked by everyone who met him and had a life full of opportunity in front of him.

“The Baillie family is heavily involved in Scottish athletics and this news will sadden the whole sport.”

Baillie’s younger brother Chris has been tipped to follow in his footsteps and has broken all of his junior records.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sport/newsid_371000/371534.stm

Yesterday, DrTom wrote:

“Bacteria, even of different species, get together and swap genes all the time.”

Really? First I’ve heard of it. All the bacteria I know reproduce asexually.

There is actually scientific evidence which shows that bacteria can transfer genes without having sex. However, it may only be to certain “receptor” sites, according to other documentation. Bacteria don’t turn into other bacteria…plants…or cows.

This helps explain why antibiotic resistance is fairly widespread – it’s possible that even your yogurt bacteria have antibiotic resistance which they got from other bacteria.

(You posted)
Yesterday, DrTom wrote:
“Bacteria, even of different species, get together and swap genes all the time.”

Really? First I’ve heard of it. All the bacteria I know reproduce asexually.