GM Canola Spreading Out Of Control

[Craig Heal]

Written by CBC News Online staff
http://cbc.ca/stories/2002/06/27/gncanola020627

WINNIPEG - There is confirmation of something canola
farmers have been saying for years: that genetically
modified canola is popping up where it wasn't planted and
where it isn't wanted.

An Agriculture Canada study suggests the problem is in the
seeds. More than half of the seed samples tested showed
some level of genetically modified presence. The study's
authors conclude that means almost every canola field
planted with conventional seed will contain some
genetically modified plants.

Rene Van Acker, a plant scientist at the University of
Manitoba, is duplicating the Agriculture Canada study on test
fields, checking to see how much genetically modified canola
has found its way into conventional seed through pollen or
accidental seed mixing.

"I think its very significant and I also think its a
formal recognition that genetic pollution does happen,"
said Van Acker.

Van Acker is duplicating the study on test fields, checking
to see how much genetically modified canola has found its
way into conventional seed through pollen or accidental
seed mixing.

For farmers it means adding a second kind of herbicide to
their regular spraying to kill the plants that have been
genetically modified to resist their regular herbicide.

For organic growers like Mark Loiselle it's a serious problem.
"Any contamination of seed stock with genetically engineered
crops is too much for organic production," he said. Loiselle
is trying to launch a class action suit against the companies
that make genetically modified canola. It's because of his
legal challenge the Agriculture Canada study was released.

Earlier this year the CBC program Country Canada used the
access to information law to get a copy of the study, but with
large parts blacked out. It was only after Loiselle's lawyer
applied to have the whole study that Agriculture Canada made
it available.

"There's a lot at stake here for Canada and so we shouldn't
have this stuff being hidden. There should be an open
discussion," said Van Acker.

The Canadian Seed Growers Association helped to pay for the
study. It says it wasn't released because it isn't finished.
They also say it just confirms what they already knew. "What
the report clearly indicates is that there isn't 100 per cent
purity and we knew that before, so that is not rocket science
to know that because that is the way mother nature is," said
Dale Adolphe of the CSGA.

[Paul Roger]

On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 02:12:46 GMT, "Craig Health"
<Craighealth@noscape.net> wrote:

>Written by CBC News Online staff
>http://cbc.ca/stories/2002/06/27/gncanola020627
>
>WINNIPEG - There is confirmation of something canola
>farmers have been saying for years: that genetically
>modified canola is popping up where it wasn't planted and
>where it isn't wanted.
>
>An Agriculture Canada study suggests the problem is in the
>seeds. More than half of the seed samples tested showed
>some level of genetically modified presence. The study's
>authors conclude that means almost every canola field
>planted with conventional seed will contain some
>genetically modified plants.
>
>
>Rene Van Acker, a plant scientist at the University of
>Manitoba, is duplicating the Agriculture Canada study on test
>fields, checking to see how much genetically modified canola
>has found its way into conventional seed through pollen or
>accidental seed mixing.
>
>"I think its very significant and I also think its a
>formal recognition that genetic pollution does happen,"
>said Van Acker.
>
>
>Van Acker is duplicating the study on test fields, checking
>to see how much genetically modified canola has found its
>way into conventional seed through pollen or accidental
>seed mixing.
>
>For farmers it means adding a second kind of herbicide to
>their regular spraying to kill the plants that have been
>genetically modified to resist their regular herbicide.
>
>For organic growers like Mark Loiselle it's a serious
>problem. "Any contamination of seed stock with genetically
>engineered crops is too much for organic production," he
>said. Loiselle is trying to launch a class action suit
>against the companies that make genetically modified canola.
>It's because of his legal challenge the Agriculture Canada
>study was released.
>
>Earlier this year the CBC program Country Canada used the
>access to information law to get a copy of the study, but
>with large parts blacked out. It was only after Loiselle's
>lawyer applied to have the whole study that Agriculture
>Canada made it available.
>
>"There's a lot at stake here for Canada and so we shouldn't
>have this stuff being hidden. There should be an open
>discussion," said Van Acker.
>
>The Canadian Seed Growers Association helped to pay for the
>study. It says it wasn't released because it isn't finished.
>They also say it just confirms what they already knew. "What
>the report clearly indicates is that there isn't 100 per cent
>purity and we knew that before, so that is not rocket science
>to know that because that is the way mother nature is," said
>Dale Adolphe of the CSGA.

Also see the Australian study that supports this probability.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992471

Paul R

[Doug Brook]

Frankly, I tend to agree with you, but you never know. If
someone modifies a plant in such a way that it becomes a
noxious weed, or in any way significantly upsets the local
ecologies, there's a problem.

Not long ago I attended a lecture by a guy who started a
company that genetically modifies chickens so that the
proteins in their eggs form the blood doping drug EPO.
Fascinating stuff. Quizzed about the possible dangers of
genetic manipulation, he felt very safe about experimenting
with livestock, because the populations are easily contained,
but he felt the manipulation of plants, whose pollen can be
spread thousands of miles by the wind, was among the most
potentially dangerous things being done.

Doesn't mean the guy necessarily knows much about botany, but
I thought the story was relevant.

Tom Matthews wrote:

> So what? Except where it is an unwanted weed, what is the
> harm? How does it harm organic crops? Ie what harm is there
> in those crops containing GM canola (besides irrational
> techophobic fears)? The article say *little* about why this
> "spread" might be a problem! Farmers have genetically
> modified crops for eons. *None* of our crop plants are
> similar to the wild types they come from. The only
> difference with current methods is that they are faster,
> more efficient and more directly targeted.

[Paul Roger]

On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 13:14:22 -0400, Tom Matthews
<tom@morelife.org> wrote:

>So what? Except where it is an unwanted weed, what is the
>harm? How does it harm organic crops? Ie what harm is there
>in those crops containing GM canola (besides irrational
>techophobic fears)? The article say *little* about why this
>"spread" might be a problem! Farmers have genetically
>modified crops for eons. *None* of our crop plants are
>similar to the wild types they come from. The only difference
>with current methods is that they are faster, more efficient
>and more directly targeted.

If you believe that you have a very limited understanding of
the basics of the genetic engineering of plants.

'More efficient and more directly targeted' . . . what a
laugh!

Paul R

[Rich Andre]

John 'the Man' <DeMan[71]@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:2afrhuoq3himvvlt9rneqk5rn50ocj9peb@4ax.com:

> Once upon a time, our fellow Tom Matthews rambled on about
> "Re: GM Canola Spreading Out Of Control." Our champion
> De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
>>The only difference with current methods is that they are
>>faster, more efficient and more directly targeted.
>
> And, GM crops are largely unwanted by the informed public!
>

John,

I disagree. GM crops are largely unwanted by the
MIS-informed public.

r

--
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed,
de-briefed, or numbered...My life is my own."

"I am not a number. I am a free man." No. 6

[Larry Hoov]

"Paul Rogers" <ecoldata@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:3d1e45b5.61267058@news-server...
> On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 13:14:22 -0400, Tom Matthews
> <tom@morelife.org> wrote:
>
> >So what? Except where it is an unwanted weed, what is the
> >harm? How does
it harm
> >organic crops? Ie what harm is there in those crops
> >containing GM canola (besides irrational techophobic
> >fears)? The article say *little* about
why this
> >"spread" might be a problem! Farmers have genetically
> >modified crops for
eons.
> >*None* of our crop plants are similar to the wild types
> >they come from.
The only
> >difference with current methods is that they are faster,
> >more efficient
and more
> >directly targeted.
>
> If you believe that you have a very limited understanding of
> the basics of the genetic engineering of plants.
>
> 'More efficient and more directly targeted' . . . what
> a laugh!
>
> Paul R

It might prove useful if you shared your special knowledge
with the rest of us.

[Paul Roger]

On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 23:01:30 -0000, Rich Andrews
<nospam@charter.net> wrote:

>John 'the Man' <DeMan[71]@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:2afrhuoq3himvvlt9rneqk5rn50ocj9peb@4ax.com:
>
>> Once upon a time, our fellow Tom Matthews rambled on about
>> "Re: GM Canola Spreading Out Of Control." Our champion
>> De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>>
>>>The only difference with current methods is that they are
>>>faster, more efficient and more directly targeted.
>>
>> And, GM crops are largely unwanted by the informed public!

>John,
>
>I disagree. GM crops are largely unwanted by the
>MIS-informed public.

Not true. Pro GM supporters like to characterise this
debate as one between responsible scientists with the
wellbeing of humanity in mind, and an irrational, anti-tech
misinformed public (your words). That's a typical straw man
argument and is false.

Many scientists in the field are not comfortable with the
genetic modification of food crops and have said so. Many who
oppose GM foods are well informed and still think it's a croc
-- unnecessary, potentially hazardous and just irrelevant
corporate marketeering.

Paul R www.organicfactor.com

[Paul Roger]

On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 19:55:58 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
<larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>"Paul Rogers" <ecoldata@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>news:3d1e45b5.61267058@news-server...
>> On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 13:14:22 -0400, Tom Matthews
>> <tom@morelife.org> wrote:
>>
>> >So what? Except where it is an unwanted weed, what is the
>> >harm? How does
>it harm
>> >organic crops? Ie what harm is there in those crops
>> >containing GM canola (besides irrational techophobic
>> >fears)? The article say *little* about
>why this
>> >"spread" might be a problem! Farmers have genetically
>> >modified crops for
>eons.
>> >*None* of our crop plants are similar to the wild types
>> >they come from.
>The only
>> >difference with current methods is that they are faster,
>> >more efficient
>and more
>> >directly targeted.
>>
>> If you believe that you have a very limited understanding
>> of the basics of the genetic engineering of plants.
>>
>> 'More efficient and more directly targeted' . . . what
>> a laugh!
>>
>> Paul R
>
>It might prove useful if you shared your special knowledge
>with the rest of us.

You do your own research and don't waste my time.

Start here:

Institute of Science in Society http://www.i-sis.org/

Then Medline (Pubmed) and CAB Abstracts.

Paul Rogers www.organicfactor.com

[Zar]

On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 00:06:31 GMT, ecoldata@bigpond.net.au
(Paul Rogers) wrote:

>Not true. Pro GM supporters like to characterise this debate
>as one between responsible scientists with the wellbeing of
>humanity in mind, and an irrational, anti-tech misinformed
>public (your words). That's a typical straw man argument and
>is false.
>
>Many scientists in the field are not comfortable with the
>genetic modification of food crops and have said so. Many who
>oppose GM foods are well informed and still think it's a croc
>-- unnecessary, potentially hazardous and just irrelevant
>corporate marketeering.

Very well put. Cheers.

[jril3882]

On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 18:05:05 GMT, John 'the Man'
<DeMan[71]@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Once upon a time, our fellow Tom Matthews rambled on about
>"Re: GM Canola Spreading Out Of Control." Our champion
>De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
>>The only difference with current methods is that they are
>>faster, more efficient and more directly targeted.
>
>And, GM crops are largely unwanted by the informed public!

You mean the folks that don't want any genes in their
food? Snarfff!

>When I eat rice, I want to eat rice *not* carotenes and what
>some Busy Body scientist thinks that I should be eating.

Who gives a stuff about a supplement-stuffer like you? :)

>Just like the products of Food Science, GM crops are more
>likely to benefit the growers than those who consume them. I
>don't want to enrich some farmer. I want to enrich my health!

Well grow your own. Everyone else is out for his own good.

jl

[Tom Matthe]

Doug Brooks wrote:

> Frankly, I tend to agree with you, but you never know. If
> someone modifies a plant in such a way that it becomes a
> noxious weed,

It is still eradicable by weed control methods. It is simply
that one particular weed control chemical does not work on it.

> or in any way significantly upsets the local ecologies,
> there's a problem.

Why? Current local ecologies are in no manner *perfect*. There
is just as much chance that it would benefit as harm.

> Not long ago I attended a lecture by a guy who started a
> company that genetically modifies chickens so that the
> proteins in their eggs form the blood doping drug EPO.
> Fascinating stuff. Quizzed about the possible dangers of
> genetic manipulation, he felt very safe about experimenting
> with livestock, because the populations are easily
> contained, but he felt the manipulation of plants, whose
> pollen can be spread thousands of miles by the wind, was
> among the most potentially dangerous things being done.

It all depends on just how you are manipulating them. If you
are the military attempting to produce some chemical warfare
product, then true enough, that would be dangerous. But if you
are attempting to produce a generally beneficial plant
property, then much less danger is involved. As to spreading,
there is only only aspect that need be addressed and that is
based on the ideas of property rights. Fundamentally, it is a
violation of your neighbor's property rights if you allow your
garbage or other effluent to go onto his property.

> Doesn't mean the guy necessarily knows much about botany,
> but I thought the story was relevant.

It is. Because of property rights issues the containment
problem is real.

--Tom Matthews

> Tom Matthews wrote:
>
>
>>So what? Except where it is an unwanted weed, what is the
>>harm? How does it harm organic crops? Ie what harm is there
>>in those crops containing GM canola (besides irrational
>>techophobic fears)? The article say *little* about why this
>>"spread" might be a problem! Farmers have genetically
>>modified crops for eons. *None* of our crop plants are
>>similar to the wild types they come from. The only
>>difference with current methods is that they are faster,
>>more efficient and more directly targeted.

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based
tools for More Life in quantity & quality

[jril3882]

On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 03:05:19 GMT, ecoldata@bigpond.net.au
(Paul Rogers) wrote:

>On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 19:55:58 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
><larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>"Paul Rogers" <ecoldata@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>>news:3d1e45b5.61267058@news-server...
>>> On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 13:14:22 -0400, Tom Matthews
>>> <tom@morelife.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >So what? Except where it is an unwanted weed, what is the
>>> >harm? How does
>>it harm
>>> >organic crops? Ie what harm is there in those crops
>>> >containing GM canola (besides irrational techophobic
>>> >fears)? The article say *little* about
>>why this
>>> >"spread" might be a problem! Farmers have genetically
>>> >modified crops for
>>eons.
>>> >*None* of our crop plants are similar to the wild types
>>> >they come from.
>>The only
>>> >difference with current methods is that they are faster,
>>> >more efficient
>>and more
>>> >directly targeted.
>>>
>>> If you believe that you have a very limited understanding
>>> of the basics of the genetic engineering of plants.
>>>
>>> 'More efficient and more directly targeted' . . . what a
>>> laugh!
>>>
>>> Paul R
>>
>>It might prove useful if you shared your special knowledge
>>with the rest of us.
>
>You do your own research and don't waste my time.

Ahh, such a typical and predictable response

>Start here:
>
>Institute of Science in Society http://www.i-sis.org/

Seen that. What relevant peer-reviewed papers have any of
these "scientists" published.

>Then Medline (Pubmed) and CAB Abstracts.

Abstracts can be manipulated to show anything. What reviews
can you quote?

jl

[Larry Hoov]

"Paul Rogers" <ecoldata@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:3d1e72ca.72809352@news-server...
> On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 19:55:58 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
> <larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >"Paul Rogers" <ecoldata@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> >news:3d1e45b5.61267058@news-server...
> >> If you believe that you have a very limited understanding
> >> of the basics of the genetic engineering of plants.
> >>
> >> 'More efficient and more directly targeted' . . . what a
> >> laugh!
> >>
> >> Paul R
> >
> >It might prove useful if you shared your special knowledge
> >with the rest
of
> >us.
>
> You do your own research and don't waste my time.

You imply that you have a better understanding of the issues
than does Tom, but you reveal none of that understanding in
your critique of his perspective. That's more than easy,
that's lazy. Are you fearful that others might disagree with
your own opinions?

Mr. Arrogance, you have wasted our time.

[Marcio Wat]

Tom Matthews <tom@morelife.org> wrote:

>So what? Except where it is an unwanted weed, what is the
>harm? How does it harm organic crops?

So what?! It seems that the post is not really on topic here
at s.m.n (it was crosspoted to other groups), as it is an
economic and legal issue rather than a nutrional one, so even
obvious things do not register with intelligent people like
Tom Matthews.

GM contamination harm organic crops because if there is
contamination, the product cannot be certified organic!!!
Since organic products currently demand higher market price
and higher production costs compared to conventional crops,
there is a real financial loss caused by GM contamination.

[Tom Matthe]

Marcio Watanabe wrote:

> Tom Matthews <tom@morelife.org> wrote:
>
>
>>So what? Except where it is an unwanted weed, what is the
>>harm? How does it harm organic crops?
>>
>
> So what?! It seems that the post is not really on topic here
> at s.m.n (it was crosspoted to other groups), as it is an
> economic and legal issue rather than a nutrional one, so
> even obvious things do not register with intelligent people
> like Tom Matthews.
>
> GM contamination harm organic crops because if there is
> contamination, the product cannot be certified organic!!!
> Since organic products currently demand higher market price
> and higher production costs compared to conventional crops,
> there is a real financial loss caused by GM contamination.

That much is, of course, obvious. But again, so what?

In what way does the organic product actually get harmed?

Besides being not as salable to irrational people.
Furthermore, it is *not* a *real* loss because the gain was
never a *real* gain.
Ie. a gain which is rationally consistent with reality. It
was merely a distortion of reality caused by irrational
human behavior.

Finally, it *is* on topic for smn because I am seeking some
evidence that the GM canola is nutritionally inferior. So far
I haven't seen any. Without such evidence, anyone who worries
about it being in organic crops is very foolish. Hell, you can
still grow it totally organically, so it need not even be
deemed to be a contaminant (again except for some irrational
GM crop haters). If the definition of "organic" actually
includes not genetically modified then *none* of the current
crops are certifiable. In fact, the *only* plants which would
be truly organic would be weeds from the wild.

--Tom Matthews

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based
tools for More Life in quantity & quality

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Tom Matthews rambled on about
"Re: GM Canola Spreading Out Of Control." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>Hell, you can still grow it totally organically, so it need
>not even be deemed to be a contaminant (again except for some
>irrational GM crop haters).

I am rather surprised to learn that anyone seeking "organic"
food would buy canola oil to begin with.

These people consider canola to be toxic to begin with.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in Health
are those who couldn't care less about prevention. Beware of
anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet, being overweight,
or about smoking!

[Paul Roger]

On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 09:12:45 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
<larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"Paul Rogers" <ecoldata@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>news:3d1e72ca.72809352@news-server...
>> On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 19:55:58 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
>> <larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Paul Rogers" <ecoldata@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>> >news:3d1e45b5.61267058@news-server...
>> >> If you believe that you have a very limited
>> >> understanding of the basics of the genetic engineering
>> >> of plants.
>> >>
>> >> 'More efficient and more directly targeted' . . . what a
>> >> laugh!
>> >>
>> >> Paul R
>> >
>> >It might prove useful if you shared your special knowledge
>> >with the rest
>of
>> >us.
>>
>> You do your own research and don't waste my time.
>
>You imply that you have a better understanding of the issues
>than does Tom, but you reveal none of that understanding in
>your critique of his perspective. That's more than easy,
>that's lazy. Are you fearful that others might disagree with
>your own opinions?

He did not have a perspective. Genetic modification of plants
involves the transfer of a transgenic construct which includes
the transgene, a vector to get it into place, a marker to show
which cells took it up and a promoter to encourage gene
expression. Modified bacterial and viral DNA are used for
these functional purposes.

And so the transgene is efficiently and accurately
transferred to the host genome at just the required position
-- right? Wrong.

Try this analogy. You have the source code for a large
software program and you want to make a modification to it to
perform an additional function. You don't really understand
the original code so you just shove the new code snippet in
anywhere until it seems to do what you want . . . only, down
the track a while the users start to complain that it doesn't
work as it used to . . . You get the picture?

Question: are you prepared to go down this track to it's
logical conclusion, which is:

1. Animal and human genes transferred to food plants
2. Recombinant DNA modification of animal foods with mixed
animal and human genes

After all, if you accept the premise that 'a gene is a gene'
and just expresses for a protein, you can swap them across
species endlessly, right?

Ask an experimental molecular virologist how comfortable they
are with all this (you might get a surprise).

Paul R www.organicfactor.com

[Marcio Wat]

Tom Matthews <tom@morelife.org> wrote:

>In what way does the organic product actually get harmed?

It's debatable whether the organic product itself gets harmed.
The ones that sell the product are the ones harmed.

>Furthermore, it is *not* a *real* loss because the gain was
>never a *real* gain.

A quick check on commodities prices proves differently.

Consider a brand name product that sells for more than the
exact same product sold generic. There is no scientific proof
that one is better than the other but there is a real economic
value on the brand name product as it can sell for more, and
harming the brand name harms the manufacturer even though
there is no actual harm on the product itself. It's irrelevant
if the consumer is not knowledgeble, irrational, or whatever.
If they are willing to pay more for it, there is a real loss
(or gain).

You can argue this scientifically but as I said the original
post discusses an economic/business/legal matter which I don't
expect you to understand.

[jril3882]

On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 23:12:01 GMT, ecoldata@bigpond.net.au
(Paul Rogers) wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 09:12:45 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
><larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Paul Rogers" <ecoldata@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>>news:3d1e72ca.72809352@news-server...
>>> On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 19:55:58 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
>>> <larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >"Paul Rogers" <ecoldata@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>>> >news:3d1e45b5.61267058@news-server...
>>> >> If you believe that you have a very limited
>>> >> understanding of the basics of the genetic engineering
>>> >> of plants.
>>> >>
>>> >> 'More efficient and more directly targeted' . . . what
>>> >> a laugh!
>>> >>
>>> >> Paul R
>>> >
>>> >It might prove useful if you shared your special
>>> >knowledge with the rest
>>of
>>> >us.
>>>
>>> You do your own research and don't waste my time.
>>
>>You imply that you have a better understanding of the issues
>>than does Tom, but you reveal none of that understanding in
>>your critique of his perspective. That's more than easy,
>>that's lazy. Are you fearful that others might disagree with
>>your own opinions?
>
>He did not have a perspective. Genetic modification of plants
>involves the transfer of a transgenic construct which
>includes the transgene, a vector to get it into place, a
>marker to show which cells took it up and a promoter to
>encourage gene expression. Modified bacterial and viral DNA
>are used for these functional purposes.

And I could give you an equally wordy and "scary" description
of normal plant breeding. Or viral infection, and
incorporation.

>And so the transgene is efficiently and accurately
>transferred to the host genome at just the required position
>-- right? Wrong.

But much more targetted and accurate than conventional
breeding which is a shotgun approach if ever I saw one.

>Try this analogy. You have the source code for a large
>software program and you want to make a modification to it to
>perform an additional function. You don't really understand
>the original code so you just shove the new code snippet in
>anywhere until it seems to do what you want . . . only, down
>the track a while the users start to complain that it doesn't
>work as it used to . . . You get the picture?

What a terrible analogy. Try "adding and subtracting jpeg
files from a folder that you intend giving a slide
presentation from."

>Question: are you prepared to go down this track to it's
>logical conclusion, which is:
>
>1. Animal and human genes transferred to food plants

You neglect the fact that most of our genes are common to ALL
life forms.

>2. Recombinant DNA modification of animal foods with mixed
> animal and human genes.

What's the difference between these two types of genes?
Nothing?

>After all, if you accept the premise that 'a gene is a gene'
>and just expresses for a protein, you can swap them across
>species endlessly, right?

Pretty much. Nature has already tried anything that man can
think up. Many millions of years to try every possible
combination and permutation.

>Ask an experimental molecular virologist how comfortable they
>are with all this (you might get a surprise).

Well, you might. But when you think of all the scary scenarios
in nature, and get everything into perspective, I think you
will more likely be amazed

jl

[Paul Roger]

On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 05:12:38 GMT,
jril3882@bigpond.net.au wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 23:12:01 GMT, ecoldata@bigpond.net.au
>(Paul Rogers) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 09:12:45 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
>><larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>"Paul Rogers" <ecoldata@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>>>news:3d1e72ca.72809352@news-server...
>>>> On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 19:55:58 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
>>>> <larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >"Paul Rogers" <ecoldata@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>>>> >news:3d1e45b5.61267058@news-server...
>>>> >> If you believe that you have a very limited
>>>> >> understanding of the basics of the genetic engineering
>>>> >> of plants.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 'More efficient and more directly targeted' . . . what
>>>> >> a laugh!
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Paul R
>>>> >
>>>> >It might prove useful if you shared your special
>>>> >knowledge with the rest
>>>of
>>>> >us.
>>>>
>>>> You do your own research and don't waste my time.
>>>
>>>You imply that you have a better understanding of the
>>>issues than does Tom, but you reveal none of that
>>>understanding in your critique of his perspective. That's
>>>more than easy, that's lazy. Are you fearful that others
>>>might disagree with your own opinions?
>>
>>He did not have a perspective. Genetic modification of
>>plants involves the transfer of a transgenic construct which
>>includes the transgene, a vector to get it into place, a
>>marker to show which cells took it up and a promoter to
>>encourage gene expression. Modified bacterial and viral DNA
>>are used for these functional purposes.
>
>And I could give you an equally wordy and "scary" description
>of normal plant breeding. Or viral infection, and
>incorporation.
>
>>And so the transgene is efficiently and accurately
>>transferred to the host genome at just the required position
>>-- right? Wrong.
>
>But much more targetted and accurate than conventional
>breeding which is a shotgun approach if ever I saw one.

Yes but conventional breeding does not attempt to transfer
genes across taxonomic kingdoms.

. . . and not anything like cross pollination in the wild.
Cats and pine trees don't mate (it just looks like it) or
haven't you noticed?

>>Try this analogy. You have the source code for a large
>>software program and you want to make a modification to it
>>to perform an additional function. You don't really
>>understand the original code so you just shove the new code
>>snippet in anywhere until it seems to do what you want . . .
>>only, down the track a while the users start to complain
>>that it doesn't work as it used to . . . You get the
>>picture?
>
>What a terrible analogy. Try "adding and subtracting jpeg
>files from a folder that you intend giving a slide
>presentation from."

Heh, heh . . . we don't even know what's in the folder in the
first instance, nor where the additional jpeg is going to be
saved -- or even if it will be saved at all -- or if it will
be viewable when you try to display it! My anology is much
more accurate.

>>Question: are you prepared to go down this track to it's
>>logical conclusion, which is:
>>
>>1. Animal and human genes transferred to food plants
>
>You neglect the fact that most of our genes are common to ALL
>life forms.

Some perhaps but not most. We are discussing those not common
to taxonomic levels. (That's why rDNA.)

>>2. Recombinant DNA modification of animal foods with mixed
>> animal and human genes.
>
>What's the difference between these two types of genes?
>Nothing?

Huh? Horizontal gene transfer across kingdoms and, in the
above example, within Animalia (and to lower levels) does not
normally occur. Among bacteria and viruses and perhaps to
higher organisms, but not among higher organisms, eg, fish and
tomato, human and pig. That's the difference! Control
mechanisms have been evolved so that this does not occur --
and for very good reason -- it protects the integrity and
biological survival mechanism of species.

You talk like we know all there is to know about this.
We do not.

One further point. If it ever does occur, it might do so from
the instability of transgenic constructs in genetically
engineered food -- some of which are viral entities like the
modified cauliflower mosaic virus.

>>After all, if you accept the premise that 'a gene is a gene'
>>and just expresses for a protein, you can swap them across
>>species endlessly, right?
>
>Pretty much. Nature has already tried anything that man can
>think up. Many millions of years to try every possible
>combination and permutation.

Just rubbish. See above. Nature may be a monkey on a
typewriter but there are still limits to how many keyboard
characters the monkey has access to -- there are
self-limiting controls.

>>Ask an experimental molecular virologist how comfortable
>>they are with all this (you might get a surprise).
>
>Well, you might. But when you think of all the scary
>scenarios in nature, and get everything into perspective, I
>think you will more likely be amazed

Well I guess you have answered my question, which was, to
precis: 'are you comfortable with the unfettered transfer of
genes across all taxonomic levels for food production, making
no distinction (for example) between bacteria, virus, plant,
animal, human?'

Others reading this exchange should think this through and be
very clear about where this technology is heading.

Paul R

[Lad]

"Craig Health" <Craighealth@noscape.net> wrote in message
news:<yI8T8.251$dP2.8975660@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
> Written by CBC News Online staff
> http://cbc.ca/stories/2002/06/27/gncanola020627
>
> WINNIPEG - There is confirmation of something canola
> farmers have been saying for years: that genetically
> modified canola is popping up where it wasn't planted and
> where it isn't wanted.

I got, but misplaced, a whole big scare expose' about regular
canola oil from a raw diet/healthnut mailing list. It made me
want to avoid it, GM or not. I also read later that raw
canola oil is so stinky, that it must be heated (oxidized)
before bottling.

LS

[Marcus E E]

In article <gqg0iu8qm2j60tqg91hrs51v876gq44b8r@4ax.com>,
<jril3882@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>What are not common to taxonomic levels? Maybe just not
>needed? Geez over the millennia, just about everything has
>been tried out

That is not correct at all. Do you seriously think that all
possible organisms have been 'tried out' already?

Marcus

[Marcus E E]

In article <krj0iuc1b7hbjgnbek7bsle0bod8tl75gt@4ax.com>,
<jril3882@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>On 1 Jul 2002 12:40:22 GMT, mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus
>E Engdahl)

>>That is not correct at all. Do you seriously think that all
>>possible organisms have been 'tried out' already?

>Pretty much. Most of them failed. What did you have in mind?

Well, every organism needs an ecologic niche to prosper. I
simply do not believe that all possible ecologic environments
have already been around. Since evolution is essentially
blind, 'all possible organisms' have a possibility to evolve
only if all possible ecologic environments have been available
all the time, or do you disagree?

Marcus

[Tom Matthe]

Marcio Watanabe wrote:

> Tom Matthews <tom@morelife.org> wrote:
>
>
>>In what way does the organic product actually get harmed?
>>
>
> It's debatable whether the organic product itself gets
> harmed.

As I thought, there is no evidence of harm.

> The ones that sell the product are the ones harmed.

Again, it is not *real* harm. The sellers simply get what they
deserve for catering to irrationality. Do drug pushers get
"harmed" when their market prices drop due to inferior
product? Do tobacco suppliers get "harmed" when people wise-up
and quit smoking? Is this real harm or is it not deserved
consequences of incorrect actions (ie. actions which are not
in the long-range best interest of the actor).

>>Furthermore, it is *not* a *real* loss because the gain was
>>never a *real* gain.
>>
>
> A quick check on commodities prices proves differently.
>
> Consider a brand name product that sells for more than the
> exact same product sold generic. There is no scientific
> proof that one is better than the other but there is a real
> economic value on the brand name product as it can sell for
> more, and harming the brand name harms the manufacturer even
> though there is no actual harm on the product itself. It's
> irrelevant if the consumer is not knowledgeble, irrational,
> or whatever. If they are willing to pay more for it, there
> is a real loss (or gain).

Nonsense! This is only the narrow technical definition of
value used within the economic model of reality. Values in
full reality (as opposed to the economic model abstracted from
it) also entail the nature of reality and whether human
desires are in accord with reality or not. If there is no
evidence of harm from GM canola then to devalue it is not in
accord with reality as we know it.

> You can argue this scientifically but as I said the original
> post discusses an economic/business/legal matter which I
> don't expect you to understand.

Ha! I have read deeply in economics all my long life, from
Adam Smith to Ludwig von Mises to Murray Rothbard, and I have
a very thorough understanding.

--Tom Matthews

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based
tools for More Life in quantity & quality

[jril3882]

On 1 Jul 2002 12:40:22 GMT, mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E
Engdahl) wrote:

>In article <gqg0iu8qm2j60tqg91hrs51v876gq44b8r@4ax.com>,
><jril3882@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>What are not common to taxonomic levels? Maybe just not
>>needed? Geez over the millennia, just about everything has
>>been tried out
>
>That is not correct at all. Do you seriously think that all
>possible organisms have been 'tried out' already?
>
>Marcus

Pretty much. Most of them failed. What did you have in mind?
It's not really the form, more the biochemistry as constrained
by basic chemical principles.

jl

[Max Watt]

John 'the Man' <DeMan[71]@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<cmsuhu4feaktq7dicd5h9dh1qr2487f4ft@4ax.com>...
> Once upon a time, our fellow Tom Matthews rambled on about
> "Re: GM Canola Spreading Out Of Control." Our champion
> De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >Hell, you can still grow it totally organically, so it need
> >not even be deemed to be a contaminant (again except for
> >some irrational GM crop haters).
>
> I am rather surprised to learn that anyone seeking "organic"
> food would buy canola oil to begin with.
>
> These people consider canola to be toxic to begin with.

Canola oil is rapeseed oil, bred by traditional means to be
low in euricic acid. The FDA prohibited euricic-acid
containing oils because rats developed cancer when it was a
major part of their diet. Never mind that in India rapeseed
oil has been an essential part of their diet for thousands of
years with no ill effect, and that rats fed any oil as 30% of
their diet develope cancer. So the CANadian OiL growers
association bred a low-euricic acid strain. So what's so
different about genetically modified canola oil?

[Larry Hoov]

"Max Watt" <maxwatt2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:870a5d01.0207010625.35baa9dd@posting.google.com...
> John 'the Man' <DeMan[71]@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<cmsuhu4feaktq7dicd5h9dh1qr2487f4ft@4ax.com>...
> > Once upon a time, our fellow Tom Matthews rambled on about
> > "Re: GM Canola Spreading Out Of Control." Our champion
> > De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
> >
> > >Hell, you can still grow it totally organically, so it
> > >need not even be
deemed
> > >to be a contaminant (again except for some irrational GM
> > >crop haters).
> >
> > I am rather surprised to learn that anyone seeking
> > "organic" food would buy canola oil to begin with.
> >
> > These people consider canola to be toxic to begin with.
>
> Canola oil is rapeseed oil, bred by traditional means to be
> low in euricic acid. The FDA prohibited euricic-acid
> containing oils because rats developed cancer when it was a
> major part of their diet. Never mind that in India rapeseed
> oil has been an essential part of their diet for thousands
> of years with no ill effect, and that rats fed any oil as
> 30% of their diet develope cancer. So the CANadian OiL
> growers association bred a low-euricic acid strain. So
> what's so different about genetically modified canola oil?

Don't try to confuse him with facts..... <wink

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Max Watt rambled on about "Re: GM
Canola Spreading Out Of Control." Our champion De-Medicalizing
in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>So the CANadian OiL growers association bred a low-euricic
>acid strain. So what's so different about genetically
>modified canola oil?

I certainly do *not* lump GM foods with canola because Canola
is GM rapeseed!!!

Still doesn't address the question of why a health fanatic
would buy Canola to begin with. Most of them consider Canola
to be toxic!!!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in Health
are those who couldn't care less about prevention. Beware of
anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet, being overweight,
or about smoking!

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Larry Hoover rambled on about
"Re: GM Canola Spreading Out Of Control." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>Don't try to confuse him with facts..... <wink>

What facts?
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in Health
are those who couldn't care less about prevention. Beware of
anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet, being overweight,
or about smoking!

[Slenon]

>John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!

What school of art is characterized by imaginary degrees and
self-inflicted anemia?

--
Stev Still dancing in the Phil Zone & scattering Garcia ashes
Stev Lenon MT(ASCP) - In healthcare the ultimate bottom line
is patients not profit Save a cow, eat a PETA member
slenon@tampabay.rr.com http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/ind-
ex.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[jril3882]

On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 07:35:59 GMT, ecoldata@bigpond.net.au
(Paul Rogers) wrote:

>>>He did not have a perspective. Genetic modification of
>>>plants involves the transfer of a transgenic construct
>>>which includes the transgene, a vector to get it into
>>>place, a marker to show which cells took it up and a
>>>promoter to encourage gene expression. Modified bacterial
>>>and viral DNA are used for these functional purposes.
>>
>>And I could give you an equally wordy and "scary"
>>description of normal plant breeding. Or viral infection,
>>and incorporation.
>>
>>>And so the transgene is efficiently and accurately
>>>transferred to the host genome at just the required
>>>position -- right? Wrong.
>>
>>But much more targetted and accurate than conventional
>>breeding which is a shotgun approach if ever I saw one.
>
>Yes but conventional breeding does not attempt to transfer
>genes across taxonomic kingdoms.

And as genetic material is common to all living organisms,
this matters how?

>. . . and not anything like cross pollination in the wild.
> Cats and pine trees don't mate (it just looks like it) or
> haven't you noticed?

For no other reason than "mechanical" differences. Some trees
can't cross with trees in the same genus, unless man gives a
helping hand.

>>>Try this analogy. You have the source code for a large
>>>software program and you want to make a modification to it
>>>to perform an additional function. You don't really
>>>understand the original code so you just shove the new code
>>>snippet in anywhere until it seems to do what you want . .
>>>. only, down the track a while the users start to complain
>>>that it doesn't work as it used to . . . You get the
>>>picture?
>>
>>What a terrible analogy. Try "adding and subtracting jpeg
>>files from a folder that you intend giving a slide
>>presentation from."
>
>Heh, heh . . . we don't even know what's in the folder in the
>first instance, nor where the additional jpeg is going to be
>saved -- or even if it will be saved at all -- or if it will
>be viewable when you try to display it! My anology is much
>more accurate.

You've got it wrong again. What other codes are there than C,
G or A? (from memory). Whether it is saved and where, is much
more accurately known than by conventional breeding. What if
one organism with a viral infection breeds with another?
Absolutely unknown consequences. Cosmic ray mutations?
Lottery! Mostly losers.

>>>Question: are you prepared to go down this track to it's
>>>logical conclusion, which is:
>>>
>>>1. Animal and human genes transferred to food plants
>>
>>You neglect the fact that most of our genes are common to
>>ALL life forms.
>
>Some perhaps but not most. We are discussing those not common
>to taxonomic levels. (That's why rDNA.)

What are not common to taxonomic levels? Maybe just not
needed? Geez over the millennia, just about everything has
been tried out (and failed, BTW)

>>>2. Recombinant DNA modification of animal foods with mixed
>>> animal and human genes.
>>
>>What's the difference between these two types of genes?
>>Nothing?
>
>Huh? Horizontal gene transfer across kingdoms and, in the
>above example, within Animalia (and to lower levels) does not
>normally occur.

As I said above, for mechanical reasons only. A gene for
expressing a particular protein for a particular species is
more than likely occurring in the "not-turned-on" junk DNA of
many other non-related species. We know the full genome of
many species already, BTW.

>Among bacteria and viruses and perhaps to higher
>organisms, but not among higher organisms, eg, fish and
>tomato, human and pig.

No reason why not, of course.

>That's the difference!

Really, such an irrelevant, trivial one?

>Control mechanisms have been evolved so that this does not
>occur -- and for very good reason -- it protects the
>integrity and biological survival mechanism of species.

Utter cobblers. Shows a lack of understanding of basic
biology. If what you are saying were true, the end of life on
Earth would have occurred at the first introduction of a
different genetic code into the first organism.

>You talk like we know all there is to know about this.
>We do not.

And you talk like we understand nothing. We understand a great
deal. Your argument is a little like that for little green men
in UFOs. You need just show one example of the problems you
are suggesting, and we will all pay attention. After so much
genetic swapping, you can name no problem.

>One further point. If it ever does occur, it might do so from
>the instability of transgenic constructs in genetically
>engineered food -- some of which are viral entities like the
>modified cauliflower mosaic virus.

Sorry, you've lost me. What instability are you referring to?

>>>After all, if you accept the premise that 'a gene is a
>>>gene' and just expresses for a protein, you can swap them
>>>across species endlessly, right?
>>
>>Pretty much. Nature has already tried anything that man can
>>think up. Many millions of years to try every possible
>>combination and permutation.
>
>Just rubbish. See above. Nature may be a monkey on a
>typewriter but there are still limits to how many keyboard
>characters the monkey has access to -- there are
>self-limiting controls.

I don't know what you are talking about. Do you understand the
basics of evolutionary science?

>>>Ask an experimental molecular virologist how comfortable
>>>they are with all this (you might get a surprise).
>>
>>Well, you might. But when you think of all the scary
>>scenarios in nature, and get everything into perspective, I
>>think you will more likely be amazed
>
>Well I guess you have answered my question, which was, to
>precis: 'are you comfortable with the unfettered transfer of
>genes across all taxonomic levels for food production, making
>no distinction (for example) between bacteria, virus, plant,
>animal, human?'

Yes, why not? Can you give me one concrete example of a
problem?

>Others reading this exchange should think this through and be
>very clear about where this technology is heading.

Well you certainly seem to have a problem with scary
stories of where you think it is heading. Unfortunately,
with no evidence.

I can't foresee a particular problem with introducing
certain genes into certain organisms to achieve certain aims
-- just like conventional breeding, only faster, more
accurate and safer. Of course, all new foodstufs and
medicines should be thoroughly tested before they are
released, as is normal and prudent.

jl

[jril3882]

On 1 Jul 2002 14:52:16 GMT, mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E
Engdahl) wrote:

>In article <krj0iuc1b7hbjgnbek7bsle0bod8tl75gt@4ax.com>,
><jril3882@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>On 1 Jul 2002 12:40:22 GMT, mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E
>>Engdahl)
>
>>>That is not correct at all. Do you seriously think that all
>>>possible organisms have been 'tried out' already?
>
>>Pretty much. Most of them failed. What did you have in mind?
>
>Well, every organism needs an ecologic niche to prosper.

Not quite. Every niche will have some organism that can
survive there.

>I simply do not believe that all possible ecologic
>environments have already been around.

What can you think of that hasn't? Hot to cold, wet to dry,
high pressure to low, pH high to low, toxic, barren. Sorry, I
can't think of any.

>Since evolution is essentially blind, 'all possible
>organisms' have a possibility to evolve only if all possible
>ecologic environments have been available all the time, or do
>you disagree?

I agree. But as I said above, I can't think of any environment
that hasn't been experienced by life (as we know it) over the
millennia.

jl

[Marcus E E]

In article <ll42iu8ng26o863eg8s8pkbvfi5h04ud11@4ax.com>,
<jril3882@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>On 1 Jul 2002 14:52:16 GMT, mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus
>E Engdahl)

>>I simply do not believe that all possible ecologic
>>environments have already been around.

>What can you think of that hasn't? Hot to cold, wet to dry,
>high pressure to low, pH high to low, toxic, barren. Sorry, I
>can't think of any.

You can't think of any?

>>Since evolution is essentially blind, 'all possible
>>organisms' have a possibility to evolve only if all possible
>>ecologic environments have been available all the time, or
>>do you disagree?

>I agree. But as I said above, I can't think of any
>environment that hasn't been experienced by life (as we know
>it) over the millennia.

So in your opinion the total possibilities made possible by
RNA/DNA have been exhausted on the surface of just one planet
in a mere few billion years? I would be surprised if it were
so, have you got anything substantial that backs up your view
(except that you 'can't think' otherwise)?

Marcus

[Paul Roger]

On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 12:28:50 GMT,
jril3882@bigpond.net.au wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 07:35:59 GMT, ecoldata@bigpond.net.au
>(Paul Rogers) wrote:
>
>>>>He did not have a perspective. Genetic modification of
>>>>plants involves the transfer of a transgenic construct
>>>>which includes the transgene, a vector to get it into
>>>>place, a marker to show which cells took it up and a
>>>>promoter to encourage gene expression. Modified bacterial
>>>>and viral DNA are used for these functional purposes.
>>>
>>>And I could give you an equally wordy and "scary"
>>>description of normal plant breeding. Or viral infection,
>>>and incorporation.
>>>
>>>>And so the transgene is efficiently and accurately
>>>>transferred to the host genome at just the required
>>>>position -- right? Wrong.
>>>
>>>But much more targetted and accurate than conventional
>>>breeding which is a shotgun approach if ever I saw one.
>>
>>Yes but conventional breeding does not attempt to transfer
>>genes across taxonomic kingdoms.
>
>And as genetic material is common to all living organisms,
>this matters how?

Genetic material but not all genes. Transgenic DNA in
transgenic crops is not stable.

>>. . . and not anything like cross pollination in the wild.
>> Cats and pine trees don't mate (it just looks like it) or
>> haven't you noticed?
>
>For no other reason than "mechanical" differences. Some trees
>can't cross with trees in the same genus, unless man gives a
>helping hand.

Q. What do you get when you cross a cat with a tree? A.
Pussy Willow

>>>>Try this analogy. You have the source code for a large
>>>>software program and you want to make a modification to it
>>>>to perform an additional function. You don't really
>>>>understand the original code so you just shove the new
>>>>code snippet in anywhere until it seems to do what you
>>>>want . . . only, down the track a while the users start to
>>>>complain that it doesn't work as it used to . . . You get
>>>>the picture?
>>>
>>>What a terrible analogy. Try "adding and subtracting jpeg
>>>files from a folder that you intend giving a slide
>>>presentation from."
>>
>>Heh, heh . . . we don't even know what's in the folder in
>>the first instance, nor where the additional jpeg is going
>>to be saved -- or even if it will be saved at all -- or if
>>it will be viewable when you try to display it! My anology
>>is much more accurate.
>
>You've got it wrong again. What other codes are there than C,
>G or A? (from memory). Whether it is saved and where, is much
>more accurately known than by conventional breeding. What if
>one organism with a viral infection breeds with another?
>Absolutely unknown consequences. Cosmic ray mutations?
>Lottery! Mostly losers.

. . . plus Thymine (T) in DNA; Uracil (U) in RNA.

Conventional plant breeding, for all its tricks, is between
same or similar species -- either manipulation of traditional
vertical gene transmission (sexual reproduction) or mutation.
These are somewhat human-manipulated versions of what occurs
in nature and evolution of species. In rDNA, movement of genes
across kingdoms is not like this at all and the nature of the
transgenic construct makes the process potentially unstable.

Just because the human or flatworm or fruit fly genome has
been sequenced does not mean we know what the function of each
genes is. In addition, less than 4% of the genome is in
protein encoding genes, the rest, as you have implied, is DNA
with questionable, unknown or absent function -- the so-called
junk DNA (but perhaps not so). Further, each gene, on average,
probably encodes for about three proteins.

We are only at the beginning of our understanding of genetics.
So we guessed at 80-100,000 genes as the human genome project
progressed. Now it's 30,000 or less. Yeah, good guess!

>>>>Question: are you prepared to go down this track to it's
>>>>logical conclusion, which is:
>>>>
>>>>1. Animal and human genes transferred to food plants
>>>
>>>You neglect the fact that most of our genes are common to
>>>ALL life forms.
>>
>>Some perhaps but not most. We are discussing those not
>>common to taxonomic levels. (That's why rDNA.)
>
>What are not common to taxonomic levels? Maybe just not
>needed? Geez over the millennia, just about everything has
>been tried out (and failed, BTW)

I think you are confused about evolutionary processes. Are
you saying that gene transfer between species (horizontal
gene transfer) has been the dominant evolutionary mechanism?
Except maybe among bacteria and viruses and some
incorporation in emerging genomes early in evolution, I don't
think so. Mutation, either induced or spontaneous is still
the dominant theme.

>>>>2. Recombinant DNA modification of animal foods with mixed
>>>> animal and human genes.
>>>
>>>What's the difference between these two types of genes?
>>>Nothing?
>>
>>Huh? Horizontal gene transfer across kingdoms and, in the
>>above example, within Animalia (and to lower levels) does
>>not normally occur.
>
>As I said above, for mechanical reasons only. A gene for
>expressing a particular protein for a particular species is
>more than likely occurring in the "not-turned-on" junk DNA of
>many other non-related species.

It's the nucleotides that are crucial. It's all very well
saying we share 98% of genes with chimps or 85% with mice or
whaterver, but the morphological and biochemical differences
can be dramatically altered by a single nucleotide alteration
and a gene can respond to endogenous and exogenous
environmental switches and produce different proteins in
various biological contexts. So much for similar genes.

. . . and you think all combinations have already been tried
in evolution? That's quite a meaningless assumption.

> We know the full genome of many species already, BTW.
Yeah, but we don't know what all the genes do!

>>Among bacteria and viruses and perhaps to higher organisms,
>>but not among higher organisms, eg, fish and tomato, human
>>and pig.
>
>No reason why not, of course.
>
>>That's the difference!
>
>Really, such an irrelevant, trivial one?
>
>>Control mechanisms have been evolved so that this does not
>>occur -- and for very good reason -- it protects the
>>integrity and biological survival mechanism of species.
>
>Utter cobblers. Shows a lack of understanding of basic
>biology. If what you are saying were true, the end of life on
>Earth would have occurred at the first introduction of a
>different genetic code into the first organism.

No, it's self evident. Pigs and cats do not produce offspring.
Gene expression is strictly controlled in the genome. Proteins
for various cells/tissues is under strict control of the
genome. Bone cells are not required or produced in the brain.
Pig viruses do not generally infect humans. Genes do not
normally move across kingdoms -- or even species in higher
organisms.

Such order has evolved because it favours the viability and
success of species.

You still seem to be confusing mutation as a mechanism of
evolution with gene transfer across species. Bacteria (and
viruses?) probably played an early role, but . . . see above.

>>You talk like we know all there is to know about this.
>>We do not.
>
>And you talk like we understand nothing. We understand a
>great deal. Your argument is a little like that for little
>green men in UFOs. You need just show one example of the
>problems you are suggesting, and we will all pay attention.
>After so much genetic swapping, you can name no problem.

See above. You are a very sad technological determinist. You
assume that what can be done, should be done.

The problem with GM foods is not what we know about existing
hazards, but what we do not know. Testing is inadequate and in
any case, subtle deleterious genetic alterations may not be
testable in the ridiculous 'substantial equivalence'
evaluations used my most authorities. There is also the
possibility of creating viral organisms that cannot be put
back in the box.

I think there is enough concern with examples such as the
l-tryptophan product and the GM potatoes. In another context
the genetically engineered mousepox virus that Australian
scientists created is a clear indication of what can go wrong
when the technology is used trivially and without sufficient
knowledge.

Paul R

[Alex Brand]

On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Paul Rogers wrote:
>
> Genetic material but not all genes. Transgenic DNA in
> transgenic crops is not stable.

I have not seen evidence of this. Can you provide a reference?

Alex

[Paul Roger]

On Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:43:39 -0500, Alex Brands
<abbrands@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Paul Rogers wrote:
>>
>> Genetic material but not all genes. Transgenic DNA in
>> transgenic crops is not stable.
>
>I have not seen evidence of this. Can you provide a
>reference?

Alex, you're late!

Here are several discussion articles with references. If you
don't like the authors or the rhetoric, just note the
analysis (which I admit is often beyond my expertise) and
references <g>.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/unstable.php

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/gmfailure-pr.php

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/jic-pr.php

Paul R

[Max Freisc]

Tom Matthews <tom@morelife.org> wrote in message
news:<3D204C30.5080102@morelife.org>...
> Marcio Watanabe wrote:
> > Tom Matthews <tom@morelife.org> wrote:
> >>In what way does the organic product actually get harmed?
> >>
> > It's debatable whether the organic product itself gets
> > harmed.
>
> As I thought, there is no evidence of harm.
>
> > The ones that sell the product are the ones harmed.
>
> Again, it is not *real* harm. The sellers simply get what
> they deserve for catering to irrationality. Do drug pushers
> get "harmed" when their market prices drop due to inferior
> product? Do tobacco suppliers get "harmed" when people
> wise-up and quit smoking? Is this real harm or is it not
> deserved consequences of incorrect actions (ie. actions
> which are not in the long-range best interest of the actor).
>

Although I am not against genetic modification of anything
(including us) in theory, those who having been growing an
"organic" crop find themselves downwind of a GM crop may have
some legal standing if they complain.

Maybe there is an analogy in this: A resort hotel in Iowa
(this is a thought problem, after all), having been in
business for several years, stands downwind of a new hog
lagoon. They may have a case, not because the smell bothers
the hotel manager, but because it disrupts the normal conduct
of business.

> >>Furthermore, it is *not* a *real* loss because the gain
> >>was never a *real* gain.
> >>

I take it you mean that the relatively greater stability of
genes in the non-GM crop is a trivial gain or loss. In many
cases it probably is, but that's a broad brush you're using.

I assume you do not mean to say that the other qualifications
for food to be certified organic are trivial as well.

> >
> > A quick check on commodities prices proves differently.
> >
> > Consider a brand name product that sells for more than the
> > exact same product sold generic. There is no scientific
> > proof that one is better than the other but there is a
> > real economic value on the brand name product as it can
> > sell for more, and harming the brand name harms the
> > manufacturer even though there is no actual harm on the
> > product itself. It's irrelevant if the consumer is not
> > knowledgeble, irrational, or whatever. If they are willing
> > to pay more for it, there is a real loss (or gain).
>
>
> Nonsense! This is only the narrow technical definition of
> value used within the economic model of reality. Values in
> full reality (as opposed to the economic model abstracted
> from it) also entail the nature of reality and whether human
> desires are in accord with reality or not. If there is no
> evidence of harm from GM canola then to devalue it is not in
> accord with reality as we know it.
>
>
> > You can argue this scientifically but as I said the
> > original post discusses an economic/business/legal matter
> > which I don't expect you to understand.
>
>
> Ha! I have read deeply in economics all my long life, from
> Adam Smith to Ludwig von Mises to Murray Rothbard, and I
> have a very thorough understanding.
<snip>

I'll see your Rothbard and raise you a Tibor Machan. Organic
certification by private bodies can be an excellent way to
improve soil and water quality through purely free-market
means. The loss of topsoil and nitrogenation of fresh water
that often result from standard farming pose real dangers to
people living 100 years from now.

Not to mention those who come after us.

Max F.

[Kristofer]

> standard farming pose real dangers to people living 100
> years from now.

> Not to mention those who come after us.

Alas, your intention was noble, yet futile...

--
_o Kristofer Dale, _ \<,_ ragged individualist,
_____( )/ ( )_____ statistic at large...

p.s. Learn and live, http://www.vitaletherapeutics.org

[Tom Matthe]

Max Freischutz wrote:

> Tom Matthews <tom@morelife.org> wrote in message
> news:<3D204C30.5080102@morelife.org>...
>
>>Marcio Watanabe wrote:
>>
>>>Tom Matthews <tom@morelife.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In what way does the organic product actually get harmed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It's debatable whether the organic product itself gets
>>>harmed.
>>>
>>As I thought, there is no evidence of harm.
>>
>>
>>>The ones that sell the product are the ones harmed.
>>>
>>Again, it is not *real* harm. The sellers simply get what
>>they deserve for catering to irrationality. Do drug pushers
>>get "harmed" when their market prices drop due to inferior
>>product? Do tobacco suppliers get "harmed" when people
>>wise-up and quit smoking? Is this real harm or is it not
>>deserved consequences of incorrect actions (ie. actions
>>which are not in the long-range best interest of the actor).
>>
>
> Although I am not against genetic modification of anything
> (including us) in theory, those who having been growing an
> "organic" crop find themselves downwind of a GM crop may
> have some legal standing if they complain.

I totally agree, but I personally would not give them much
sympathy because of what I stated above.

> Maybe there is an analogy in this: A resort hotel in Iowa
> (this is a thought problem, after all), having been in
> business for several years, stands downwind of a new hog
> lagoon. They may have a case, not because the smell bothers
> the hotel manager, but because it disrupts the normal
> conduct of business.

But the amount of harm done (and restitution which should be
made) is related to the rationality of the damage done.
Dislike of hog odor (by patrons or manager alone) is a totally
rational decision/emotion and the property rights of the hotel
should require/receive adequate restitution for the real harm
done. OTOH, there is no rational harm done to the organic
farmer. Ie nothing that a rational person would deem to be
harm. Therefore, little or no restitution would be owing.

>>>>Furthermore, it is *not* a *real* loss because the gain
>>>>was never a *real* gain.
>>>>
>
> I take it you mean that the relatively greater stability of
> genes in the non-GM crop is a trivial gain or loss. In many
> cases it probably is, but that's a broad brush you're using.

No. I was not addressing any potential problem of gene
stability. I was only addressing the issue of rational gain
(gain based on reality-based decision making) and gain based
on irrationality, which I maintain is not "real".

> I assume you do not mean to say that the other
> qualifications for food to be certified organic are trivial
> as well.

That is correct. There are some parameters relating to organic
food which have some evidential basis.

>>>A quick check on commodities prices proves differently.
>>>
>>>Consider a brand name product that sells for more than the
>>>exact same product sold generic. There is no scientific
>>>proof that one is better than the other but there is a real
>>>economic value on the brand name product as it can sell for
>>>more, and harming the brand name harms the manufacturer
>>>even though there is no actual harm on the product itself.
>>>It's irrelevant if the consumer is not knowledgeble,
>>>irrational, or whatever. If they are willing to pay more
>>>for it, there is a real loss (or gain).
>>>
>>
>>Nonsense! This is only the narrow technical definition of
>>value used within the economic model of reality. Values in
>>full reality (as opposed to the economic model abstracted
>>from it) also entail the nature of reality and whether human
>>desires are in accord with reality or not. If there is no
>>evidence of harm from GM canola then to devalue it is not in
>>accord with reality as we know it.
>>
>>
>>
>>>You can argue this scientifically but as I said the
>>>original post discusses an economic/business/legal matter
>>>which I don't expect you to understand.
>>>
>>
>>Ha! I have read deeply in economics all my long life, from
>>Adam Smith to Ludwig von Mises to Murray Rothbard, and I
>>have a very thorough understanding.
>>
> <snip>
>
> I'll see your Rothbard and raise you a Tibor Machan.

Nah. I have read him also and met him many years ago.

> Organic certification by private bodies can be an excellent
> way to improve soil and water quality through purely
> free-market means. The loss of topsoil and nitrogenation of
> fresh water that often result from standard farming pose
> real dangers to people living 100 years from now.

I agree. I am completely in favor of rational ecological
measures which are not forced upon us by governments.

> Not to mention those who come after us.

Thanks for your response.

> Max F.

--Tom Matthews

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based
tools for More Life in quantity & quality

[jril3882]

On 2 Jul 2002 10:46:09 GMT, mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E
Engdahl) wrote:

>In article <ll42iu8ng26o863eg8s8pkbvfi5h04ud11@4ax.com>,
><jril3882@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>On 1 Jul 2002 14:52:16 GMT, mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E
>>Engdahl)
>
>>>I simply do not believe that all possible ecologic
>>>environments have already been around.
>
>>What can you think of that hasn't? Hot to cold, wet to dry,
>>high pressure to low, pH high to low, toxic, barren. Sorry,
>>I can't think of any.
>
>You can't think of any?

No, can you?

>>>Since evolution is essentially blind, 'all possible
>>>organisms' have a possibility to evolve only if all
>>>possible ecologic environments have been available all the
>>>time, or do you disagree?
>
>>I agree. But as I said above, I can't think of any
>>environment that hasn't been experienced by life (as we know
>>it) over the millennia.
>
>So in your opinion the total possibilities made possible by
>RNA/DNA have been exhausted on the surface of just one planet
>in a mere few billion years? I would be surprised if it were
>so, have you got anything substantial that backs up your view
>(except that you 'can't think' otherwise)?
>
>Marcus

No, what do you have in mind?

jl

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Tom Matthews rambled on about
"Re: GM Canola Spreading Out Of Control." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>I was only addressing the issue of rational gain (gain based
>on reality-based decision making) and gain based on
>irrationality, which I maintain is not "real".

Well let me address reality-based decision making.

smn is *not* for discussions of growing commercial food crops
of any sort, including canola.

Will YOU morons kindly take this drivel to a proper forum?

smn is about nutrition, ie Eating Food!!!! Not growing Food,
YOU Moron!