Thanks for all of your responses, pro and con. All responses to my
questions help me compile useful statistics.

I will respond to some of your questions and comments.

First, many of your comments seem to come from a perspective of belief in
traditional farming practices, combined with fear and distrust of scientific
agriculture. I would point out that, at one time all of these old
technologies were new and untested. Selection and mass planting of
cultivars has generally been benign, but there are examples of traditional
crop plants that have had negative ecological effects. The near extinction
of wild relatives of rice due to gene flow from crops in Taiwan is an
example.

Secondly, several responders have stated that genetically modified plants
will lead to ecological disaster. On what basis is this alarm raised? The
primary ecological effect of GM plants to date has been the decreased
pollution with pesticides of groundwater under BT cotton fields. Please
document your accusations.

Some comments deserve a direct response.

One respondent implied that modified plants are not likely to have an effect
on airborne toxics or oderants in homes. I can assure you that both of
these goals are practical.

Another respondent suggested that it was perverse to remove pollutants from
air rather than prevent their formation in the first place. I agree, but
odors are unavoidable, and pollutants are an unfortunate fact of modern
life. Airborne pollutants come from chlorinated water used to shower and
washing, releasing chloroform into the air; from clothing that has been dry
cleaned (perchloroethylene and methyl chloroform); from attached garages
(benzene and toluene); and various household products (methylene chloride
and many others). You may avoid dry cleaning and other sources of toxic
volatiles, but chlorination of water is the rule in the US and most of the
UK, so your house air does contain chloroform, and short of a whole house
carbon filter, well maintained, there is no way to avoid it. Isn't a
practical way to reduce that risk to your family worth considering?

In response to another respondent, unmodified plants do a poor job of
removing such pollutants from the air.

One respondent had a long list of questions, to which I will try to respond
:
Transgenic means introduction of genes from one species to another without
sexual crosses.
What means of genetic modification were used? Usually infection with
disarmed Agrobacterium or ballistic methods.
Were genes added or removed? Added.
If added, what was the original source? For the aroma, the plant itself
(upregulation); for toxic removal, mammalian; for blue rose, bacteria; for
odor removal, bacteria.
If added, do these genes occur in other species as well? In all cases, yes,
if I understand correctly the meaning of your question.
If added, what known issues (if any) have been associated with these genes?
I known of none. If you can suggest some, please do so.
What testing has been conducted on the plants? None yet, since this is all
hypothetical. Can you suggest tests?
Are the plants fertile? Yes.
Will the plants breed true? Probably not. Note that philodendron and
pothos ivy do not flower in indoor cultivation, to my knowledge, so sexual
transmission of the transgenes would be minimized.

This last point brings up a interesting point. Indoor plants like
philodendron and ivy are often propagated by cuttings. This is fine, but we
would not want there to be confusion over whether a particular plant is
transgenic. So we are thinking of adding the green fluorescent protein to
the plants so that they would glow slightly when illuminated with black
light in the dark. Then there should be no doubt whether a particular plant
was transgenic or not.

I hope this answers your questions.

Perrenelle