In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 19 Jul
2003 04:05:43 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote:


And if you don't want to catch an illness, keep away from the
source,if
you know what it is.

How far away is labelling of GM ingredientsin corn chips, herrings in
tomato sauce, chocolate &c &c?

Logically, as far away as labelling that a random mutation happened in
the corn field.

No because the sorts of mutations which nature has learnt to allow to
multiply are ones beneficial to itself. The `junk' genes which can later
help the plant relate to stress are tested over the thousands of years.
Nature has learnt to keep a strict order in the genome. The GM process
defeats that. Many people are saying that drug resistance markers should
have ceased being used, or never started.

With all the random mutations we caused by intentional radiation and
chemical mutigens that I can still buy across the counter that are in
virtually every variety of every crop out there you worry about one or two
genes that were carefully studied and then checked buy the breeders, USDA
and in some cases the EPA.

The genes were not checked. What was checked was the substance the genes
were *intended* to make the plant produce. What was not able to be dealt
with was the strong promoters needed to make the genes switch on and do
their work. Those promoters are going radomly into the genome and are near
other genes as well, causing them to possibly switch on, too, with who
knows what effects.

In the past and it is sill the practice for crops treated with mutigens
there is no testing or oversight on a process that you have no idea what you
have changed you just take what looks good and breed it back dragging along
who knows what kind of hidden mutation along with it.

But you are leaving it to the plant to do the organisation after it is
damaged. You are not specifically implanting genes to outwit the natural
scheme of adjustment.