In article ,
"Snooze" writes:
| "John Thomas" wrote in message ...
| Whenever I talk with the hysterical people this article is lampooing, my
| standard line is...
|
| All varieties of food crops are genetically modified. Just what the heck
| do you think 'plant breeding' is, anyway? At least the people doing it
| have a better idea of exactly what happened, unlike pre-recombninant
| methods.
|
| I don't think most people have a problem with the use of genetic
| modification if they used dna already present in that particular species
| genome. That's the just producing a hybrid with hopefully less trial and
| error. However I do have a problem with using dna from an entirely different
| species to produce something that wasn't naturally possible.

You can relax that a little - there was a local project to insert
a gene for rust resistance from a grass into wheat, to obviate the
need for fungicides (very much needed in the UK). That is good
genetic modification.

Leaving the gene for antibiotic resistance in, putting in a gene
for herbicide resistance and so on (all of which came from very
different organisms, often not plants) is another matter.

| Even with buffer zones, accidents are going to happen.

Possibly catastrophic ones. For example, let's take a gene for
(say) scorpion venom introduced into an oil seed plant (say rape
or flax), on the grounds that it protects from insect attack,
doesn't get into the seed, and breaks down with heat. Now, let's
say that it escapes into the wild, crosses with wild species (both
of which are near-certain), and starts to express in the nectar
or pollen. The result could be a near wipe-out of almost all
pollinating insects - and not JUST honey bees. Which would cause
ecological and agricultural catastrophe.

It isn't likely, but it isn't impossible, either. And the cost
is so large that a 0.0001% chance of it occurring is unacceptable.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.