Rick wrote:

Wheat that generates an increased yield in a single trial under single
set of conditions is of interest, but it is not a breakthrough worthy
of the popular press this article received. As to whether selective
breeding of hybrids is considered as generating a GMO. the argument is
simply semantic.

No it isn't just semantic. Calling two quite different processes by the
same label does NOT make them equivalent. In the case of selective breeding
the scope of possible outcomes is far more predictable than scatter gun gene
insertion.

Why restrict oneself to a set of genetic properties
availble in only highly related organisms, when the full genetic
potential of the planet is available.

Because selective breeding has been shown to work for thousands of years.
The proponents of GM don't seem too keen to have the consequences studied
much at all. The precautionary principle applies.

Did you know, for example, that one of your DNA repair enzymes is most
closely related to a polymerase in an iridiovirus of an insect that
procured it from a plant before mammals arose? Is that GMO? God's
will? Random selection? Evolution?

The human genome contains fragments thought to be derived from other
organisms. Are you suggesting this means any insertion of genetic material
by any means must necessarily be just fine? If not I don't understand the
relevance of this - do explain.


Biology is too wonderful to be left to chance.

So why are you advocating that?

David