Our legislature is about to pass a law which would prevent county
governments from banning genetically modified crops. Anyone who
gardens or farms, knows this would make it very difficult to grow
organic, since insects and wind carries pollen. Article from the N &
O:
-------

Bill on DNA-altered crops reaps organic outrage
By KRISTIN COLLINS, Staff Writer
The idea of rearranging the DNA of plants once sounded like the stuff
of science fiction.

Today, man-made plants that repel pests or survive heavy doses of
weedkiller cover 3 million acres of North Carolina farmland -- and
state agriculture leaders are paving the way for more.

A bill likely will pass in the legislature this session that will stop
local governments from banning genetically modified crops, as three
California counties have done. The bill, requested by the Department of
Agriculture, passed in the Senate on Friday, the last major hurdle to
its success. The House, which passed the bill in May, must agree to a
few changes to make it final.

No North Carolina county or city has tried to ban the crops. But the
bill has created a maelstrom among those who say that genetically
engineered crops pose a danger to the food supply and could destroy
organic farming.

"They're really playing with Mother Nature in a pretty perverse way,"
said Ken Dawson, an organic vegetable farmer from Orange County. "We
don't know what the consequences are."

The outrage is heightened by a new genetically modified crop in North
Carolina that, unlike most others, is intended to go directly into the
food supply.

This year in Washington County, a California company planted 75 acres
of rice implanted with a human gene that produces proteins found in
human milk, saliva and tears. The company plans to extract the proteins
and use them in food products that they say could help infants in the
Third World.

Those who oppose the crops say they can easily cross-pollinate with
organic and conventional crops, destroying rare heirloom varieties and
making natural food almost extinct.

Now, as the bill awaits final passage, state leaders are in the middle
of a rowdy debate over the future of high-tech agriculture.

"Research and science has moved agriculture from the horse and plow and
very low yields to very efficient operations that can meet the world's
food demands," said state Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler, who
grows genetically modified soybeans on his Guilford County farm. "I
don't know that we can afford to stop doing that."

Genetically modified crops are the products of biotechnology companies,
which have figured out how to add genes to plants' DNA to make them
resistant to pests or to the weedkiller Roundup.

Farmers, who pay the companies for the rights to use the patented
seeds, say the mutant crops make farming easier and more efficient and
cut down on the use of pesticides and herbicides. Ninety-five percent
of cotton, 87 percent of soybeans and 52 percent of corn grown in North
Carolina this year are genetically modified, according to the
Department of Agriculture.

Right now, most genetically modified crops do not go directly into the
food supply. Most of the soybeans and corn are used for livestock feed,
not sold in grocery stores. But their uses are expanding.

Troxler is among many state agriculture leaders who say that
genetically modified crops provide the best hope for keeping farmers in
business in difficult times -- and for feeding the world on less and
less land.

Troxler said the Agriculture Department asked for the bill, which is
similar to those being floated in several other states. It would give
the state Board of Agriculture, which Troxler chairs, sole authority to
outlaw plants.

He said the push comes at the request of seed dealers, farmers and
agribusiness companies that were concerned about what they saw in
California and New England -- where "genetically engineered free"
movements have gained steam.

"The public is very misinformed," said Wade Byrd, a Bladen County corn
farmer. "We're going to use fewer pesticides and have a safer food
product when we get more of these crops on the market."

In California, several counties have held referendums on whether to ban
the plants locally. Three have been successful. In Vermont, more than
80 local governments have passed resolutions barring them. And in
Maine, one town has passed a resolution, and others are considering
similar action.

In North Carolina, where no such movement has gained a foothold, state
officials said they thought the bill would pass without fanfare. It
slid through the House in May with only one dissenting vote.

But advocates of organic farming got wind of it soon after, and it
didn't have such a smooth road in the Senate. On Thursday, a Senate
committee amended the bill to create a study commission that will
examine the risks and benefits of genetically engineered crops. It also
added two new members to the state Board of Agricultu an organic
farmer and a consumer advocate.

Tony Kleese, head of the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, which
promotes organic farming, said the new bill is better -- but still not
palatable. He said it will all but assure that genetically engineered
crops can spread unchecked.

He said allowing local governments to create zones where genetically
engineered crops aren't allowed could protect organic crops from being
contaminated by wind-blown pollen. Now, that right will be taken away,
regardless what the study shows.

Kleese and other organic advocates say genetically engineered crops
haven't been studied enough to prove they're safe. Europeans shun them,
banning any U.S. product that contains them.

They call the bill the work of giant biotech companies -- such as
Monsanto, a Missouri company that owns the rights to most of the
genetically modified seeds used on American farms -- that want to
protect their profit margins.

"Do we want these companies to own our food supply from seed to plate?"
Kleese said. "The more of these kinds of laws that go into effect, the
more the balance tips to genetically engineered crops. We need to ask a
lot of hard questions before we continue down this path."

Sen. Charlie Albertson, a Duplin County Democrat, was one of the bill's
sponsors.

He said it's unrealistic to think that organic farmers, who sell
vegetables and fruits at a premium, can feed the masses. He said the
expansion of genetically engineered crops will ensure an abundant and
affordable food supply.

"The truth is, organic crops are out of the reach of most people who
are buying produce," Albertson said. "We can't grow them at the expense
of genetically modified crops. These crops offer the best hope in the
world to feed hungry people."


Staff writer Kristin Collins can be reached at 829-4881 or
.

really why is not a problem right now? today?

already most farmers are growing some type of modified crop

I have no problems at all growing various types of tomatoes - peppers etc
and NONE of them cross pollinate.

Especially for those growing hybrids to begin with.

The issue that most people dont realize is that if your KEEP some plants for
seeds then you MIGHT have a problem, but if you are a farmer most buy their
seeds because they could not garuantee the next crop would be what they
wanted anyway -

So I dont understand the Organic portion of the statement -

Are hybrids non-organic?

Just buy your seed each year and you wont have the problem!

Tomatolord


"ncstockguy" wrote in message
ups.com...
Our legislature is about to pass a law which would prevent county
governments from banning genetically modified crops. Anyone who
gardens or farms, knows this would make it very difficult to grow
organic, since insects and wind carries pollen. Article from the N &
O:
-------

Bill on DNA-altered crops reaps organic outrage
By KRISTIN COLLINS, Staff Writer
The idea of rearranging the DNA of plants once sounded like the stuff
of science fiction.

Today, man-made plants that repel pests or survive heavy doses of
weedkiller cover 3 million acres of North Carolina farmland -- and
state agriculture leaders are paving the way for more.

A bill likely will pass in the legislature this session that will stop
local governments from banning genetically modified crops, as three
California counties have done. The bill, requested by the Department of
Agriculture, passed in the Senate on Friday, the last major hurdle to
its success. The House, which passed the bill in May, must agree to a
few changes to make it final.

No North Carolina county or city has tried to ban the crops. But the
bill has created a maelstrom among those who say that genetically
engineered crops pose a danger to the food supply and could destroy
organic farming.

"They're really playing with Mother Nature in a pretty perverse way,"
said Ken Dawson, an organic vegetable farmer from Orange County. "We
don't know what the consequences are."

The outrage is heightened by a new genetically modified crop in North
Carolina that, unlike most others, is intended to go directly into the
food supply.

This year in Washington County, a California company planted 75 acres
of rice implanted with a human gene that produces proteins found in
human milk, saliva and tears. The company plans to extract the proteins
and use them in food products that they say could help infants in the
Third World.

Those who oppose the crops say they can easily cross-pollinate with
organic and conventional crops, destroying rare heirloom varieties and
making natural food almost extinct.

Now, as the bill awaits final passage, state leaders are in the middle
of a rowdy debate over the future of high-tech agriculture.

"Research and science has moved agriculture from the horse and plow and
very low yields to very efficient operations that can meet the world's
food demands," said state Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler, who
grows genetically modified soybeans on his Guilford County farm. "I
don't know that we can afford to stop doing that."

Genetically modified crops are the products of biotechnology companies,
which have figured out how to add genes to plants' DNA to make them
resistant to pests or to the weedkiller Roundup.

Farmers, who pay the companies for the rights to use the patented
seeds, say the mutant crops make farming easier and more efficient and
cut down on the use of pesticides and herbicides. Ninety-five percent
of cotton, 87 percent of soybeans and 52 percent of corn grown in North
Carolina this year are genetically modified, according to the
Department of Agriculture.

Right now, most genetically modified crops do not go directly into the
food supply. Most of the soybeans and corn are used for livestock feed,
not sold in grocery stores. But their uses are expanding.

Troxler is among many state agriculture leaders who say that
genetically modified crops provide the best hope for keeping farmers in
business in difficult times -- and for feeding the world on less and
less land.

Troxler said the Agriculture Department asked for the bill, which is
similar to those being floated in several other states. It would give
the state Board of Agriculture, which Troxler chairs, sole authority to
outlaw plants.

He said the push comes at the request of seed dealers, farmers and
agribusiness companies that were concerned about what they saw in
California and New England -- where "genetically engineered free"
movements have gained steam.

"The public is very misinformed," said Wade Byrd, a Bladen County corn
farmer. "We're going to use fewer pesticides and have a safer food
product when we get more of these crops on the market."

In California, several counties have held referendums on whether to ban
the plants locally. Three have been successful. In Vermont, more than
80 local governments have passed resolutions barring them. And in
Maine, one town has passed a resolution, and others are considering
similar action.

In North Carolina, where no such movement has gained a foothold, state
officials said they thought the bill would pass without fanfare. It
slid through the House in May with only one dissenting vote.

But advocates of organic farming got wind of it soon after, and it
didn't have such a smooth road in the Senate. On Thursday, a Senate
committee amended the bill to create a study commission that will
examine the risks and benefits of genetically engineered crops. It also
added two new members to the state Board of Agricultu an organic
farmer and a consumer advocate.

Tony Kleese, head of the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, which
promotes organic farming, said the new bill is better -- but still not
palatable. He said it will all but assure that genetically engineered
crops can spread unchecked.

He said allowing local governments to create zones where genetically
engineered crops aren't allowed could protect organic crops from being
contaminated by wind-blown pollen. Now, that right will be taken away,
regardless what the study shows.

Kleese and other organic advocates say genetically engineered crops
haven't been studied enough to prove they're safe. Europeans shun them,
banning any U.S. product that contains them.

They call the bill the work of giant biotech companies -- such as
Monsanto, a Missouri company that owns the rights to most of the
genetically modified seeds used on American farms -- that want to
protect their profit margins.

"Do we want these companies to own our food supply from seed to plate?"
Kleese said. "The more of these kinds of laws that go into effect, the
more the balance tips to genetically engineered crops. We need to ask a
lot of hard questions before we continue down this path."

Sen. Charlie Albertson, a Duplin County Democrat, was one of the bill's
sponsors.

He said it's unrealistic to think that organic farmers, who sell
vegetables and fruits at a premium, can feed the masses. He said the
expansion of genetically engineered crops will ensure an abundant and
affordable food supply.

"The truth is, organic crops are out of the reach of most people who
are buying produce," Albertson said. "We can't grow them at the expense
of genetically modified crops. These crops offer the best hope in the
world to feed hungry people."


Staff writer Kristin Collins can be reached at 829-4881 or
.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:37:54 -0400 in tomatolord wrote:

Just buy your seed each year and you wont have the problem!

For the herbicide X ready crops, it's been noted that the herbicide
resistance genes spread over to the weeds entirely too easily and
that by rotating which herbicide resistance crop it is, you get weeds
resistant to all herbicides.

However, that's a non-issue for organic as they just do mechanical
weeding anyways.


--
Chris Dukes
Suspicion breeds confidence -- Brazil

How is it possible for the DNA of corn plant to "spread" to the dna of a
weed?

Now what I might buy is that weeds could be restitant to roundup - in
somewhat the same way bugs become resitant to pesticides

But if the plant resistance was true - then we (the average homeowner) would
also have resistant plants as well on our properties just not the farmers.

tomatolord


"?" wrote in message
rg...
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:37:54 -0400 in
tomatolord
wrote:

Just buy your seed each year and you wont have the problem!

For the herbicide X ready crops, it's been noted that the herbicide
resistance genes spread over to the weeds entirely too easily and
that by rotating which herbicide resistance crop it is, you get weeds
resistant to all herbicides.

However, that's a non-issue for organic as they just do mechanical
weeding anyways.


--
Chris Dukes
Suspicion breeds confidence -- Brazil

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, tomatolord wrote:

How is it possible for the DNA of corn plant to "spread" to the dna of a
weed?

It's basically the same concept as DNA spreading between different kinds
of bacteria, I think -- instead of the DNA being part of a long string of
chromosomal DNA, it floats around inside the cell on a little circle of
DNA (plasmids). This stuff can be passed between cells & even to other
[sufficiently similar] organisms because it can be small enough to get
past the anti-alien-DNA mechanisms.

In many plants, _Agrobacterium_ species bacteria can often be used to
transfer new DNA into a plant via a cut or wound in the plant. Since these
guys form little tumor balls on the roots of many plants, they could
potentially grab DNA from one plant and trasnfer to another.

Let's see... pollen was already mentioned as a possibility. A different
kind of infective plant virus or bacterium could transfer the genes
(especially viruses -- some of them are particularly good at picking up
genes from an organism and donating them elsewhere)... Some people think
that when root cells are sloughed off into the soil, soil microorganisms
could take it up.

Anyway-- basically, intraspecies pollination is really easy, some of the
other mechanisms are less likely. Doesn't mean they couldn't happen.

For a more technical description, see:
http://www2.dupont.com/Biotechnology...narrative.html

From the Article



Background - Barriers to HGT

When considering:

a.. the degree to which millions of species co-exist in close
physical contact with each other,
b.. the ability of viruses to move freely between host
organisms, and
c.. the amount of DNA in certain environments,
one realizes the trivial amount of HGT that occurs is actually
remarkable.

While I agree that the "basic" concepts are the same you are
comparing apples and oranges, when you say it is "possible" for these genes
to "migrate" -



to further quote



Utilizing a different model system, Schluter et al. (1995)
attempted to stimulate HGT between biotech potatoes and Erwinia
chrysanthemum, a pathogen tightly associated with potatoes, in order to
calculate rates of HGT under a wide variety of conditions. Under conditions
they describe as "idealized" natural conditions, they calculated a HGT
frequency of 2 X 10 -17, a rate they describe as "so rare as to be
essentially irrelevant in any realistic risk assessment of biotech crops."
These idealized natural conditions included using a bacterial marker gene
linked to a functional origin of replication. It is important to note that
most transformed plants do not contain origins of replication in their
transgenes. Therefore, one might expect the frequency of transformation with
transgenes to be even lower than the 2 X 10 -17 calculated by Schluter et
al. (1995).

Abl5 - your article only further proves the point that the sky
is not falling

Thanks for helping to prove my argument!



Tomatolord





wrote in message
ub.duke.edu...
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, tomatolord wrote:

How is it possible for the DNA of corn plant to "spread" to the dna of a
weed?

It's basically the same concept as DNA spreading between different kinds
of bacteria, I think -- instead of the DNA being part of a long string of
chromosomal DNA, it floats around inside the cell on a little circle of
DNA (plasmids). This stuff can be passed between cells & even to other
[sufficiently similar] organisms because it can be small enough to get
past the anti-alien-DNA mechanisms.

In many plants, _Agrobacterium_ species bacteria can often be used to
transfer new DNA into a plant via a cut or wound in the plant. Since these
guys form little tumor balls on the roots of many plants, they could
potentially grab DNA from one plant and trasnfer to another.

Let's see... pollen was already mentioned as a possibility. A different
kind of infective plant virus or bacterium could transfer the genes
(especially viruses -- some of them are particularly good at picking up
genes from an organism and donating them elsewhere)... Some people think
that when root cells are sloughed off into the soil, soil microorganisms
could take it up.

Anyway-- basically, intraspecies pollination is really easy, some of the
other mechanisms are less likely. Doesn't mean they couldn't happen.

For a more technical description, see:
http://www2.dupont.com/Biotechnology...narrative.html

Why would the legislature approve a law to take control of the decision
away from local voters in a county? Only possible reason would be to
protect the interest of multinational agribusiness companies what have
produced many kinds of defective even dangerous genetically messed up
plants. For example, corn plants with insect pathogens in their genes.
I want no part of such corn and would not want the plants near an
organic field, since the seed crop for the following year could be
damaged.

Well would not the Organic person have this problem with ANY non organic
"crop nearby?

We had to be careful where to plant sweet corn versus "cow" corn or you
would end up with no sweet corn.

The problem is that very few people understand how to make SEEDS

You have to be very careful of ANYONE near you or the corn or whatever your
are trying to grow will not produce true seeds, it can be very difficult.

Now stockguy - read that link - it is pretty clear that animals do not
absorb the DNA of modified plants -

It is ironic that you would be PRO dumping chemicals into the environment,
that here is a solution that allows farmers grow crops with less chemicals.

Organic is nice, but it can in no way feed the people of even the US let
alone the world.





"ncstockguy" wrote in message
oups.com...
Why would the legislature approve a law to take control of the decision
away from local voters in a county? Only possible reason would be to
protect the interest of multinational agribusiness companies what have
produced many kinds of defective even dangerous genetically messed up
plants. For example, corn plants with insect pathogens in their genes.
I want no part of such corn and would not want the plants near an
organic field, since the seed crop for the following year could be
damaged.

You set up a false arguement. I am not proposing that GMA crops be
banned.
Only that counties and their voters retain the power to ban GMA crops
if they want to pursue organic farming.
Big difference between that and proposing that organic can feed the
world.
Localism... a cornerstone of democracy. You can grow all the GMA crap
you want, and eat it too. But don't insist that I eat it.
Simple as that.