Greed driving science

-------- Original Message --------
From: Marcus Williamson
Subject: Biotech Group Backs Off Pledge On Genetically Modified Corn

December 3, 2002

Biotech Group Backs Off Pledge On Genetically Modified Corn

By SCOTT KILMAN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The crop biotechnology industry is retreating from its pledge to avoid
growing in the heart of the Midwest Farm Belt corn genetically
modified to make pharmaceuticals.

A voluntary drug-free zone was adopted in October by the Biotechnology
Industry Organization, the biggest biotech trade group, in hopes of
easing concerns that pharmaceuticals and chemicals derived from
genetically modified corn might contaminate crops intended to produce
food for humans.

But the policy angered powerful Iowa U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, whose
state has high hopes for building a new industry around genetically
modifying plants such as corn to make pharmaceuticals. Sen. Grassley's
office Tuesday announced that the trade group's president, Carl B.
Feldbaum, delivered a revised policy to the Iowa Republican, who is
slated to become chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in January.

For more health coverage, visit the Online Journal's Health Industry
Edition at wsj.com/health and receive daily Health e-mails.

Under the new policy, the trade group will leave the decision of where
to conduct bio-pharming up to federal regulators, who have permitted
experimental corn plots in Iowa. "We didn't want to appear to be
discriminating against certain parts of the country," said Lisa Dry, a
spokeswoman for the biotech organization.

The food industry is nervous that corn genetically modified to make a
vaccine or antibody might accidentally end up in their products,
triggering an expensive recall. Recent events suggest they have reason
to be concerned. Last month, U.S. regulators reported that some stray
corn plants genetically modified by ProdiGene Inc. to make a diarrhea
drug were accidentally mixed with 500,000 bushels of soybeans at an
elevator in Nebraska.

ProdiGene agreed to destroy the soybeans and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture is considering whether to levy penalties against the
College Station, Texas, firm.

Some food-industry officials have threatened to lobby for a ban on
using food crops to make drugs unless the fledging bio-pharming
industry convinces them mistakes can't happen.

Michael Percy wrote in message
news
On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 20:37:17 +0000, Gordon Couger wrote:


I can't get into my head why they use a feed crop to grow a diarrhea
drug.
If the project is to offer the pig industry anti diarrhea soyabean,
perhaps I could. What kind of drug is it, do you know?

when you think of all the non-food plant species that we grow, it does
seem a tad unimaginative (to say the least) to use food species for drug
production.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'



Mike

Gordon Couger wrote:
....

We have billions of dollars of reasearch done on these crops and we know how
to grow them. I have worked with a farmer trying to develop a harevester for
novel crops it is royal PITA. Figuring out how to raise a new crop to an


I have worked in plant breeding and seed certification. Physical isolation
of the crop is irrelevant if the seed has to be harvested by a machine in
wheels that accumulates leftover seeds inside of it and travels hundreds of miles
to the next comercial field. Physical isolation is also irrelevant if there
is no temporal isolation. Physical isolation is also irrelevant if the harvested
material goes to a non dedicated silo. New certification programs have
to be created and tested. Not only you have to guarantee that you do not
get polen from outside, you also have to guarantee that you do not
contaminate other fields, and that Sherlock, is a different problem.



area is no small undertaking in many cases. This particular farmer does very
well raising specialty crops but he spends a lot of money on engineering
every year. He raises Chile peppers too hot to pick by hand under contract
for someone that uses them to blend with pepper sauce that is not hot
enough. He is the only guy in Oklahoma that raises potatoes commercially and
sells them all to Frito Lay 300 miles away for potato chips. There is no
telling what you will find in his fields.

The bulk of the genetic engineering that has been done has been done on corn
and beans they know how they work. Also the yield are already high so when
the add a gene that hurts the yield they still will probably get a good deal
of crop. In the end it will still be a yield problem so you start with high
yielding crops that you understand.

I can understand why they chose beans and corn. I can't understand why they
took the risk that they did when they can go to west Texas or south Texas


I can not understand why choose beans or corn (or any food crop, specially
an open polinated crop like corn). THey can harvest the starch of
corn, put it on a fermentator and get the same stuff with no hassles.
That is how we get vinager or citric acid or all kinds of pharmaceuticals.
They look like children with a new hammer for which everything looks like
nails.



and not run that risk by putting the field right in the middle of cotton
country. It's not like they didn't know it was there they are based in the
same town as Texas A&M.

Gordon

Michael Percy wrote in message
news
On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 22:14:19 +0000, Jim Webster wrote:


Michael Percy wrote in message
news
On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 20:37:17 +0000, Gordon Couger wrote:


I can't get into my head why they use a feed crop to grow a
diarrhea
drug.
If the project is to offer the pig industry anti diarrhea soyabean,
perhaps I could. What kind of drug is it, do you know?

when you think of all the non-food plant species that we grow, it
does
seem a tad unimaginative (to say the least) to use food species for
drug
production.

Yeah, but there could be good reasons why they actually do use
feed/food
plant species -- like in this case, soybean (and apparently corn too)
to
produce a diarrhea drug.


I saw your other post, and certainly it makes sense.
--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'


Mike

wrote in message
...
I have worked in plant breeding and seed certification. Physical
isolation
of the crop is irrelevant if the seed has to be harvested by a machine
in
wheels that accumulates leftover seeds inside of it and travels
hundreds of miles
to the next comercial field. Physical isolation is also irrelevant if
there
is no temporal isolation. Physical isolation is also irrelevant if the
harvested
material goes to a non dedicated silo. New certification programs have
to be created and tested. Not only you have to guarantee that you do
not
get polen from outside, you also have to guarantee that you do not
contaminate other fields, and that Sherlock, is a different problem.

these shouldn't be problems.
If you are dealing with a large acreage of a high value crop grow in
isolation then the cost of a dedicated combine and silo is irrelevant.
--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

Jim Webster wrote:

these shouldn't be problems.
If you are dealing with a large acreage of a high value crop grow in
isolation then the cost of a dedicated combine and silo is irrelevant.
--
Jim Webster

Dealing with a highly profitable crop, you have to enter in the
realm of greed and human nature.
There are no existing regulations that forces farmers or traders
to have dedicated combines, silos, barges and ports.

There is no wall that can stop pollen to travel and its viability
depends on species and climatic conditions. Current isolation guidelines
are based on the contamination of the crop you are harvesting, not
in the neighbor's crop. After you harvest your isolated crop
you generally can and do test for outside germplasm contamination
(you grow it and find, test and discard off types) None of this is currently
done for the neighbor's crops, crop weeds and downstream irrigation channel's
vegetation. There are weeds that can intercross for example with wheat and the
seeds can travel in the irrigation water or stay in the ground for
years.
The story of the diarrhea drug works best when it is in its native form or
getting it to the target mid gut without it being broken down by digestive
enzymes, sounds research to suit the bottom line of some corporation and is
something that can be easily solved by encapsulation of the drug,
reformulation or by simply changing the diet of the pigs or the kind of
pigs.

writes

There are weeds that can intercross for example with wheat

There is? Can you give me an example and if possible a reference?

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

wrote in message
...


Jim Webster wrote:

these shouldn't be problems.
If you are dealing with a large acreage of a high value crop grow
in
isolation then the cost of a dedicated combine and silo is
irrelevant.
--
Jim Webster

Dealing with a highly profitable crop, you have to enter in the
realm of greed and human nature.

dealing with any human endevour you can run into greed and human nature,
so what's new

There are no existing regulations that forces farmers or traders
to have dedicated combines, silos, barges and ports.


and the USA is constitutionally incapable of producing new regulations?


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica)
http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/weedguid/joingoat.htm

http://www.intl-pag.org/pag/10/abstracts/PAGX_W243.html
NATURAL GENE INTROGRESSION BETWEEN PLANT SPECIES

I gave you an example of a noxious weed and a common crop but
intercrossing between monocot species is not rare at all.

Oz wrote:

writes

There are weeds that can intercross for example with wheat

There is? Can you give me an example and if possible a reference?

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Jim Webster wrote:

....

There are no existing regulations that forces farmers or traders
to have dedicated combines, silos, barges and ports.


and the USA is constitutionally incapable of producing new regulations?


In USA the regulated industry writes the laws.



--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

http://www.isb.vt.edu/proceedings99/...gs.duvick.html

We need to know more about the consequences of hybridization of crop species
with related weeds and the potential for introgression in both directions.
Jointed goatgrass hybridizes with common wheat and viable backcross offspring
can be produced. Have resistance genes from wheat moved into jointed goatgrass
and changed its survival potential? A similar question can be asked for sorghum
and shattercane, sunflower and wild sunflower, canola and mustards, or maize
and teosinte.
....



Oz wrote:

writes

There are weeds that can intercross for example with wheat

There is? Can you give me an example and if possible a reference?

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

wrote in message
...


Jim Webster wrote:

...

There are no existing regulations that forces farmers or traders
to have dedicated combines, silos, barges and ports.


and the USA is constitutionally incapable of producing new
regulations?


In USA the regulated industry writes the laws.

if that were true it looks as if the electorate aren't bothered but it
isn't an agricultural problem


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'




--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

writes
goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica)
http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/weedguid/joingoat.htm

Is a pretty picture of goatgrass.


http://www.intl-pag.org/pag/10/abstracts/PAGX_W243.html
NATURAL GENE INTROGRESSION BETWEEN PLANT SPECIES

========================

The ability to transfer genes between related plant species has been a
great benefit in the improvement of cultivars for disease resistance,
insect resistance, and/or end-use quality. This has been especially true
in allopolyploid species where there are multiple species that can act
as donors. The ability of these species to intercross and produce
hybrids has become a concern with the advent of herbicide resistant
cultivars. The potential for the development of herbicide resistant
weeds due to gene flow from a cultivated species has raised questions
concerning the release of cultivars with traits that could improve the
competitiveness of weedy species. In canola (Brassica napus), gene
transfer between canola and field mustard (B. rapa) has been
demonstrated in the field. When grown in close proximity, over 4.5% of
field mustard seed screened expressed a transgene from the adjacent
canola through canola x field mustard crossing. Reproductive fitness of
initial hybrids was poor, but fitness increased dramatically after
backcrossing. In wheat (Triticum aestivum), hybridization of wheat and
jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica) has been observed for years. It
has recently been demonstrated that backcrossing can occur in the field
and that only two backcrosses to jointed goatgrass are necessary to
restore partial self-fertility. This indicates that gene introgression
could occur between these species. Work is currently underway to
determine if genome location of the resistance gene in allopolyploids
can be used to minimize the potential for gene movement. Ultimately it
may require both gene placement and proper crop management to reduce the
potential of gene flow from cultivated species to weedy species,
maximizing the benefits of gene introgression while minimizing the
detrimental effects of natural gene flow.

===============

I gave you an example of a noxious weed and a common crop but
intercrossing between monocot species is not rare at all.

The canola one is well known and is why I am against insecticide gene
transfer in european rape.

The goatgrass cross is infertile. It took literally 20 years of complex
interbreeding and selection to move a single goatgrass gene into wheat.
It's not common and last I heard natural goatgrass had no wheat genes in
it, which is unlike the case for brassica adjacent to rape.

It provided, IIRC, some eyespot resistance for a decade or so.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

writes

We need to know more about the consequences of hybridization of crop species
with related weeds and the potential for introgression in both directions.
Jointed goatgrass hybridizes with common wheat and viable backcross offspring
can be produced. Have resistance genes from wheat moved into jointed goatgrass
and changed its survival potential? A similar question can be asked for sorghum
and shattercane, sunflower and wild sunflower, canola and mustards, or maize
and teosinte.

You are new here.

I have, since before GM cropping was available, pointed out that
whilst RR genes will have no effect on wild populations whilst
insecticidal genes may do and should be treated with HUGE caution.

Which is why I am for RR cultivars and in many cases against
insecticidal introductions.

However maize in europe has no species to x-breed with, so it's not
an issue. I have yet to see any data on leguminous crops, where
insect resistance would be advantageous. Brassicae family are
profligate switchers of genes.

I don;t know if we have goatgrass in europe, it doesn't feature in
the bad weed tables, anyway.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

But there need to be much better plans to keep this kind of thing from being
able to happen.

The only possible solution which will work is to forbid the growing of
pharmaceutical plants completely. Any other approach is guaranteed to
lead to contamination of the food supply, as with StarLink and
Prodigene...

regards
Marcus