In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 20 Jul 2003 03:05:01 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:
Not anthropomorphism, ecology of genes. The chief of the University of
Canterbury Plant and Microbial Sciences Department runs the New Zealand
Gene Ecology organisation. (Jack Heinemann) (do google search in
www.canterbury.ac.nz)

Because bacteria can exchange genes to their advantage in the protected
environment of a human cell

Can you give us an example of this? Bacteria living within a cell?

"Some disease causing bacteria, like Salmonella typhimurium, invade human
cells when they infect people. There the bacteria coul dbe protected from
antibiotics while exhanging the genes for antibiotic resistance and the
genes that make bacteria better at causing disease. Laboratory tests
proved that genes do transfer between these bacteria even when antibiotics
are present.

The ability of bacteria to exchange genes insdie human cells also suggests
the bacteria could transfer genes to the human genome. However, Heinemann
says, `This is not necessarily going to cause the transfer of bacterial
genes to our sex cells and to our children, because these bacteria do not
normally have access to our sex cells'" - Deborah Parker, UC Alumni,
Winter 2003, p 19.

Though who knows, when, as I posted in the `apocalypse' thread, GM can be
used to make, in corn, antibodies which will destroy human sperm.

it is necessary to take more care with drug
resistance genes.

Is not sufficient care already being taken?

No. Things are done with the knowledge of the decade.

We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people
en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering
anything.

What evidence have you that this has not been thoroughly investigated?

It has been examined with the old ideas. That genes are transferred from
parent to offspring (vertical movement) was the basis. That is now
outmoded. Genes go horizontally from one bacteria to another, and that is
the more dominant method of passing on resistance. It can happen in human
cells where bacteria are protected from antibiotics.

Heinemann's work was `recognised by the American Society for Microbiology
as teh best published in April 2002. The society publishes 600 of the many
thousands of articles submitted to its journals each month, and of the 600
published last year, the Canterbury research was singled out as "best of
the best."'

In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

Not anthropomorphism, ecology of genes. The chief of the University of
Canterbury Plant and Microbial Sciences Department runs the New Zealand
Gene Ecology organisation. (Jack Heinemann) (do google search in
www.canterbury.ac.nz)

Because bacteria can exchange genes to their advantage in the protected
environment of a human cell it is necessary to take more care with drug
resistance genes. We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people
en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering
anything.

As bacteria make better bacteria we have to make better drugs.

However in this case we are doing the opposite. We are giving the bacteria
the genes to improve their resistance.

The same is
true with insects on the farm. 75 years ago simple natural pesticides work
for my father. In the 50's and 60's the first generation of insecticides
work very very well. We have had to keep making better insecticides and at
the same time more specific ones.

But as Jim admitted there is no drug that could cure his father's MRSA
(methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus). It had to be left to nature
to take its course with some nursing care (soap and water and bandages).

We also learned how to extend their
usefulness but

he means `by' not `but'.

refuges and IPM.

When you plant bt corn or cotton you plant it in a checkerboard pattern
with non-bt so some of the bugs will develop in non-bt and the development
of resistance will be slowed a bit. Still there will be loss of
effectiveness of organic bt
to the organic farmers who only apply it when necessary, and have it
active for a short period. With that use resistance does not develop.
With the bt crops teh bt is there all the time and gradually weakens as
the crop ages - perfect for development of resistance.

If you want to blame some one for antibiotic resistant bacteria the water
out of the sewer plant has several orders of magnitude more effect that
crops possibly could because they are mixed with the pathogens at the sewer
and in the environment and give them a chance to build resistance.

Sewage is not being eaten by everyone. Also it will be worse with
incompletely digested naked DNA from GM crops.

In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote:


"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

Organims including humans have learned to coexist.

Now we have to learn new lessons very fast.

Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the
edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance,
because of current practices.

Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from
antibiotics, too.

so what

what has this got to do with the childish anthropomorphism of nature. It
makes as much sense as saying that Gravity has a sense of humour.


Not anthropomorphism, ecology of genes. The chief of the University of
Canterbury Plant and Microbial Sciences Department runs the New Zealand
Gene Ecology organisation. (Jack Heinemann) (do google search in
www.canterbury.ac.nz)


no, what has it got to do with your anthropomorphic statement

You mean my statement:

" Organims including humans have learned to coexist."?


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

That is what I was trying to convey.

It is subtle since if you kill all of your hosts you die, too. There must
be some of that knowledge in the genome, too.


Because bacteria can exchange genes to their advantage in the protected
environment of a human cell it is necessary to take more care with drug
resistance genes. We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people
en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering
anything.

Do bacteria have a special licence from Nature so they can do their own
thing and not need to obey Natures instructions about strict order in the
genome?
Where do you apply for this licence?

I presume you look up your memory bank to remind yourself how to keep
alive. Do not kill every last host. If there is stress start swopping
genes faster.

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.

On 21 Jul 2003 11:39:12 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 20 Jul 2003 03:05:01 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:
Not anthropomorphism, ecology of genes. The chief of the University of
Canterbury Plant and Microbial Sciences Department runs the New Zealand
Gene Ecology organisation. (Jack Heinemann) (do google search in
www.canterbury.ac.nz)

Because bacteria can exchange genes to their advantage in the protected
environment of a human cell

Can you give us an example of this? Bacteria living within a cell?

"Some disease causing bacteria, like Salmonella typhimurium, invade human
cells when they infect people.

News to me, but there you go. What sort of cells are invaded?
Leucocytes?

There the bacteria coul dbe protected from
antibiotics while exhanging the genes for antibiotic resistance and the
genes that make bacteria better at causing disease. Laboratory tests
proved that genes do transfer between these bacteria even when antibiotics
are present.

The ability of bacteria to exchange genes insdie human cells also suggests
the bacteria could transfer genes to the human genome. However, Heinemann
says, `This is not necessarily going to cause the transfer of bacterial
genes to our sex cells and to our children, because these bacteria do not
normally have access to our sex cells'" - Deborah Parker, UC Alumni,
Winter 2003, p 19.

Though who knows, when, as I posted in the `apocalypse' thread, GM can be
used to make, in corn, antibodies which will destroy human sperm.

And this would be injected into what site on the body?
Why would you want to manufacture anti-sperm antibodies?
Contraception? These are only just proteins, BTW

it is necessary to take more care with drug
resistance genes.

Is not sufficient care already being taken?

No. Things are done with the knowledge of the decade.

What more can you ask?

We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people
en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering
anything.

What evidence have you that this has not been thoroughly investigated?

It has been examined with the old ideas. That genes are transferred from
parent to offspring (vertical movement) was the basis. That is now
outmoded. Genes go horizontally from one bacteria to another, and that is
the more dominant method of passing on resistance. It can happen in human
cells where bacteria are protected from antibiotics.

But how is this well-known phenomenon related to GE?

Heinemann's work was `recognised by the American Society for Microbiology
as teh best published in April 2002. The society publishes 600 of the many
thousands of articles submitted to its journals each month, and of the 600
published last year, the Canterbury research was singled out as "best of
the best."'

Fine. Bacteria swap genes. As they can multiply "vertically"
from one to 4,722,366,400,000,000,000,000 in just one day, I think
this is probably not all that fantastic

On 21 Jul 2003 11:53:41 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

Not anthropomorphism, ecology of genes. The chief of the University of
Canterbury Plant and Microbial Sciences Department runs the New Zealand
Gene Ecology organisation. (Jack Heinemann) (do google search in
www.canterbury.ac.nz)

Because bacteria can exchange genes to their advantage in the protected
environment of a human cell it is necessary to take more care with drug
resistance genes. We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people
en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering
anything.

As bacteria make better bacteria we have to make better drugs.

However in this case we are doing the opposite. We are giving the bacteria
the genes to improve their resistance.

You reckon they haven't already tried these somewhere over the past
aeons? Afterall where did these "resistance markers" come from?
Yes this may be important in the short term, but in the grand scheme
of things, it's only a matter of time before these bacteria would have
developed resistance to all antibiotics known today.

The same is
true with insects on the farm. 75 years ago simple natural pesticides work
for my father. In the 50's and 60's the first generation of insecticides
work very very well. We have had to keep making better insecticides and at
the same time more specific ones.

But as Jim admitted there is no drug that could cure his father's MRSA
(methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus).

I suspect there was, but his father was unable to take it.

It had to be left to nature
to take its course with some nursing care (soap and water and bandages).

We also learned how to extend their
usefulness but

he means `by' not `but'.

refuges and IPM.

When you plant bt corn or cotton you plant it in a checkerboard pattern
with non-bt so some of the bugs will develop in non-bt and the development
of resistance will be slowed a bit. Still there will be loss of
effectiveness of organic bt
to the organic farmers who only apply it when necessary, and have it
active for a short period. With that use resistance does not develop.
With the bt crops teh bt is there all the time and gradually weakens as
the crop ages - perfect for development of resistance.

It always amazes me how Organic folk can accept a GE "chemical" as OK
for their needs. Desperation? Anyways, Bt has been so overused that it
only has a limited useful life. New specific pesticides will be
developed.

If you want to blame some one for antibiotic resistant bacteria the water
out of the sewer plant has several orders of magnitude more effect that
crops possibly could because they are mixed with the pathogens at the sewer
and in the environment and give them a chance to build resistance.

Sewage is not being eaten by everyone.

But it's where epidemics start.

Also it will be worse with
incompletely digested naked DNA from GM crops.

I don't see why. Why should a gut commensal suddenly become pathogenic
at the same time it absorbs a million-to-one chance of a compatible
antibiotic resistant gene? Seems very far-fetched to me. Of course
there will likely be plenty of other antibiotics to treat this rare
event, if that is what is needed.

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote:


"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

Organims including humans have learned to coexist.

Now we have to learn new lessons very fast.

Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the
edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance,
because of current practices.

Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from
antibiotics, too.

so what

what has this got to do with the childish anthropomorphism of nature.
It
makes as much sense as saying that Gravity has a sense of humour.


Not anthropomorphism, ecology of genes. The chief of the University of
Canterbury Plant and Microbial Sciences Department runs the New Zealand
Gene Ecology organisation. (Jack Heinemann) (do google search in
www.canterbury.ac.nz)


no, what has it got to do with your anthropomorphic statement

You mean my statement:

" Organims including humans have learned to coexist."?


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

That is what I was trying to convey.

It is subtle since if you kill all of your hosts you die, too. There must
be some of that knowledge in the genome, too.


no, it is purely a matter of categorisation on our part. Diseases kill their
hosts, parasites don't necessarily. It is our labelling, not anything the
organism is doing



Because bacteria can exchange genes to their advantage in the protected
environment of a human cell it is necessary to take more care with drug
resistance genes. We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to
people
en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering
anything.

Do bacteria have a special licence from Nature so they can do their own
thing and not need to obey Natures instructions about strict order in
the
genome?
Where do you apply for this licence?

I presume you look up your memory bank to remind yourself how to keep
alive. Do not kill every last host. If there is stress start swopping
genes faster.

what memory bank? Where is there any evidence of this. I think you are
getting carried away with the classifications again. If you run out of hosts
you just find more

Jim Webster

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote:

But as Jim admitted there is no drug that could cure his father's MRSA
(methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus). It had to be left to nature
to take its course with some nursing care (soap and water and bandages).

Jim did no such thing I might not have made it clear.. Jims father was too
weak for the drugs but didn't need them anyway because the bacteria were
taken out with an antiseptic wash (which will contain bacterialcides) and
soap and water. The drugs were offered but he couldn't handle them

Jim Webster

In article , Moosh:]
writes

Thanks Gordon, good point.
Not thet there's much more we can do about it than what we are doing.
If you want to convert a sheep or a bacteria to produce a bioactive
material such as a protein as a theraputic agent the way foreward is not
to breed or mutate but GM a species. I.e. create a self replicating
factory. GM food has the potential to generate unwanted materials that
mutation and breeding cannot.
Unwanted material in foodstuffs will be the rare hazard that we wont
recognise until too late. Sadly whole populations will consume; not just
the ill for whom the risk would ba acceptable.


--
ddwyer

Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

That is what I was trying to convey.

It is subtle since if you kill all of your hosts you die, too. There must
be some of that knowledge in the genome, too.


no, it is purely a matter of categorisation on our part. Diseases kill their
hosts, parasites don't necessarily. It is our labelling, not anything the
organism is doing

Viruses don't even multiply without a host.

I presume you look up your memory bank to remind yourself how to keep
alive. Do not kill every last host. If there is stress start swopping
genes faster.

what memory bank?

The `junk DNA'.

Where is there any evidence of this. I think you are
getting carried away with the classifications again. If you run out of hosts
you just find more

Jump species? You would have to do that before you killed every last
one of the previous species.

Moosh:] wrote:
On 21 Jul 2003 11:39:12 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

"Some disease causing bacteria, like Salmonella typhimurium, invade human
cells when they infect people.

News to me, but there you go. What sort of cells are invaded?
Leucocytes?

Epithelial cells.

It looks like the whole article is free to read:

Linkname: J. Bact -- Ferguson et al. 184 (8): 2235
URL:
http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/full/1...&pmid=11914355
size: 947 lines



JB International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology
Gene Transfer between Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium inside Epithelial
Cells

Gayle C. Ferguson,1 Jack A. Heinemann,1^,2^* and Martin A. Kennedy3

Department of Plant and Microbial Sciences, University of Canterbury,1
Department of Pathology, Christchurch School of Medicine,
Christchurch, New Zealand,3 Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology,
Tromsø, Norway2

Received 5 November 2001/ Accepted 16 January 2002

There the bacteria coul dbe protected from
antibiotics while exhanging the genes for antibiotic resistance and the
genes that make bacteria better at causing disease. Laboratory tests
proved that genes do transfer between these bacteria even when antibiotics
are present.

The ability of bacteria to exchange genes insdie human cells also suggests
the bacteria could transfer genes to the human genome. However, Heinemann
says, `This is not necessarily going to cause the transfer of bacterial
genes to our sex cells and to our children, because these bacteria do not
normally have access to our sex cells'" - Deborah Parker, UC Alumni,
Winter 2003, p 19.

Though who knows, when, as I posted in the `apocalypse' thread, GM can be
used to make, in corn, antibodies which will destroy human sperm.

And this would be injected into what site on the body?

I don't know if they have to be injected.

What is the route of the anti-sperm antibodies that vasectomised men may
start to produce?

Why would you want to manufacture anti-sperm antibodies?
Contraception?

If it could be put in food it might be a political tool.

These are only just proteins, BTW


it is necessary to take more care with drug
resistance genes.

Is not sufficient care already being taken?

No. Things are done with the knowledge of the decade.

What more can you ask?

When you are working with the bases of life take some heed from people who
sacrifice their jobs when they have not been listened to.

We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people
en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering
anything.

What evidence have you that this has not been thoroughly investigated?

It has been examined with the old ideas. That genes are transferred from
parent to offspring (vertical movement) was the basis. That is now
outmoded. Genes go horizontally from one bacteria to another, and that is
the more dominant method of passing on resistance. It can happen in human
cells where bacteria are protected from antibiotics.

But how is this well-known phenomenon related to GE?

In GE genes are moved horizontally artificially. They are engineered
in a package which makes it easier to move in. They will then be
more potently available to bacteria.

Heinemann's work was `recognised by the American Society for Microbiology
as teh best published in April 2002. The society publishes 600 of the many
thousands of articles submitted to its journals each month, and of the 600
published last year, the Canterbury research was singled out as "best of
the best."'

Fine. Bacteria swap genes. As they can multiply "vertically"
from one to 4,722,366,400,000,000,000,000 in just one day, I think
this is probably not all that fantastic

Fritjof Capra already in 1996 reports about Kauffman (1993):

`sytems biologists have begun to portray teh genome as a
self-organizing network capable of spontaneously producing new forms
of order. "We must rethink evolutionary biology," writes Stuart
Kauffman. "Much of the order we see in organisms may be the direct
result not of natural selection but of the natural order selection
was allowed to act on... Evolution is not just a tinkering ... It is
an emergent order honored and honed by selection."'

"ddwyer" wrote in message
...
In article , Moosh:]
writes

Thanks Gordon, good point.
Not thet there's much more we can do about it than what we are doing.
If you want to convert a sheep or a bacteria to produce a bioactive
material such as a protein as a theraputic agent the way foreward is not
to breed or mutate but GM a species. I.e. create a self replicating
factory. GM food has the potential to generate unwanted materials that
mutation and breeding cannot.

Can you please give us specifics about "unwanted materials" in GE food that
mutation breeding cannot. Thanks.

Dave


Unwanted material in foodstuffs will be the rare hazard that we wont
recognise until too late. Sadly whole populations will consume; not just
the ill for whom the risk would ba acceptable.


--
ddwyer

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

That is what I was trying to convey.

It is subtle since if you kill all of your hosts you die, too. There
must
be some of that knowledge in the genome, too.


no, it is purely a matter of categorisation on our part. Diseases kill
their
hosts, parasites don't necessarily. It is our labelling, not anything
the
organism is doing

Viruses don't even multiply without a host.

I presume you look up your memory bank to remind yourself how to keep
alive. Do not kill every last host. If there is stress start swopping
genes faster.

what memory bank?

The `junk DNA'.

What about the "junk DNA"? This is the memory bank?

Dave



Where is there any evidence of this. I think you are
getting carried away with the classifications again. If you run out of
hosts
you just find more

Jump species? You would have to do that before you killed every last
one of the previous species.

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
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 genes were not checked? Genes used to make GE plants such as Roundup
Ready soybeans and Bt corn? If you answer yes to that, then you are indeed
wrong. There was considerable study and gene mapping of these introduced
genes.

Dave

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.

In sci.med.nutrition David Kendra wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
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 genes were not checked? Genes used to make GE plants such as Roundup
Ready soybeans and Bt corn? If you answer yes to that, then you are indeed
wrong. There was considerable study and gene mapping of these introduced
genes.

Yes.

Now engineers in any field, mechanical or electrical or anything, know
that what theory says is not always what works. There is a lot of trial
and error and practical theories are continually improved.

Moving the parts on a computer motherboard might stop it from being so
fast, or make it unstable. Just electric network theory may be severely
lacking.

When you introduce a gene you also introduce a promoter and the process is
a bit hit and miss. It has been found that the characterization of Rounup
Ready soy was rather inexact. The promoter, when strong, may not just
switch on the gene next to it, but also ones further along. And it may not
do that until certain conditions of stress come up. Heat, drought, cold,
other herbicides or pesticides which are later found necessary. The
theories are not good enough to predict it all.

Dave

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.