Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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."' |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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, Tromsų, 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."' |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
[IBC] Non-traditional forms {WAS: [IBC] good quote (non-bonsai, but related)} | Bonsai | |||
NW: Best grass for a non garden/non mowing kind of guy | Gardening | |||
GM crop farms filled with weeds (Was: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?) | sci.agriculture | |||
Comparison photos of GM/non-GM (Was: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?) | sci.agriculture | |||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn? (Was: Soy blocked in NZ) | sci.agriculture |