Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science Indu
For starters
This is the html version of the file http://www.zef.de/download/biotech/a_then.pdf. G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web. To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8 Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content. These search terms have been highlighted: glyphosate danger -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1 1A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science IndustryChristoph ThenGreenpeace – GermanyPaper presented at the Conference “Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries:Towards Optimizing the Benefits for the Poor” organized by ZEF and ISAAA incollaboration with AgrEvo and DSE in Bonn, 15-16 November 1999.IntroductionDiscussion on genetic engineering’s contribution to securing the world’s food supply turnsmainly on particular cases and new high-yield varieties. On this basis it is explained thatgenetic engineering is able to provide specific technical solutions to the problems of worldfood. But genetic engineering and the Life Science companies have a much more far-reaching and systematic influence on the world’s food supply than can be seen from isola-ted cases.Experts talk of the development of genetic engineering in the sphere of plant cultivationbeing not “technology driven” but “market driven”. In other words, what decides in favourof the use of genetic engineering is in many cases not special technological demands butgeneral considerations of market strategy. Under the heading “Industrial strategies andconstraints”, it says in the OECD’s report on Biotechnology, Agriculture and Food (1992,overview section 9): “The main focus of attention in this sector has been the reorganisationof the seed market, leading to greater integration with the agrochemicals sector ... Amongthe marketing strategies for new products, the traditional gene technology suppier optionhas become vulnerable and is giving way to the strategy of controlling seed markets, or,more importantly, the strategy of moving further downstream into crop output markets, inorder to capture the industrial value added.”Genetic engineering is becoming increasingly detached from its real scientific contextsinto being an instrument for opening up markets across the whole area of food production.Patent rights have resulted in biological resources being put in a quite new context. As soonas genetic engineering is used, patents enable monopolistic claims – which in many casesstretch all the way from planting in fields to selling in supermarkets – to be successfullymade. The manipulated gene implanted becomes built-in copyright protection reaching farbeyond its actual technical contribution and covering seeds, crops, agricultural cultivationand foodstuffs. Genetic engineering serves as a vehicle for implementing new monopolisticarrangements.Capitalisation and concentration of the seed marketIn 1998 sixty per cent of the world’s market for seeds was controlled by just 35 companies(there are a total of some 1,500). The McKinsey business-consultancy firm in 1997 statedthat, of the more than thirty seed cultivation companies active in genetic engineering in1990, only seven big companies still remained. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 2 2In future the seed market will play a still more important role in market strategy becauseof patenting. Genetic engineering, capitalisation and monopolisation go hand in hand.Financially strong agrochemical and food companies will divide the seed market betweenthemselves at will and without great effort. The seed sector will become an integral part ofthe Life Science industry. From the point of view of agrochemical interests thisdevelopment is a strategic necessity. The world market volume for agrochemicals amountsto about 28 billion US dollars. The volume for seeds is estimated at 30-50 billion dollars,but only about a third of this is at present actually traded through markets. When this iscompared to the agrochemicals branch, there is thus enormous potential for growth here.If forecasts predicting a worldwide shortage of food in the near future prove correct,strategies which enable access to the world’s food resources will acquire a quite newweight.A fierce struggle for shares in the markets of the future began long ago. One of thecentral means of gaining large market shares is the patent. It destroys functioning legal sys-ems and the protection of varieties, and secures access to agriculture for foreign economicinterests with capital.The great merger rushThe struggle for the best market positions is already far advanced. The Monsanto company,in particular, has been buying up all kinds of firms. Calgene (tomatoes with delayed ripen-ing, sustainable raw materials, cotton) and the Agracetus company (patents on soybeans,rice and cotton) were bought up in 1995, and in 1996 a merger was made with DeKalbSeeds (one of the biggest seed companies). Holden’s Foundation Seed, a strategicallyimportant company in the seed market generally on account of its collaboration with one ofthe world’s biggest crop-seed producers, Pioneer Hi-Bred, was bought up for a billiondollars in 1997. In 1998 DeKalb was bought up wholesale for 2.3 billion dollars, and Mon-santo also bought shares in the multinational seed company, Cargill, for 1.4 billion dollars.In 1997/98 Monsanto spent a total of eight billion dollars – equivalent to the whole of thecompany’s turnover during these years – on acquisitions. This made Monsanto the world’ssecond largest seed company, and it now controls over 80 per cent of the US market forcotton, 33 per cent of that for soybeans, and 15 per cent of the corn market (RAFI SeedCompany chart, July/August 1998). To get acceptance from the US anti-trust authorities forits acquistion of the Delta & Pine company, Monsanto in 1999 had to sell its own cottonsubsidiary, Stoneville.Monsanto’s biggest competitor is the world’s biggest multinational seed corporation,Pioneer Hi-Bred. Pioneer Hi-Bred controls large parts of the international market, especi-ally in soybeans and corn. After DuPont had paid 1.7 billion dollars for a 20 per cent sharein the company in 1997, it was taken over altogether by DuPont for 7.7 billion dollars in1999.The European market is also feverishly merging. The AgrEvo company, a merger be-tween the agricultural sections at Schering and Hoechst, bought the PGS (Plant GeneticSystems) company for 800 million German marks. The giant corporations of Ciba Geigyand Sandoz celebrated their marriage in 1996, when the Novartis company came into being.The dowry included a comprehensive patent on genetically modified corn. In the pesticidessector the US company, Merck, was acquired by Novartis for 1.5 billion marks in 1997. In1997/98 Novartis was the third biggest seed company in the world.The development of Monsanto and Novartis and the merger between DuPont and Pio-neer Hi-Bread clearly show the agrochemical companies, in particular, are expanding in theseed market. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 3 3Systematic acquisition of agricultural plantsMost of the plants we use have their origin in the countries of the South. The history of ouragricultural plants is closely interwoven with the North’s colonisation and its systematicforays through the centres of biological diversity.1The application of genetic engineering and patenting puts this on a new scale. Somecompanies are working systematically to analyse the genetic make-up of those varietiesmost frequently used in the world. Pioneer Hi-Bred, one of the biggest cultivators of plantsin the world, has, for example, concluded a contract worth over 16 million dollars with theHuman Genome Science databank for analysis of the genetic material in corn. The resultsof this collaboration are of course to be protected in patenting law. The cooperative agreements below, the aim of which is to analyse, evaluate and patentthe maximum possible genetic material of the plants involved, were made betweenagrochemical firms and genome-analysis institutes in 1998 alone (data from NatureBiotechnology, vol. 16, Sept. 1998).• AgrEvo and Gene Logic (exclusive 3-year contract for 45 million dollars)• DuPont and CuraGen• Novartis and Nadi (600 million dollars to be invested over ten years)• Zeneca and Alanex• Monsanto and InCyte PharmaceuticalsAgrEvo, DuPont, Novartis, Zeneca and Monsanto are among the ten biggest agro-chemical and seed companies in the world. Their activities and cooperative agreementsaffect the countries of origin of the varities of plants involved as much as they do countriesin the northern hemisphere.These companies are at present striving increasingly to gain direct control of the seedmarket in developing countries. Having gained the cooperation of the reputable IndianInstitute of Sciences in Bangalore, Monsanto in 1998 bought the biggest public seed-growing company in India, Mahyco. One reason control of this seed market is economi-cally significant is that 80 per cent of sowing in Asia, Africa and South America is done byfarmers re-using their own harvest. A study made in the Netherlands by the Rabobank putsthe total world market for seeds at 45 billion dollars. Only about 15 billion dollars of this isseed that is commercially traded.2Patent protection can to a very large extent put an end tore-sowing, i.e. farmers using their own crops. In addition, plants’ natural reproductiveability can be blocked by genetic changes, thus making it biologically impossible forfarmers to re-sow their own crops. The US company, Delta & Pine, which was bought upby Monsanto in 1998, has registered a patent to this end in Europe (WO96/04393); this“Terminator” seed has been heavily attacked internationally from many sides. Whether it bethe result of licensing contracts, the “Terminator” technology or the increased use of hybridseeds, the effect on farmers is the same – every year they have to buy their seed anew.China, Brazil, Mexico, Morocco, India and Pakistan are regarded as major markets for theexpansion of trade in commercial seed.1see Michel Flitner, Sammler, Räuber und Gelehrte, die politischen Interessen an pflanzengenetischenRessourcen 1895-1995, Campus Verlag, 19952see Saatgut, Buko Agrardossier 20, Schmetterling Verlag, 1998 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 4 4Biopiracy a new form of colonialismVandana Shiva, an Indian scientist, author and Alternative Nobel Prize winner ofinternational repute, is one of the major critics of this development. “Since colonial times,”she says3, “land, resources and people’s rights in developing countries have been usurpedby the colonial masters. Today this process is taking place more subtly. The northernhemisphere’s multinational corporations are trying to obtain exclusive rights to the ThirdWorld’s biodiversity and the genetic resources of its plant life. They are seeking to expand“Intellectual Property Rights” through institutions like GATT, in what is in effect mono-polising ideas and debasing the knowledge of people in the Third World. IPR are the key toabsolute possession and control of the Third World’s resources and markets.”Unequal weaponsFavouring the industrialised countries of the North, patent law lays down what innovationis, what intellectual property rights are recognised, and who will profit in the hunt for“green gold”. Only what is discovered in a laboratory is protected under patent law. Know-ledge collectively acquired, and the innovations connected with it, e.g. the preservation ofadapted agricultural varieties, on the other hand, remain unprotected.Patent law can, for financial and legal reasons, also be easily controlled by companiesoperating internationally. Patents can be registered for a hundred countries all at once(“world patents”, which are processed at the European Patent Office). Effectivelyregistering patents is on the other hand almost impossible for farmers, or those withmedical training, in developing or newly industrialised countries. About 90 per cent of thepatents issued in the countries of the Third World belong to companies which have theirhead offices in industrialised countries.4The extent of genetic engineering corporations’ patents can be seen, by way ofillustration, from the Monsanto company’s patent (EP 546 090) on herbicide-resistant soy-beans. This applies to genetically modified plants which have been made resistant to thecompany’s own weed-killer, Roundup (glyphosate). The following kinds of plant are listed:“corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton, sugar-beet, oilseed rape, canola, flax, sunflower,potato, tobacco, tomato, lucerne, poplar, pine, apple and grape”. The patent also applies toagricultural cultivation of the plants. “Planting these ... glyphosate-tolerant plants” is alsopatented, as is “applying an adequate amount of glyphosate herbicide to agricultural plantsand weeds”.Impacts of genetic engineeringAn assessment of the impact of genetic engineering on world food must take a number ofaspects into account:• in its scientific methodology, plant cultivation is increasingly oriented not on diversityof varieties or species but on specific genes• the loss of agrarian diversity, the advancing “genetic erosion” which has been able to beobserved for decades now• the reduction of the biological diversity still remaining to economically taxable geneticresources• the ousting of traditional farming cultures and regionally organised systems by global-ised markets3translated back from the German in booklet put out by Kein Patent auf Leben4Süd Magazin 3/1997, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Swissaid/Fastenopfer/Brot für alle/Helvetas/Caritas, Bern -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 5 5• the debasement of innovations in cultivation through copyrights like patents whichreward only what is “discovered” in industrial laboratories• the increasing monopolisation of the whole sphere of food production from seeds tosupermarketsSince genetic engineering means completely transforming and in part destroying existinginfrastructures and forms of innovation and knowledge, it is in a special sense a hazardoustechnology. The hazards lie not only in new risks for consumers and the environment, butin the world’s food becoming increasingly dependent on the economic goals of a smallhandful of corporations. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
In article m,
"" wrote: This is the html version of the file http://www.zef.de/download/biotech/a_then.pdf. G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web. To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...nload/biotech/ a_then.pdf+glyphosate+danger&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it. However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does it present real risks associated with release of this technology into the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful. This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have. Peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is snipped... / This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it. However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does it present real risks associated with release of this technology into the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful. This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have. But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:07:38 +0100, "Cob Nobden"
wrote: "Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is snipped... / This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it. However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does it present real risks associated with release of this technology into the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful. This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have. But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) Prick. AT least we know whats inside your head anyway. . . . . . . . . The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The distinction is yours to draw... /( )` \ \___ / | /- _ `-/ ' (/\/ \ \ /\ / / | ` \ O O ) / | `-^--'` ' (_.) _ ) / `.___/` / `-----' / ----. __ / __ \ ----|====O)))==) \) /==== ----' `--' `.__,' \ | | \ / ______( (_ / \______ ,' ,-----' | \ `--{__________) \/ I'm a horny devil when riled. pete who? -=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97 .""--.._ [] `'--.._ ||__ `'-, `)||_ ```'--.. \ _ /|//} ``--._ | .'` `'. /////} `\/ / .""".\ //{/// / /_ _`\\ // `|| | |(_)(_)|| _// || | | /\ )| _///\ || | |L====J | / |/ | || / /'-..-' / .'` \ | || / | :: | |_.-` | \ || /| `\-::.| | \ | || /` `| / | | | / || |` \ | / / \ | || | `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | || / /` `\ || || | . / \|| || | | |/ || / / | ( || / . / ) || | \ | || / | / || |\ / | || \ `-._ | / || \ ,//`\ /` | || ///\ \ | \ || |||| ) |__/ | || |||| `.( | || `\\` /` / || /` / || jgs / | || | \ || / | || /` \ || /` | || `-.___,-. .-. ___,' || `---'` `'----'` I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
In article m,
URL:mailto:@.MISSING-HOST-NAME. wrote: Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content. These search terms have been highlighted: glyphosate danger Pete, You -like- google so why not use it to read our response to the last time you trolled your trumped up glyphosate scare? You'll find all the answers there. Cheerio, -- http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... "Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is snipped... / This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it. However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does it present real risks associated with release of this technology into the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful. This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have. But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. but you will already been eating large amounts of stuff which has been reared using GM soya (all that cheap brazilian chicken in ready meals (obviously I am not accusing you of being so lacking in taste as to eat a ready meal, I use the word 'you' in a very casual sense) and gm derived corn syrup is in large amounts of product.Indeed the cardboard package may well include gm corn starch. And with the CAP reforms cutting the level of EU food output and the rest of the world growing more GM, the population of the EU will eat more GM Jim Webster |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
... "Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is snipped... / This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it. However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does it present real risks associated with release of this technology into the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful. This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have. But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) Many of the genes in a frog are in you and the non GM sweetcorn anyway. If there is a gene in you which is also in sweetcorn (there are), does that make you sweetcorn? -- Tumbleweed Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
... "Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is snipped... / This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it. However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does it present real risks associated with release of this technology into the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful. This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have. But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) Many of the genes in a frog are in you and the non GM sweetcorn anyway. If there is a gene in you which is also in sweetcorn (there are), does that make you sweetcorn? -- Tumbleweed Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
wrote in message
s.com... On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:07:38 +0100, "Cob Nobden" wrote: "Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is snipped... / This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it. However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does it present real risks associated with release of this technology into the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful. This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have. But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) Prick. AT least we know whats inside your head anyway. . . . . . . . . ridiculously huge SIG snipped LOL, you're the prick, this person was on your side! Now we know whats in your head..nothing... -- Tumbleweed Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
wrote in message
s.com... On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:07:38 +0100, "Cob Nobden" wrote: "Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is snipped... / This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it. However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does it present real risks associated with release of this technology into the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful. This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have. But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) Prick. AT least we know whats inside your head anyway. . . . . . . . . ridiculously huge SIG snipped LOL, you're the prick, this person was on your side! Now we know whats in your head..nothing... -- Tumbleweed Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups) |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:15:30 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote: wrote in message ws.com... On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:07:38 +0100, "Cob Nobden" wrote: "Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is snipped... / This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it. However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does it present real risks associated with release of this technology into the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful. This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have. But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) Prick. AT least we know whats inside your head anyway. . . . . . . . . ridiculously huge SIG snipped LOL, you're the prick, this person was on your side! Now we know whats in your head..nothing... That post was not mine, it was forged by derek moody aka M saunby aka T N Nurse the notorious troll. Apologies if the original author actually thought it was me. . . . . . . . . The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The distinction is yours to draw... /( )` \ \___ / | /- _ `-/ ' (/\/ \ \ /\ / / | ` \ O O ) / | `-^--'` ' (_.) _ ) / `.___/` / `-----' / ----. __ / __ \ ----|====O)))==) \) /==== ----' `--' `.__,' \ | | \ / ______( (_ / \______ ,' ,-----' | \ `--{__________) \/ I'm a horny devil when riled. pete who? -=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97 .""--.._ [] `'--.._ ||__ `'-, `)||_ ```'--.. \ _ /|//} ``--._ | .'` `'. /////} `\/ / .""".\ //{/// / /_ _`\\ // `|| | |(_)(_)|| _// || | | /\ )| _///\ || | |L====J | / |/ | || / /'-..-' / .'` \ | || / | :: | |_.-` | \ || /| `\-::.| | \ | || /` `| / | | | / || |` \ | / / \ | || | `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | || / /` `\ || || | . / \|| || | | |/ || / / | ( || / . / ) || | \ | || / | / || |\ / | || \ `-._ | / || \ ,//`\ /` | || ///\ \ | \ || |||| ) |__/ | || |||| `.( | || `\\` /` / || /` / || jgs / | || | \ || / | || /` \ || /` | || `-.___,-. .-. ___,' || `---'` `'----'` I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message after me... But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) Many of the genes in a frog are in you and the non GM sweetcorn anyway. If there is a gene in you which is also in sweetcorn (there are), does that make you sweetcorn? No because all the genes in me are supposed to be there no matter what else they are in, whereas, if you insert a gene that is specific to another species that can then be passed on to it's new hosts progeny is it still the same thing or is it something new, a new species? If it is a "new" species then it cannot be called what the original was called i.e. GM Soya should not be called Soya at all but needs another name both scientifically and generally. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... "Tumbleweed" wrote in message after me... But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) Many of the genes in a frog are in you and the non GM sweetcorn anyway. If there is a gene in you which is also in sweetcorn (there are), does that make you sweetcorn? No because all the genes in me are supposed to be there no matter what else they are in, whereas, if you insert a gene that is specific to another species that can then be passed on to it's new hosts progeny is it still the same thing or is it something new, a new species? If it is a "new" species then it cannot be called what the original was called i.e. GM Soya should not be called Soya at all but needs another name both scientifically and generally. I think that the definition of a species runs along the lines that any set of all those living objects which can breed with one another constitute a species. (Yes, I know there are occasional cases of interspecific breeding. I too don't understand that). Franz |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Bob Hobden writes
No because all the genes in me are supposed to be there no matter what else they are in, whereas, if you insert a gene that is specific to another species that can then be passed on to it's new hosts progeny is it still the same thing or is it something new, a new species? If it is a "new" species then it cannot be called what the original was called i.e. GM Soya should not be called Soya at all but needs another name both scientifically and generally. So how about (naturally evolved) occurring blackgrass that is dimfop resistant? Would you call that a new or different species or just a different strain of the same species? or (naturally evolved) roundup resistant ryegrass (as found in australia)? or (naturally evolved) species of timothy grass that is bright red? Normally one does is partly by whether it can interbreed (if it can it's the same species) or sometimes by location where they are effectively separated and (usually) have a slightly different morphology although the latter is increasingly NOT considered to be a different species if it can interbreed. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. DEMON address no longer in use. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... I think that the definition of a species runs along the lines that any set of all those living objects which can breed with one another constitute a species. A bit of a primary school definition. (Yes, I know there are occasional cases of interspecific breeding. I too don't understand that). I imagine. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
International Science and Engineering Fair-Call for Judges | Plant Biology | |||
Genetic engineering of plants | Plant Science | |||
problems with genetic engineering | sci.agriculture |