From: Greg Jordan (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu)
Date: Fri May 09 2003 - 09:34:39 MDT
I think it's so sad that GM, instead of genetically modifying crops to be
healthier, more innately resistant to pests, instead went down the path of
making crops accept more pesticides and herbicides so that more of the
latter could be applied. That and using extremely dangerous diseases for
markers. What a mess... If GM had been more responsible or regulated
(waves down indignation), organic food certification probably wouldn't
have had to exclude GM foods.
gej
resourcesoftheworld.org
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
On Thu, 8 May 2003, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 19:20:29 -0400
> From: Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>
> Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: RE: GM Foods Safe Enuf
>
> Anders Sandberg wrote,
> > Has anybody checked this report and what it claims?
>
> Look at
> <http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Knowledge-Gaps-Greenpeace-Wageningen.htm>.
>
> The summary says:
>
> This study has identified several areas of controversial, fragmentary or
> missing knowledge concerning the design, functioning and use of genetically
> modified (GM) crop plants, from a standpoint of the natural sciences. These
> areas concern the biological and agronomical sciences which are discussed
> here, while philosophical, ethical, social-economical and legal scientific
> areas are indicated to stress their relevance for the public debate on GM
> (food) crops. Controversies and knowledge gaps appear to be present at all
> levels of biological organization ranging from the levels of DNA and
> cellular metabolism to organism and ecosystem levels.
>
> Controversial issues, generally involving knowledge gaps, are: section
>
> - Precision of genetic modification (GM) and predictability of its effects
> 3.2.2, 3.3.2
> - Differences between classical breeding en GM 3.2.3
> - Effects of GM crops on (agro)biodiversity 3.4.2
> - Interactions between neighbouring GM and GM-free agro-ecosystems 3.4.3
> - Consequences of the use of GM crops for the environment 3.4.4, 3.4.10
> - `Genetic pollution' of ecosystems 3.4.6
> - Ecological effects of large-scale application of herbicide resistant GM
> crops 3.4.9
> - Sustamability of agriculture. 3.4.12
> - `Substantial equivalence' as a guideline in GM food safety evaluation
> 3.5.2
> - Long-term effects of GM crops on human and animal health 3.5.3
> - Consequences of the occurrence of horizontal gene transfer in the field
> 3.5.4
> - Food safety tests 3.5.6
>
> In addition, knowledge gaps identified concern:
>
> - Effects of breaching species barriers (xeno-transformation) 3.2.1
> - `Junk DNA' functions 3.2.1, 3.2.5
> - Reliability of annotations in genome databases and quality control 3.2.4
> - Regulation of gene expression: transgenes in their `xeno-genomic'
> environment 3.2.6, 3.3.5
> - Use of GM in stress tolerance breeding (metabolic side effects) 3.3.2,
> 3.3.3
> - Pest-resistance management 3.3.5
> - Irrevocable and unprecedented effects on natural ecosystems 3.4.5
> - Multi-trophic and long-term ecological interactions of pest-resistant GM
> crops 3.4.7, 3.4.8
> - Gene stacking 3.4.11
> - Prediction and testing of allergenic properties of (transgenic) proteins.
> 3.5.1
> - Separation and isolation of GM and GM-free food chains 3.5.5
>
> These findings demonstrate the fragmentary nature of current knowledge of
> genome structure and function and regulation of gene expression in general,
> and the limited understanding of several physiological, ecological,
> agronomical and toxicological aspects relevant to present-day and planned
> genetic modifications of crops. Whether and in which case this limited
> understanding can be judged as relevant to the public debate on GM and as
> sufficient for adequate risk assessment are questions requiring further
> interdisciplinary study.
>
> --
> Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP
> <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 09 2003 - 09:45:35 MDT