From: Party of Citizens (citizens@vcn.bc.ca)
Date: Fri May 30 2003 - 21:45:25 MDT
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2003, Party of Citizens wrote:
>
> > Is it even a gene-mutation effect? I was trying to differentiate between
> > gene mutations and gene splicing in genetic engineering. The latter has a
> > number of success stories going for it. I don't know of any for the
> > former. Do you?
>
> "Golden rice" and most other GMO crops (or animals) are what
> one could call "gene splicing" products. But all natural
> breeding (think of the varieties of roses) are "gene mutation"
> products. Most modern agricultural products are combinations
> of "gene mutation" and "gene breeding" products. Gene breeding
> could be viewed in some ways as a "natural" form of "gene splicing".
> Humans have been selecting and breeding from both "natural" and
> "generated" (using radiation) mutations for many many years
> (the "natural" approach since the dawn of agriculture).
Selective breeding using the existing gene pool is primarily if not solely
responsible for agricultural improvements. It is assumed that the gene
pool changes due to mutations but I have never seen proof of this.
Until then I would not say that mutation has any proven benefit to
agricultural improvement.
POC
> This is a major reason that scientists who really understand
> genetics and the history of crop development view the GMO
> crop debate as somewhat contrived.
>
> Robert
>
> P.S. A "Google" on "Golden rice" and daffodils provides some
> interesting reading. The genes added to produce "golden rice"
> are "natural" but somewhat foreign.
>
> P.P.S. A good percentage of "natural" mutations are generated by "natural"
> radiation (e.g. cosmic rays, radioactive potassium or UV radiation) so any
> debates about the use of radiation to produce new types of crops is pretty
> specious too.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 30 2003 - 21:56:10 MDT