----- Original Message -----
From: "STEVEN BISSELL" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: Genetic Engineering


> Duncan, I deleted your reply for some reason, a slip of the finger I
guess.
>
> Anyway I think that the anti-GM movement started out in a bit of hysteria
> and now the anti-GM groups are too ego involved to back off. There is more
> than a trace of anti-science involved and most of the literature is ful of
> "if" and "could" and "perhaps" and "potential" lots of "potential" and
> "might" and such. Very little hard evidence and some ethically
questionable
> publications, i.e. the monarch butterfly episode.

Steven,

There was nothing 'ethically questionable' regarding the monarch butterfly
studies. If you can find any credible reviews on this, I would really like
to read them. Fact is that GM corn has varying levels of 'toxic pollen', and
some of the more toxic GM corn varieties are being used or proposed to be
used on a large scale because the less toxic GM varieties actually do not
kill all the corn borers. If the more toxic Bt laden corn is used, then it
is a serious risk to Monarch butterflies as some studies have already shown.
The Monarch studies were well done, and the did demonstrate a risk to the
Monarch, but it also depends on the variety and the level of toxicity. The
problem was that the corn borer was not being completely killed by the Bt GM
corn, and as a result the insect becomes 'immune' or 'resistant' to the
weaker Bt levels in the GM corn. All this was published, and in fact the US
Department of Agriculture has also found that there are in fact no increases
in the yield of the GM corn compared to non-GM corn. So why is it being
used?

It is very obvious why scientists are using words like 'could' 'potential'
and so on because the are reporting the results of field trials, and field
trials are not assessments on a large scale basis. A single trial will not
impact the 'environment' of the EU, but if 60% of the corn grown in the EU
was GM corn, then it would probably result in environmental harm. Of course
the EU is not going to allow that to happen now, because the trials have
been completed, and there is a potential to reduce seeds for wildlife by up
to 500%

>I was, at first, very
> concerned about this issue, but the more I read, the more I became
convinced
> that this was a tempest in a teapot. Dispite tons of research, no actual
> harm has been shown. The study John Foster posted from Great Britain is
all
> full of inferences which do not, IMHO, follow from the actual data.

There has been a lot of harm done in the US. Most of the Bt corn has to be
sprayed with organophosphate insectides in addition. The Bt corn is planted
no even if there is no significant corn borer, and there are now
'superweeds' which are resistant to the higher concentrations of herbicides
used in Round Up ready GM crops.

The fact is there is a lot of harm, and bird counts in the US are not
increasing, they are decreasing, especially since the large scale use of GM
crops.

You cannot do any science without makin inferences. All experiments use
'statistical inferences' to determine the validity of the results of a
trial.

> Basically the reseachers concluded that GM crops "might" reduce the number
> of weeds and this "might" impact bird populations. There was no evidence
> linking GM crops per se and birds, it was an opinion of the researchers,
> nothing more.

GM proponents actually say the same thing about insects and weeds, but they
go a bit further. They say that they will eliminate weeds, and this seems to
be where there is total agreement. Both the scientists say that, especially
the GM companies. Afterall why use super high concentrations of RoundUp on
soybeans? There must be fewer weeds, right, or it would not pay.

A weed is an 'unloved flower'....


> As to 'Golden Rice,' I'm not sure if anyone tried to patent it or not. But
> the development was strictly an issue of nutrition, not economics.

If you are not sure if it is patented, then how can you say it is not an
issue of economics?
>
> It has bothered me for 40 years that environmental groups latch onto topic
> like GM crops and make an assumption that there is "Danger Wil Robinson,
> Danger." By the time the actual results are in, the issue may or may not
be
> important or even existent. For example the Alar in Apples a few years
ago.

What about DDT, Clordane, Agent Orange (2,4-D & 2,4,5-T), malathion, ozone
depleting chemicals, et cetera?

The US has a law prohibting any pesticide residues on food for children; The
Delaney Act. Since we do not do studies on children by exposing them to
pesticides, then don't you think then that this act is necessary? ENGO's did
not pass this act, and neither did any ENGOS pass any environmental law or
regulation, so I am not sure what your point is. Alar was banned for use on
apples, was it not? And who banned the use of it?

chao

John Foster






>
> This gets into "common knowledge." I heard Merle Streep, a wonderful
> actress, but not a scientist say on TV that commercial cereal with GM
> products was "known to cause allergies." I'm sure she has good intentions,
> but she's just plain wrong. I'm also sure she got this idea from some
> environmental organizations, and that, perhaps, was more than just a bit
> cynical.
>
> Steven
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Groove on the latest from the hot new rock groups!  Get downloads, videos,
> and more here.  http://special.msn.com/entertainment/wiredformusic.armx
>