[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

re: Glickman and Biotech



In Article <VA.0000004e.00840a0a@wrcs.u-net.com>, William R Hite
<wrhite@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <aquilla.1198387241L@news.erols.com> on  Thu, 14 Nov 96 
>19:26:41 GMT aquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla) wrote:>
>
>> It is not possible to prove a negative, but in the absence of any
>> indication that GE foods aren't safe, of course it's reasonable to 
>> assume that they are, just as we assume that new conventionally-bred 
>> cultivars are safe, without testing them.
>
>But do you not see that you are begging a question - that these new 
>species are FOOD?

New species meaning "biological" species? They aren't new species by any
accepted definition of which I'm aware.

>Quite specifically, can YOU stake your scientific reputation on an 
>assertion that RR Soy is not a new transgenic SPECIES, part soy, part 
>bacterium?

See above. ("Species" effectively defies definition. It is strictly a
man-made concept, having numerous meanings all dependent on arbitrary
definitions, none of which is absolute or universal.) To answer your
question directly-No, I don't think they are "new species". (When someone
becomes chronically infected with hepatitis virus, does that person become a
new species? No.)

>If, as I assert and I hope you will agree, it is a new species then 
>surely this ought to affect the requirements for testing?

Those applying the biological definition of species would agree with
biologists (and the US courts) that this does not constitute a new species.
I don't believe there is any current requirement for testing new crop
species in any case. Can you cite any? Is a cross between two
morphologically distinct brassicas more or less like a new species than a
tomato with a single gene removed? (I'd say more.) Can "species" be defined
based strictly on a process like "gene splicing"? Probably not, unless we
choose to modify the concept of species (and the law).

>Even if you do not accept the requirement for testing on that basis - 
>just what is the SCIENTIFIC basis for the oft repeated claim that RR 
>Soy, for example, poses no health hazards?

The basis for that claim is simple deductive reasoning. There exists no
evidence that RR-soy poses a health hazard. Since no hazard has been
demonstrated, one can logically deduce that such hazards would probably be
rare, and may not even exist. It is not possible to "prove" that there is no
hazard, but if you can't see any it's reasonable to assume there isn't any.

>There is another point about your posting - the argument you use 
>comparing the treatment of GMO's with conventional cultivars. Can you 
>honestly say that there is not a RADICAL and POSSIBLY SIGNIFICANT 
>difference between the creation of new cultivars via selective breeding 
>and the creation of new, transgenic organisms through genetic 
>engineering?

No, in fact there is an obvious difference. "Conventional" methods are far
less precise! It is not possible to track all of the genetic changes which
occur during natural sexual propagation and breeding. However, with the
kinds of manipulations that occur in GE, it is possible to know exactly what
genetic elements are involved, to map the precise location of insertion in
the genome, and to track any movement of those elements. This kind of
precision is unprecedented. It makes risk assessment a bit easier.
Tracy


References: