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

re: Glickman and Biotech



In article <aquilla.1198741849S@news.erols.com> on  Mon, 18 Nov 96 
21:56:49 GMT aquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla) wrote:

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

Then why do the regulators take such care that they will not affect 
native species?

> 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". 

That is your opinion, which I accept. You seem to accept, by your 
definition of species, that there can be a difference of opinion on the 
subject.  

>(When someone becomes chronically infected with hepatitis virus, does
>that person become a new species? No.)

This seems to be completely irrelevant. Surely that man's offspring do 
not inherit hepatitis, do they? Are you confusing a) infection of an 
organism with b) modifying germ cell DNA by DNA transplants from a 
bacterium? For it is the latter that has happened in RR Soy. 

> Those applying the biological definition of species would agree with
> biologists (and the US courts) that this does not constitute a new 
> species.

But did you not convince us that

   >"Species" effectively defies definition.

whereas now we have a legal and biological definition?

> I don't believe there is any current requirement for testing new crop
> species in any case. Can you cite any?

Yes. Lots of testing requirements for these transgenic things - but NO 
TESTING ON HUMANS OR ANIMALS.

For example have a look at

    http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biojap96.html

>from  your own FDA

<<...As summarized in our paper in Science, "FDA's science-based
approach for ensuring the safety of foods from new plant
varieties focuses safety evaluation on the objective
characteristics of the food: The safety of any newly introduced
substances and any unintended increased concentrations of
toxicants beyond the range known to be safe in food or
alterations of important nutrients that may occur as a result of
genetic modification. Substances that have a safe history of use
in food and substances that are substantially similar to such
substances generally would not require extensive premarket safety
testing. Substances that raise safety concerns would be subjected
to closer inquiry. This approach is both scientifically and
legally sound and should be adequate to fully protect public
health while not inhibiting innovation" (see reference 4).
..

(ref 4: Kessler D.A., et al, Science, 256:1747 (1992). 
>>

> Is a cross between two morphologically distinct brassicas more or 
> less like a new species than a tomato with a single gene removed? 

The key distinction here, to my mind and I guess to many others, is 
that the cross between the brassicas is achievable (presumably?) by a 
simple process of cross pollination. It does not have to circumvent the 
"controls" (whatever that might mean) that the biosphere has in place 
to prevent interspecies breeding. Removal of the gene by chemical means 
is circumventing those "controls".

Has anyone thought through the potential consequences of breaking those 
"controls". What have those "controls" enabled this earth to produce? 
What would have happened to the evolution of life on this planet if 
they were not in place?

> >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.

I'm sorry Tracy - there is no logic in that at all. The argument falls 
to pieces, for example, if no one has <looked> for a health hazard.

> 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. 

But in the case of RR Canola and RR Soy (I believe) the foreign 
bacterial genes conferring the Roundup resistance were inserted by a 
random process at a random location in the host DNA. In that sense it 
was clearly not possible to know exactly what genetic elements were 
involved <prior to the event>. As I understand it the scientists simply 
hope that the insertion is in a "junk site" and will not damage the 
gross expressions of the target organism.

"Junk DNA" - those portions of the DNA of an organism, typically about 
90%, whose purpose is unknown. (That's my recollection Tracey - please 
correct me if I am wrong.)

Bit of a "wing and a prayer". Hardly the precise, engineered approach 
the Monsantos want us to believe in.

Yours despondently.

William |WRC Solutions: Computer Consultants|Tel (+44)(0)1695  50470
   Hite |MS-Office, Visual Basic, FTR, Text |Fax (+44)(0)1695 720889
        |wrhite@cix.compulink.co.uk, http://www.u-net.com/~wrcs/home




References: