Subject: transgenic plants

From: Gabriela Valencia <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 12:17:58 -0400

I am interested in learning more about transgenic plants.  Does 
anyone know about any transgenic plants resistant to pesticides?  
	Do you think it would be beneficial environmentally as well as 
economically to bring transgenic plants (such as the FLAVR-SAVR tomato) 
out into the market?
			Gabriela

---

From: [email-masked](Michael L Roginsky )
Date: 13 May 1996 21:15:26 GMT

In <[email-masked]> Gabriela
>economically to bring transgenic plants (such as the FLAVR-SAVR
tomato) 

I have tried to get a word to the netcom webmaster about starting a
"transgenic plants" news group. So far I have one other person
interested. If you are, email me. I think it takes several requesters
in order to for a news group. Micro.

As far as transgenic plants go, I think it is a good idea. We all use
too many chemicals to get plants to survive. Hybrids with resistence
are the only solution on the long term.

---

From: [email-masked] (Grey N. Horton)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 21:51:00 -0600

> are the only solution on the long term.
   I understand Monsanto is working on something of the sort, but what I
can't remember.  I know that Pioneer Seeds (from here in MN) has just
released a new soybean cultivar that is resistant to Round-Up.  Whether or
not it is transgenic, I don't know (but I doubt it).

   Transgenic plants that are herbicide resistant could be benificial, but
could also have some bad effects.  These could include promotion of
herbicide usage and introduction of the gene to wild relatives (thus
making a super-weed).  I think that a crop by crop assesment of whether or
not it would be appropriate is in order, as well as transfer by transfer
assesment.  I know that Monsanto has transformed potatoes with the bt
gene, but there are always fears about insects becoming resistant to
insecticides and plants resistant to herbicides.  That's the nature of the
beast, though.  The more you use something on a crop, the more quickly
something will develop a way around it.  This is part of the reason that
IPM (Intergrated Pest Management) has been gaining popularity quickly.  It
is a mix of spraying, use of resistant cultivars, beneficial insect
release and cultural techniques designed to _reduce_ damage done by
pests.  Any good agronomist or pathologist will tell you  that you can
never hope to eliminate damage from pests, but you can control it.

   I find your logic in declaring that "hybrids with resistance are the
only solution in the long term" is weak.  The more sprays used, the more
complex the situation becomes, due to higher The trend is in agriculture
is to use less and less sprays, emphasizing instead cultural practices and
IPM.  Herbicide resistant plants are only a part of the equation.  Plants
are also being breed to better resist weed competion and some research
into ground cover crops to interplant with cash crops to suppress weed
growth.  I believe that genetic transformation is a tool: like any other
tool, it can be used for good or ill.  It is a tool I plan on using in the
future: I am just starting in a PhD program in Plant Breeding, so I feel
very strongly about these issues.

   In a way for personal experience of other people's opinion's, I give
you the case of My Mother vs. the FLAVR-SAVR Tomato.  When I went home for
Christmas two years ago, my mother boldly stated how horrible she thought
the FLAVR-SAVR was during Christmas dinner (with a full complement of
guests).  Now let me tell you that my mother is pretty liberal, but when
she doesn't understand something, she makes very deep-seated decisions
based on how she feels about some thing (ie, she likes what she likes,
often based on impressions rather than logic).  Anyways, she went on to
rail against this poor defenseless tomato that obviously couldn't speak in
it's own defense.  So I asked her if she knew what had been done to the
tomato.  Of course, she had no idea.  She was going with how she felt
about such a foriegn, "man-made" thing.  So I explained to the dinner
party how they had isolated a gene that expressed a cellulase enzyme.  The
protein derived from this gene would cleave the bonds between the cells
that made up the tomato.  Normally, this would result in the rapid
softening of the tomato.  What they did with the tomato DNA was to insert
a copy of that same DNA that coded for the cellualse enzyme, but just a
bit different.  This meant that the RNA made from the original copy would
be floating in the nucleous would meet a _mirror_image_ of itself: the
product of the inserted gene.  The two single strands would come together
and form a single strand.  This in turn prevented expression of the gene. 
Why on earth they put this into the MacGregor tomato is beyond me.  Why
not put it into something worthwhile?  While I'm on my soap box, I'd like
to point out that most of the tomatoes available inthe summer are actually
picked at what is called "physiolocial maturity"- that is, it's almost
ripe, but still green and without much flavor.  THey are stored in a
controlled atmospheres and exposed to ethylene, a ripening hormone before
being shipped.  This is how we get those nice, pink, cardboard tomatoes. 
See what I mean about a crop by crop and transfer by transfer assesment of
transformation?  It's really not something you can put in a category of
good or bad: it's just a tool.

---

From: [email-masked](Michael L Roginsky )
Date: 18 Sep 1996 20:32:49 GMT

Hello folks.......quick update....I still am working to get a
"transgenic-plants" newsgroup going. Meanwhile shall we just post about
transgenics in this newsgroup? Thanks....Mike Roginsky, aka, Micro.