Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Lee Haslup <biglee AT haslups.com>]

The problem with applying common sense to the definition of GM is that 
the process is rather like peeling an onion.  You can always take off 
the next layer and, when you are done, there is nothing left. 

Farmers have been tinkering with the genomes of their species as long as 
there has been agriculture.  They are always on the lookout for mutants 
or related species that can be used for hybridization.  Whether the 
mutation is accidental or created by chemicals or radiation doesn't 
matter to the genome.  Hybridization (especially crossing with related 
species) introduces a huge number of new genes, most of which need to be 
eliminated by repeated back-crossing with the standard stock.  The idea 
being to eliminate as many of the extraneous genes as possible while 
keeping the few (often two or three) genes that give the desired 
traits.  In the meanwhile you create a genetic glissando of intermediate 
hybrids.

For an example of this process, consider the orange cauliflower that was 
bred from a mutant that someone found in a field in Canada.  The 
original  mutant has tons of beta carotene but is difficult to grow, 
tends to be rather small and not that tasty.  After several generations 
of crossing with agriculturally better plants the new orange cauliflower 
will soon be available at your corner grocery store.  It's difficult to 
say how it will differ genetically from a typical cauliflower but it 
will have at least one "defective" gene that regulates the production of 
beta carotene.

News stories chosen at random (by Google) :
  http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990707.htm
  http://keyetv.com/nationalwire/OrangeCauliflower-aa/resources_news_html

Since the genetic attribute that was desired (that one gene) was known 
fairly early in the process, the same result could have been achieved by 
splicing it into a normal cauliflower.  The resulting plant would be a 
GM food.  It would actually be more of a known commodity (from a genetic 
point of view) since one can't know what other genes came along from the 
mutant.  Nonetheless, the (real) hybrid cauliflower is likely to show up 
fairly soon in the "organic" foods section of the supermarket while its 
(hypothetical) GM cousin would be a frankenfood. People would worry that 
it might escape from the farm at any minute and start growing in the 
cracks in the sidewalks and crowding out the crabgrass in the lawn.

BigLee

Ian Meyer wrote:

> the genes were modified, were they not?
>
> sounds to me like whatever rules there are for the definition of GM 
> need to be more common sense and less legalese
>
> ~ian
>
>
> On Jun 24, 2004, at 11:14 AM, Michael Best wrote:
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ian Meyer [mailto:ianmeyer AT mac.com]
> > >
> > > yeah, a rule like, if you say is isn't GM, then it can't be GM.
> >
> >
> > Regarding herbicide resistance, I remember reading an article about 
> > some of
> > the different cases of this.  Apparently, in one case, the company used
> > radiation to randomly alter DNA in seeds and then tested the resulting
> > plants for herbicide resistance.  After many tries they found what they
> > wanted.  Because of the method used, this particular plant was not
> > considered genetically modified.
> >
> > -- Michael Best
> >
> > ---
> > Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!  
> > http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> > You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> > To unsubscribe visit 
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers
>
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!  
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers