Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: GE primer (was: easier to swallow?) (fwd)

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." <london@metalab.unc.edu>
  • To: "permaculture" <permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: GE primer (was: easier to swallow?) (fwd)
  • Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 13:25:49 -0400 (EDT)


I am often overzealous in crossposting newsworthy articles to this list
and I will try to restrain myself in the future but this one so clearly
explains and demistifies current GE issues and practices that I though
that many of you would benefit from reading it. LL
This exists at:
http://metalab.unc.edu/london/orgfarm/issues-and-news/issues/GE.Primer

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:21:27 EST
From: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" <ACLARK@plant.uoguelph.ca>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: GE primer (was: easier to swallow?)

Beth: yes, I'm increasingly convinced that it really is the process,
and not the product, that is suspect. Understand that I am no expert
on this, my field is pasture and grazing management, so I am
repeating what I've been told or have read.

The issue is the presumption (some might say arrogance or even
ignorance) that genes can be identified as having causal influences
on some trait, such that they can be snipped out, zipped in, and
presto-chango, no more problems with pest X or disease Y (or, for
that matter, diabetes, overly tall or fat people, retarded people, or
otherwise objectionable people). Ah, what a world. What power.
What delicious arrogance. The author of The Prince must be proud.

The reality, which I think will become increasingly "real" as our
friends at "M" actually try to commercialize multi-genic trait
products, is that genes interact. I mean, "really" interact, and
often in ways that are unintended and unpredictable. The very notion
of an independent "snip-zip-able" gene is actually a product of
faulty, outdated science - yet this notion is the foundation of
commercial GE today.

Our pals in the life science companies (another misnomer) have gotten
away with it so far because they are working with single gene traits,
and often, genes which already exist in a given species. So, what is
being inserted is another copy of the same gene but with very slight
changes in it - so the plant can sometimes be "fooled" into letting
it be. Understand that plant cells have fantastically elaborate
processes for constantly inspecting chromosome integrity, ever alert
to detecting abnormalities and either excising them or silencing
them. See Mae Wan Ho's very readable book Genetic Engineering:
Dream or Nightmare for a much more authoritative take on this.

Understand also that "order matters" - that is to say, the particular
place that a given transgene lands on a given chromosome influences
its expression. And both of the methods used by GE breeders to
insert transgenes are entirely random. They have no way (yet) of
ensuring that the transgene(s) goes into a particular chromosome,
let alone, at a particular insertion point. So, they just make
zillions of attempts, and then expend enormous effort to screen out
the maladapted individuals from the cases where genes have
successfully inserted.

But the point is, what will happen when the introduced genes are
interacting not just "one-on-many" but "several-on-many"? The
potential for unintended side effects will be massively increased,
given that it is the interactions that determine the product - not a
single gene.

And be clear, that the above phenomenon pertains whether the
transgenes come from within or without the host species. Case in
point is the Arabidopsis example discussed earlier on this list.
Find a naturally occurring mutation (in Arabidopsis) which confers
herbicide resistance (chlorosulfuron, I think), pull it out and make
it into a transgene, and then blast it back into other individuals
(non mutant) of the same species. What happens? Transformed
individuals express not just chlorosulfuron resistance, but are also
changed from selfing to outcrossing species. In its natural state,
Arabidopsis has 0.3% outcrossing. In transformed individuals,
outcrossing increases to a range of degrees (up to 10%, if memory
serves), depending on "where" in the chromosomes the transgenes
insert. And this is all in the same species.

So, I am increasingly convinced that it is the process that is
dysfunctional and indefensible - not just the products (the latter is
the industry position). Ann
ACLARK@plant.uoguelph.ca
Dr. E. Ann Clark
Associate Professor
Crop Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
FAX: 519 763-8933
http://www.oac.uoguelph.ca/www/CRSC/faculty/eac.htm

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail


---
You are currently subscribed to permaculture as: london@metalab.unc.edu
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-permaculture-75156P@franklin.oit.unc.edu




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page