permaculture

["Lawrence F. London, Jr." <lfl@intrex.net>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Fwd: [SCSA] Brief explanation of bio-tech problems - Barry Commoner
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:17:28 -0400
From: Jason McVay <tickets@FOODFIRST.ORG>
Reply-To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group 
<SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU>
To: SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Fwd: [SCSA] Brief explanation of bio-tech problems - Barry Commoner
From: "Jason McVay" <jcm9176@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, June 16, 2003 1:11 pm
To: tickets@foodfirst.org

From: Laurena4efas@aol.com
To: sacwto@lists.riseup.net
Subject: [SCSA] Brief explanation of bio-tech problems - Barry Commoner
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:43:09 EDT

Friends,

Below is another article that summarizes big problems with
biotechnology.

If you want either this or the John Robbin's article formatted to fit on
one  page, I can send either out as an attachment.

Sow justice, harvest peace,
Lauren
(916) 448-4848
=====================================

New Report Challenges Fundamentals of Genetic Engineering Study
Questions  Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods
Contact: Dr. Barry Commoner, Center for the Biology of Natural Systems,
718-670-4182
NEW YORK, Jan. 15 /U.S. Newswire

A study released today reveals a critical, long-overlooked flaw in the
science behind the multi-billion dollar genetic engineering industry,
raising  serious questions about the safety of genetically engineered
foods.

In a new review of scientific literature reported in the February, 2002,
 issue of Harper's Magazine, Dr. Barry Commoner, a prominent biologist
demonstrates  that the bioengineering industry, which now accounts for
25-50 percent of the  U.S. corn and soybean crop, relies on a
40-year-old theory that DNA genes are  in total control of inheritance
in all forms of life. According to this  theory -- the "central dogma"
-- the outcome of transferring a gene from one  organism to another is
always "specific, precise and predictable," and therefore  safe.

Taking issue with this view, Commoner summarizes a series of scientific
reports that directly contradict the established theory. For example,
last year  the $3 billion Human Genome Project found there are too few
human genes to  account for the vast inherited differences between
people and lower animals or  plants, indicating that agents other than
DNA must contribute to genetic  complexity.

The central dogma claims a one-to-one correspondence between a gene's
chemical composition and the structure of the particular protein that
engenders an  inherited trait. But Dr. Commoner notes that under the
influence of specialized  proteins that carry out "alternative
splicing," a single gene can give rise to  a variety of different
proteins, resulting in more than a single inherited  trait per gene. As
a result, the gene's effect on inheritance cannot be  predicted simply
from its chemical composition -- frustrating one of the main  purposes
of both the Human Genome Project and biotechnology.

Commoner's research sounds a public alarm concerning the processes by
which  agricultural biotechnology companies genetically modify food
crops. Scientists  simply assume the genes they insert into these plants

always produce only the desired effect with no other impact on the
plant's  genetics. However, recent studies show that the plant's own
genes can be  disrupted in transgenic plants. Such outcomes are
undetected because there is  little or no governmental regulation of the
industry.

"Genetically engineered crops represent a huge uncontrolled experiment
whose  outcome is inherently unpredictable," Commoner concludes. "The
results could  be catastrophic."

Dr. Commoner cites a number of recent studies that have broken the DNA
gene's  exclusive franchise on the molecular explanation of inheritance.
He warns  that "experimental data, shorn of dogmatic theories, point to
the irreducible  complexity of the living cell, which suggests that any
artificially altered  genetic system must sooner or later give rise to
unintended, potentially  disastrous consequences."

Commoner charges that the central dogma, a seductively simple
explanation of  heredity, has led most molecular geneticists to believe
it was "too good not  to be true." As a result, the central dogma has
been immune to the revisions  called for by the growing array of
contradictory data, allowing the  biotechnology industry to unwittingly
impose massive, scientifically unsound practices on  agriculture.

"Dr. Commoner's work challenges the legitimacy of the agricultural
biotechnology industry," said Andrew Kimbrell, Director of the Center on
Food Safety.  "For years, multibillion dollar biotech companies have
been selling the  American people and our government on the safety of
their products. We now see their  claims of safety are based on faulty
assumptions that don't hold up to  rigorous scientific review."

The study reported in Harper's Magazine is the initial publication of a
new  initiative called The Critical Genetics Project directed by Dr.
Commoner in  collaboration with molecular geneticist Dr. Andreas
Athanasiou, at the Center for  the Biology of Natural Systems, Queens
College, City University of New York.