| From: Di | 13/01/00
14:31:34 |
| Subject: More DNA stuff | post id:
26053 |
| A Cambridge scientist has claimed
the debate on genetically modified crops could be made much clearer if
people were made aware that there are different types of genetically
modified organisms. Dr Mark Tester, of the Department of Plant Sciences,
University of Cambridge, voiced concerns that the issues surrounding the
use of GM crops have been clouded because the vast number of different
crops are currently treated as one uniform group. In a letter that was published in Nature on 9 December, Dr Tester argues that the current method of lumping all GM crops together "distorts arguments and weakens reasoning". Dr Tester suggests that three classes should be used to describe distinctive kinds of GM crop and he draws a distinction between the 'old GM' of traditional breeding technologies and the 'new GM' of crops generated using modern biotechnology. The three classes are: 'Wide Transfer' - when a gene from one type of organism is transferred into another, quite different organism, such as an 'antifreeze' gene from an Arctic deep sea fish into a strawberry. 'Close Transfer' - when genes move between closely related plants, such as herbicide resistant genes transferred from wild plants to domestic ones. 'Tweaking' - which is an alteration in the level of activity of genes already in an organism, such as altering a plants' resistance to salty soils. These terms would shed new light on the claims made by both sides in the argument, argues Dr Tester. Most crops developed using the second two methods present little or no threat because the results produced will be similar to those produced by traditional methods, said Dr Tester. In fact, it is this type of genetic modification that has been done by traditional breeding programmes for 10,000 years. But new proteins which are introduced into the food chain through 'wide transfer' may well require more thorough testing. "Use of a refined categorisation of the new GM crops would focus arguments and facilitate more balanced conclusions in a currently unnecessarily polarised debate," said Dr Tester. | |
| From: MegDav | 13/01/00
14:36:09 |
| Subject: re: More DNA stuff | post id:
26055 |
| I fully agree, I am not to fond
of porcine tomatoes! :) Why can't we have these type of classifications to a) inform and educate b) reduce the scare mongering c) treat consumers with respect not contempt ( damn these consumers, they refuse to buy what we want to sell!) | |
| From: Callan | 16/01/00
17:49:00 |
| Subject: re: More DNA stuff | post id:
26700 |
I fully agree, I am not to fond of porcine tomatoes! I bet you'd screw up your face at eating pidgeon...but many used to do that, and the little quail still gets eaten. (This argument is screwed if your a vege, but hey, had to give it a shot!) So, do porcine tomatoes give you the runs...make your gums bleed? If I blindfolded you and gave you three 'normal' tomatoes and told you one was modified, would you identify it for me? | |