I never heard of the Five Year Freeze. I did a google and found this( see ink below).

I dont see why another mammal wouldnt do the same and not to go towards the cannibalism, I think of the mad cow disease caud by innocent cannibalism. I also worry about plant disease that may now not be separated from humans if we start opening the lines as such. That plant would no longer be called a plant- but a omnivorian or what ever a plant crossed with a animal would be called.

This seems to violate the right to be a vegetarian and certain religious, ethnic groups and etc., if vegetarian is part of their life style and belief.

What a potentially dangerous development. Exploiting the major grain crop to either detoxify the environment or to resist most classes of herbicides. Rice does outcross to related weeds and so may well donate the anti-herbicidal DNA package to those weeds.

I can hear the slogan now :
"Eat rice, put some Meat on your bones" ;o)

Or, rice - the other white meat.

I didn't expect tears from laughter when I posted this.

Sue & Marshall, I also share your concerns. In addition to or validating one of Sue's points is a quote from I-SIS in the following article which says the enzymes could cross back to humans creating new viruses and/or cancers.

This is part of the "rest of the story."

GRAIN, 2005, USAID: Making the world hungry for GM crops, GRAIN
Briefing, 30pp http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=191.

This briefing examines how the US government uses USAID to actively promote
GM agriculture. The focus is on USAID's major programmes for agricultural
biotechnology (such as ABSP and PBS) and the regions where these programmes
are most active in parts of Africa and Asia. These USAID programmes are
part of a multi-pronged strategy to advance US interests with GM crops.
Increasingly the US government uses multilateral and bilateral free trade
agreements and high-level diplomatic pressure to push countries towards the
adoption of many key bits of corporate-friendly regulations related to GM
crops. And this external pressure has been effectively complimented by
lobbying and funding from national and regional USAID biotech networks.

Good link Marshall. The whole operation can best be compared to an organized crime syndicate. It's kind of pathetic that a country so rich relys on lowball tactics to promote the interests of a few.

Pathetic.
That's 3 syllables, Althea, and each is warranted...

Regards,

Shax

The following commentary was posted on a banned listserv. The subject is crop genetic engineering with human dna and the attendant ethical and moral questions.

-------------------------------------------------

Swans Commentary » swans.com May 9, 2005

Mommy, Is Aunt Sally In The Rice Puffs?

by Don Fitz

(Swans - May 9, 2005) Would it be worse to find a finger in your chili
or guzzle human DNA when you down a beer? In the recent furor over the
potential for "pharmed" rice to destroy Missouri's rice growing
industry, something is being downplayed: corporations are proposing to
put human DNA into plants whose neighboring cousins could end up being
eaten (or drunk) by people.

Ever since Ventria Bioscience announced its intentions to plant
genetically engineered rice, it faced strong opposition from
environmentalists and local rice farmers. "Pharming" is an experimental
method of inserting human or animal genes into plants so they will
become biofactories for producing pharmaceuticals. Ventria claims that
its pharmed rice would produce the proteins lactoferrin and lysozyme,
which would go into medicines for dehydration and diarrhea. But Friends
of the Earth spokesperson Bill Freese says that Ventria is just as
likely to use its rice to make granola bars, yogurt or poultry feed.

In 2004, Ventria's application to pharm 120 acres of rice in California
was turned down. Seeking a state with even less environmental concern
than that governed by Arnold, the company looked to John Ashcroft's
Missouri. Its politicians readily promised support and $30 million in
subsidies.

The Missouri project would allow up to 204.5 acres of such rice to be
grown. It would not only be the largest pharmed crop in the world - it
would dwarf the typical pharmaceutical crop of less than an acre.

Rice farmers are not at all happy with the idea of such a large field
being planted next to theirs. If the pharmed rice spreads, it could
contaminate their fields. Pharmaceutical rice could be spread by
cross-pollination, floods, rice-eating birds, rice grains in farm
equipment, or human error in distribution. Risks from pharmed rice
include allergic reactions, aggravation of bacterial infections, and
autoimmune disorders.

Farmers might be less nervous if Ventria had liability insurance. But
instead of purchasing enough insurance, Ventria has its public relations
artists spin the yarn that dangers are too little to worry about. "It
can't happen here" is the essence of its message.

But it has happened. The StarLink corn incident of 2000 led to a $1
billion recall. In 2002, a half million bushels of soybeans in Nebraska
had to be destroyed. Iowa burned 155 acres of pharmaceutically
contaminated corn.

As Ventria was touting the pharming of its rice as risk-free, on the
other side of the globe Greenpeace campaigner Sze Pang Cheung announced
the illegal release of genetically contaminated rice in China. That Bt
rice that could cause allergic reactions in people.

The gnawing question remains. Doesn't Ventria's arguing that accidents
never happen instead of showing that it has insurance to cover accidents
suggest that the company doesn't believe its own press releases?

The Missouri chapter seemed like it might be over when Anheuser-Busch
announced on April 12 that it would not buy Missouri rice if genetically
engineered rice were grown in the state. Like Monsanto, Busch is
headquartered in St. Louis. Busch is both the largest brewer and the
biggest purchaser of rice in the country.

As soon as the beer threat hit the news, Missouri politicians repeated
their act of falling over each other while rushing to serve the genetic
engineering industry. Just three days later, Governor Matt Blunt
announced that a deal had been brokered between Busch and Ventria. The
beer giant would drop its threat to boycott Missouri rice and Ventria
would promise that its pharmed rice would be grown at least 120 miles
from other Missouri rice fields.

As the politicians patted themselves on the back, Missouri rice growers
maintained their doubts. The rumor went out that Ventria plans to get a
field near Mark Twain's home town of Hannibal in the northern part of
the state. But it might not be as easy to pharm rice in northern
Missouri as it is in the boot heel, the state's southernmost region.
Farmers have a strong suspicion that once Ventria gets its foot in
Missouri's door and the controversy is out of the news, the corporation
will slither down the Mississippi to the state's prime rice-growing fields.

There is a deeper side to this story that is being sidestepped: Why
would sales plummet if pharmed rice genes got into regular rice? Part of
it is the risk to public health. But reporters are not asking people who
eat rice (virtually all of us), "Do you want to have human genes in what
you eat and drink?"

Perhaps beer drinkers are not the only ones who don't want to taste a
little bit of Uncle Fred. Maybe mommies don't want to give their
darlings wee morsels of Aunt Sally in their rice puffs before waving
them off to school.

This brings to mind a problem which plagued the meat packing industry a
century ago. Upton Sinclair wrote in The Jungle that sometimes
packinghouse workers

"fell into the vats; and when they were fished out, there was never
enough of them left to be worth exhibiting -- sometimes they would be
overlooked for days, till all but the bones of them had gone out to the
world as Durham's Pure Leaf Lard!"
Most people would see gobbling up a finger in a bowl of chili as
cannibalism. But what about the tip of a finger? If you eat food cooked
with lard which includes fragments of a slaughterhouse worker, is that
cannibalism?

Is it cannibalism to eat food with one human gene? What about 50 human
genes or an entire human chromosome?

To use the language of the genetic engineering industry, we could say
that human DNA in rice is "substantively equivalent" to human flesh in
hamburger meat or human remains in Durham's Lard. Of course, there are
differences. Genes are incredibly small in comparison to boiled human
flesh. But those human genes would be present in every cell of every
contaminated plant you put into your mouth.

This is not something that suddenly arose with Ventria rice in
Missouri's boot heel. Genetic engineering researchers have been putting
human genes into animals for years for medical purposes, such as trying
to make pig hearts human-compatible. Gen Pharm bioengineered Herman, the
first transgenic dairy bull, for siring cows that produce milk with a
human protein.

Scientists with the US Department of Agriculture put human growth
hormone genes into pig embryos to produce faster growing hogs. The
project did not stop because its originators woke up at night pondering
the morality of what they were doing. Rather, it was abandoned because
the resulting pigs were so deformed that some could not support their
own weight.

But other laboratories could well overcome these failures and
successfully implant even more human material into plants and animals.
If one gene worked pretty well, could 20, 100 or 1000 genes work even
better? In 1997, Japanese researchers reported inserting a complete
human chromosome into mice to produce human antibodies.

How much human material spliced into a living organism makes its
products "essentially human?" This ethical dilemma is deafening by the
silent treatment it is given.

Imagine that you doze off one night while watching Buffy slay the bad
guy. You wake up thinking you heard an ad for "Angel Beer" that is
fortified by inserting genes from human blood into rice that's sold to
the brewery. It might be hard to tell if it was a nightmare or the
latest biotech venture into Missouri's boot heel.

Eating food with human genetic components would certainly run counter to
the moral or religious beliefs of many people. Even those who do not
share their views are likely to defend their right to practice their
beliefs. Clearly, all genetically contaminated food should be labeled so
that those who choose not to consume it can do so. But the last thing
you are likely to see on any bottle of beer, box of rice puffs,
pharmaceutical, or lard is a statement that "This contains human
by-products or genetic material."

What this means in the realpolitik of pharming is that if the biotech
industry gets its way, there may soon be human DNA in every rice product
on the shelf. Once human genes get into a plant, they become a permanent
part of that species. When Grandpa is spliced into a pollinating plant,
he just keeps blowin' in the wind forever. His DNA becomes part of the
diet of all who eat the plant. Unlike exploding gas tanks, Grandpa's
genes can't be recalled.

Hummm...that would make it "Frank-in-rice" wouldn't it?

**SNORT***

Good 1, vgkg!