Good catch. That last sentence is chilling. If only it would be paid the attention it deserves. There's a whole he(( of derelict "intellectual property" out there. It does seem quite determined to grow until it destroys itself. The rackets all sometimes make me wonder if someone could (or should) persuade al Qaeda and its ilk to re-channel its rage, for an ironic net gain.

:( Well, just wondering if these genes are the window of opportunity for new gene combinations and the geometric progression of probabilities increases or does it all mutate out of the double helix as it falls off like a wort from the hand?

sheeze, when the meek inherit the earth I wonder if they'll really want it? vgkg

There was little or no regulation of alien species until we started seeing problems here in North America. We now have Dutch Elm disease, kudzu in the canals, gypsy moths in New England, & mid-western lakes full of carp.

Will the introduction of synthetic genes follow a similar pattern?

Just had a daymare about possible unintended consequences. This is an offshoot or crossover or crosslink from the thread Treading Water When We Should Be Swimming. Imagine: someone wants to reduce atmospheric CO2, with the best of intentions. So they genetically engineer some kind of hydrilla that'll thrive on the open oceans. If you know what I mean about hydrilla, welcome to my he(( of a daymare.

Like I've said before, when it comes to environmentalism, I am The Worrier About Water...

you mean things like this as far as daymares, stiches? (see link on algae introduced into ocean as a gmo and its invasive nature, too)

Yep, thanks ggg, that would be a fair example - the daymare's already come true, it seems...

Thanks for posting this Marshall. This is the first time, at least that I remember, reading gm genes are synthetic approximations. Maybe the choice of phrase is new and it casts the scenario differently. Something to think about.

Last week I read this article by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho on oca and think it is a good companion piece. It begins:

"Is GM DNA different from natural DNA?

"DNA is DNA is DNA," said a proponent in a public debate in trying to convince the audience that there is no difference between genetically modified (GM) DNA and natural DNA, "DNA is taken up by cells because it is very nutritious!"

"GM can happen in nature," said another proponent. "Mother Nature got there first."

So, why worry about GM contamination? Why bother setting contamination thresholds for food and feed? Why award patents for the GM DNA on grounds that it is an innovation?

Why don't biotech companies accept liabilities if there's nothing to worry about?

As for GM happening in nature, so does death, but that doesn't justify murder. Radioactive decay happens in nature too, but concentrated and speeded up, it becomes an atom bomb."

I think this addresses g4's first question.

"The problem with the GM inserts is that they could transfer again into other genomes with all the attendant risks mentioned. There are reasons to believe GM inserts are more likely to undergo horizontal transfer and recombination than natural DNA, chief among which is that the GM inserts (and the GM varieties resulting from them) are structurally unstable, and often contain recombination hotspots (such as the borders of the inserts)."

I meant to reply to this post at the time, Althea, but was tied up. I have often complained about the gmos being synthetic approximations as well as the point that "safety" tests were done not on the rDNA but on its natural analog (e.g. on the B.t. organisms and its toxins rather than on the artificial construct.)

The safety issues around gmos are not going away. The EU, African nations and others are still resisting while the US has taken the gmo trade issue to the WTO in a suit against EU trade restrictions of gm food and animal feed. Here is a story looking at one aspect of the issue; this is a Greenpeace product, so don't take everything to heart.

-----------------------------------------------------
Bush suppresses GM crop warnings
Leaked report acknowledges genetic threat
Mon 18 October 2004
MEXICO/Mexico City

Monsanto and the US Government have been telling the world that genetically modified crops pose no contamination threat to natural indigenous species. But Greenpeace has learned from a leaked report that NAFTA disagrees and is recommending steps to avoid a genetic threat to natural maize in Mexico. Surprise, surprise: the Bush Administration is attempting to suppress the report.

The report, written by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) of the North American Free Trade Agreement (US, Canada and Mexico) recommends that all genetically engineered (GE) maize imports be labelled as such and that all US maize entering Mexico should be milled upon entry, to prevent living seeds from being planted intentionally or accidentally.

The Bush Administration has intervened several times to delay the publication of the report -- completed three months ago -- and there is still no official date for its publication.

The scandal began in September 2001 when the Mexican government announced that scientists had discovered contamination of indigenous varieties of maize with genetically engineered (GE) varieties. The likely source of the contamination is imported maize from the USA.

Indigenous and local communities in Oaxaca were horrified, and non-governmental environmental organizations in Mexico started a campaign to bring the contamination to the attention of the world.

[[[snip]]]

There are at least two reasons why the US might want to delay publication of a report that highlights the environmental, human health and socio-cultural risks of GE maize. First, inside sources have alluded to the potential implications of the report on the WTO case being brought by the US and Canada against the European Union.

In 2003, the U.S., Canada and Argentina launched a case against the European Union for a de facto moratorium on new approvals on GE varieties in place in Europe since 1998. The CEC report is likely to provide strong support for Europe's scientific arguments. It calls attention to the huge gaps in knowledge that exist regarding the impacts of GE maize in Mexico, stating explicitly that risk assessments carried out in the United States are not adequate to determine potential impacts in Mexico.

"The WTO suit was clearly a politically motivated attack on the environment and on European consumers. It is highly significant that another trade body has now confirmed that there are unique risks to genetically engineered organisms and that there is scientific backing for a precautionary approach on genetic engineering," said Stabinsky. "The only appropriate next step for the US government is to follow the CEC's recommendations and mill their maize exports."

[[[snip]]]

Conclusions from the CEC Mexican Maize report (unoffical English translation)
http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/multimedia/download/1/618472/0/final_cec.pdf

Man, yall are dense. That was by far the easiest (to understand) online document I have ever read. It was like child's play.(Detect the sarcasm?). Man, now I know how it feels when people tell me that they cannot follow the latin that I post!

Wow! The CEC report is not really very technical at all, just filled with a lot of bureacratese. You should have read some of the material I've posted from scientific journals or scientists.

This is very good news.

The very county in which I live is trying to recruit biotech companies as an economic development strategy, a strategy that my entire state has been told to follow. Wading through all those articles and reports is about to pay off in a very real way. Thank you, Marshall, and keep 'em coming.

Yes, thank you for the good read.

No problem Marshall. I assume this is another of those "huge gaps in knowledge" regarding the impact of gmo's in the test setting vs. actual world impact.

Yes, you are right.There is little in the way of farmer-centered development just as there is only a marginal consumer-centered process underlying the whole matter of gmos. The bioag industries is relying on the principle of "substantial equivalency" and thus little-regulated and thus unfettered substitution of conventional with gmo products,

Yes, there are basic systems of R&D, production and marketing of products derived from gmos, but the profits are to be made mostly from the patenting and other fees, selling propriety crop protection materials, and later marketing of food, pharmaceuticals, and other industrialized profits. Overproduction of key industrial crops (and animals) is encouraged by the government and biotech industry. As with most industrialed processes, scales of production and distributions will offset for a time the diminishing returns to the agricultural producer. Those unable to compete in this farmer-unfriendly environment get out. Consolidation and mono-cropping continue to rule the industry.

Anything that lodges a question of safety to person or environment is a serious challenge to this system. If the producers, consumers or regulators turn against the system, the current agro-biotech system would be in deep doo-doo. So, let there be no serious testings of biotech process or products and no testing of gm food. Let there be no labeling or other means by which the public can opt out of purchasing or consuming gmos. NOT!

The continued resistence by the EU and other nations (and by important NGO's and civil societies) threatens the system by undermining the biotech industry and the highly subsidized US/Canadian production of gmos. Without the system of price supports and other subsidies, gm production will have been much less profitable for the biotech industry (esp. Monsanto) and agribusiness dependent on gm seed stock and government support programs.

I have been interested in the presentations of Dr.Mae Wan Ho and Dr.Michael Antoniou sited below.There are series of articles here, beginning with the second topic,that offers some quiet analysis of the implications of genetically modified plants.
As I am interested in observing phenotypic variations expressed by gene shuffling from abiotic and biotic stresses(selective pressures) which are more pronounced in isolated ecotypes,I continue to speculate about the impact of horizontal gene flow (thank you,Althea)influencing the sustainability of these more fragile organisms.The classic pioneering work of Turesson (1922)and Jens Clausen (1941,1948)is still regarded highly in current literature and is quite fun and intreguing to experiment with.The premis of Clausen's investigations-observations of adaptive/non adaptive traits of isolated ecotypes with regards to expressed reponses in different environments
is well documented in his book:'Stages in the Evolution of Plant Species' (Cornell University Press; 1951).The perspective goes beyond viewing horticulture as applied botany because one aknowledges the complexity of known and unknown factors influencing the surviveability and the characteristics of subsequent progeny.

http://www.members.tripod.com/ngin/article9htm

sorry;let's try again...
ngin:(Norfolk Genetic Information Network)
http://www.members.tripod.com/~ngin/article9.htm

Pickwick, good luck with your research. I seems to have lost the same facility with bioscience jargon as you demonstrate. :>)

Be careful of those socio-biologists and the lure of Determinism from any source! Genes are not known to shuffle very much or very well but RNA boogies to tunes science is just beginning to understand. And all that "junk DNA" hangs out in the dim recesses of the genome doing suspicious things. In other words, follow the lead of Dr. Ho and colleagues in eying with suspicion calls to accept simple "one gene-one protein-one phenotypic response."

Most any "island" species restricted by geographic or ecologic barriers are more likely to show more marked phenological or morphological changes in response to adverse stimuli on these genetically more isolated species. Darwin demonstrated how rapidly isolated bird populations changed but this was both an adaptation to many open and new habitats and the minimized back breeding found among much larger populations of a same species. In this larger population, minor changes in beak, feather color, or nesting preferences would likely be submerged genetically unless such changes offered the species much improved sexual or other sucesses.

Or at least this is what I remember from my formal education and later readings.

I don't really see how horizontal gene flow (with its emphasis on interspecific/transgenetic transfers) would apply to the classic island biogeographic phenomena unless you refer to microbial life forms. Microbes are known to very much more promiscuous in swapping gene packages across taxal boundaries than are higher order taxa.

This piece discusses the mutalbility of bacteria in response to environmental conditions, questioning the certainty of engineers claims to stability of gmo's.

=====
One of the most widespread misconceptions concerning the nature of
genes is that they have a defined and fixed function that allows them
to operate the same in all organisms and environments. We have the
picture of the robust gene determining all the characteristics an
organism has. And this gene will do the same thing in a bacterium as
in a corn plant or human being. It doesn't care where it is. The gene
carries its set of instructions with it wherever it goes and strictly
carries out its duty.

This picture informs genetic engineering. Take a gene from bacteria
and put it into a plant and the plant will produce its own pesticide
or become resistant to a herbicide. Since such transgenic plants
exist, the proof is evidently in the pudding. Genetic manipulation
works; genes are faithful workhorses. But does genetic manipulation
work the way we imagine with our schematic pictures? What else may be
occurring that doesn't fit into a neat mechanistic scheme?

It's somewhat ironic that precisely within the last ten to fifteen
years--the period in which genetically modified crops have been
developed and commercialized in the U.S. and some other countries--a
wealth of research on genes in relation to environmental effects has
been carried out, showing that genes are anything but automatic
instruction programs immune to their context. This research has
significant implications for the way we assess genetic engineering.
Unfortunately, it often seems that the results of this basic research
have little effect on the minds and pocket books supporting the global
drive to manipulate organisms genetically. In this article I'll
discuss some examples of the contextual gene in bacteria.
=====

Thanks for the link; interesting commentary and restating a common theme among contrarian geneticists and toxicologists.

The Union of Concerned scietists released their report on the work of six independent scientists they commissioned to evaluate the future of pharming. The scientists concluded current pharming practices should cease immediately and not resume until major changes in production can reduce the chance of contamination to virtually zero.

I agree that bio-pharms should be grown in isolated areas where pollen carry is not a concern. Also, just the physical seperation would help ........such as harvesting equipment and storage facilities not being used for other crops.

Wayne, they try separation for organic products with varying success. The biopharming industry will need closed systems.

I'll see if I can find an artlicle I read within the past month or two regarding underground biofarms in Indiana. In the meantime, this was published yesterday in the Indepentent:

"Revealed: health fears over secret study into GM food
Rats fed GM corn due for sale in Britain developed abnormalities in blood and kidneys
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

22 May 2005

Rats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified corn developed abnormalities to internal organs and changes to their blood, raising fears that human health could be affected by eating GM food.

The Independent on Sunday can today reveal details of secret research carried out by Monsanto, the GM food giant, which shows that rats fed the modified corn had smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of their blood.

According to the confidential 1,139-page report, these health problems were absent from another batch of rodents fed non-GM food as part of the research project."

I have been following this story for some time; rumors of the Monsanto study (ies?) have been known among anti-gmo types for a few years. During that time the UK government tried to push regulatory acceptance of gm feed and food in spite of widespread scepticism and rejection by the general public and a core of concerned scientists.

These results are similar to those published some years ago in LANCET (and subsequently withdrawn under pressure from Monsanto and other biotech companies.) The chief researcher was fired and the research institute basically closed down, stopping all livestock feeding research there.

Got to go farm real food.

This letter to the journal Nature outlines the safety risk of antibiotic resistance due to horizontal gene transfer from GMOs and points out that this is not the only risk that needs to be urgently addressed by the authorities.
------
Ampicillin threat leads to wider transgene concern

Sir:

We are concerned by the suggestion, in your Editorial "Don't rely on Uncle Sam" (Nature 434, 807; 2005), that the US Food and Drug Administration does not consider the presence of the ampicillin-resistance gene in Syngenta's unapproved variety of genetically modified Bt10 maize to represent a safety problem.

This is not the view of the UK government's scientific advisers (the DEFRA Antimicrobial Resistance Coordination Group), who state that some important veterinary pathogens remain susceptible to ampicillin (K. L. Goodyear et al. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 54, 959; 2004). They state that there is
"extremely low or no detected resistance in certain bacterial species", so that "any occasional transfer of resistance genes to these organisms would be a very significant event". If, as a result of such horizontal gene transfer, it became necessary to use more modern antimicrobials to treat animal disease, they write, "then there could be significant consequences for the consumer through the food chain".

The risk of horizontal gene transfer from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is not a theoretical one. One study found that, after Bt genes in plasmid form were incubated in the saliva in a sheep's mouth for a few minutes, they could still transform Escherichia coli bacteria so that they developed antibiotic resistance (P. S. Duggan et al. Br. J. Nutr. 89, 159$B!](B166; 2003).

In addition, it is worth noting that the ampicillin-resistance gene in Bt10 maize and other genetically modified crops is a remnant of the bacterial plasmid inserted into these varieties, and would therefore function very efficiently if taken up by bacteria as a result of horizontal gene transfer.

Once the Bt10 maize incident has been dealt with, we feel there should be a review of the general question of horizontal gene transfer from GMOs. There is no reason to believe that any health implications are confined to antibiotic-resistance marker genes; they could, for example, equally apply to the inserted Bt toxin genes present in all genetically modified Bt crops. However, the transfer of antibiotic resistance is the only such risk currently being addressed by the authorities that regulate GMOs.

We consider that the case-by-case approval approach used by the authorities does not adequately address such problems, which are common to all GMOs.

Gundula Azeez
Soil Association, 40-56 Victoria Street, Bristol BS1 6BY, UK