strenghtens my suspicion that borlaug is talking through his hat.
a nobel prize is no indicator that the person has any sense.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: P.G
Dear Rajeev,
I am very happy to see your mail and your interest in the ongoing controvery on the GM crops.
Well, it is a highly controversial topic. Vandana Shiva is an ardent opponent of transgenic biotechnology in agriculture.
I fully agree on all points made out by Dr Borlaug in the write up except the statement that the GM plants are good for farmers, environment and the consumer.
The consequences of GM crops on human and environment are highly debated at different levels and a blanket statement from a renowned scientist of Dr Borlaug's stature is not in good spirit. If the GM crops and produce of chemical intensive farming are absolutely harmless then why so much preference for organic farming and organic products worldwide ?
The apprehensions about chemical intensive agriculture and agriculture adopting genetically modified crops are not quite unfounded even though many objections have not been empirically proved. Vandana Shiva goes to one extreme. The reality could be somewhere in between.
I can give you a few scientific facts for the widespread fear of GM crops
Plant transformation typically involves tissue culture/cell culture ( i.e. regeneration of an intact plant from a single cell that has been treated with hormones and antibiotics and forced to undergo abnormal developmental changes) and either infection with a pathogenic organism or bombardment with tungsten particles. So it is quite possible that plant transformation resulted in significant genetic consequences that were unrelated to the nature of specifi transgene being inserted. This is the major point against adopting GM crops often highlighed by Vandana in most of her talks. It is true also to a great extent.
The second major point against GM crops is that antibiotic resistant gene which is used as marker gene during the genetic engineering process to identify that desired foreign gene is incorporated into the transformed cell could pose devastating consequences to end users particularly in raw vegetables.
Another consequence is for the environment. Major GM crops have Bt gene and weedicide resistant genes. The Bt gene is isolated from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis The gene confers resistance to many insects and pathogens. There is every possibility that these genes could get introgressed in the genome of the native species including humans and the consequences not yet known. The presence of transformation induced mutation poses a threat that is potentially very serious.
Imagine a situation wherein extensive farming areas have been occupied by weeds having weedicide resistant genes in the system. It could jeopardize the entire agriculture in the area.
In transgenic plant breeding, it is very important that hazardous mutations are either prevented or identified and removed prior to commercialization. But sadly we have no technology to do that at the moment.
The tall claims that molecular engineering in crop plants would provide simple solutions to complex problems are due to the inadequate knowledge of the deep rooted underlying problems.
Best Regards
3 comments:
A lot of good information ! Supposing that the genetically modified crops work decently in one part of the world, it mayn't in another part. The same pronciple that works constructively in one part can work in negative way in another part. So there must be atleast some understanding of the technology, the technology must be perceived for what it is, rather than creating 5 tons of more crops. Compromises could be always there, but the scientists should present all the perspectives and leave it there, rather than jumping to govt approvals.
Quote by Erwin Chargaff, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Columbia University, and discoverer of ‘Chargaff’s Rules’, which laid the scientific foundation for the discovery of the DNA double helix: "I have the feeling that science has transgressed a barrier that should have remained inviolate . . . you cannot recall a new form of life . . . It will survive you and your children and your children’s children. An irreversible attack on the biosphere is something so unheard of, so unthinkable to previous generations, that I could only wish that mine had not been guilty of it."
GMO rice strain unlikely to pose health risk
Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:48AM ET
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Europe's leading food safety agency advised consumers on Friday that eating rice with trace amounts of an unauthorized genetically modified (GMO) strain was unlikely to pose a health risk to humans or animals.
" ... the panel considers that the consumption of imported long grain rice containing trace levels of LL RICE 601 is not likely to pose an imminent safety concern to humans or animals," the European Food Safety Authority said in a statement.
But the Parma-based agency said there was insufficient data to provide a full risk assessment, adding that its conclusions were based on available molecular and compositional data and the toxicological profile of a newly introduced protein.
In August, the European Commission tightened requirements on U.S. long-grain rice imports to prove the absence of the LL RICE 601 strain, which it said was marketed by Germany's Bayer AG and produced in the United States.
Its decision followed the discovery by U.S. authorities of trace amounts of the GMO rice, engineered to resist a herbicide, in long-grain samples that were targeted for commercial use.
Last week, France and Sweden detected the presence of LL RICE 601 originating in the United States and the same strain was also found within a cargo of U.S. rice being tested in the Dutch port of Rotterdam.
Tests in Germany have so far proved negative, despite claims by environment group Greenpeace International that the strain had been found in branches of a discount supermarket chain.
At present, no biotech rice is allowed to be grown, sold or marketed in the 25 countries of the European Union.
Bayer says it does not sell or produce LL RICE 601 and the strain was developed by Aventis CropScience, a company bought by Bayer in 2002. But that development was discontinued in 2001, the company says.
Post a Comment