On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:03:08 -0600, E. Ann Clark wrote:

It is also important to recognize that the process - not just the projects - of genetic engineering appears to engender inherent and unavoidable risks of gene expression, owing specifically to a) the randomness of transgene packet insertion in and among chromosomes, and b) the generation of unintended and unpredictable gene:gene and gene:environment interactions.

Bart Hall comments:

I would suggest (for purposes of discussion) that we ought to consider certain categories of GMOs acceptable, right from the start:

1. all *intra*-species transfers

2. all GMO fermentation technology

3. probably ... intra-genus transfers
My logic is that there is little risk from any of these categories, the chief benefits being relative speed of some transfers and the avoidance of undesired secondary characteristics.

For example, there is probably some BB-sized tomato somewhere in Peru that carries Alternaria resistance. It would probably be many many generations before the size problem is overcome via conventional breeding, during which time the normal spray routine in Florida would remain 25-45 fungicide applications in a 26-week production cycle (one per week, routine, plus one after each rainfall of an inch or more). As organic fungicides are at least as bad as the conventional ones, such a GMO transfer offers substantial benefit.

If anyone knows of risks associated with intra-species (or intra-genus) GMOs, please educate us. At least for now, I'm not convinced that GMOs in these situations are any worse than routine use of colchicene to trigger genetic mutations in conventional breeding.

Bart Hall

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **