[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: transgenic DNA



Hello Megan,
In reply to your query. It is worth pointing out that  naked transgenic
DNA is commonly  now used in immunization of humans and animals and it
is used in gene therapy. So that naked DNA  ingested by breathing,
eating dusty produce or absorbed through skin is active. Furthermore,
soil bacteria take up such transgenes , as shown by experiment, and can
pass those genes to  common residents of the human gut. Genes like the
Bt toxin effect soil micro fauna  while pharm crop transgenes such as
interleukin10 genes powerfully suppress the human immune system
What is new about the transgenic soil DNA is its intrusion at high
levels of pharmaceutical DNA with untoward side effects and the
mobilization through the bacterial communities of human ,animal  ,viral
and plant genes. It is not the kind of thing that should be passed of
as safe or "substantially equivalent", it should be evaluated by
experiments done by truly independent researchers. Interestingly, the
key experiments seem to presently originate from  continental Europe.
The position that pollen flow and soil DNA can be assumed to be
"substantial y equivalent" is a form of science superstition that is
replacing experimentation and full reporting.
Sincerely, Prof. Joe Cummins

Megan Gardner wrote:

I may be misunderstanding this conversation due to the fact that I only
have time to read snippets, however I do have several questions if
anyone is game to reply.

Foremost in my mind is the MEANING of having transgenic DNA in the soil.
I understand ethical arguments against transgenes as well as their
activity in living material.  What I do not understand is how soil
stable DNA might affect anything in an ecological way....it seems that
it would, over time (even if thousands of years) break down into its
component parts as does all DNA and as it is inactive, not in living
tissue, it would not be creating undesireable compounds in the soil.
DNA  is everywhere, we ingest it constantly, mutant DNA occuring from
natural events as well as regular intact DNA, so I do not understand the
argument here concerning the actual presence of the DNA in the soil.

If the DNA is intact in the form of pollen, then perhaps there are other
issues to consider.

If anyone can shed light on this issue I would be happy to hear from
them.

Thank you,

Megan Gardner


jcummins wrote:


Hi Jane,
Researchers also suggest that  some of the  transgenic DNA  from crops
that resides in the soil at some distance from the growing area was
deposited from pollen. With, say, transgenic clover such as that used to
produce animal vaccines, the genes will be widely spread by bees and
ingested in honey.Much of the distant transgenic DNA may come from
vertebrate and invertebrate feces.
One final point worth remembering is that  transgenic DNA in GM crops is
derived from bacterial  vectors used to amplify human and other DNA.
When the GM plant is transformed   the bacterial plasmid DNa containing
the human or plant transgene is inserted into the plant by illegitimate
recombination so that the GM crop contains the trasgene and associated
bacterial DNA. The bacterial DNA provides homology which enhances
recombination when the DNA is taken up by soil bacteria. The DNA
plumbing arrangement means that transgenic DNA may be much more mobile
than  DNA from human or plant DNA alone.
Prof. Joe Cummins

Jane Jewett wrote:



SANET members following this thread,

       One point I didn't mention from the article, and it is just
conjecture on the part of the researchers involved, is that the stable
DNA
fragments may have come from cells that animals shed in their feces.  So,
passing through the digestive system of an animal might either create or
select for soil-stable DNA.  Given that lots and lots of transgenic corn
grown in this country will pass through the digestive systems of animals
(including humans),  seems like this topic is "fertile ground" for some
research.  Are we putting  a whole bunch of soil-stable transgenic DNA
into
the environment, and if so, does that matter?  I don't know the answer.

Jane

At 09:44 PM 4/30/2003 -0400, you wrote:



Harris,
You made an interesting point.It is worth pointing out  Bacillus
thuringiensis  with potent and effective toxin cry genes do not appear
in average soil but have taken years to find , frequently in isolated
areas. However, when , say , a Bt corn or Bt cotton field, of which
there are millions of acres , is harvested the roots decay to release
tons of crop cells each containing Bt genes , many of which are
released. The Bt genes are spread to soil, surface and groundwater.
Or consider humans, many have been planted in soil at an appropriate
time as they decay they release interleukin genes to soil, surface and
groundwater. However, when a pharm crop containing human interleukin
genes is harvested the roots create  a release of human gene at many
orders of magnitude greater level than the interleukin genes released in
a cemetery.
The point here is that the field releases of GM crops and pharm crops
have been done without due diligence in examining the escape of pollen
and of genes from those crops.
Joe Cummins


Jane Grimsbo Jewett
Information Exchange
Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture
University of Minnesota
********************************************************
The best manure for the land is the owner's footprint
--Aristotle, Economics (paraphrased)