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 CumminsJane 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)