Joe,
Soybean rust is only new to the USA and Canada where it is called
an asian soybean rust that blew in from South America on the
hurricanes. The fungicide used to treat it, Headline®, is a
member of a fungicide family called strobilurins. There have
been no cancer or birth defect studies done on that fungicide
as far as I can gather.
All modern pesticides are studied for years before registration. Data
on birth defects and carcinogenicity is always required by the EPA.
The strobilurins, mushroom derived toxins, are very well studied and
widely believed to be safe. You may believe that more study is
required, but it is misleading to claim that no studies have been done.
http://www.micromedex.com/products/poisindex/updates/strobilurin.pdf#search='pyraclostrobin%20toxicity'
There is a tangible fear among USDA people, not because the disease
is new so much as because they have gambled on RR soy. Most growers
grow that one strain - introduced a short time ago in genetic
terms.
The RR trait is essentially one gene on one chromosome, not a "strain."
Breeders use backcrossing to transfer the trait into their own
varieties, while retaining the characteristics and genetics of the
recurrent parent. Generally speaking, cultivated soybeans are narrow
genetically, but this has nothing to do with the RR trait or molecular
biology.
James wrote:
it is a little misleading to claim that the varieties currently
being produced are therefore "monomorphic", in terms of soybean
rust. This accusation would only apply if the rust resistance
is "linked" to the RR gene...
The principle is very clear, genetic uniformity in RR soy poses
a clear and present danger. I am staggered to think that there are
those so dense that they do not recognize a principle that is about
as good as you can get...
The Southern corn leaf blight epidemic in 1970 catalyzed by widespread
use of TMS cytoplasm is not a good analogy to RR soy (or any single
gene trait) for simple genetic reasons. Texas male-sterile cytoplasm in
corn is not a single locus, but *the whole cytoplasm*. It comprises
all the extranuclear genetics of the plant, and thus presents a much
larger window of vulnerability than any single gene trait ever could.
I have a feeling that the those in USDA, academe and corporations
who turned their backs on the dangers of genetic uniformity will be
the first to be picked by really dumb politicians to cope...
I don't think it is fair to blame public-sector scientists for what is
driven by industry (and conformist farmers). And I have been around
private sector breeders enough to know that they are constantly trying
to include exotic germplasm. But the realities of sales and marketing
keep pulling toward the same old standardized apppearance, processing
specifications and yield. Everybody knows genetic uniformity is a
risk, but it is not a simple matter to prevent it from happening.
Dale
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
********************************************************
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or;
2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.
Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.