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

[SANET-MG] GM Eucalyptus



I prepared the following reply to comments that showed up today, the last day for comments, on the Eucalyptus EA review by APHIS.
21 May 2007

Prof. Joe Cummins

Reply to comments from an academic

One academic commenter made the following accusations: “Some opponents claim that one of the traits utilized by ArborGen is being kept confidential. Although the Federal Register Notice described one trait as confidential, this was not the case for the EA itself, where all the traits are described. This objection leads me to believe that these commenters did not actually read the EA. The intent of publishing the EA is to engage the public during the review process. Commenters are encouraged to avail themselves of this opportunity.”

Reply to the comment: The normal definition of trait In genetics, a trait refers to any genetically determined characteristic The commenter somehow seems unaware that the characteristics such as cold tolerance which are mentioned in the APHIS environmental assessment do not really go into whether or not the characteristics are , indeed, genetic traits Genetic traits should have been identified by their genetic characteristics and certainly their transgenic origin. Gosh, academics do seem to get arrogant!

“Many opponents called for full disclosure of the genes utilized by ArborGen. While disclosure of genes should be encouraged, this must be balanced against the need to protect intellectual property (IP). The development of biotechnology- derived products is an expensive endeavor (in part due to the need to meet rigorous regulatory requirements). As such, it is of utmost importance that IP be protected in order to ensure and encourage continued investment in the technology”

Reply to the comment; Intellectual property is normally protected by patents and patent applications and ArborGen has previously disclosed their genes in their patent and patent applications. Patent applications and Patents must be public in order for the system to work. APHIS seems silly in colluding with corporations to hide information that is publicly available in patent applications, patents or publications. At any rate, many if not most undergraduate laboratories and certainly corporate laboratories can easily read the crops genetic code to uncover the genetic modification. Indeed, the traceability of the transgenes in the environment is aborted by the careless use of the CBI designation. The CBI designations seem to be political tools and pretenses to avoid public scrutiny.

“? Opponents also called for disclosure of the field-trial location. There are many examples of tests that have been vandalized, resulting in the loss of years of hard work and valuable data. Hence, site security is an important consideration, and is justified.”

The public deserves to know locations in their neighborhood where things that may hurt them are located. Corporations should deal with any possible vandalism by providing on site security on their test plots. Site secrecy is not for vandalism, I believe, but to protect corporations from lawsuits from injured neighbors.

“? In a couple of comments, Barnase is described as a toxin. There is no information in the EA that indicates whether or not barnase is one of the genes being studied. Even if Barnase is in the ArborGen trees, it has been included in other products that have been deregulated by APHIS, as well as being reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration on numerous occasions (for use in corn, oilseed rape, and chicory).”

Reply to the comment; Barnase does appear in one patent application by ArborGen for control of flowering in Eucalyptus, as indicated in my earlier comment. Any claim by APHIS, or for that matter, from FDA that barnase is not toxic to human cells fails to acknowledge a large body of publications where, for example, barnase is used in the targeted ablation of human cancer cells. The point of my original comment was to point out the danger to the public in failing to acknowledge to the public that toxins were being employed or, even worse, to deny that the toxins were being used. Unfortunately, APHIS , corporations and much of science academia seem to regard the human public as being convenient white mice for their experiments. Holding back the truth is essential to maintaining a docile herd.

********************************************************
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.
Questions? Visit http://www.sare.org/about/sanetFAQ.htm.
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.