Subject: Re: maize

From: [email-masked] (Marty Sachs)
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 17:59:51 -0600

In article <[email-masked]>, Jeff Wagner <[email-masked]> wrote:

:I read in the paper recently that the US is trying to ram millions of
:tons of gentically altered maize down European throats, and that the
:Europeans won't buy it.  The article said that the corn contained a gene
:that is resistant to antibiotics and that would make it less susceptible
:to attacks by the corn borer.  The Europeans say that introducing any
:exotic organism like that into the foodchain is irresponsible and
:dangerous, and that in all likelihood it would make for more "super
:organisms" like the e-coli strain that is killing people now.  
:I have 2 questions:
:Is that kind of maize already widely used in the US?
:and
:What is the connection between the gene and the insect pest?
:Thanks!

Jeff,

IMHO, the greatest example of genetic engineering is the conversion of
teosinte into domesticated maize that was accomplished by Native American
farmers ~10,000 years ago.  Everything done to maize since, pales by
comparison.  It's puzzling to me that when genetic improvements are made by
so-called 'conventional' breeding methods, it doesn't raise any red flags,
even though this frequently includes introducing a gene from one species
into another.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Sachs                 [email-masked]     (217) 244-0864

         Maize Genetics Cooperation - Stock Center    
S123 Turner Hall            [email-masked] [stock requests]
1102 S. Goodwin Ave.        (217) 333-6631 [phone]
Urbana, IL  61801-4798      (217) 333-6064 [FAX]
                http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/maize [URL]
----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jeff Wagner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 08:40:50 -0600

I read in the paper recently that the US is trying to ram millions of
tons of gentically altered maize down European throats, and that the
Europeans won't buy it.  The article said that the corn contained a gene
that is resistant to antibiotics and that would make it less susceptible
to attacks by the corn borer.  The Europeans say that introducing any
exotic organism like that into the foodchain is irresponsible and
dangerous, and that in all likelihood it would make for more "super
organisms" like the e-coli strain that is killing people now.  
I have 2 questions:
Is that kind of maize already widely used in the US?
and
What is the connection between the gene and the insect pest?
Thanks!
Jeff

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey J Wagner; P.O. Box 433, Niwot, CO 80544; 
phone: (303)652-3674; fax: (303) 652-3676; e-mail: [email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jeff Wagner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 08:35:21 -0600

<,...It's puzzling to me that when genetic improvements are made by
so-called 'conventional' breeding methods, it doesn't raise any red
flags, even though this frequently includes introducing a gene from one
species into another.>

Marty, conventional breeding methods use plants from the same genus, and
usually the same species, do they not?  In the kind of engineering that
the paper is talking about the genes in the new plant are from entirely
different orders,...

Thanks!
Jeff

---

From: [email-masked] (Marty Sachs)
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 13:58:24 -0600

In article <[email-masked]>, Jeff Wagner <[email-masked]> wrote:

:<,...It's puzzling to me that when genetic improvements are made by
:so-called 'conventional' breeding methods, it doesn't raise any red
:flags, even though this frequently includes introducing a gene from one
:species into another.>
:
:Marty, conventional breeding methods use plants from the same genus, and
:usually the same species, do they not?  In the kind of engineering that
:the paper is talking about the genes in the new plant are from entirely
:different orders,...

Jeff,

There are plenty of examples where wide-crosses are used to introduce
desirable traits from one species to another.  For example the 'ht3' gene,
which confers resistance to the fungal pathogen Helminthosporium turcicum,
was introduced into maize (Zea mays) from Tripsacum floridanum.  Subsequent
backcrossing with maize and selection for resistance resulted in maize
carrying a gene from another genus.  So essentially, a gene from Tripsacum
was cloned into maize by 'conventional' breeding methods.

I anticipate that you're now going to argue that at least in this case it's
a plant gene going into another plant.  Well, in nature, some bacterial
species introduce their genes into plants.  This is not unusual.  The best
known example of this is 'Agrobacterium tumefaciens' which causes crown
gall disease in plants.  'Agrobacterium' actually introduces some of its
genes into the plant genome, these genes are expressed in the plant
creating a food factory that produces specific nutrients that feed the
bacteria and allow it to grow and reproduce.  The only thing that
'biotechnologists' have done is replace the bacteria's own genes with genes
that confer agronomically desirable traits (which in many cases could have
been introduced by conventional breeding, but via 'Agrobacterium', the
process is faster).  In other cases like BT, the bacterial protein spores
have been used for decades world-wide as a spray to control insect pests
>from  crops.  While this kills larvae of certain insects, it is very safe to
be consumed by humans and other animals whether as residue after spraying
or if it were produced in vegatative parts of the plants.

Are there genes that I wouldn't want introduced into crops?  Sure! 
However, is what's now going into plants dangerous?  After strenuous tests
by USDA, FDA and other agencies, the answer IMHO is no.  In fact,
petrochemical-based pesticide residues from non-biotech plants would confer
a risk to the food supply that can be avoided.  In fact, if a gene were
introduced into crop plants that can confer resistance to fungal pathogens
that produce aflatoxin and/or other natural toxins, the food supply would
be much safer.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 10 Dec 1996 03:41:51 GMT

I remember when some lovely-sounding reasons were given for how marvelous,
how wonderful, how useful, how saving the DDT was. Yeah.

B. Rateaver