berenger’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  horizontal gene transfer to soil and gut bacterias

  Wiscidea, I think it is important to investigate whether transgenic dna transfers to any other living organism, not just humans, because everything is interrelated in the big scheme of things.  I don't mean to state the obvious, but we can't isolate ourselves from the soil bacteria that we depend upon to grow plants or from our own gut bacteria that helps us digest our food.  I found this article interesting as well as those cited by Ian Forrester--which are all a good jumping off point into further investigation.

  http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/Horizontal-Gene-Soil.htm
   "However, transgenes do often differ in several ways from native genes. This poses problems.

  Transgenes often contain DNA sequence homology to prokaryotes thereby increasing their likelihood of integration in bacteria significantly. Many studies have shown that DNA homology is the main barrier to HGT of chromosomal DNA (such as transgenes) in bacteria.

  Transgenes are often modified to allow broad expression in a variety of hosts; they often lack introns, contain promoters active across a broad range of hosts (e.g. viral or bacterial of origin), and seldom require extensive interactions with other proteins in the host cytoplasm for functionality. Thus, transgenes may have an increased likelihood of expression if horizontally transferred.

  The transgenes may represent novel genetic variability due to the use of synthetic genes with new protein domains or encoding novel biochemical pathways that have not been subject to natural selection in their new host environment. Therefore, they may or may not provide a selective advantage i= n the new host. Most likely they will not, but this cannot be assumed in all instances. Mechanisms providing genetic variability in bacteria do not combine DNA sequences from several organisms into a compact functional unit within the time scale done by genetic engineering. Thus, the argument that this is naturally occurring, cannot be used when th= e genetic novelty the transgenes extends beyond simple modifications.

  Thus, when compared to any native gene of a divergent organism, transgenes may differ both with respect to their likelihood of HGT, expression in the new host, and selection. The current debate on the likelihood of HGT has been much focused on the likelihood of transfer, whereas, as argued above, transfer does not generate an environmental impact. Selection would, if positive."
  ***********
  Many references are listed at the bottom of this letter to AgBio from 2001.  If this author is correct, and gene transfer is occuring and it is only positive selection forces that are or appear to be holding things in check--is this a chance worth taking?  We don't even know what the possible outcomes might be.  To my way of thinking, it is wreckless and totally irresponsible, for who would be held responsible in the event of a serious mistake.  

  Further, consider this danger of gentically engineering soil bacteria--and there have already been field trials--esp of nitrogen fixing bacteria.  Below is a worst case scenario, narrowly averted:

  http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/klebsiella.cfm

  Web Note: In the early 1990s a European genetic engineering company was
  preparing to field test and then commercialize on a major scale a
  genetically engineered soil bacteria called Klebsiella planticola. The
  bacteria had been tested--as it turns out in a careless and very
  unscientific mannner--by scientists working for the biotech industry and
  was believed to be safe for the environment. Fortunately a team of
  independent scientists, headed by Dr. Elaine Ingham of Oregon State
  University, decided to run their own tests on the gene-altered Klebsiella
  planticola. What they discovered was not only startling, but terrifying--
  the biotech industry had created a biological monster--a genetically
  engineered microorganism that would kill all terrestrial plants. After
  Ingham's expose, of course the gene-altered Klebsiella planticola was never
  commercialized. But as Ingham points out, the lack of pre-market safety
  testing of other genetically altered organisms virtually guarantees that
  future biological monsters will be released into the environment.

  Below is testimony from Dr. Ingham on the same:

  http://www.biotech-info.net/EI_testimony_NZ.html

  Dr. Elaine Ingham's Testimony (Executive Summary) before the (New Zealand) Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
  Executive Summary

  February 2001

  Executive Summary of DR. Ingham's Testimony:

  Genetically engineered organisms have not been adequately assessed for their environmental or human health effects. It is inadequate to subject ORGANISMS to the tested [sic] required for non-living chemical pesticides, and conclude that there will be no adverse or risky effects from release of those organisms based on that testing.

  A graduate student of mine, no longer working in the field of engineered organisms, and I did some research on a particular engineered bacterium that had been approved by the USEPA for field testing. No environmental effects were detected during pesticide or toxicity testing with this organism. However, Michael Holmes discovered that the engineered bacterium, Klebsiella planticola with a additional alcohol gene, killed all the wheat plants in microcosms into which the engineered organisms was added 1 . None of the wheat plants were killed in microcosms into which the not-engineered parent organism or just water were added.

  This bacterium was engineered to produce alcohol from plant debris, so alcohol could be produced after raking up grass straw residues instead of burning fields. This organism would have been released to the real world by placing the residue left at the bottom of the fermentation container following grass straw alcohol production on fields as fertilizer. With a single release, we know that bacteria can spread over large distances, probably world-wide.

  These bacteria would therefore get into the root systems of all terrestrial plants and begin to produce alcohol. The engineered bacterium produces far beyond the required amount of alcohol per gram soil than required to kill any terrestrial plant. This would result in the death of all terrestrial plants, because the parent bacterium has been found in the root systems of all plants where anyone has looked for its presence. This could have been the single most devastating impact on human beings since we would likely have lost corn, wheat, barley, vegetable crops, trees, bushes, etc, conceivably all terrestrial plants.

  It is clear, therefore, that current testing procedures required by US regulatory agencies are completely inadequate in assessing the potential risks involved with genetically engineered organisms. Until such time as adequate testing procedures are instigated and carried out, engineered organisms should not be considered to have acceptable risks.

  References
  Holmes, M. and E.R. Ingham. (1999) Ecological effects of genetically engineered Klebsiella planticola released into agricultural soil with varying clay content. Appl. Soil Ecol. 3:394-399. On U.S. foreign policy: GMO all the way posted 1 year, 2 months ago 23 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  regarding Mimicking Nature

  This is an informative website by Physicians and Scientists for the Responsible Application of Science and Technology.  It explains the differences between plant evolution, traditional plant breeding, and genetic engineering, in as much as it applies to GM crops in the environment and for our consumption.  This site also goes into the concerns with the technology that most articles talk around hoping we don't notice...like plant to plant instead of virus or bacteria to plant gene manipulation.

  http://www.psrast.org/intro1.htm

  Also, I take issue with the fact that the biotech/ag industry lobbies against labelling--our basic right to information about our own food, and the government (made up of and supported by many key people who have or will work for Biotech) supports them in that stance.On U.S. foreign policy: GMO all the way posted 1 year, 2 months ago 23 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  correction

   Regarding the above sentence:  Round up residues are not exponentially increased on foods.
  This should have read residues ARE exponentially increased on food crops and fda/usda has according increased the allowable limits, IMO, to accomodate the Industry.On U.S. foreign policy: GMO all the way posted 1 year, 2 months ago 23 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  it only seems odd

  It seems odd because that is not the issue. One of the many real issues is the insertion of genes from viruses and bacteria into plants.  I'm not sure which plant to plant recombinations you are referring to...

  Bt endotoxin (not from a plant) which is expressed in most if not all cells of plants genetically modified for this trait are not the same as the Bt protoxin used as a spray-form pesticide.  Furthermore, the pesticidal spray also breaks down in the sunlight, degrades overtime, and can be washed off.  Bt inside the plant is not broken down, has been shown to cause lesions in mammal testing, and is present in much larger quantities than the spray application.

  Roundup resistance (not from a plant) is a whole different, but equally, disconcerting bag of worms.  Round up residues are not exponentially increased on foods.  Roundup has been demonstrated to be an endocrine disruptor and possible carcinogen.  Any of this can be accessed fairly easily on the net.  Also, roundup resistance is occuring in weeds-especially in the last few years.  Now atrazine and the other harmful herbicides RR crops were supposed to save us from are used in conjuction with roundup. How have we benefited from that?  And what cost saving has the farmer realized?

  Also, there is the issue of pat and bar genes in Liberty Link tolerant crops which convert the herbicide to NAG.  Studies demonstrate that NAG can be reconverted back to Liberty Link in the guts of mammals.  see
  Kellner H-M, StumpfK and Braun R (1993). Hoe 099730-14C Pharmacokinetics in rats following single oral and intravenous administration of3 mg/kg body. Hoechst RCL, Germany, 01-L42­0670-93. A49978. Unpublished.

   Huang, M.N. and Smith, S.M. 1995b. Metabolism of [14C]-N-acetyl glufosinate in a lactating goat. AgrEvo USA Co.Pikeville, PTRL East Inc., USA. Project 502BK. Study U012A/A524. Report A54155. Unpublished.
  http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pest ....

  In one study, for example, protein produced from a gene found in E. coli turned NAG into glufosinate. G. Kriete et al, Male sterility in transgenic tobacco plants induced by tapetum-specific deacetylation of the externally applied non-toxic compound N-acetyl-L-phosphinothricin, Plant Journal, 1996, Vol.9, No.6, pp.809-818.

  Your point is an oversimplification to the point of leaving out the real issue. So commonly used by Biotech.On U.S. foreign policy: GMO all the way posted 1 year, 2 months ago 23 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Mimicing Nature

  What about the antibiotic resistant marker gene, CaMV promoter sequence that is constantly turned on instead of regulated, and the risk of promoter gene transfer in the gut of consumers?  This does not in any way shape or form mimic nature. The promoter gene is somewhat similar to cancer proliferation, though.

  Mainstream scientific thinking now does not say 1 gene = 1 function or trait. That old theory has been revised (see 2007 and definitely suspected before) with our growing knowledge of genetics--and more importantly since the development of gmo crops and foods.  The initial approval of GMO crops hinged on the one gene/one trait fallacy.  It is now believed that genes operate as networks and even interacting networks. So the insertion or disruption of one gene has an unknown cascading effect.On U.S. foreign policy: GMO all the way posted 1 year, 2 months ago 23 Responses