Arri London wrote:
>
> "modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>> Brief descriptions, too.
>> http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
>>
>> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
>> --
>>
>> modom
>
>
> Interesting page.
> All the foodstuffs we eat are genetically modified. Sometimes that
> modification took place centuries ago. Other modifications are more
> modern.
> Simple hybridisation (pollen transfer by insects, wind or humans) is
> genetic modification. The insulin gene put into the lettuce required
> more than pollen transfer
> Carrots naturally come in many colours; the orange sort has become the
> most common in parts of the world.

Arri I am still personally a NON GM sort of person
in some areas but not all I have profound issues with the manner and
corporate behaviour of the likes of Monsanto just to name one .
Consider the following

Concern about the creation of ‘superweeds’ is based on the possibility
that genetically modified crops could transfer a gene for herbicide
resistance to surrounding weeds. Herbicide-tolerant crops (crops able to
survive applications of weedkiller) have been produced so that a farmer
can spray a crop, killing all the weeds but leaving the crop plant
unaffected by the herbicide.

If a weed is closely related to the outcrossing crop — and some of the
more serious weeds are very similar to crops — then cross-pollination
with a herbicide tolerant crop could carry the gene into the weed
population. Howerever, cross-pollination isn't just an issue for GM
crops; this is also a risk with conventionally-bred (non-GM) herbicide
tolerant canola, which is currently in widespread use in Australia.

Some crop plants, like corn and canola, cross-breed readily with other
individuals of the same species. In Canada, there is at least one
example where a variety of canola already tolerant to one herbicide
appears to have acquired tolerances to other herbicides, because of such
cross-pollination among the different canola varieties. This gene
transfer between cultivars represents a crop management problem which
can occur in an ‘outcrossing’ crop like canola. This problem is less of
a concern in ‘self-pollinating’ crops like wheat, barley, cotton or
peas, which do not transfer pollen between plants.

The question of resistance to agricultural chemicals has a long history.
Herbicide tolerant weed species appeared long before the adoption of
agricultural biotechnology, mainly due to inappropriate farming
practices. The number of herbicide tolerant weeds has increased from a
single report in 1978 to the 188 herbicide tolerant weed types in 42
countries reported in a 1997 international survey.

Therefore herbicide tolerance (whether genetically modified or
conventionally bred) in an outcrossing crop must be carefully managed to
avoid the risk of gene transfer between varieties within the crop, or
from the crop to a related weed. However, even if such a transfer were
to occur, a herbicide tolerant weed would not be a ‘superweed’. A weed
with a gene for herbicide tolerance has no advantage outside the
environment in which the herbicide is used.

In fact, a recent 10-year long study, funded in part by industry groups
in Australia, *has shown that genetically modified crops are less likely
to survive in the wild than their conventionally-bred counterparts.*
Even if a weed acquires one or more resistance genes it could still be
controlled by other herbicide chemicals, or by traditional methods such
as tillage. Also, the transferred gene would not make the plant grow
more vigorously.

The question of how readily a crop gene will transfer to a weed species
is being actively researched. In trials at Adelaide University’s Waite
campus, in which herbicide tolerant canola plants were grown closely
alongside wild radish, only two out of 75 million plants
cross-pollinated. For more information on cross-pollination research go
to the CRC for Australian Weed Management
website.http://www.weedscrc.org.au/index_noflash.html

Despite these figures, regulators and scientists have insisted on
reducing the risk still further, by designing ‘exclusion zones’ around
some GM crops, and by careful licensing so that herbicide-resistant
crops are not allowed to be grown in areas in which closely-related
weeds occur. Continuing work is also investigating the likelihood of
transfer of herbicide tolerance genes from genetically modified crops to
non-genetically modified crops.

The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) has the authority to
apply conditions to both field trials and commercial releases of GMOs to
stop the GMO and its genetic material from entering the broader
environment. This includes limiting the geographic area and size of such
crops areas, requiring isolation zones to separate the GM crop from
similar crops and requiring monitoring of the area to ensure that the
GMO hasn't spread beyond the site upon which it is grown, and post trial
monitoring to ensure that the GMO does not persist in the environment
beyond the trial period.

In the future it may become possible to prevent added genes from
entering the pollen of a GM plant by ensuring that such genes are only
present in the chloroplasts of plants (because chloroplasts, a component
of green plant cells, are not found in pollen cells). In this case,
there would be no chance of the added gene moving to another plant via
for example, pollen.

Other issues may fall into the worry factor

Many people are worried that gene technology is very risky, and it's
certainly sensible to consider any hazards that this new technology may
bring. By recognising its potential risks, we can ensure that
appropriate safety measures are in place. In this way, gene technology
is like many other technologies we currently use; for example,
electricity. Electricity is delivered to our homes, schools and offices
in a form that is easily lethal — and yet we accept the risk because
great care is taken to minimise its dangers and because we appreciate
the benefits that this technology has brought us.

In Australia, gene technology is carefully regulated so that any risks
are managed and contained, while allowing its benefits to be realised.

The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator was established by the
Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2001 (GT Act), and is responsible for
regulating genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The object of the GT
Act is to “protect the health and safety of people, and protect the
environment, by identifying risks posed by or as a result of gene
technology, and by managing those risks through regulating certain
dealings with GMOs”. ‘Dealings’ with GMOs include contained laboratory
research, field trials and commercial release of GM crops.

The GT Act establishes offences for unauthorised dealings with
genetically modified organisms. If such dealings occur, offenders are
subject to penalties of up $1.1 million, or 5 years imprisonment. These
penalties are described in more detail in Part 4, Division 2 of the Gene
Technology Act.

For more information about the OGTR and the GT Act contact the OGTR on
1800 181 030, or visit their website.

The Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) protects public health
by ensuring that GM foods are safe for consumption. FSANZ assesses the
safety of GM foods, and all GM foods must be assessed as safe before
they are allowed to be sold in Australia.

The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code provides a common set of
food regulations in Australia and New Zealand, including standards for
GM foods.

Food standards have the force of law. It's a criminal offence in
Australia to supply food that doesn't comply with relevant food standards


Long Post but weight was put upon the fact that this group
is said to be interested in food .

One lives in constant hope that one day the truth will come out
of how arrogant and downright dangerous the likes of Monsanto have
been in not only agriculture but other areas as well
What you eat today walks and talks tomorrow .
Perhaps GW Bush got a lot of Monsanto chems when he was a kid

Steps of soap box
However, if any on here require further detail just ask and happy to
send off Ng
P