posted 08-14-2001 10:24 AM            

One of the two reasons that GM companies developed the terminator gene was to quell fears from the eco community that a GM crop might display some bad traits and then take over portions of an ecosystem based on a 'volunteer' crop (i.e., a crop like wheat that springs up automatically the next season from seeds dropped from the first crop). Since this 'volunteer' crop would be out of control, some people were afraid that a GM cornfield might take over a forest. In order to keep that from happening, the companies deliberately made the seeds produced from actually growing the crop sterile, without impacting at all the nutritional value or safety of the grain itself.

If you're concerned about GM crops running wild like kudzu or water-lilies, then you'd want a built-in safety valve to keep that from happening. Now you're complaining about something you asked for in the first place? You can't have it both ways!

The second reason for the terminator gene, of course, is that the companies want to keep their profits up. What's wrong with that? When you buy a copy of, say, "The Left Behind" and like it, you're expected to recommend the book to your friends, who will go out and buy their copy. You're not expected to make a photocopy of it and pass it on. That's theft. The template for a GM seed-stock is intellectual property, just like the words that make up a book.

Bear in mind that these companies have spent billions (that's Billions with a "B" of dollars developing the seeds and the only way than can get their money back is to have repeat customers - who, by the way, are not forced to buy those seeds!

And remember, it's those seeds and their crops that have been saving - and will continue to save - the lives of millions of Third-World folks. These people can now grow crops in places that wouldn't support "natural" crops - and now can grow them without the poisons left behind by megadoses of pesticides (which they probably can't afford, either).

Now let's take a look at the Rense article itself. Actually, it's not really "Rense's article". Like most of 'his' stories, Rense merely copied - word-for-word - an article from an Indian newsletter (and, of course, India, being a Third-World country who wants as much First-World free stuff as possible, has its own anti-American agenda).

Here's a few quotes (emphases mine):

"...the notorious Terminator' technology... USDA's role in developing Terminator seeds is a disgraceful example of corporate welfare, involving a technology that is bad for farmers, dangerous for the environment and disastrous for world food security...In a lackluster attempt to quell its critics,...In keeping with
its image as a rogue, isolationist state [the US]..."

What Rense is doing - what he usually does - is not present the news. He is editorializing. It's bad enough that most of the article is either half-truths and outright lies. People have the right to express their opinions, even when they're based on wrong or misleading information.

What is really wrong is when people that are considered "journalists" by some print opinions and fob them off as facts.

Jeff wins, we all lose.

Regards,

posted 08-14-2001 12:30 PM            

"...I, and most here I would venture to say, never asked for GM foods in this country".

True, and neither did I. Although GM foods will probably end up being the difference between starvation and a (reasonably) healthy life for millions of Third-World children, we don't need them in this country - yet.

But, given the increasing world population, I think the US and Canada will end up becoming more and more important in the global economy as food exporters. If we plan to keep up our food exports (which is probably the only thing keeping our farmers in business any more) then we're going to have to increase both our crop yield and the amount of marginal land producing those crops. I'm not sure that using GM crops is the only way we can do that, but it's the only way I know of right now.

When I said "you", I was not referring to you (individually) or members of this forum. The "you" referred to those same neo-Luddites who, when the concept of GM crops came up, were insistent that 'something be done' to make sure that any putative 'deadly' GM crops did not run wild and destroy the natural ecosystem. I can't think of any way to safeguard the ecosystem about GM-plants-run-amok (none of which has happened yet that I know of) than to insert the 'terminator gene'.

Now these same folks who were insistent about the safeguards want them taken out. That's what I meant when I said that " 'you' can't have them both ways".

"As for not running wild, ask Canadian growers how they feel about this."

I don't understand. I assume the Canadian farmers have the same concerns about GM plants displacing other plants in their ecosystem. If so, they'd probably want the terminator gene in their food-crops, too, wouldn't they?

Regards,

posted 08-14-2001 02:12 PM            

Could it be you are coming from the
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The
Whole Of The Law" philosophy?

posted 08-14-2001 03:17 PM            

"I find your attitude very enlightening and most disturbing."

I am glad my attitude enlightens you, but sorry that it disturbs you.

"Could it be you are coming from the "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" philosophy?"

Actually, I am coming from Mesa, Arizona. Not being a philosopher, I must plead ignorance of the particular flavor you mention, unless you are referring to some sort of neo-Hegelian or Nietzschean approach.

But, in any event, I don't think I am of that particular persuasion. The "Do What Thou Wilt..." business sounds like the rationale of a bully and a psychopath. It is the rationale of the murderer, rapist, thief, trespasser, wife-beater, FBI, DEA, and BATF, all of whom I abjure.

The "Do What Thou Wilt..." business sounds like the rationale of any person - or group of people - who are jealous of the hard work and success of others and try to take the fruits of that success away.

You have worked hard and made a lot of money (and provided jobs for a lot of other folks and provided goods and services for many more). I have not done so well, therefore I will take your stuff away - even if I have to pass a law to do so!

No, Mr. Moliani, I believe that people have rights. I have a right to carry a gun and worship where I please. You have the right to have your novel - or your design for GM foods - protected by a patent. I do not have the right - nor do you - to do "What I Wilt", if it means theft, murder, or what-have-you.

I'll leave that philosophy to the fascists, thank you very much.

posted 08-14-2001 04:06 PM            

quote:

---

I can't think of any way to safeguard the ecosystem about GM-plants-run-amok (none of which has happened yet that I know of) than to insert the 'terminator gene'.

---

posted 08-16-2001 07:46 AM            

These folks do not think the GM foods are so great and wonderful.

posted 08-17-2001 10:06 AM            

You have all brought up some valid points regarding GM foods; I'd like to reply to them all at once.

Delphi, your comments about the Third World countries' problems are right on the mark, and I don't think anyone knows what to do about it (I certainly don't). I know that most businesses are in the businesses for the same reason you and I go to work each day - to make a buck. They have problems, just like you and I would, with giving food away, especially to a person or country who will squander it on something else.

It seems to me that as long as these countries with socialistic governments put their own leaders' aggrandizement above the needs of their people, then sending food - whether GM or not -- is like providing a heroin addict with 'free' heroin. It may keep him quiet for a while, but it won't save his life.

Regarding your comment about lab rats and thickened intestinal linings: I haven't heard anything like that, but I wouldn't doubt it. Nothing is safe - not even water if the rat is forced to drink enough of it - and I guess that's why they're testing the stuff on rats in the first place. The questions I have about the study, though, are: (1) were the rats fed a 'typical' dose of the stuff, or was it equivalent to, say, a hundred times the normal dose we'd get from eating it? (2) Are the health problems with the rats tied to all GM foods, or was it just a particular strain that causes the problem? (3) Was the thickening caused by the GM characteristics themselves, or was it a type of food that, even in its 'natural state', might cause the problem?

Again, I don't have a clue, since I'm not familiar with the study. But I do think that, if that particular strain in normal doses caused those problems, it should be pulled from the market. If you have the information, let me know. We do have to keep a close eye on anything entering our food chain, GM or not. Look at the problems we had with DDT, which we'd been using for decades!

Thermit, I reviewed the article you cited at the STATpub.com site, and read Gunnar Rundgren's comments. I certainly can't refute Mr. Rundgren's words, although I would like to point out that, as head of a trade group which makes their profits from organically-grown foods, he may have a touch of bias.

None-the-less, cross-pollination of one type of foodcrop by another is a serious business. But from what I understand, cross-pollination is not limited to GM plants. You can have a perfectly 'natural' strain of a crop inadvertently cross-pollinated by another 'natural' strain, with the same resulting economic problems. So while Mr. Rundgren certainly has a right to be concerned, I think his problem is not with GM plants per se, but with a 'rogue' plant that just happens to be GM.

Of course, I may be wrong on this. Maybe there is something about GM crops as a group that enables them to cross-pollinate more efficiently than others. But if that's the case, I'm not aware of it.

David, let me take your comments one at a time and respond to them, since you hit on several important topics.

"These folks [Greenpeace] do not think the GM foods are so great and wonderful."

You're right, they don't think GM foods are so great etc. Greenpeace never has. Greenpeace is an advocacy group. Handgun control, Inc. Probably does not think the Second Amendment is so great and wonderful either.

Does this mean that you should ignore them? No. But Greenpeace, just like Insight Genomics or Archer Daniel Midland (who, of course are pro-GM) has its own agenda. I try to read as many different sides of an issue as I can and separate the facts from the spin. And this is real hard, because all sides of an issue seem to have of spinmeisters working away to get us to buy their views and ignore the other guy's.

"This is an in-exact science at best with the potential for huge damage to normal crops and seeds, to say nothing of humans."

True. But so is DDT and monocropping and stuffing chickens and pigs full of antibiotics masquerading as "growth enhancers" and even straight-line plowing in the Dust Bowl. Just about everything we do has that potential for damage. It's up to us, as informed consumers, to figure out whether the good in a technology outweighs the bad in it.

"To continually push this science off as 'good for us' is criminal."

No. It may be short-sighted, but it's not criminal, any more that pushing science off as "bad for us" is criminal. What I think is criminal is the way we as a society (and I include myself in that group) tend to take the easy way out by buying into whatever view the most efficient spinmeister can make.

"Too many are protesting the use of the GM product, but as usual, science and the governments do not listen."

I disagree. In Europe, there is much more consumer outcry against GM foods, and as a result, the EU has reacted (I'd say over-reacted) against their use. Here, there is a big outcry against guns, and the Government has reacted by increasing the limitations on their use. More and more people want more and more welfare and government programs, and the government is giving it to them. Here, we have a very strong set of checks and balances to keep our foods safe. It might not do as much as you want or as I want, but it is there. Science and government do listen. They may not do what we want them to do, but they do listen - and they will continue to do so as long as the consumers make their voices heard.

Regards,

posted 08-18-2001 02:12 AM            

3T3L1, this does give a patent number.

The UN plan is to reduce the world's
population - not to feed them.

US Agricultural Department Must Abandon Terminator Technology
Why is USDA ignoring the public outcry against suicide seeds?" asked Shand.At the meeting, secretary Glickman did not reveal any new information about the USDA's position on terminator or biotechnology, but said that he would be personally involved in reviewing the situation. "We anxiously await a response and positive action from Glickman," said RAFI's Shand.

The USDA is co-owner of a US patent (5,723,765) on genetic seed sterilisation, the product of collaborative research with Delta & Pine Land, a Mississippi-based seed company which is in the process of being acquired by Monsanto. USDA is currently negotiating to license its patent to Delta & Pine Land-a requirement of its collaborative research agreement. In addition to in-house research, USDA has supported research on suicide seeds at Purdue University (Indiana, USA).

US agriculture department refuses to abandon terminator technology
Canada, Aug 06:
Two days of contentious debate on terminator has ruptured the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) advisory board on agricultural biotechnology. Terminator technology, the genetic engineering of plants to produce sterile seeds, has been widely condemned as a dangerous and morally offensive application of agricultural biotechnology, because over 1.4 billion people depend on farm-saved seeds.
USDA ignited the worldwide controversy in March 1998 when it won the first of three patents on genetic seed sterilisation, which it holds jointly with Delta & Pine Land -the world's largest cotton seed company. At its second meeting on July 26-27, the 38-member advisory board learned that the USDA has decided not to unilaterally terminate its contractual agreement with Delta and Pine Land, despite the fact that they have the legal option to do so. Instead, the board was given the option of exploring restrictions on the exclusive licensing of its terminator patents to Delta & Pine Land. In the end, however, all licensing restrictions will have to be mutually agreed upon by both the USDA and Delta & Pine Land.

"Taking this issue to the advisory board and calling for public comment on Terminator was a giant charade, and a mockery of the democratic process," said RAFI research director Hope Shand. "Apparently, the USDA had already decided that abandoning the Terminator was not an option," she said.

At the recent advisory board meeting, the agency revealed that an official public comment period on agricultural biotechnology, from March 30-July 21, 2000 yielded 213 comments. Of the comments received, 207 were negative towards biotechnology, while 162 comments called on USDA to ban and abandon its work on Terminator technology.

posted 08-18-2001 09:03 AM            

US patent 5,723,765

quote:

---

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In a preferred embodiment, the present invention involves a transgenic plant or seed which, upon treatment with an external stimulus produces plants that produce seed that cannot germinate (but that is unaltered in other respects). If the transiently-active promoter is one that is active only in late embryogenesis, the gene to which it is linked will be expressed only in the last stages of seed development or maturation. If the gene linked to this promoter is a lethal gene, it will render the seed produced by the plants incapable of germination. In the initially-transformed plant cells, this lethal gene is not expressed, not only because the promoter is intrinsically inactive, but because there is a blocking sequence separating the lethal gene from its promoter. Also within the genome of these cells are the genes for the recombinase, linked to a repressible promoter, and the gene coding for the repressor. The repressor is expressed constitutively and represses the expression of the recombinase. These plant cells can be regenerated into a whole plant and allowed to produce seed. The mature seed is exposed to a stimulus, such as a chemical agent, that inhibits the function of the repressor. Upon inhibition of the repressor, the promotor driving the recombinase gene is depressed and the recombinase gene is expressed. The resulting recombinase recognizes the specific excision sequences flanking the blocking sequence, and effects the removal of the blocking sequence. The late embryogenesis promoter and the lethal gene are then directly linked. The lethal gene is not expressed, however, because the promoter is not active at this time in the plant's life cycle. This seed can be planted, and grown to produce a desired crop of plants. As the crop matures and produces a second generation of seed, the late embryogenesis promoter becomes active, the lethal gene is expressed in the maturing second generation seed, which is rendered incapable of germination. In this way, accidental reseeding, escape of the crop plant to areas outside the area of cultivation, or germination of stored seed can be avoided.

---

If the pollen from one of these plants fertilizes a non-genetically modified plant, the resulting seeds carry a gene which will result in the death of those seeds. Because of this, genetically engineered modifications would not be able to propagate by pollination of other plants.

quote:

---

Selection of Lethal (RIP) coding sequence.

There are currently two major biotechnologically relevant gene classes encoding proteins that when expressed in a plant cell result in the death of that cell. These classes are 1: Nucleases; for example Barnase and ribonuclease A and 2: Catalytic lethal proteins; for example diphtheria toxin and ribosomal inhibitor proteins (RIP). Proteins from either class (or any cytotoxic protein, or product enzymatically produced by such a protein) can be used successfully for genetic ablation of specific cell types if the genes are under the control of tissue or cell specific transcriptional promoters.

---