We should probably drop this subject soon, but this is relative to
beekeepers as our bees do need, collect, and consume pollen.  Further, some
of us sell pollen, presumably for consumption by other animals, including
humans.  Inevitably, some of that pollen will come from GM plants.

There has all ready been negative publicity concerning the appropriateness
of honey consumption when produced in areas where GM plants are raised.  On
this list, members have pointed out publicity and discussions in the UK and
in Canada.

Recently I expressed the view that decisions concerning the use of GM plants
and their products should not become a political issue.  In partial reply
Robert Mann wrote:
        "I cannot see that it could or should be anything else!  Elected
governments must be the deciders on such matters."

Well...there is a difference of opinion.  Some of us feel that it is
unlikely that there is any institution or group less qualified than
governments as far as such decisions are concerned.  In fact, our recent
presidential election was much about whether we should have more or less
government affecting our lives and, as the world knows, Americans are about
equally split on the subject.

IMHO, governments have little to no role in matters such as this.  Let the
markets decide; I am not worried that humankind or our environment will be
poisoned in the meantime.

Today in the New York Times, a left-leaning newspaper if ever there were
one, there is an article titled Gene Altered Foods: A Case Against Panic.
The opening paragraph reads:
"Ask American consumers whether they support the use of biotechnology in
food and agriculture and nearly 70 percent say they do.  But ask the
question another way, 'Do you approve of genetically engineered (or
genetically modified) foods?' and two thirds say they do not.  Yet there is
no difference between them.  The techniques involved and the products that
result are identical."

The article goes on the point out that "people have been genetically
modifying foods and crops for tens of thousands of years" and points out
that the current "panic" has been caused by deliberate misinformation and
misunderstandings.  As an example of the misunderstandings, they point out
that when strawberry plants were made more cold-tolerant by introduction of
a gene from an Arctic flounder that survives in sub-freezing water, some
people feared that the strawberries would taste fishy.  Of course, they do
not, because the gene that was transferred was for cold-tolerance, not one
for "fishy-taste"!  The author states that "Genes should be characterized by
function, not origin".  Such functions include "the ability to resist the
attack of insects, withstand herbicide treatments or produce foods with
higher levels of essential nutrients."

I read the author as being opposed to possible government regulation or
registration of new GM plants, or labeling of foods as containing GM
elements or "GM-free".  She points out that in today's environment "If the
most common sources of food allergens-peanuts, shellfish, celery, nuts, mild
or eggs-had to pass through an approval process..., they would never make it
to market."

Beekeepers need to be able to have some familiarity with the GM controversy
as they will inevitably have to face questions, just as they do with the use
of insecticides.  Those interested in reading the full article in The New
York Times will find it on page F8 of today's Science section, or at
www.NYTimes.com.

Lloyd
Mailto:[log in to unmask]
Lloyd Spear Owner, Ross Rounds, Inc.  The finest in comb honey production.
Visit our web site at http://www.rossrounds.com.