At 10:21 PM -0400 00/6/1, DNBrown wrote:
>"A leading zoologist has found evidence that genes
> used to modify crops can jump the species barrier
> and cause bacteria to mutate, prompting fears that
> GM technology could pose serious health risks."
>
>I  must take these findings with a grain of salt.

        One certainly should.  They aren't even findings at all, properly
speaking, until properly reported.  I have urged complete suspension of
judgement on this matter, pending publication of a scientific account.  The
only reason I posted that particular Observer story was that it seemed to
me the best of a bad bunch, and did at least include some quoted utterance
from the scientist involved.
        Meanwhile Doug has posed some questions.


> Why would only modified
>genes show up in bacteria, and not other, natural genes?

        It has not been asserted that no other genes have shown up in the
bee-gut bacteria & yeast  -  just that one particular gene was identified
in those microbes.  So far as has been rumoured, no others were looked for.


>  If someone spliced
>a tomato gene into canola, why would only that gene transfer to the
>bacteria, and not other canola genes?

        The first answer is as above  -  there is no claim whether or not
others were transferred.
However, it is quite possible that only the exotic transgene (for a certain
herbicide resistance) was further transferred.  The method of GM used to
produce the current types of GM crops features a modified version of a
promoter gene from the cauliflower mosaic virus, and there is reason to
believe that genes spliced this way are more likely to spread by further
'horizontal gene transfer' (as it is called).


>Are there canola, or for that matter,
>apple, genes in the bacteria in a bee's gut?

        Again, until we have a scientific report there's little point in
speculating.  But lack of concrete replies to these questions does not
imply that the claimed transfer couldn't occur.


>How could a bacterium know that a particular DNA sequence it encountered was
>not normally coded in that gene sequence?

        The CaMV 35S promoter is a unique tag.   But I'm not sure that I
grasp Doug's drift here.


>Clearly the data and methodology should be reviewed before this data is used
>as propaganda in the war over GM crops.

        Exactly.  I feel for Prof Kaatz, ambushed by Beatrix Tappeser's
leak.  Enraged crusaders are not what we need on this very important issue.

        I assume the prof will now publish  -  at an earlier stage than he
had intended  -  a scientific account of this work.
        Meanwhile, the best websites on GM are www.psrast.org  and
www.ucsusa.org.    I do urge beekeepers to bone up on GM because it will
impinge on them sooner or later in one or more ways.

R

-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878   Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
                (9) 524 2949