Beekeepers need to have a grasp of this issue, as guess who would be blamed
for any/all spread of unwanted GMO traits? Beekeepers, pollinating crops.
> where a completely foreign gene is spliced in
Yes, this is the common usage of the term "GMO" - the US FDA uses the term
"Bioengineered or Genetically-Modified Ingredients", which is a pretty clear
line.
An argument claiming that humans are somehow GMOs is a smokescreen offered
in argumentation against the fears expressed about the "unknowns" of GMOs,
as breeding and hybridizing has certain natural limits on it which seem to
act as "controls" and "safety valves". So, while one can crossbreed dogs
and create a "Labradoodle", this is not the same thing as work that would
never be possible via hybridization, such as the so-called "terminator
gene", which has met significant resistance from all quarters, and has thus
not been commercialized. This concern over "terminator technology" was an
excellent example of a legitimate concern, as it might be deployed and
naturally hybridize/spread to other plants, and perhaps make other plants
produce "sterile seeds". (See Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle" for the story of
"Ice-9" for the rationale behind the concern of "spread".)
There are GMO Corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, squash, papaya, sugar beets,
and alfalfa. GMO tomatoes, potatoes, and rice have yet to reach "the
market". The GMO rice was uniquely sketchy, as it was promoted a source of
vitamin A for poor kids, when there are lots of better sources of vitamin A
if the poor kids are simply able to eat anything above a starvation diet.
I don't think it correct to say that a gene would "not be entirely
incompatible" merely "if the organism lives", as, for example, jellyfish
genes have been spliced into sheep, rabbits, pigs, monkeys, dog, and cats,
all to make them "glow in the dark". While I spent years unsuccessfully
trying to crossbreed lighting bugs with bees in attempts at creating a bee
that could be worked by hobbyists in the dark evening after dinner, none of
these "glow in the dark" genes are "compatible" with other creatures.
There's also the thorny issue of labeling - those who want to state that
their products are "non-GMO" must prove it, as those who sell products
containing GMOs will not tell, as they know it would hurt sales, nor will
regulators force disclosure.
So, people generally don't trust, don't like, and don't want to buy food
with GMO ingredients, yet the government keeps trying to pat them on the
head and tell them that they don't need to know what they want to know about
the food they buy. So, while Country Of Origin labeling exists for meat,
"farmed" vs "wild caught" seafood must be properly labeled, and EU
geographic designations attempt to restrict things like the use of the term
"Champagne" to a specific province in France, but somehow one is not allowed
to know if anyone messed around with CRISPR or TALEN to make one's dinner
10%, 30%, or 60% frankenfood, or for what purpose, so savvy shoppers seek
the "Non-GMO" label, instead, rejecting any/all GMOs as "evil" on the very
reasonable reasoning of "If they don't have anything to hide, why are the
hiding this so stubbornly?"
I don't have a dog in the fight, but I think people should be allowed to
choose, and labeling should honestly state if one's dinner came from the
open ocean, from a fish-farm, or from a lab bench.
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|