Martin Damus wrote:
> need we worry about horizontal transfer of GM genes to bee gut bacteria?
>GM companies no longer use antibiotic resistance as a marker gene (ah, but
>why?), so it is unlikely that *new* crops will transfer antibiotic
>resistance to bee gut bacteria.

        My informants in the trade tell me this is far from the case.
        The gene-tampering enthusiasts have never conceded that
antibiotic-resistance genes are a significant hazard in crops.  They have
however just recently started to say vaguely for PR purposes that they are
moving on to newer methods which don't use those genes.  The number of
crops in development from these newer methods is small, I'm told; and are
the newer methods actually less ecologically dangerous?  Just being
different does not guarantee acceptable danger.  Sceptical scrutiny by
scientists like Martin has not typified the commercialisation process until
now, and I doubt it has been arranged for these newer models.


>My statement may be considered biased because my personal, which I
>consider informed, view is that GM products are unnecessary to ensure
>human well-being, "food for the starving"  or effective farming.

        Right with you there, Martin.  No need has been shown for this
novel gambling.  It is indeed as you say unpredictable in its ecological
effects.  http://www.i-sis.org/tryptophan.shtml is a brief warning of what
can go wrong; but there are vastly more failure modes, most of which are
not foreseeable.

R


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