BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:48:56 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (56 lines)
A GMO bee does not have to be a pesticide resistant bee; nor is this the  
first time the idea of a GMO bee has surfaced.  Years ago, when  Charles 
Milne showed up at WSU, he talked about making a GMO bee, with some  varroa 
genetic material inserted into the bee.  His concept was  that  the mite could 
be fooled into thinking the bee was in essence  itself (varroa) - with the 
assumption that a predacious pest wouldn't  feed on itself. I wasn't sure 
whether he was serious or not; and I may be  misquoting him; but that was what I 
got out of the conversation.
 
I don't have a problem with GMO per se.  We've sometimes got ourselves  in 
trouble by narrowing gene pools through conventional hybridization of plants 
 and other organisms.   I remember a period some years  back when a disease 
of corn went through the US - the hybrid corn had  apparently lost 
resistance; and the corn breeders and researchers were searching  for older maize 
stock to try to get back the resistance.
 
GMO seems to me to be a way of going into a very Rapid  Fast Forward 
production mode, much quicker than conventional  hybridization.  However, problems 
may pop up just  as quickly.
 
When GMO plants with improved resistance to pest insects first hit, I had a 
 long talk with EPA in DC.  I asked why the pesticide label  registration 
requirements weren't being modified to address possible hazards  from GMO 
plants.  The short answer from EPA - they expected GMO stock to be  a moving 
target, constantly being improved upon and changed, since GMO by  definition 
allowed for rapid modification of the organism.  As such, EPA's  implied 
position was that if a problem did occur, it was likely that a  replacement GMO 
organism was going to be in place or on the way -  so problem solved.  
Seemed at the time to be head in the sand  logic.
 
I'm much less concerned about GMO in terms of natural versus human  
selection/modification, then I am about how fast things could go  wrong.  
Personally, I don't worry about eating GMO corn anymore than  hybridized corn.  I'll 
use canola oil - wouldn't want to use the natural  oil from rape seed, its 
got some toxic compounds that I'd just as soon avoid  ingesting.  
 
On the flip side, I am beginning to be more and more concerned about what  
hybridization and/or GMO may be doing in terms of floral attractiveness to  
insect pollinators, and the food quality, especially pollen protein  
content.  Over past couple of years, I've become much more aware that the  focus on 
improving plant production may have lost sight of those aspects of the  
plant that are critical to the pollinator.
 
Jerry
 
 

             ***********************************************
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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm
 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2