The exchange inserted onto this list, copied from somewhere else,
is difficult to interpret fully.
I make just a few brief comments.

>Joe is right: 'we should maintain a
>healthy skepticism regarding claims coming from all sides of this
>controversy'.

        If this slogan is intended to imply that all commentators are of
similar merit, that is rubbish.  Enormous errors of fact, straw-man
arguments, and moral smokescreens emanate daily from GM PR agents and their
friends such as Gary Comstock whom I just had the pain of hearing.  By
contrast, quality science & interpretation is available from the websites
I've mentioned.  It is not true that all discussants should be treated with
equal scepticism.  Some have a record of cogent, reliable utterance e.g.
Drs Mellon and Rissler at UCS.  Come to think of it, nobody has suggested
any objection to my article on www.psrast.org.
        Comstock today stated in my country's oldest tertiary institution
that 'golden rice' had only one transgene and would certainly prevent
blindness in poor Third World children.  He mentioned no possible harm.
Experts so deceitful as that deserve much more scepticism than scientific
critics who have published detailed referenced discussion of the general
issue.


>The New Zealand research you mention (thanks again to
>Mark Winston who sent me the details) is of the same type: anti-insect
>proteins added to artificial bee diets.  No GM pollen was involved, the
>study was just a risk assessment of the proteins themselves.

        As Gavin could hardly know, proper realistic expts were planned but
were quashed by the boss of the commercial (but govt-owned) research
corporation within which such tests were being done.
        Lack of knowledge, especially in such a commercially distorted
context, does  NOT  equal proof of safety.


 I will send
>the abstract to Joe, and to anyone else who requests it (not all 900 of you,
>please!).

        I would be grateful, as this list's GMiah and hevi-doodi Kiwi patriot.


> It is
>possible (I'm speculating, and I've just thought of this) that tetracycline
>resistance was used during the multiplication of the DNA in bacteria prior
>to its use to transform plants.  Additional markers are used for this step
>and the extra sequences are (almost always!) lost during the transformation
>process.

        On the contrary, most current GM crops retain the
antibiotic-resistance genes which were inserted with the modified Bt toxin
gene etc. etc.   The 'almost always' is, like most promises of GM, hope
disguised as fact.
        For the opinions of an actual gene-jockey who is very worried about
the cowboys surrounding him, see
 http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/6783/GMO-release_Premature.html


R

-
Robt Mann
Mulgoon Professor emeritus of Environmental Studies, U of Auckland
consultant stirrer & motorcyclist
P O Box 28878, Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand  (9) 524 2949