As I take keyboard in hand to respond to this, I'm admonished by the
descriptive title of this list: notably "Informed."  With the
understanding that this topic is not strictly "beekeeping," but
acknowledging that bees and beekeepers may well be affected by GM'd
plants;  and that, while I read a lot and have thought a lot about the
issue of GM'd plants but claim no expertise at all; then perhaps the
monitors will let this through.  I do think someone has to point out that
there's a lot of uninformed lather being raised about a very important
topic.  As a group we can't afford to be swept up by the hysteria which
already is rampant.

1) The statement that there's no conceivable danger from pollen of GM'd
plants has no basis.  There may be no appreciable danger, but we don't
know it yet.  [A possible danger is severe allergic reaction to a
component one might not expect to find in pollen.  GM, as opposed to
cloning or strict breeding reginmens which are, in themselves, a form of
GM, may incorporate components from sources even outside the plant world.
By way of analogy, otherwise benign/helpful vaccines can be deadly to
people allergic to eggs if that's the medium on which the vaccine is
produced;  someone allergic to Salmon _might_ be adversely affected if a
gene from that fish shows up in peanut butter or vice versa.]

2) Some GM'd plants apparently do produce chemicals which are toxic to
pests.  They may also be toxic to other forms of life and probably are
toxic to some pollinators, managed ones or not.  On it's face, this would
be a bad thing.  Rumors about Sunflowers come to mind.

3) Some GM'd plants are specifically immune to certain herbicides.  What
part of the plant and what mechanism renders the plant immune, I haven't
the foggiest.  I am not reassured that anyone has done the work.  But
frankly, toxicity isn't my immediate concern (see below).

4) Not all GM'd plants are sterile.  In fact, soy beans, rape seeds, corn,
and rice, are not sterile: the producer requires an enforceable contract
which doesn't permit the use of saved seeds.  That ruinous bit of leverage
is, for me, prima facia evidence that the seed is viable and that it must
retain it's GM'd trait(s).

In my view, hyperbole is coming from all sides on the issue of GM'd
life forms. Not for a moment would I suggest we stop the research.  But
I'd surely reorganize it and enforce strict controls over it and the
results.

a) I would prohibit the release of any GM'd plant stock until independent
researchers, free of any funding by any interested party had cleared the
plant of any possible adverse effect on other plants, animals, insects
(other than target pests), people, and the economy of food production.
Keep in mind that I claim no expertise: "Golden Rice" which contains
pharmeceutically significant amounts of Beta-carotene not normally present
in the grain, is
about to be released on the world.  The "inventor," the owner,
distributor, all of them, have agreed there is overwhelming humanitarian
good to be done by giving the grain to populations which are otherwise
deficient in this vitamin.  It is felt that certain forms of blindness can
be cured or controlled if the supplement is provided cheaply.  Has anyone
asked what effect overdoses of Beta-carotene will have on birds and seed
eating mammals which will encounter it in the field?  Haven't heard of any
research.  Before migrating fowl is killed off by a gracious gesture, I
think we should know.

b) Plants which are GM'd to produce toxins to repel or kill certain pests,
in addition to having unintended impact on related (or not) benign
species, will be doling out uncontrolled dosages.  How long will it be
before the target pest(s) develop immunity to the toxins?  Can these
plants pass the GM'd trait to related species? If so what impact will that
have on insects which are reliant on those plants?  Once the genie is out
of the bottle, there will be no putting back.

c) Plants which are GM'd to be resistant to specific herbicides, thereby
permitting farmers to apply broad spectrum herbicides even after the
economic crop has emerged, should they cross with non-economic plants
(weeds in some contexts), may spawn a plague of destruction which cannot
be controlled.  Before any such seed is released, these questions must be
exhaustively researched.

Someone has already said that scientists can no longer be trusted.  That's
a broad statement which rings of truth.  In my view, what passes for
science under the control of well financed vendors, has confused almost
everyone by dispensing with peer review, the scientific method, and by
politicizing the research process. Through effective advertising, those
same vendors sell the resulting pseudo-science at the expense of others
who do real objective science an much smaller budgets.

By its very nature, production of GM'd species is dangerous.  GM'ing
doesn't allow nature time to discard the mistakes.  The potential exists
to overwhelm established species with engineered ones which are
successful in the short run.  I don't believe we have the experience yet,
possibly the wisdom, and certainly not the knowledge to predict all the
consequences which may fall out.

Finally, as a group which stands to be adversely affected by chemical and
biological manipulation, it behooves us to object reasonably to
experimentation outside the lab.  We can tell true tales about escaped
experiments, can't we?  And can't the Aussies speak about rabbits and
dingoes?  And then the grandaddy of them all: Spielberg can tell us about
velociraptors....

We can offer guidance and support to our governments which will have to
stand up to some very strong multi-national economic forces.  But if we
don't come up with realistic adverse scenarios which can be subjected to
independent and rigorous scientific testing, money will eventually
overwhelm hysteria.  As a case in point, there has been some exhaustive
testing on the use of radiation to kill pathogens in food.  Some countries
permit it now, some don't.  In those that don't, largely uninformed public
hysteria, unwilling to acknowledge the scientific research has succeeded
in at least delaying implementation of a valuable public health tool and
have co-opted the political process to overrule the science. But quietly,
the food industry has begun to use the process on foods which comprise the
margins of our diet.  Sooner or later they will prevail on a larger scale.

Thanks for your indulgence. The issue will affect us even though it does
seem to be tangential to beekeeping.

On Wed, 17 May 2000, Richard Brodie wrote:

> Hi Susan
>
> There is no proven, discernable or even conceivable risk from GM pollen in
> honey, especially in the minute quantities FoE turned up.
> The problem arises simply from the probably justifiable perception in Europe
> of the use ANY GM product as being an insidious attempt by large (usually
> US) companies to force a very dubious product on a very sceptical public.
> Put simply, after a long progression of food scares, most European consumers
> would happily conclude that GM contaminated honey probably glows in the
> dark!
>
> Rick Brodie
> Scotland
>

---------------
Richard Yarnell, SHAMBLES WORKSHOPS | No gimmick we try, no "scientific"
Beavercreek, OR. Makers of fine     | fix we attempt, will save our planet
Wooden Canoes, The Stack(R) urban   | until we reduce the population. Let's
composter, fly tying benches        | leave our kids a decent place to live.