> Some misperceptions according to survey responses to a true-false test on
> biotechnology:

> Regards,
> Dick Allen

The bulk of the world is quite confused about GMO's.  In conversation on
this topic, I've found that many intelligent people analogize genetic
engineering with hybrydization - a dsyfunctional analogy at best, since a
hybrid involves members of the same genera which are capable of genetic
exchange (like wolves and dogs), whereas genetic engineering can splice the
genetic components of any two organisms, resulting in wildly unnatural DNA
segments which have never, and would never occur naturally (like the glowing
rabbits that one bio-firm was selling as pets!).

GMO's were a pet peeve of mine several years ago.  I was (and still am)
concerned over the lack of labelling of such foods.  I spoke directly to
Bill Marianski (spelling?), who then headed the branch of the FDA
responsible for the issue of To Label/Not To Label GMO foods.  What he told
me left me in shock.  First, the official attitude of the FDA relative to
GMO's was - if it looks like a tomato, smells like a tomato, and tastes like
a tomato, it IS a tomato, regardless of how much genetic tinkering went into
it's creation.  Worse, he revealed that there was no independent testing
required to verify safety claims from the bio-engineers: only an affadavit
from the company saying that it was safe, presumably accompanied by some
basic testing data (again, from the company selling the stuff).

This situation has always troubled me on several levels.  Since there is no
way to know if one HAS eaten a GMO food, and since there are so many in the
food chain now, it would be impossible to determine the cause if a GMO food
were actually a problem.  This scenario is almost guaranteed, since many
people suffer severe food allergies - the principal antagonists being
foreign proteins.  Given that it is inevitable that new proteins will be
created from these processes, it's just a matter of time before a GMO food
creates a problem.  Further, we are talking about living organisms which
reproduce.  There will be no way to prevent GMO pollen from spreading into
the wild population of a large number of plants (example - rape hybridizes
readily with wild mustard, which is a rampant weed), letting the genie even
further out of the bottle, and rapidly degrading any temporary benifit of
weed suppression, which is currently the primary reason behind many GMO
foods (so-called "Roundup Ready").  There is even the possibility that the
consumption of GMO pollen itself could become a problem, as in honey, etc.
It's doubtful that GMO pollen is tested for human consumption. Imagine a
situation where your honey or harvested pollen made someone ill.  How would
you ever sort it out?  What if you were sued?

I recognize that this is a topic of intense debate, and that some will not
agree with my concerns (usually those who place infinite trust in men in
white lab coats :-).  I think it's just a matter of time before this
technology creates some fairly substantial problems for us all.  Since GMO's
are steadily creeping into the world - the problem will be sorting it out.

Regards,

Todd.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::