U.S. Rice Supply Contaminated

[ryanus]

U.S. Rice Supply Contaminated
Genetically Altered Variety Is Found in Long-Grain Rice

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns announced late yesterday that U.S. commercial supplies of long-grain rice had become inadvertently contaminated with a genetically engineered variety not approved for human consumption.

Full article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/18/AR2006081801043.html

Wonderful. I think genetically modified food is playing with fire.

[0007]

1. Mad Cow disease cover up. Bad milk to China. Now worthless rice.

[DeeDeeNY]

2. I fear that at some point there will be nothing

safe to eat. I just finished reading "Seeds of Deception" by Jeffrey Smith, which might be both the most interesting and the scariest book I've ever read. There is no doubt about it - this is definitely playing with fire.

[acmejack]

6. Great book!

You are right it is a scary one too! It is compounded by the fact it is true and it is just developing before our eyes. Unbelievable.

[newyawker99]

23. Hi DeeDeeNY!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ThomCat]

3. And who owns that variety of rice?

I can see two things happening.

1. The FDA will rush that variety of rice through approval processes so that it's considered safe for human consumption (whether or not it really is).

2. The company that owns that patent will then make a hell of a lot of money on every bag of contaminated rice that is sold.

Profits will increase and there will be a lot of mysterious unexplained health issues among the people who eat this rice, but of course, nobody will be allowed to point to the rice as the cause because there is no concensus that the rice caused it.

[ryanus]

5. It's weird that someone can actually own a variety

It's like there are grain varieties that are in the public domain, and others that are patented. I guess that means that at some point in the future, all the public domain varieties could be gone, and we'll have to get a license to grow food in backyard gardens.

This world is really messed up.

[ThomCat]

7. I'm sure corporations have unpublished strategies

for doing exactly this. They can't profit from plants that are in the public domain, so they will do whatever they need to do to get rid of those plants and replace them with varieties that they own.

And before anyone says this is a conspiracy theory, I'll say it's just normal business practice, plain and simple.

[havocmom]

9. They modify the gene, patent it. Seeds blow or get transported

by truck or critter. Patented seeds fall where they were not deliberately planted. Famers get sued for using patented seed without paying for it. BIG CORPORATION wins law suits due to deeper pockets for legal help than the family farmer.

Farm land and seed ALL become corporate property.

If you hate giant corporations controlling your gas tank, how ya gonna feel when they control your belly?

Brave new world... Think I'll pass

Might wanna learn how to garden and preserve food. Teach the kids. Their lives may well depend on it.

[Arkansas Granny]

11. Here's a link to a farmer in Canada whose field was contaminated

with pollen from GM canola and the fight he went through with Monsanto over using seed from his own crops.

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

[ryanus]

13. Awful

I read a little on that site.

"Monsanto's position was that it didn't matter whether Schmeiser knew or not that his canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene, or whether or not he took advantage of the technology (he didn't); that he must pay Monsanto their Technology Fee of $15./acre. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with Schmeiser, ruling that he didn't have to pay Monsanto anything."

Good thing the farmer won in court, but still...very disturbing.

[havocmom]

17. Happening in Third World too. Subsistence farmers

who could at least feed their families now can't. Not only dealing with patented seed, which means they cannot save seed, they must buy new every year, but now there are suicide seeds. Plants produce sterile seed which CAN'T grow new crops.

Am also wondering if the seeds made to grow sterile might also be missing key nutrients that we don't understand as yet.

I understand humans have been 'genetically modifying' foods since they first started planting things rather than just gathering what was handy, but the FrankenFoods bit with corporate patents is just plain disastrous for the human species.

We need food. The corporations are locking food up. We are soon slaves who will do anything to get our bowls filled a few times a week.

How long to Soylant Green?

[hpot]

12. Contamination is a huge threat even if unintentional

I used to love eating corn, not anymore. :(

http://www.calgefree.org/contamPrinterFriendly.shtml

[ThomCat]

14. That is damned scary information at that link.

[WinkyDink]

49. Yes, that IS the plan. Patents and infertile crops = $$$$$$$$$$$.

[Greyhound]

34. Does this sound at all familiar?

Remember Searle made Donald Dumsfeld CEO, coincidentally fresh from a stint in the raygun administration, just in time to avail itself of the brand new-fast track FDA approval process for its new product called nutrasweet, for which he received $12 million.

I'm sure that a product that metabolizes into formic acid and formaldehyde couldn't possibly hurt you, so drink up amerika, the pharmacy industry is working day and night to mask your symptoms.

[ThomCat]

46. I'm still amazed that Rumsfield hasn't been sued for

his role in this. I'd love to see the discovery phase of that trial.

Geez, what heartless corporate assholes made the decision that feeding people something that turns into neuro-toxins is okay?

[Greyhound]

52. Oh, but neuro-toxins are good for you. Don't believe it?

Go read the skeptics forum. :eyes:

Unconscionable assholes.

[ThomCat]

56. That is a funny forum.

Funny in an odd way, not amusing.

Too much undisciplined skepticism in one thing becomes faith in something else. That faith becomes dogma. They should be a bit more skeptical of their own certainty on many subjects.

[rocktivity]

4. Well, it's about time somebody noticed!

:evilgrin:
rocknation

[Hell Hath No Fury]

8. I think it is batshit crazy..

to mess uneccessarily with the things that keep you alive. Fuck with our food stock and it could be a disaster of unimaginable proportions.

[ThomCat]

10. There is no limit

to the necessary things corporations will fuck with to make a profit.
x(

[porphyrian]

15. Look, stop it. You're spreading insane propaganda.

Genetically modified food IS NOT in itself dangerous. Broccoli, califlower, collard greens and brussel sprouts are all genetically modified foods, coming from the same parent plant. So are navel oranges and probably 90% of the produce you eat. It doesn't matter if the genetic transfer occurs at random in a field or by design in a laboratory. GM food IS NOT inherently dangerous.

Corporate agribusiness IS something to worry about. They don't have our better interests in mind. In fact, they don't care about us at all except for how we can generate profits for them. Just because they employ genetic modification of their food products doesn't mean the process itself is dangerous. They also use water fountains and restrooms, email each other and wear business clothes to the office.

The anti-GM luddite lobby does nothing to help us beyond making us look scientifically ignorant and allied with the idiots who destroy their test crops. Just stop it.

[Greyhound]

16. I believe the OP is writing about direct genetic manipulation, a la

the infamous beefsteak tomato. We're not talking about Gregor Mendel crossing strains of the same plant to creat new strains, we're talking about introducing genetics material from a mackerel into a tomato and such.

And the main points are that;

a. we don't know what the hell we're doing yet and have absolutely no idea of the unintended consequences.

b. there is no way to contain these GM crops, once they are introduced into the environment.

[porphyrian]

19. Again, while it makes a great scifi movie, it's unnecessary panic.

a. We've only just begun to identify, let alone understand, the extent to which genetic modification occurs naturally and randomly, and we have little or no idea of the consequences of that, either. The cross-species transfer you allude to isn't the same as breeding a mackerel with a tomato in a test tube, it's simply giving an unused part of the tomato DNA an instruction to produce a protein, say, that it can anyway, but doesn't yet, at least not that we've recorded.

b. There's no need to contain them like a virus. In the wild, they will face all of the same evolutionary difficulties as any other crop, but with more vitamin A or a taste that's repellent to certain pests. This is no better or worse than any other instance of humanity participating in agriculture with regards to its environmental impact. The fear being generated over this issue is patently obsurd.

Again, don't trust corporate agribusinesses to use genetic modification responsibly - they only care about profit. Watch them closely, regulate the shit out of them, we need to. However, genetic modification itself is no more dangerous than having a lawn.

If you want to mob a scientific institution, attack Dow Jones and other chemical producers who are responsible for organochlorides permeating everything on the planet.

[ThomCat]

21. You are using hypotheticals that have no basis in fact.

You are assuming that the genetic modifications are no more dangerous, and no more complex than what happens with selective breeding or evolutions.

But if selective breeding could produce these plants then the corporations would have used that cheaper method. They used genetic manipulation because this technology lets them make changes that are otherwise impossible to create.

As for the evolution argument, making a change in a year that evolution Might, possibly, maybe be able to produce in the next million years sure as hell is risky.

Again, you assuming the safety of science. Tell that to the people who have died because of inadequate safeguards in the development of electrical technology, nuclear technology, medical technology, and any other technology that has affected us in the last few hundred years. Tell that to the people who are eating grains and vegetables that produce hormones and drugs that were not there before.

Or better yet, you can always volunteer to go live on a genetically modified diet for a few decades to prove to the rest of us that it's entirely safe. You may be willing to take a reckless risk like that, but you have no right to criticise people who are more rational and cautious than you are.

[porphyrian]

24. Christ, here we go again.

Look, believe what you want, but stop spreading false propaganda about genetic modification.

[ThomCat]

27. Do you have any facts to back up that statement?

Just because you're incapable of seeing the risks of science, doesn't mean they're not there.

And just because you consider something propaganda doesn't make it so. Go bother someone who knows as little as you do.

[porphyrian]

28. Yes, everyone has the factual information available.

It's not a secret, it's science. When you're done accusing me of knowing nothing about it, why don't you crack a book about it yourself that hasn't been written by Greenpeace and learn why I'm saying what I am.

[ThomCat]

30. Nice smear.

You still haven't presented a lick of information. Come back later when you know something.

[porphyrian]

32. Just returning the favor. You did start it. - n/t

[ryanus]

68. MOM! He's looking at me!

[Greyhound]

26. Good point about Dow or DuPont etc. But you are ignoring the

negative results we are already seeing. Take Monsanto corn for example (I really don't want to look up which one), it produces nutritionally deficient corn that cannot be replanted, producing an inferior product that forces the farmer to buy new seed every season from guess who.

Farmers that have tried to resist this are finding that their crops are being contaminated by neighboring fields.

Anyway the point is, and you know it is true, that we simply don't know enough yet to do this responsibly. There is currently no way to account for the law of unintended consequences, and we are screwing around with the only ecosystem we have, not to make things better, but to make $$$.

Here's a scenario, we want to create a new type of fast growing, drought resistant, corn. It is now introduced into the environment and initially appears to be quite successful. Problems arise when it becomes toxic to humans and, thanks to its rapid growth begins to displace traditional crops and spreads. What do we do then, wipe out the whole years crop? what would amerikans do if there was no corn for them to eat? What if the rapid growth turns out to be so successful that we can't stop it at all? Then it spreads to other continents, does corn eventually become extinct? What if some insect we didn't consider evolves from consuming this new corn?

I'm not opposed to genetic research at all, but I do know how science is invariably perverted by the drive for quick profits. The potential for a disaster of epic proportions is there and we absolutely cannot count on business to act responsibly. Why do you think the EU categorically banned GMO's and is now under tremendous pressure to reverse that ban from the corporations?

[porphyrian]

33. I'm not ignoring it, I'm just not irrationally afraid of it.

Our mere existance screws around with the ecosystem. There are a hundred things more directly responsible for our environmental problems that we should worry about and address before making a simple scientific process into a boogeyman. Watch the corporations, they don't care so we have to. But this is simply alarmist propaganda for the most part.

[ThomCat]

37. Can you present any evidence

that shows that any of this is alarmist propaganda? Anything? I didn't think so.

You haven't presented anything but your opinion. Nothing to say show that GMOs have been tested and proven safe. Nothing to show that no person or animal gets sick from eating this stuff. Nothing to show that putting hormones and drugs into foods doesn't have any of the risks that we already KNOW come from ingesting hormones and drugs.

Your opinion is not science.

[porphyrian]

38. I'm not playing your game.

As soon as I link to something, you'll just link to something else from the proliferation of anti-science propaganda and ecoterrorist dogma that claims otherwise. What's the point? I don't care what you believe, I just want people to stop spreading around factually incorrect bullshit about genetic modification.

[ThomCat]

42. Another nice smear

Given that I support (and manage) technology where do you get off accusing me of being anti-science? What grade are you in, kid? Have you taken a science class yet?

And where is any of this "anti-science propaganda and ecoterrorist dogma" you are spouting about. Come on, if you're going to make an accusation at least support it somehow. Cite it. Anywhere.

It's another grand opinion with no basis in fact. More of the same from you.

[porphyrian]

44. OK, pal you win. I'm wrong and you're right. Goodbye. - n/t

[Greyhound]

41. Much of it is, but that doesn't mean it is all hunky-dory either.

Large numbers of scientists that know a hell of a lot more about it than you and I have expressed grave concerns about just this kind of thing. Because the potential and unknown consequences are so grave we should be extra careful about how we use it.

In the last 25 years, at least, we have seen that simply watching the corporations is not enough, in the rare instances when we do catch them lying and cheating, they simply start a lawsuit and continue to do whatever it is and then export the products anyway.

In a way it is like global warming, two decades ago there were legitimate questions about the validity of the models, but the consequences are so potentially devastating that we must err on the side of caution.

[nosmokes]

47. dow jones is a stock trader

your overwhelming knowledge is showing

[Greyhound]

53. LOL

Totally missed that faux pas. :rofl:

[ryanus]

54. Dow Jones is a stock index

Great. Now I've gotten myself into the flamewar.

[nosmokes]

55. and publisher of the WSJ i think?

but we won't drag you into into the burning abyss until ypou've had time to put on the asbestos underwear...;)

[ThomCat]

18. There is a huge difference between selective breeding

and inserting foreign genes into plants. No amount of selective breeding is going to make rice produce an artificial toxin and resist another.

Your blase attitude is dangerous. Your argument seems to be that anything science can do is safe simply because some less invasive verision of that science has been safe. That's not only sloppy thinking, it's dangerous.

Before you go around lecturing other people and calling people luddites how about you get your head wrapped around something other than unfounded and unsupported generalizations about how harmless science is.

[porphyrian]

20. The huge difference really isn't.

Is a baby who was naturally conceived hugely different from one conceived by artifical insemination?

If anything is dangerous, it's repeating this ignorant alarmist bullshit. Hate science if you want, but don't lie about it.

I'm not lecturing you, I'm asking you to stop. Believe whatever you want, but quit lying. You're hurting the party.

[ThomCat]

22. You don't know much about science do you?

There is a huge difference between a change of method and a change of result.

Modern conception technology doesn't change the baby. Genetic Modification does.

If you don't know what you're talking about then you really shouldn't be making big judgements about people who know more than you.

[porphyrian]

25. Wow, that was so unnecessarily obnoxious.

Just stop spreading propaganda, huh?

[ThomCat]

29. Just stop cheerleading for corporate science, okay?

I work in technology management. I think I know a bit more about science and how corporations handle it than you've demonstrated. You were the one who jumped in here to tell other people that they're being ludites. Your entire approach was obnoxious.

Just stop pretending you have any idea what you're talking about, okay?

[porphyrian]

31. You haven't read what I've written at all.

Every time, I said you can't trust corporate agribusiness, and that you should worry about them. You are just arguing to argue, because you aren't arguing with anything I've actually said.

[ThomCat]

35. You haven't said anything.

You just keep repeating ad-nausium that people are paranoid for not trusting this science.

Come on, at least be a challenge. Say something smart. Back it up, at least a little bit. The kids I babysit can put together more coherent arguments.

[porphyrian]

36. Wow, who pissed in your fucking cereal?

If you have some beef with me you'd like to resolve, let's step outside and take care of it. Otherwise, grow the fuck up and accept that your opinion isn't important outside of your head.

[ThomCat]

39. Unlike you, I actual pay attention to the science.

While you spout nothing but unfounded opinion. Obviously you think your opinion is gospel or something. At least I limit my criticism to the one person who spouts unsupported nonsense. You criticise everyone who actually knows more than you.

[porphyrian]

40. You don't know anything about me, genius.

But keep stabbing, you might get lucky and be right once.

[ThomCat]

43. No, but I know what you've posted,

Genius.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. Eh.

Couldn't tell based on post 18.

[ThomCat]

57. Really?

And what is anti-scientific or un-scientific in post 18?

If your objection is the assertion that genetic modification is the same thing as cross-breeding then see my response to you below. They are not the same. Even a basic knowledge of what genetic modification entails should convince you of that.

The outcomes of GM are entirely different from cross breeding.

[nosmokes]

48. artificial insemination??? WTF

i'm not *lying* about a damned thing, and WTF does genetic mainipu;ation have to do with artificial insemination? unless you can inseminate one species with the sperm of another, that's what we're talking about with GE crops. anyway, you obviously own stock or have some sort of interest in monsanto. i'm done. aruing with an idiot is pointless.

[nosmokes]

45. cross breeding is*NOT* genetic modification!

that is such a falllcious argument it's laughable. something that can and does happen naturally in the wild is not thge same thing as someone putting a gene from one specxies into a totally unrelated species, and frakly i'm sick and fucking tired of apologists for this genetic experimentation that uses all of us it's rats trying to equate the two. FFS, we're not that stoopit! call me a fucking luddite because i want something to be tested thoroughly before i ingest it or feed it to children? and if it's such great stuff, then why the industry reluctance to label it? why aren't they proud to put it on that box of cereal? HUH? NEW AND IMPROVED FRANKENWHEATCHEX **NOW WITH GENETICALLY MODIFIEDWHEAT!*** but hell no, they're spending milllions lobbying congress to make sure it isn't even in the fineprint under ingredients. you eat all that bullshit you want, ok? just give the rest of us the option to not poison ourselves and our families with that trash, ok? thanks.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. Sure it is.

Cross breeding is humans messing around, manipulating the genes of an organism in a way that nature wouldn't.

Putting genes from one species into another happens all of the time in nature. That's where scientists got the idea and method of doing it.

I think this is what Porphyrin's getting to when he's talking about GE critics not knowing much about the science of what they're attacking.

"why the industry reluctance to label it?"

Not that I support them doing it, but probably because of all the senseless, scientifically-illiterate fearmongering.

[ThomCat]

58. The big difference is that cross pollenation only

deals with genes that are already there. It does not force plants to accept animal genes, or vice versa.

Genetic Modification is specifically designed to create changes that CANNOT be created with selective breeding.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. Are you familiar with genetic drift?

[ThomCat]

60. Yes.

But genetic drift is from one plant species to another. Genetic drift was even sited above. Pollen from GMO Corn has been contaminating soybeans.

But Genetic Drift cannot cause a plant to have animal genes, or cause it to produce animal hormones. It cannot cause a plant to start producing a complex, fully developed drugs. GMOs are created to do all of these.

The idea that Genetic Modification and selective breeding are the same, or even equivalent is based on a total lack of understanding of the scope and practice of Genetic Modification.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

61. Well then you're not familiar with genetic drift.

Genetic drift can cause a gene from any kind of organism to spread to any other organism. Including animal hormone genes into plants, plant hormone genes into animals, fish genes into strawberries, HIV genes into humans, elephant genes into amoebas, and so on.

Why, it's the very system scientists use to transfer one kind of gene into another organism.

This is basic, entry level genetics.

So I don't know who you think you are accusing others of having a total lack of understanding of the scope and practice of genetic modification.

[ThomCat]

62. I'd love to see some examples

of genes moving from animals to plants that produce animal hormones, or from plants into animals, or from fish into strawberries, or whatnot.

HIV from one mamal to another is obvious, and many diseases spread from species to species that way. Plant genes from one plant to another is obvious too. Viruses are well known to transport genes between various species.

But if you're claims about the scope of genetic drift are going to need some citations. That is not basic entry level genetics, it's quite a sci-fi claim.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. LOL. "sci-fi"

Start here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0716788810/sr=8-1/qid=1156554941/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-3019697-5935325?ie=UTF8

Then get back to me.

[ThomCat]

64. Ha. Try doing a search for the term Genetic Drift and

you'll see that you're full of shit.

Not one source anyplace online supports your sci-fi theories. You can post a link to a book you haven't read, but that's not the same as having a source.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. LOL

This is like having a conversation with somebody about tides and saying "tides are caused by the moon, which revolves around the earth" and then the other guy says "you're so full of shit! Where's the link!"

:rofl:

Like I said. Read the book. Or any book on genetics. I hear they've got a nice one that uses lots of cartoons.

[ThomCat]

66. A simple google search just turned up

78,000 articles under the search for "animal genes in plants" and not one of the first 200 was about genes naturally moving between plans and animals.

A whole lot of published articles in peer reviewed journals are online, and they don't supports your sci-fi theory.

Go figure.
:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

69. LOL

Try "horizontal gene transfer."

But seriously. Try an introductory course, or reading an introductory textbook. There's nothing wrong with learning about a subject before pontificating on it.

[ThomCat]

70. I just did.

And "Migration of Genes" too. It appears that genes only migrate between similar species. I don't see any articles that support your theory.

You're right, there is nothing wrong with learning about a subject before pontificating on it.
:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

71. Now look up "transformation"

as applied to molecular genetics. I don't want you to get bogged down in articles about Optimus Prime.

Not that I think you've read any of this yet. But maybe you'll remember this for future reference.

[ThomCat]

74. Nice try

but Transformation Genetics is about artifically transforming genetics using scientific manipulation. You have been insisting that animal and plant genes migrate on their own. Go do your own search and read the articles.

You keep sending me out to do research to prove your point. How about doing your own research and posting a citation?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. Oh, it's no trick.

If you looked it up you'll see it doesn't have to be artificial and all.

When you finish looking that one up, try "agrobacterium." That's a big one. You might have to cut and paste that into the search engine.

[ThomCat]

80. Right. You obviously haven't read your own link again.

"Agrobacterium is a genus of bacteria that causes tumors in plants. Agrobacterium tumefaciens is the most commonly studied species in this genus. Agrobacterium is well known for its ability to transfer DNA between itself and plants, and for this reason it has become an important tool for plant improvement by genetic engineering."

Nothing about transferring DNA from plants to animals or vice versa. It says that bacteria can transfer their own DNA to plants (and only to plants). I knew about viruses but not about bacteria. That still doesn't have anything at all to do with your supposed point.

Come on. One more time. One source about animal and plant DNA mingling and migrating. You can do it. I know you can.
:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

81. But Thomcat!

The last I checked... Bacteria and plants were two different kingdoms!

Doesn't that make them different species by definition?

[ThomCat]

83. True.

But that is hardly the migration claimed above, of animal and plant DNA mixing, plants producing animal hormones naturally, etc.

I have no problem accepting that genetic mixing happens to some extent. I've already stated several times that viruses can mix DNA, for example. But you are not going to find a rose expressing Bison DNA. It just does not happen naturally.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

84. Oh, so genes can transfer between whole different kingdoms!

Hurrah!

I was a little worried, because we seemed to have this little hurdle about genes transferring between species. We've come a long way.

Now...

We know that genes can transfer from bacteria to plants. Do you suppose there's a way that genes can transfer from animals to bacteria?

[ThomCat]

85. Possibly

But show me even a single example of a bacteria that acts on both plant and animals that could transfer DNA back and forth between them. Bacteria tend to be a bit too specialized to act on both. Bacteria that feed on flesh don't affect plants, and vice versa.

You're building a theory, so next comes an example...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

86. now hold the phone...

We now know that genes spread from bacteria to plants. And it's now a given that genes can transfer from animals to bacteria.

Do you suppose that there's a way genes can transfer from one kind of bacteria to another kind of bacteria? Say, for example, from a bacteria that infects animals, to a bacteria that infects plants?

[ThomCat]

87. I'd consider that remotely possible but speculative

It might (maybe) be a theoretical possiblity. But you still haven't produced even a single example of it ever having happened.

This is also a constantly changing scope of question. Above, it was stated that plant and animal DNA naturally comingle and mix. Now the argument is over whether or not it is theoretically possible for some very limited comingling to occur in a very limited, indirect and convoluted process in nature.

Still not one example of it ever happening. In all the genomes that have been mapped recently, not one example of animal DNA in a plant, or plant DNA in an animal. I'll let you declare victory on a narrow theoretical possiblity, but not in any grasp of real science.

And getting back to the original discussion of how this supposedly confirms the safty of GMOs, it doesn't. Even if it is remotely possible for bacteria to effect a 3 stage transfer of DNA from an animal to a plant, that doesn't mean that artificial genetic manipulation on a mass scale is safe.

Edited for grammar

[ThomCat]

67. A whole lot of sites discuss genetic drift

and none of them support your sci-fi theory either.

Geez, it must be embarassing to be such an expert in stuff that doesn't exist.

[ThomCat]

72. I'm still waiting for even a single link to an example

of the type of migration of genes you're theorizing. Just one.

I've read about viruses transfering genes, but only between the species that can be affected by that same virus. I've read about migration of genes between similar species.

So far, nothing that support your sci-fi view that plant and animal genes naturally mix and mingle. One citation. Come on. Just one.
:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. Oh!

"I've read about viruses transfering genes, but only between the species that can be affected by that same virus."

Now we're getting somewhere. Learning is fun!

[ThomCat]

76. I posted that example above when discussing genetic drift.

That's not new to me (though it apparently is to you). Try again.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

78. But Thomcat...

that's an example of genes going from one species to another!

What do you suppose would happen if that virus was able to infect two different species? For example, a japanese maple and a sugar maple? Or even a strawberry plant and an atlantic cod? What would you suppose would happen then?

[ThomCat]

82. I don't doubt those tree examples.

But those are related species. That is hardly a transfer of fish genes to strawberries as claimed above. They're not even outside of the same class of species, yet alone phylum.

Edit: I'd love to see some data on a virus that affects both cod and strawberries. If that were the case then I would happily accept that some genetic mixing is remotely possible. Though I'd still want to see even a single example of it actually happening in nature.

[ryanus]

75. For those who think there is no risk...

From the article:
> "The variety, known as LLRICE 601, is endowed with bacterial DNA that makes rice plants resistant to a weedkiller made by the agricultural giant Aventis."

I like bacterial DNA in my food.

> "StarLink (corn), which was engineered to be insect-resistant, was approved for use in animal feed but not for humans because of its potential to trigger allergic reactions."

Only wimps care about allergic reactions.

> Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said that the approval of two other but different varieties "offers reassurance that 601 is probably safe, too."

That's good enough for me. I'll go with "probably safe" with my genetically engineered food any day. How else are we going to get mutants with superpowers?

/end sarcasm

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

79. ...

"I like bacterial DNA in my food."

Me too. In fact, some times I like whole bacteria cultures in my food- like yogurt, or cheese.

"Only wimps care about allergic reactions."

Double plus suck for people who are allergic to corn.

"That's good enough for me. I'll go with "probably safe" with my genetically engineered food any day. How else are we going to get mutants with superpowers?"

Radiation. And Prayer.