www.czu.cz ; www.usab-tm.ro ; www.raupp.info

Heated discussion filled a UC Davis lecture hall Friday as specialists
debated critical issues regarding the impacts of genetic modification, in
the first installment of a series on genetic engineering in agriculture,
April 2004 by Fei Xie.

The goal of the discussion is to "educate ourselves and promote dialog
about genetic engineering," said event organizer Lori Stone.

Genetic engineering is the isolation, manipulation and reintroduction of DNA
into an organism to introduce new beneficial characteristics. The most
common genetically modified organism in agriculture is the Bt potato.

Bt is short for Bacillus Thuringiensis, a protein-producing bacterium that
has toxic effects in the gut of an insect that infects many agricultural
plants. Many farmers have been avoiding the Bt varieties due to the concern
of consumers that the modified food crop will be harmful, but the new
variety is only lethal to the predating insect.

Despite the concerns of some, genetic engineering in agriculture has many
supporters. The government, as well as many large farming organizations,
feeds billions of dollars into genetic-engineering research in institutions
such as UCD. The stakes are high for both the proponents of genetic
engineering and its detractors.

The UCD Student Co-ops organized the panel discussion series on this
controversial topic to examine some lingering issues: Is genetic engineering
a benefit or a threat to society? Does it create or reduce environmental
problems? Can GE crops help alleviate global hunger and malnutrition?

The first discussion of the series is titled "Genetic Engineering,
Agriculture, and the Environment." The specialists on the panel were
international agricultural development Ph.D. student Matt Huffard, plant
pathology professor Pam Ronald, UCD professor of vegetable crops and Seed
Biotech Center director Kent Bradford, and Renata Brillinger, director of
Californians for GE-free Agriculture.

After a quick introduction by the mediator, the discussion began with each
panel member's 10-minute presentation and explanation of their views on the
topic. Panelists educated the audiences with brief descriptions of the
technical processes as well as some background information on the policies
in place.

Brillinger suggested that genetic engineers do not know enough about the
technology to put it into wide usage. For example, she pointed out that the
insertion of one gene into human cells could cause the disruption of 5
percent of genes. She questioned whether genetic modification might
introduce unintended characteristics in addition to the intended ones in the
modified crops.

Brillinger also noted that genetic modifications can spread into the
environment when genetically modified plants reproduce with neighboring
natural plants, causing incalculable dangers to the ecosystem.

Bradford countered by pointing out that genetic modification only extends
the proven biological methods of traditional selective breeding. The only
difference is, with the new technology, that farmers can select traits that
are only found in other species, according to Bradford.

Although Huffard acknowledged the great potential of the technology, he
recognized the need for a specialized regulatory framework that will analyze
safety issues product-by-product, instead of frisking for flaws in the
genetic engineering technology itself.

Ronald noted that genetically modified food has not led to a single case of
adversely impacted health after seven years of consumption in the U.S.,
Argentina and Canada.

The discussion heated up when panel members took turns responding to
questions from the audience.

The crowd brought up many interesting points. An audience member pointed out
that the flow of genes between organisms of different species occurs in
nature as well.

Another expressed her concern regarding the recent developments of crops
with vaccines and other drugs genetically added to them. All panel members
agreed that this development is not only impractical but also socially
irresponsible.

"What is becoming obvious from this type of discussion is that we want
different levels of regulation for different types of products," Ronald
concluded.

[www.californiaaggie.com]

------------------------------------------
Posted to Phorum via PhorumMail