[GPSCC-chat] 100% Gene Expression Is The Next Disaster On The GMO Front

[John Thielking]

I hope people get the significance of the difference (mathematically)
between how much a particular gene is likely to proliferate in the wild
with 50% expression per generation vs 100% expression per generation. In
the case of 50% expression it is even possible that undesireable GMO traits
will die out within a few generations due to natural selection and
dilution. With the 100% expression method, there is no more dilution and
the process of natural selection may not be as effective any longer. The
difference is exponential, increasing by a factor of 2 every generation,
until 10 years (10 generations) later you have 2 to the 10th power (1024
x) bigger a problem to deal with when 100% expression happens than with 50%
expression. I hope people get that and also realize that if this new method
becomes standardized for creating gmos it means game over for Organics.

John Thielking


On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Caroline Yacoub <carolineyacoub at att.net>
wrote:

> Hey John, this went through.
>
>
>   On Saturday, August 2, 2014 8:44 AM, John Thielking <
> peacemovies at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Things are going well for me in Eugene right now, if I don't include the
> latest tidbits from the Eugene Facebook group "GMOs: Separating the Hybrid
> Wheat from the rhetorical chaff".  Below I have included some tidbits
> gleened from the discussion in that FB group. It doesn't look good for the
> home team.
>
> It all starts with an article published on the pbs web site, located here:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/evolution/crispr-gene-drives/
>
> In this article the authors are saying that the developers of a new
> fangled GMO technology are asking for input from stakeholders before they
> let their latest GMO technology escape into the wild. Unfortunately, there
> doesn't seem to be an easy way to give feedback. There is no comments
> section on the pbs web site, no e-mail addresses for the authors and no
> specific institute mentioned that is promoting this new technology.
>
> Below I have pasted my comments about this article taken from my FB wall,
> along with a link to an article that talks about a letter that over 800
> scientists have signed onto asking for a 5 year moratorium on the
> proliferation of GMOs.  I'm sure that these scientists would also object to
> the 100% gene expression technique.
>
> Comments from FB:
>
> The people who want this and who want GMOs to proliferate think that this
> latest technique, which will cause 100% gene expression in subsequent
> generations instead of the current technology's 50% gene expression, is the
> ultimate solution. While the believers of Organics and labeling/banning
> of GMOs think that this technique is the ultimate problem, spelling
> disaster for Organics if it ever gets out into the wild and spreads GMO
> traits in the wild.
>
> The proponents of GMOs say that if Organics get contaminated with GMO gene
> expression (which they freely admit is possible through the mechanism of
> transferring say BT expression from a GMO crop to wild weeds and then back
> through the same mechanism in reverse to contaminate Organic crops) that
> they can simply do the reverse engineering process that is mentioned in the
> article and cancel out any proliferation of GMO traits in contaminated
> Organic crops. Well I say, that's BS. The Organic crop would not be
> genetically identical to the original after the contamination followed by
> the reversal, because the reversal would leave the Organic crop with a 100%
> expression of the "non-GMO" trait, something which up to that point had not
> occurred in nature. So I'm so sorry, but you just can't have it both ways.
> Either GMOs have to be banned worldwide or Organic crops will eventually
> (after 20-30 years or more) become cross-contaminated with GMO traits
> imported from wild weeds and the show will be over for the Organic movement.
>
> And, by the way, that 20-30 year estimate assumes that the current 50%
> gene expression technology is being used. If the 100% technique is used
> instead, then the time frame shrinks to 10 years or less, worldwide.
>
> Link to article about the 800 scientists (click on the "letter" link in
> the article to see the letter and the series of reports put out by the
> scientists).
>
> http://www.getholistichealth.com/40153/800-scientists-demand-global-gmo-experiment-end/
>
> Good luck!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> John Thielking
>
> PS And a further slip down the GMO/label it ladder is revealed when
> reviewing the discussion I had with people in the FB group (which can be
> viewed by non members).  It seems that some of the label it crowd (myself
> included) want to ban/destroy GMOs. But it is also true that the pro GMO
> side appears to have a few people who are against labeling who also want to
> destroy Organics. They are saying things like "some of the pesticides used
> on Organic crops are more hazardous to bees than Roundup" and things like
> that. It would be one thing if they were just being scientific like that
> statement suggests and railing against Organics. But they also say "so
> what" to the problem of cross contamination of Organics with GMO traits,
> saying that the Organic crops can be made whole by reversing the genetic
> engineering process that was mentioned above.
>
> _______________________________________________
> sosfbay-discuss mailing list
> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20140802/1e59dee9/attachment.html>