"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:14:28 -0700, Arri London >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
> >>
> >> Brief descriptions, too.
> >> http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
> >>
> >> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
> >> --
> >>
> >> modom
> >
> >
> >Interesting page.
> >All the foodstuffs we eat are genetically modified. Sometimes that
> >modification took place centuries ago. Other modifications are more
> >modern.
> >Simple hybridisation (pollen transfer by insects, wind or humans) is
> >genetic modification. The insulin gene put into the lettuce required
> >more than pollen transfer
> >Carrots naturally come in many colours; the orange sort has become the
> >most common in parts of the world.
>
> I had a protracted (and rather boring) argument on this topic with
> Michel Boucher a while back. But here goes...
>
> In my estimation, breeding hybrids isn't in the same class as
> injecting genetic material from one organism into another. Pollen
> from one variety of corn can fertilize the seeds of another, to be
> sure. But injecting genes from the insecticidal microbe Bacillus
> thuringiensis into food crops like corn and potatoes -- which has been
> done -- is not of a kind with breeding. Bacteria do not breed with
> tubers or grains.
>
> There is a difference in kind between the two practices.
> --
>
> modom

Of course there is. Most of the pics on that site are of produce
resulting from traditional hybridisation work. Only the lettuce seems to
be true biotech (placing of 'foreign' genes). Just trying to clarify
that traditional breeding practices are still a form of genetic
modification.