Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Monsanto Co. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (1390)	2/26/1999 12:29:00 AM
From: Dan Spillane	Respond to of 2539

Part of this story looks like an example of bad science, or very poor writing. Is this really a farmers news source? Look at how it qualifies a statement "according to a BRITISH publication" (it says) "According to a recent issue of the British publication Farmers' Weekly, a Canadian oilseed rape (also known as canola) grower who had planted a genetically modified variety in a field was surprised to see it growing elsewhere in a field of conventional crops. The farmer believed the genetic trait was transferred by pollen movement. The authorities are investigating." (my comment) This is silly. Pollen doesn't produce new plants even if it flies to another field. Rather, pollen fertilizes females of the same species, from which seed is produced. It is ridiculous for a farmer to think pollen would produce a plant in a nearby field. Even the dumbest farmer should know that. Now if he reseeds, a child may contain traits of the parents in the next season, but this should also be no surprise. But I don't think many western farmers reseed; in any case, the story doesn't say that, it says he thinks pollen did this! Also, how did he know it was a different plant, as far as I know all rape looks the same...? This story is odd and has scientific holes in it. It scares me that a news source for farmers could be so shaky on important details. Yet, the rest of the story seems more sound. Perhaps the problem is the element of British news that was put in...we know what the Royal Society has been saying...