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 (1405)	2/26/1999 3:43:00 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Respond to of 2539

BBC Thur 2/25/1999 : (Plant) Genetic engineering to battle iron deficiency The plants on the left have the iron-converting gene, those on the right do not A new gene could be genetically engineered into plants to solve the world's most common malnutrition problem - iron deficiency. The gene is used by plants to take up nutritious forms of iron from the soil. The World Health Organisation estimates that 3.7 billion malnourished people suffer from iron deficiency. It is known as the "hidden hunger". The research team's leader believes the discovery of the FRO2 gene could have far-reaching benefits despite the recent outcry in the UK over the safety of genetically-modified (GM) crops. Professor Nigel Robinson, at Newcastle University Medical School, England, said: "This is a British example of how the genetic modification of crops could benefit consumers and the environment. "The technology is inherently safe but each application of the technology to produce a new crop must also be assessed to ensure that it is safe." Professor Nigel Robinson: "There's an element of xenophobia about opposition to GM crops but our local press has been great" He explained that the nutritional quality of crops had suffered because selective breeding of plants over thousands of years had aimed solely to increase harvests. "There is now the potential to breed back into foods nutrients they have lost during selective breeding," he said. Professor Mary Lou Guerinot, of Dartmouth College, USA, also worked on the project and said: "Because plants are the principle source of iron for most people, the generation of iron-fortified crops could have a significant impact on human health." The scientists isolated the gene in the plant arabidopsis, or thale cress, but they believe similar genes work in all plants. Professor Robinson told BBC News Online that singling out the gene from the 30,000 in the arabidopsis genome was a painstaking and difficult task. The right kind of iron Iron is found naturally in two forms: ferric (3+) and ferrous (2+). Ferric iron is more common in soils but cannot be absorbed by humans. The FRO2 gene helps plants produce an enzyme called reductase, which enables them to convert ferric iron to ferrous iron. Manipulating this gene to produce more reductase will enable plants living in poor soil to take up more of the nutritious form of iron. The team is now carrying out further tests to see whether the increased production of iron can be concentrated in parts of the plant that humans might eat. Iron deficiency leads to diseases like anaemia, in which the blood contains too little haemoglobin. In Ethiopia, for example, it affects 50% of women and children and 25% of men. The research is published in Nature. news.bbc.co.uk

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (1405)	2/26/1999 4:01:00 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

Commentary on New Scientist editorial concerning "insect mortality"... I have researched this issue specifically, and what I have found is interesting. When considering the big picture, you must consider all chemical pesticides have an extremely high propensity for wiping out entire fields of insects such as ladybirds and honeybees immediately upon application. Conversely, gene crops with this trait do not have this "armageddon" effect. So, the way things are done now without gene crops, these beneficial insects will die, and never contribute to reproduction. On the other hand, gene crops can support the life and reproduction of such beneficial insects, even if there is some lesser long-term negative effect. Moreover, in the case of chemical pesticides, the residual effects would likely have some long-term negative consequences for insect predators...some are partially poisoned, but don't die, so citing the same as a "drawback" for GM crops doesn't seem to hold up. I'm surprised the New Scientist does not comment on this aspect of the story. I'm sure more data will become available in the future. Perspective is obviously important. The "bad science" stories never give that. Since these are farm issues, we must put them in that perspective. And as for environmental issues, why not ask the question as to what happens to a bird which eats an insect which is covered with pesticide, but isn't quite dead? Or, what about a bird who is IN the field when it is sprayed? ...by the way, Monsanto and others have already addressed this issue in case there is any risk, by providing for the "insect refuges" mentioned. The environmentalists don't mention this in the "bad science" articles either. Dan (NS comments) The story is similar with crops engineered to be resistant to insect pests. Ecologists worry about these crops because they are designed to produce a steady supply of a natural insecticide that could harm beneficial predators such as ladybirds (see p 5). They argue that the wider effects of this could be quite different from those of chemical sprays which, because they are used intermittently, can allow insect populations to recover. To minimise any problems, it may be necessary to set aside areas of land to serve as GM-free refuges for insects