| Subject: | |
| From: | |
| Reply To: | |
| Date: | Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:50:54 +0100 |
| Content-Type: | text/plain |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Wayne Parrott here, still catching up on the messages. I want to thank John Samuels (Message 84) for the opportunity to to bring up a couple more points.
1) To repeat my earlier message (nr. 95): the ability to cross is necessary, but not enough by itself, for gene flow to take place. Thus crossability by itself is not enough to make an environmental risk analysis (ERA) determination. We need to assess the type of damage that is likely (as opposed to possibly) to happen if the gene introgressed into another population. Such effects have to be both biologically possible and measurable. I have yet to hear a strong biologically plausible reason as to why the presence of the Bt gene would change the coexistence of the various brinjals and related species.
2) The fact that some brinjal relatives have innate insect resistance: This is good news, assuming the resistance in these wild relatives is not based on a toxin that is also toxic to humans. In general, pyramiding "natural" and engineered resistance is a wonderful way to get effective, more durable resistance, as two modes of action are combined in the same plant. A caveat is that insect resistance is difficult to breed for using conventional methodology, and frequently, undesirable traits from the wild species come in with the resistance (what breeders call linkage drag). So, while such breeding is not easy (I have been breeding for insect resistance for more than 15 years now), it is nevertheless a complementary approach much more than an alternative approach.
Wayne Parrott
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences,
University of Georgia,
Athens, GA 30602
United States
wparrott (at) uga.edu
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the Biotech-Room2-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=Biotech-Room2-L&A=1
|
|
|