So if I see this correctly, GM is taking a gene from a (possibly) totally different organism, rather than something similar & introducing it at the DNA level?
Sorry. I said I thought I had been missing something at a basic level.
In many ways it is a matter of semantics, what side of the debate you are on and how much hysteria you want to whip up. A gene is simply a piece of DNA. DNA is only an order combination, of varying length, of a very small number of amino acids (4), combined in set pairings, like sophisticated binary code.
You share >98% of your genes with a chimpanzee, and over 50% with a banana. Individual genes may or may not be species specific, actually unlikely to be so, so when they say it is a fish gene, it is most likely a gene that happened to be taken from a fish rather than one only from that particular fish, and most genes are not bot. or zoo. specific either. The specific recombination of the acid pairings may have been found elsewhere, but the acids themselves are actually universal in all DNA carrying organisms.
As regards the ruling and the scepticism on here about the figures announced by rowse, well in fact I am surprised they are so low. we stopped packing here in 2001 and still have a lot of labels, but IF I had to replace all the labels we had in stock at that time I would have had to fork out in excess of 100K. Liquidation time. ( No doubt welcomed by the commercial haters.)
My sources in Europe tell me that this was no simple case of poor beekeepers taking a stand. The hives were deliberately placed there, right beside the crop, to generate this result. So you cheering masses (if indeed masses there are) need to bear one thing in mind. You are being manipulated (probably by both sides) and your honey, which is as safe today as ever it was, will now be viewed with doubt as a result of the activities of anti GM activists. It is a fact that honey contains pollen just as an apple contains malic acid. An ingredient??? Honey with NO pollen is not honey, so to be honey it MUST contain pollen.
We, and our bees, are being used as the connon fodder in this issue. The anti GM people think their issue SO important (typical of single issue activists) that they have no interest in the collateral damage. All of us are potentially just that collateral damage. The do not care about our future, just achieving their own desired outcome. ( A plague I cast equally on the houses both sides.)
The 0.9% issue seems also to be causing confusion. This is a nebulous point right now due to the tests only being able to confirm the presence or otherwise of GM pollen, but not to do a pollen count to decide if 0.9% or more of the pollen is from GM. It is quite specific however, despite assertions in other posts, that the level is 0.9% of the pollens, not of the product, so filtration to remove a large amount of the pollen is unlikely to work, as the much reduced post filtration pollen analysis is not all that likely to be radically different percentage wise than before (except inthe case of things like heather which have very large and more easily removed pollen grains). The count may be radically down, but the percentages will be similar to before.
There is much to be decided yet on this issue. The rather bizarre nature of the ruling caught almost everyone bar the activists by surprise. Not one jar of honey from anywhere in the world can be guaranteed not to contain a single grain of GM pollen. The end of beekeeping was not the intention of the court, but for many it may well be if common sense does not prevail. I know EU kicking is the way for many in this country, but those in high places in Europe are trying to find the way forward on this and a practical and sensible way at that.
Someone else also mentioned Rowse not wanting to buy UK honey. Well Rowse would LOVE to buy all the UK honey they could get...........but in reality it is not Rowse themsleves that make that decision. Their main customers will just not buy enough of the honey at todays levels as there is insufficient market for the product at the price point required. Lovely to get these prices, but the laws of supply and demand take over and if the price goes too high the sales stop, if the price readjusts then the whole market will open up and Rowse will have a sale for it, and if they have a sale they will buy in all they need. Rowse sales teams go out and obtain sales or contracts, then the buyers go in and source the product to meet those. Rowse are not a charity and cannot afford to carry huge inventories of stock that they have no sale for.
