Jeffrey Fullerton (
Sat, 07 Sep 2002 01:40:27 -0400

> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 22:18:08 -0400
> From: "Wally Billingham"
> Subject: Re: NANFA-- Genetically Modified Corn and its effect on the
> environment.
> Interesting Sajjad,
> I remember learning in school a LONG time ago that scientists could not find
> the "wild" form of corn, was this information incorrect or by wild do you
> just mean old heirloom varieties?
No exegesis this time around. But this thread was reawakened a question
that's been sitting around in my mind for quite a while. What's the
difference if wild ancestral stocks / heirloom crop varieties are
contaminated by pollen from GM varieties or the conventionally produced
hybrids most large farms have been cultivating for the past 100 years?

If you put the concerns regarding the possible impact of the BT toxins
and concentrate on the issue of genetic swamping- wouldn't the end
results be the same?

A little while back I heard concerns expressed over whether a farmer
whose crop picks up pollen from genetically altered crops could be held
liable for stealing genes of a patented plant variety- ie theft of
intellectualy property.

On the other hand, I in turn wondered if a small farmer or people trying
to preserve the genetic integrity of heirloom varieties or wild stocks
couldn't in turn claim damages for infringements on their property
rights via genetic contaminants?

And to keep this thread from straying too far off topic there's always
GM fish!

/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ For a digest version, send the command to
/ instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,