- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: misleading?
- From: "ROUCH, R, RICK, PROF" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:20:55 SAST-2
- Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
- Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
- Priority: normal
- Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
Herve's message to me may be confusing in the absence of
seeing the message to which he replied. I now understand from his
recent message that he meant something different than I thought, as
described in my next reply.
Forwarded Message Follows
Subject: Recalling GMOs, Labelling and safety, from 25 May
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 10:09:30 SAST-2
I have been away from my email for some weeks now looking for
natural enemies of some key Australian mite and weed pests of
South African origin. Your message was forwarded on to me. I see
that you concluded that I have misled people.
I believe that the context of my original email was about
cotton, as shown below, not corn. It is true that the Norvartis based
corn Bt gene is truncated, but I wasn't referring to that. However,
it is my understanding that the only Bt cotton currently deployed,
and Monsanto's Bt corn, are both based on full length constructs.
The cotton cry1A(c) construct is described in T. Metz, R. Roush et
al. 1995, Molecular Breeding 1:309-317.
Heine J. Deelstra wrote something else about this but also stated:
"I want to add that the data I have is not the most recent." I
believe that Deelstra's information about Bt cotton is not up to
I don't believe that I have misled anyone, and certainly not
>From: Herve LE MEUR
>To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
>Subject: Re: Recalling GMOs, Labelling and safety
>>>>I've learnt recently that the coding sequence inserted is not
>>>>exactly the very same as the one in the natural Bt (i've not put
>>>>quotes around natural !).
>>>Herve: The protein produced is exactly the same as by the bacteria;
>>that is, the amino acid sequence is exactly the same. In any case,
>>>again for Bt
>>>cotton, there is no Bt or DNA in the oil, nor any difference in the
>>>composition of the oil.
>>I'm sorry but that is not completely correct:
>>The gene expressed in corn is a truncated* version of the Bacillus
>>thuringiensis toxin and the smallest fragment that still possesses
>>toxicity to insects. (Reference: M. Vaeck et al. Nature 328, 33-37,
>The coding sequence differs OK, even if the final product may be the
>very same. I think Rick has mislead some persons saying something
>true, but inadequate.