Most of the things that come up in Google and Google Scholar forthis question have a mostly/completely speculative tone, or at bestuse models instead of measurements. This report describes someactual measurements in pollen transfer to neighboring fields fromGM fields, though they all seem to have been one-off measurementsat some unknown time after the GM plants appeared, rather thaninvestigations on if the genes are becoming more common over time,which might imply the ability to become unavoidably common in someenvironments or even a weed/pest/parasite. This doesn't seem likean obvious problem to me, because the traits associated with thosegenes are always meant for the context of being farmed or raised byhumans and therefore probably wouldn't contribute more to fitnessin wild populations relative to the wild alternatives of thosegenes, but a few counterexamples would smash that belief tobits.
Most of the things that come up in Google and Google Scholar forthis question have a mostly/completely speculative tone, or at bestuse models instead of measurements. This report describes someactual measurements in pollen transfer to neighboring fields fromGM fields, though they all seem to have been one-off measurementsat some unknown time after the GM plants appeared, rather thaninvestigations on if the genes are becoming more common over time,which might imply the ability to become unavoidably common in someenvironments or even a weed/pest/parasite. This doesn't seem likean obvious problem to me, because the traits associated with thosegenes are always meant for the context of being farmed or raised byhumans and therefore probably wouldn't contribute more to fitnessin wild populations relative to the wild alternatives of thosegenes, but a few counterexamples would smash that belief tobits.
