I think Steven if you were to consider the cumulative effects of Baccillus
thuriengensis (BT) toxins in the human food chain, then you might have some
concerns about genetic engineering. This toxin has been demonstrated to have
pretty significant effects on some test animals.
You must remember that Bt is a pesticide and it does concentrate in the
plant that is a GM plant. What are the low, cumulative effects of Bt on the
fetus and the mother, and later the child?
Consider a nursing mother, or an embryo, or fetus, that is exposed to Bt
toxin. Do think that the bacterial flora in the mother is going to be same
after she eats lots of Bt corn, Bt potatoes, and Bt rice? Allergies in
person exposed to Bt dermally has been demonstrated after repeated exposure.
In the laboratory, animals fed Bt engineered foods demonstrated effects.
These were pretty short term studies. What about the effects on humans over
a forty year period?
It is for this single reason that many companies now have a policy of not
using GM organisms [McCains for example will not use GM foods]. Why take a
chance if something is demonstrated as being harmful 40 years down the road.
It will be too late for the fetus and child that had it's immune system
impaired.
Would you Steven if you had a baby in your arms bottle feed an infant with
GM formula? And would you chose the commercial formula that has a label with
GM organism as an ingredient over a commercial formula that does not have GM
organisms?
If you answer yes to GM and feed it to the baby, the for gosh sakes publish
the scientific studies that prove your point that GM foods are safe for babies.
Thanks,
John Foster
At 08:42 AM 11/20/00 -0700, Steven Bissell wrote:
>Well here is an entire GM article, from the anti-gm side, don't want to be
>guilty of bias. One quote is most telling to me.
>
>Greenpeace Campaigner Emma Gibson explained:
>"Most people don't know that GM is still being sneaked into our food chain
>by being dumped into the feed of animals like chickens. By continuing these
>GM imports, Cargill is ignoring valid public concerns about the effects of
>feeding GM crops to animals and the environmental risks involved in growing
>them".
>
>Although I do have concern with GM, this approach leaves me a bit cold. Ms
>Gibson speaks of "food chain" in a very concrete sense. This indicates, to
>me, a fairly low level of understanding about what food chains are. Also the
>so call "valid public concern" is a bit of a red herring. So far the public
>concern seems to be a reaction to largely unproven effects. So, I guess
>there is public concern, but "valid"? Not really.
>
>We had a brief spat about the mode of social protest over environmental
>issues last week. This seem connected IMO in that we now have elevated GM to
>a major environmental issue in the mostly absence of any meaningful evidence
>of harm. The reason I'm concerned about this is because policy makers who
>don't want to take any real action on environmental issues can point to this
>and roll out the "Chicken Little" argument. This has been the successful
>policy approach for over a decade in keeping the US from adopting any sort
>of global warming policy.
>
>As most of the people on this list know by now, I feel that animal rights is
>an issue which has been put into the environmental camp without good cause.
>I now see that GM is an issue for some people who are concerned with
>something to do with human health, or agricultural economics, or the like,
>and they have successfully made GM into an environmental concern.
>
>Makes me wonder if the day will ever come when the environmental movement
>will achieve meaningful political goals. Gore should have been elected on
>his environmental record alone. Never mind that he is a wimp and probably
>not the most truthful person to ever run for office, on the environment he's
>a saint compared to Bush. However, the environment did not, as near as I can
>see, play any role in this election, except for the votes it took away from
>Gore. The US is going to get a President who thinks that global warming
>"needs more study" and will appoint cabinet officers who will make sure
>nothing happens in the next four years on any environmental issue. I think
>that we environmentalists are our own worst enemies.
>
>Steven
>
>In the final analysis one should think only
>of one single science: the science of man,
>or, more exactly expressed, social science,
>of which our own existence constitutes at
>once the principle and the purpose and in
>which the rational study of the external
>world naturally comes to merge, for this
>double reason that the science of nature is
>a necessary constituent of and a basic
>preamble to social science.
>
> Auguste Comte
> Discourses, 1884
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: GEN lists [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 5:23 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: GE 2 - chickens run amok
>
>
>
>For Immediate Release: 8.15am, Monday, 20 November, 2000.
>
>Eco-chickens Shut Down Importer of GM Soya
>
>
>At 8.00 am this morning (Monday 20 November) sixty Greenpeace volunteers
>dressed as pantomime chickens invaded and shut down the UK's only GM soya
>mill. The invasion comes the day after fast food chain McDonalds announced
>that it was to ban meat from animals fed on GM in its UK stores.
>
>The plant at Gladstone Docks, Liverpool, is the main gateway for GM crop
>imports into the UK and processes both GM and normal soya. Most of the crop
>is mixed into animal feed, while oil extracted from the beans is sold for
>use in food such as crisps and biscuits. Neither GM animal feed or GM
>derivatives in food are required to be labelled.
>
>Greenpeace accuses Cargill, the multinational company running the plant, of
>sneaking GM crops into the UK foodchain. The volunteers intend to continue
>the occupation until the company agrees to stop GM imports into the UK and
>makes the Liverpool facility GM free.
>
>The chickens were concealed in four trucks which were driven into the plant
>through the main gate. The trucks were immobilised, blocking the
>weigh-stations used by grain trucks as they enter and leave the site. Sixty
>chickens then burst out of the back of the trucks and dispersed across the
>facility. Many have now chained themselves to equipment in the plant.
>
>A team of Greenpeace climbers also scaled and shut down a 40-metre-high
>conveyor belt, which transports soya from silos to the crushing plant. After
>attaching a 'GM INSIDE' banner to the mechanism they set up camp in a
>Portaledge (a small tent suspended over the side of the conveyor belt).
>Cargill security workers are present at the scene and attempting to round up
>chickens.
>
>Greenpeace Campaigner Emma Gibson explained:
>"Most people don't know that GM is still being sneaked into our food chain
>by being dumped into the feed of animals like chickens. By continuing these
>GM imports, Cargill is ignoring valid public concerns about the effects of
>feeding GM crops to animals and the environmental risks involved in growing
>them".
>
>She continued:
>"This one plant is responsible for importing almost all the GM soya that
>enters the UK foodchain. If Cargill ends these imports and stops
>contaminating our animal feed supply, they will be satisfying both the
>public and the majority of food producers and retailers who want food that
>is GM free". >>CONTS>>
>
>CONTACT: 0207 865 8255/6/7
>
>A recent opinion poll by NOP, commissioned by Greenpeace, found that 67% of
>consumers wanted an end to the practice of feeding GM crops to animals.
>Ninety percent thought that products from animals raised on GM crops should
>be labelled. Iceland, Tesco, Sainsbury, CWS, Asda and Marks and Spencer have
>all committed to the removal of GM from animal feed.
>
>For people wanting to avoid GM, Greenpeace have set up a guide on their
>website advising which food producers avoid GM animal feed, including a
>guide to GM free chickens.
>
>ENDS
>
>EDITOR'S NOTES
>
>[1] For up to date information on the progress of the action, or to arrange
>an interview with the climbers or a campaigner, please contact Greenpeace
>Press Office on 07801 212993, 07801 212968 or 0207 865 8255/6/7.
>
>Due to the layout of the facility it is difficult to obtain images of the
>protest from outside. However Greenpeace will be able to provide stills and
>video footage of events as they unfold.
>
>For additional background on the protest and the issue of GM ingredients
>being used in animal feed go to the Greenpeace UK website -
><http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/>www.greenpeace.org.uk.
>
>[2] Three ships carrying GM soya from the United States are reported to have
>unloaded at Gladstone Docks this year. One of the ships, the Iolcos Grace,
>carrying 75,000 tonnes of GM soya, was boarded by Greenpeace volunteers off
>Anglesey on February 26th , 2000, as part of Greenpeace UK's ongoing
>campaign against GM imports.
>
>As a result of UK consumer rejection of GM food and the failure of the US
>grain industry to segregate GM from non-GM crops, exports of soya from the
>US to UK have tailed off dramatically in the past three years. The US
>Department of Agriculture predicts that in 2000 their soya exports to the UK
>will be as low as 150,000 tonnes - down from 500,000 tonnes in 1998.
>
>Visit the Greenpeace UK website at
><http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/>http://www.greenpeace.org.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>check out if there is GM in your shopping basket:
><http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/gm>www.greenpeace.org.uk/gm
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
