I did say I have concerns. That doesn't constitute an argument in ethics. I
uncertain about the Heisenberg Principle, that is not an argument in
physics. My point is that there *may* be reasons to be concerned about
*some* types of GMO, that does *not* mean that *all* environmental
organizations have to object to *all* GMO. Making a policy decision to
"protest" all biotech, as Greenpeace USA seems to have done, is a bit
cynical IMO in the absence of any sound scientific evidence. I've never
considered human health issues as major environmental concerns except where
they constitute threats to ecosystems. I still haven't seen any evidence for
ecosystem disruptions due to GMO, just speculation.
sb
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Maria Stella
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 5:49 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Bad Seed
Steve,
go back and read what yourself wrote a while ago (although i think i
condfuse you with another Steve that occasionally appears on the list?).
You wrote that you NOW (after 2 years) understood the environmental
concerns about GMOs.
MS
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Steven Bissell wrote:
> I cut the excellent article from Rachael's on bio-tech.
>
> Basically the arguement still seems to be that GMO products "may" be
harmful
> to human health, and they "may" be used to further the economic interests
of
> large corporations. OK, say that is true? So what? How is that an
> environmental issue?
> sb
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|