----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Bissell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 6:19 AM
Subject: Re: Biotech and science
> John Foster wrote, in part: "Steven is approving of the use of a
> powerful pesticide for potential use as 'baby foods'."
>
> And where, exactly, did I say that? You don't know whether I approve or
> disapprove of GM foods, my post was about the level of knowledge versus
> opinion on GM foods.
>
> Steven
You said that the problems with GE crops was 'imaginary'. I recall that Taco
Time had some tacos which were found to be made from Bt corn. Thus children
and babies are being exposed to the Bt pesticide. I thought that you were
aware of this. It was an item posted here on this list. So you do not
approve of the use of Bt corn in baby foods? Very young babies should not be
fed corn anyway. But ones a little bit older could possibly eat corn. How do
you propose to keep the Bt corn out of the human food chain? Is this an
imaginary or real problem?
I apologize if I made an invalid inference based on your 'generalization'
regarding the safety of Bt in human foods. I just sensed that was what the
implication could be if the inference was extended to babies eating tacos or
their mothers eating tacos and breast feeding.
Why not just push for organic and biodynamic foods period? I love fresh made
corn tacos, especially in California del Sur, Baja, Mexico.
chao
jf
>
> Dada is not dead
> Watch your overcoat
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Foster
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 10:12 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Biotech and science
>
>
> Steven Bissell:
> > As I have said before, I'm getting more and more convinced that the
> > dangers of genetic engineering are largely imaginary, but they are so
> > pervasive that any suggestion to the contrary is automatically
> > rejected. Just as the environmental community "knows" that safe
> > nuclear power is an oxymoron, they now "know" that genetic engineering
>
> > is 'bad.'
>
> You need to prove some how that GE is good, and that it is not bad.
> First of all these organisms are 'patented' which means that they have
> social and economic impacts if the pollen contaminates non-GE strains.
> This was proven in Canada recently after Monsanto discovered GE grains
> growing on a farm which was not 'licenced' to grow GE crops. The pollen
> had drifted into the farmers lot and contaminated his seed crops.
>
> In the India there have been farmers who have gone bankrupt after
> entering into contracts to grow the grain. They borrowed money to grow
> the crops, but after awhile the crop production was not as good as
> predicted, and the profits were much reduced.
>
> It should be seen as a great relief that Monarch butterflies may not be
> affected by GE corn. This is a good thing, but it has not been proven
> yet, apart from laboratory studies. It is still none for sure if GE corn
> silk and pollen will affect butterflies.
>
> There are lots of other issues of an ecological nature which make GE
> crops undesireable technology. One of them being 'resistance' to the
> 'natural pesticide' which is engineered into the plant. There is the
> potential harm that Bt biotoxin has on babies and humans. This is why
> many makers of baby food do not use GE foods in the products. In fact
> there is a 'zero tolerance' against any amount of pesticide in food for
> children. The US has the Delaney Act which prohibits pesticides in
> childrens food.
>
> Steven is approving of the use of a powerful pesticide for potential use
> as 'baby foods'.
>
> John Foster
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2002/apr/palevitz_p18_020429.html
> >
> > Steven
> >
> > But the proper response to this hypothesis
> > is that there are always people willing to
> > believe anything, however implausible, merely
> > in order to be contrary.
> > Vikram Seth
> > A Suitable Boy
|