Anne,
I'm not sure why you think the use of GM Foods is experimentation, but I
suspect that the reason(s) are several. As I understand the issue some
people feel that GM foods are cheaper to produce and thus more profitable. I
also have read a lot about the so-called 'golden' rice which would help
reduce disease associated with vitamin A deficiency.
However, my point is that the debate over GM Foods is being swamped by
outrageous rhetoric. Do a Google search on 'golden rice' and you'll see that
the anti-GM Web sites out-number the pro-GM Web sites by several factors.
But if you actually read the information against golden rice you will see
that for the most part it is attacks against a straw man. For example many
of the anti-GM Web sites information on golden rice state, correctly, that
golden rice alone will not solve vitamin A defeciency problems and that the
real answer to poor food supply is political, not biological. However no
advocate of golden rice has ever claimed otherwise as near as I can see. The
use of golden rice in a program of other approaches is all that has been
advocated. So why attack golden rice and, more interesting, attack the
people who developed golden rice?
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that *no* new foods
should be introduced into the food supply or *only* new foods developed by
traditional methods be introduced, or what? I'm not an advocate for GM foods
mind you, but I do think they should be given a chance. I'm for labeling and
all that. I'm suspicious of a blanket 'no GM Food' stance which is, I
believe, the position of the anti-GM movement and is similar to the 'no
nuke' position of the anti-nuclear energy group. Am I wrong?
Steven
>From: ANNE MARECK <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: "Discussion forum for environmental ethics."
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: x-pollination
>Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:35:40 -0500
>
>Steven, I'd like to make a comment here.
>
>the curious thing i find about the corporate push toward gm
>foods is our seemingly naieve willingness to commit our very
>food supply, the thing that sustains our life on earth. to
>essentially uncontrolled experimentation.
>
>why would we want to do this? what possible case can be
>made for widespread experimentation on that which has, thus
>far, ensured our very existence?
>
>
>my .02
>
>anne
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
|