----- Original Message -----
From: "STEVEN BISSELL" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: Genetic Engineering


> John, I don't think anyone has said ther is 'no chance' of harm with GM
> foods. All I'm reading is that there is very little evidence to support
the
> rather draconian measures being called for by the anti-GM groups.

Actually some very draconian measure have all ready been performed. One of
them was to restrict the feeding of Bt corn to livestock. It is prohibited
for human food due to safety of the Bt corn to small children. But that is
not the end of the issue because Bt corn is costly, and it is failing to
protect the crops from insects. The reason being is that the levels of Bt in
the corn are too low, another draconian measure to protect both the
livestock and the environment. So now the only course left is to make Bt
corn with 50 times more Bt, so as too completely kill off all those insects.
Which results in another problem, too many killed natural insect control
insectivores which prey on insects which are not impact by the Bt. This is
not the end of the problem because then the farmer has to use more
'organophosphates' to kill the insects which are not affected by the Bt.
Then there is another problem which is soil infertility resulting from the
Bt.

Oh heck!

Sounds like the conservation sector has really done it's home work because
as we know the original motivator of the Bt seeds, and RoundUp ready
technology (which incidentally uses much more pesticides) has sold all it's
patents. So that means that it is a 'red herring' or 'blimp' form of
technology.

But you don't know that U simply heard it.

What is the difference between hearing something and knowing something?

One is being ruined by the technology (such as a farmer) and just reading
about the ruin.





 I don't
> 'know' that GM foods are harmful or unharmful (is that a word?),

No the correct word should be 'harmless'...as in 'save harmless'...but I am
no expert.



 but I'm
> pretty sure they don't merit the level of concern being shown by some
> environmental groups. Do you think, as an example, that GM foods rise to
the
> level of global warming?
> Steven

Depends. This would depend on whether millions of people are forced out of
the agribusiness in the developing world, and it may take several decades to
find out. But large scale starvation is a great risk as a result of using GM
technologies. U see there are other problems. In India the farmers were
using it and made great money the first year, but by the third year they
were losing the shirts, their farms and committing suicide en masse (over
one hundred GM farmers killed themselves due to bankruptcy).

It has not been demostrated yet if GM crops are either economical or even
increase yields. So that is a real problem if farmers are forced to use GM
crops....

chao

john foster






>
>
> >From: John Foster <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: "Discussion forum for environmental ethics."
> ><[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: Genetic Engineering
> >Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:05:59 -0700
> >
> >
> >The panel said the greatest area of uncertainty was the crops' impact on
> >the environment and wildlife. It said the new strains were unlikely to
> >cause problems for nearby plants and animals but that their effects were
> >still not well understood.
> >
> >I am hearing this too. I don't 'know' it but I am 'hearing'
> >it....Uncertainty means I 'don't know', as well as I hear.
> >
> >   Former British Environment Minister Michael Meacher said the panel had
> >not produced the evidence to back its claim that genetically modified
foods
> >posed little health risk.
> >
> >   He urged the government to move cautiously and wait for more solid
> >evidence on health and environmental impacts before making a decision on
> >allowing the modified crops onto the market.
> >
> >
> >
> >And also it appears that there is no evidence that 'genetically modified
> >foods posed little health risk.'
> >
> >
> >
> >So if the scientific community is sure that the 'greatest uncertainty' is
> >the crops' impact on the environment and wildlife, then perhaps we need
to
> >find out before we know.
> >
> >
> >
> >jf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   Environmental groups highlighted the report's findings that there was
> >still uncertainty about the risks and urged the government to keep
> >genetically modified foods out of Britain.
> >
> >   The panel invited public comments on its report and planned to issue a
> >follow-up report in the autumn.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   Source: Associated Press
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>