----- Original Message -----
From: "STEVEN BISSELL" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 6:40 AM
Subject: Re: x-pollination


> 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.

The issue of A deficiency is a problem related to food distribution. Many
foods contain adequate vitamen A (carrots, eggs, etc.). So the brainstorm of
the 'patent' folks is to exploit a bad situation in the developing world by
engineering rice to produce lots of vitamin A. The problem with that is that
a person could be poisoned inadvertantly by ingesting too much vitamin A
(leads to toxicosis and liver damage). So if there is only one variety of
rice left in production, then the consumption of carrots and other good
healthy foods would be a 'risk factor' in the etiology of other diseases
including too much vitamin A and imbalances related to too much vitamin A.

The primary reason for a A deficiency is poor distribution of food
containing A, as well as inadequate incomes to purchase the A containing
foods in the developing world.

>
> 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?

The main problem with rice is that it lacks the number of proteins which
other grains and tubers have. It is not a complete food, and it is
impossible to survive on a strict rice diet. Potatoes on the other hand are
a complete food containing all the necessary vitamins and proteins which are
required for human growth and development. Therefore there is no need to add
a gene to potatoes to increase the consumption of vitamin A in the human
diet.

The only problem occurring with potatoes is that it will not grow well in
tropical rainforests (eg. S.E. Asia, Equatorial Africa and the Americas).

Rice is also a food source for domestic animals, and thus these animals may
be harmed by high vitamin A uptake.

The problem with all the new fangled ideas of the patent folks is that they
often fail to improve life and economies, and in many cases cause more
problems which cannot be solved (eg. various patented economic poisons).


> 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

I think Anne is asking for a simple duty to be upheld here regarding safety.
Food safety and environmental risk should be first and foremost the issue,
the 'should' or 'should not' question a priori. When the thing is fulled
assessed for risk, then and only then should consideration be given to
'managing the risk' if it gets that far in the planning process.

The patent folks are being blinded by profits, and not by altruistic
motives. They have nothing personally to lose, and everything to gain, even
if their patents fail to improve.

What Steven is arguing for is far from an ethical and responsible treatment
of the patents and their impacts on humans and the environment. His primary
thesis is that there is already an adequate assessment of the risk, and the
rest is pure speculation of amateurs.

chao

john foster




>
>
> >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
>