RE: Religion and GE organisms

Steven,

    the same reason environmental and farmers organizations are involved.
Over half of farmers in
Saskatchewan are religious. I don't think it is too bad about Monsanto's
decision to remove it's GE wheat. I think it was the right decision, but
they are not pulling the GE crop because of an ethical reason, but because
of lack of market acceptance for GE wheat.

    A New Zealand company pulled it's GE coho salmon because of concerns
that it would escape into the wild. They were afraid that the GE fish would
out compete the native species, and possibly cause significant ecological
harm. The problem with GE crop though is that the negative effects are
essentially 'irreversible', and therefore GE crops are a serious
environmental issue. That should be so obvious that it should not need
arguing.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/oneworld/20040511/wl_oneworld
/4536858141084282319&e=5

    I don't know if it helps to continue suggesting that GE crops are not an
environmental issue. In one way they are not an environmental issue.
Primarily because they are not being used in most countries. I cited an
early report about a GE salmon species which the proponent claims will not
spread into the native populations, and they claim that they use sterile GE
fish, but they also say that about 1% of the GE salmon are actually fertile.
Of course if there are 30,000 GE salmon, and half of them escape on day from
the nets, then that leaves 300 fertile GE salmon.

    If you did not see any environmental issue here, then I have to express
my disbelief.

    For example, Roundup Ready crops result in MORE herbicides being applied
to the land, and more off site transport, and more uptake of the herbicide
and surfactants. Ground water, surface water, and air become the final
repositories of the herbicide and it's formulations.

    I thought commercial herbicides were an environmental problem in may
areas of the world. Are they not a problem?

chao

john foster


----- Original Message -----
From: "STEVEN BISSELL" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: Shall we discuss GM?


> That wasn't my question (and I disagree with the answer you gave to the
> question I *did not* ask as well). My question was why "Religious Groups"
> were involved.
> Steven
>
>
> >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: Shall we discuss GM?
> >Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 09:33:30 -0700
> >
> >Simple. Steven, if the GE wheat contaminates the non-GE wheat then down
the
> >tube goes your market for organic wheat, as well as the genetic basis of
> >wheat varieties. The GE companies lied their faces off about
> >non-contamination, and thus have wasted their share capital.
> >
> >And that is precisely what the data now confirm that the GE varieties are
> >contaminating the non-GE varieties. There goes your markets.
> >
> >Organic foods are becomin mass consumer items here, especially at the
giant
> >Loblaws [Canada's version of the super food, clothing store, or Canadian
> >Superstore].
> >
> >chao
> >
> >John
> >
> >
>