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
|