I think commercial use of Terminator Gene technology is likely to start next
year.  For details check out:
http://www.purefood.org/ge/terminator.htm

and also:
http://www.psagef.org/afrscimo.htm
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/monprob2.html
http://www.icaap.org/Cornerhouse/briefings/genetic%20engineering.html
http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GE%20Essays/Redesigning.htm
http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/NewsJuly-Aug98/GENews8-10HypeAfricaEtc.htm
l
http://www.undp.org.fj/microcredit/grameen_bank.htm
or try your search engine.

On insurance, risk and Genetic Engineering of crops and food check out:
http://www.purefood.org/ge/insurege.cfm

The ethical questions concern the purpose of Terminator Technology (to make
farmers buy new seed each year or *protection of intellectual property*
depending on who you listen to - which could trap third world farmers in
permanent debt) and the accidental transfer of the terminator gene into wild
plants and conventional crops (i.e. an unintended side-effect).  [The only
direct ethical objection I have heard to the technique_ per se is a Roman
Catholic one that this constitutes artificial contraception for plants (!) -
no comment.]


-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 01 March 1999 03:44
Subject: Re: Britain Pushes the Panic Button on Biotech Foods


|>*terminator* genes are designed to force farmers to buy new seeds every
|>year, which third world farmers cannot afford.
|
|robert or anyone...    how close are "they" to enforcing this "terminator
|gene policy"?   if this is something that is likely to occur, are there any
|thoughts on the ethical implications of it?
|
|bryan hyden
|
|-----Original Message-----
|From: Robert Vint <[log in to unmask]>
|To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
|Cc: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
|Date: Sunday, February 28, 1999 8:52 AM
|Subject: Re: Britain Pushes the Panic Button on Biotech Foods
|
|
|>Lets *assume* that all the technological issues relating to GM crops are
|>solved - are there any ethical problems remaining?
|>This looks like a very valuable question, but of course it depends on our
|>definitions of *technological* and *ethical* - if they mean the same then
|>the answer is *no*, so lets try to clarify the difference.
|>
|>Presumably one kind of technological solution is for these crops to do
only
|>the job they are designed to do - with no SIDE EFFECTS such as
|>cross-pollination of traditional crops, promotion of superweeds and
|>superbugs, horizontal gene transfer, increased herbicide runoff,
|>accumulation of gene-produced insecticides in the natural food chain etc.
|>
|>There then remain a group of ethical problems associated with the INTENDED
|>purposes of GM crops -for example herbicide-resistant crops are designed
to
|>enable a form of agriculture in which other plant species (*weeds*) are
|>completely removed instead of just being controlled; they are also
designed
|>to create continual demand for matching herbicides (such as RoundUp);
|>*terminator* genes are designed to force farmers to buy new seeds every
|>year, which third world farmers cannot afford.  There are no technological
|>solutions to these problems (in any normal sense of the word) because
these
|>consequences are the ones desired by the creators of the crops.  The
|>political, economic, social justice issues related to the intended
purposes
|>of GM crops (and especially the associated international GM Crop
|>legislation) are important but outside the remit of enviroethics.  Several
|>environmental ethics questions remain...
|>
|>1. Genetically modifying a crop so that it, and nothing else, can grow in
a
|>field is, effectively, an act of war against nature.  It is, however, only
|>the logical conclusion to the history of modern agriculture and not
|>specifically a *gene ethics* issue.  This issue can be seen clearly when
|the
|>aims of modern agriculture are contrasted with the aims of methods such as
|>permaculture - where the aim is to modify natural ecosystems so that they
|>can sustainably feed humans whilst maintaining maximum biodiversity and
|>indigenous flora and fauna. Biotechnology seems to give us great power to
|>defeat nature but minimal power to co-operate with it.
|>
|>2. A species in nature occurs in thousands of varieties; likewise
|cultivated
|>crops, such as rice, come in thousands of varieties.  The replacement of
|all
|>of these with one or two commercial GM brands created and patented by vast
|>multinationals is a great threat to biodiversity.  Biodiversity has
|>instrumental value, and in several environmental ethics theories is of
|>intrinsic value.  But biodiversity was already threatened by the
production
|>of F1 hybrid crops by these companies, which did not involve GM
|technology -
|>so this is not specifically a *gene ethics* issue, but one that is
|>exacerbated by GM technologies.
|>
|>3. The mixing of genes from different species is seen as an ethical issue
|by
|>religions that believe that God created the species - for example the
|>crossing of different cereal crops or the crossing of a horse and a donkey
|>to produce a mule is objected to in the Old Testament (even though this
can
|>happen in nature).  They would object more strongly to crosses between
|>species that could never happen in nature (e.g. scorpions with maize).
The
|>existence of evolution partially undermines this position because species
|>are not naturally immutable over time.  But modern theologians would argue
|>that the evolutionary process is purposive (although beyond our
|>understanding).  Furthermore evolution is always divergent (like the
|>branching of a tree) and does not involve the interbreeding of unrelated
|>species.  So the ethical question here is "is there an integrity to the
|>evolving genetic makeup of a species that should not be violated by a gene
|>input from an external source?".
|>
|>4. My own ethical position is to assume that any evolved self-organising
|>system is of intrinsic value and that any part of such a system has
|>instrumental value as part of that system.  For example, an elephant has
|>both intrinsic value as a living organism and instrumental value as part
of
|>a savannah ecosystem.  This does not put an absolute ban on the use,
|>alteration or destruction of evolved self-organising systems but there
must
|>be a substantial net benefit to the overall system (e.g. the biosphere /
|>ecosystem of which we are part) before such destruction can be justified.
|>Irreversibly altering a species, by altering its genes, must be shown be
|>greatly benefit the overall system of which that species is a part.
|>
|>Finally, I think a key component of environmental ethics is the
recognition
|>that we have to make decisions about the use and treatment of systems and
|>organisms that we can never fully understand.  Despite all that scientists
|>may say, this is the human condition.  Thus the hypothetical environmental
|>ethics questions that would arise if we were technologically omniscient
|must
|>not take over from the real ethical questions we must ask when we live in
a
|>world that is beyond our understanding.  Non-omniscience requires that we
|>rigorously exercise the precautionary principle.
|>
|>Robert Vint.
|>
|>
|>
|>-----Original Message-----
|>From: Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]>
|>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
|>Date: 26 February 1999 16:23
|>Subject: Re: Britain Pushes the Panic Button on Biotech Foods
|>
|>
|>|I don't know why our discussions about the ethical side of an issue
always
|>|get diverted onto the "facts." This side says this and that side says
|that.
|>|
|>|After reading the comments about GM crops it seems that the best we can
|say
|>|is that there are grave *technological* issues here. Now, if those
|>|technological issues can be resolved, then there is no ethical issue,
|>right?
|>|or not?
|>|
|>|Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that some really bright
|>geneticist,
|>|and there a lots of those, solves all the technological issues. I know at
|>|least one person will reject this, but please for the sake of the
|>discussion
|>|*assume* the technological issues are resolved. Is there still an ethical
|>|issue at stake? Is or is there not something basically unethical about
GM?
|>|
|>|Someone asked about my background, if anyone is really interested, my CV
|is
|>|on both of my Web sites.
|>|
|>|Steven J. Bissell
|>|http://www.du.edu/~sbissell
|>|http://www.responsivemanagement.com
|>|A journey to our primal world may bring answers
|>|to our ecological dilemmas. Such a journey will lead,
|>|not to an impulsive or thoughtless way of life,
|>|but to a reciprocity with origins declared by history
|>|to be out of reach.
|>|                                           Paul Shepard
|>|
|>|
|>
|
|
|
|



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%