[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Moratorium Called on Genetically Modified Foods



At 11:17 AM 8/4/96 GMT, Lesley McKeown wrote:
>Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <jtoth-2807961502470001@wash15.fairfield.com>, Joe Toth
>><jtoth@fairfield.com> writes
>>>Dr John Hagelin's Natural Law Party is calling for a total moratorium on
>>>the release of genetically modified
>>>organisms. 
>
>
>Every time you select the best vegies from your garden and keep the seed 
>to plant next year, you have selected genetically modified food. 
>Scientists have just been able to responsibly identify methods of 
>speeding up the natural selection process. The traditional selection 
>process used by some less than knowledgable animal breeders resulted in 
>the Pug breed of dog having such a distorted, flat nose that the poor 
>animals could not eat and either starved to death or had to be destroyed. 
>Labradors in England were so inbred for purity that a whole line of Hip 
>displaysia prone dogs had to be destroyed or prevented from breeding - 
>these dogs had and continue to have a miserable old age crippled with 
>arthritis. Pigs were selected and bred for long backs to produce more 
>rashers of bacon to the point that they were unable to bear their own 
>weight on such elongated spines. Give me  a scientist who knows what they 
>are doing any day over the old hit and miss back yard breeder!!
>
>Nothing wrong with genetically improved food - noone is breeding Triffids 
>you know - get over the paranoia and get some proper information.

sal thinks:
You pointed out some good examples of how breeders don't get what they want
all the time.  I wonder how many plums Luther Burbank planted to get the
Santa Rosa. But what we are talking about here is not the same IMHO. the
homepage at
http://www.natural-law.org/issues/genetics/precautionary_genetics.html says
and I quote for those who don't have a web browser.

 Recombinant DNA techniques involve the isolation and subsequent introduction of
     discrete DNA segments containing the gene(s) of interest into recipient
(host)
     organisms. The DNA segments can come from any organism (plants, animals, or
     microbes). In theory, essentially any trait whose gene has been
identified can be introduced into any food source organism.
Traditional breeding methods are designed to select preexisting genetic
traits from the
     gene pool of a species or closely related species. No new information
is actually
     created in these processes. Instead, genes already existing in the gene
pool of a
     species and its close, reproductively compatible relatives are merely
brought together
     within the same individual. In contrast, genetic engineering alters the
information
     content of the gene pool of a species. This is accomplished either by
adding to the
     gene pool new genes, often derived from a widely divergent species, or
by altering
     the information content of genes already in the gene pool.
Because recombinant DNA techniques introduce new genetic information into the
     gene pool, they do not exist on a continuum with these other methods
but are of a
     distinctly different character and should be treated
separately.Appropriate labeling is also essential to ensure that consumers
understand the
     attributes of the products they purchase. This allows them to make
knowledgeable
     decisions regarding the potential impact of specific food products on
their health.
     Although there are mechanisms other than labeling by which consumers can be
     informed and educated about genetically engineered foods, labeling is
by far the most
     straight forward, certain, and economical method for informing the
consumer that a
     certain food or food product has been produced through genetic
engineering."

This is sal again:I understand this and feel  they are not the same. Now the
part that interest me the most is where the web arthur says :"Applications
of genetic engineering that introduce animal genes into plants raise
     ethical and religious concerns with certain segments of the population
in that the use
     of foods, and possibly medicines, produced by such plants can be in
conflict with
     culturally- religiously- and ethically-based dietary guidelines." If
you mix up genes you mix up these folks.  You start adding and mixing up
animal and plant and insect and virus genes with out labeling there is no
way to tell. To me it is so  easy to understand the difference from breeding
and taking a gene from some unrelated species and injecting it in the embryo
of another. Now people have a way of putting a spin on things and I feel
some folks want us to think this is just like breeding but no where in
nature do human genes in up in a pig or a fish gene ends up in a plant.  Why
can't people see this difference?

 
>
http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html
a homepage for organic farmers
sals@rain.org


Follow-Ups: