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

Re: Moratorium Called on Genetically Modified Foods



JJ: 
Hello Ralph and IFTC, and Joe- if your out there.

I was not able to find either of your recommended websites on genetic
engineering- mentioned at alt.agriculture.misc.  Ralph  -your
website-http//www.easynet.co.uk/ifst and Joe's Natural Law Party
site-http://www.natural-law.org/nlp - both were apparently down when I
tryed to address them.  

My interest in this field started when I read about Mad Cow disease in
your country Ralph, and then later in an article about scientists
developing a bizarre tomato containing a spliced gene from a pig.   (Maybe
they should throw in a little lettuce gene too and we'd have a BLT.)  
:-)

These two extreme examples of genetic science are certainly eye catchers
but may not in fairness be the best case studies of what is going on in
todays supermarket.  On the other hand maybe they are perfect examples of
what this discussion is about-responsibility and right action.   Feeding
cows beef products and turning a beast which has been vegetarian for
millenia into a cannabalistic carnavore seems a peculiar notion to me.
(This may or may not have been a factor in "mad cow" disease.)  Whether or
not it violates "laws of nature", when combined with hormonal growth
stimulants and the subsequent exhaustion of the animals it seems
reasonable that problems could eventually arise as the beasts' systems
wear down. This is not the family farm I knew as a child.  The other
example if it actually happened- mixing animal and plant kingdom in a
tomato crossed with a pig, seems like scientific arrogance.  It seems a
little like driving down the wrong side of the road, but then you "brits" 
:-) wouldn't understand that analogy would you?  

Ralph, From your attack on Joe, I wonder if your group "IFTC" isn't the
apologist perhaps, for the new genetic engineered food industry in the UK
. Even if you are a paid mouthpiece Ralph,  characterizing Joe as
hysterical for his concern about our worlds' food safety seems to avoid
using your own knowledgeable discrimination on a field that should concern
a food professional.  It's curious... when I was a boy we didn't have
consultants on "Food Law" other than the laws that protected the public 
;-)

Back to your post:
> jralphb@easynet.co.uk (J Ralph Blanchfield) wrote in article
<3200ee1a.45168727@news.easynet.co.uk>...

> How about naming some?  (genetically engineered foods)

JJ: Here is a very starter list Ralph from the "pure food campaign"
website. See my other post (alt.agriculture.misc.)for more clarification.

(Readers already familiar with this list may skip ahead to bottom of page
for more discussion)
___________________________________________________________________
THE FOLLOWING BROUGHT TO YOU BY "THE PURE FOOD CAMPAIGN"


PFC: "The following new biotech foods and agricultural products are
scheduled to hit the market soon -- untested and unlabeled. Do their
"benefits" outweigh their risks?
*
•Two genetically engineered tomatoes, produced by Monsanto, and DNA Plant
Technology, have been engineered to delay ripening to make for easier
shipping. A third tomato, by Zeneca Plant Sciences, has been bioengineered
to produce more pectin and less water to aid in food processing. The Pure
Food Campaign opposes commercialization of the tomatoes because they
contain antibiotic-resistant marker genes which some researchers say may
remain in the human gut and enable dangerous organisms to develop
antibiotic immunity.
*
•Environmental risks include the potential for engineered genes to move
into wild relatives, creating new viral strains, and enhancing the
weediness of tomatoes. DNA Plant Technology's tomato, called "Endless
Summer", is already on the market, as is Calgene's "Flavr Savr" tomato
which was approved by the FDA in May 1994.
*
•A yellow crookneck squash bioengineered to resist two plant viruses by
Asgrow Seed Co. (a subsidiary of Upjohn Co.), could seriously damage the
ecosystem, scientists say. Viruses spliced into the squash DNA could
easily recombine with pre-existing viruses in the environment to produce
new and possibly virulent strains. The squash, called "Freedom II", has
been approved for commercialization this year.
*
•Monsanto's new genetically engineered soybean has been modified so that
it can survive heavy doses of Monsanto's poisonous weed-killing herbicide,
Roundup (glyphosate). Agribusiness already dumps more than 500 million
pounds of herbicides on U.S. farmland each year, with Roundup leading the
toxic parade. Herbicides contaminate ground water and the food chain,
contributing to the cancer epidemic which now strikes one in three
citizens. A study released in August 1995 found that levels of herbicides
in drinking water exceed federal safety levels in 29 cities and towns
tested in the Corn Belt.
*
•Other risks include the potential for engineered genes to move into wild
relatives or weeds. The soybeans, called "Roundup Ready", have been
approved for commercialization this year. A transgenic cotton plant, also
designed by Monsanto to resist Roundup, is currently awaiting approval.
*
•A transgenic cotton plant, developed by Calgene and Rhone Poulenc, is
resistant to the herbicide Buctrin (bromoxynil). Cotton is already one of
the most chemically treated crops in the world, posing great environmental
and health hazards. In laboratory tests, bromoxynil causes birth defects
in mammals; it may also be carcinogenic. The cotton, called "BXN cotton",
has been approved for commercialization this year.
*
•Hoechst/AgrEvo has developed a corn plant called "Liberty Link", that
resists the herbicide glufosinate. Approval for commercialization is
pending.
*
•Potatoes, cotton and corn bioengineered by Monsanto, and corn developed
by Ciba-Geigy Corp. and Mycogen Plant Sciences, all secrete a poison that
kills insects. Scientists transferred genetic material from the bacillus
thuringiensis bacterium (B.t.), which naturally produces an insecticide,
into these plants. B.t., a relatively safe biological pest control, is
often used by organic growers who spray the bacteria, when needed, on
plant leaves.
*
•The danger is that widespread use of B.T. will encourage the development
of insects that can resist it. Thus, the one organic pesticide that
organic growers can use will be rendered ineffective, threatening the
entire organic food industry. Monsanto's potato, called "New Leaf", has
been cleared for commercialization this year. Approvals for the others are
imminent. 
*
•Calgene's new transgenic canola (rapeseed) plant, spliced with genetic
material from the California bay plant, can produce lauric acid, a
substance used by industry to produce soaps, chocolate and other foods.
FET opposes its commercialization because the plant will wreck the Third
World-based coconut and palm kernel oil industry which currently exports
hundreds of millions of dollars-worth of lauric oils to the U.S. each
year. The product, called "Laurical", has been approved for
commercialization this year.
*
•EPA approval is pending on a bacterium, rhizobium meliloti, genetically
engineered by Research Seeds, Inc., to enhance nitrogen fixation, and thus
improve yields, in alfalfa plants. The natural form of the bacteria lives
in nodules on the roots of leguminous plants like alfalfa where it
converts (or "fixes") atmospheric nitrogen into a useable form. FET
opposes the release of this organism or any transgenic microbes into the
environment. Microbes are so tiny and impossible to contain that any
negative effect they have on the environment could be catastrophic. 
*
•Hundreds of other transgenic crops and agricultural products are now
being field-tested or are pending approvals for commercialization."
____________________________________________________________________


JJ:  Ralph, Forgive me, but your query sounds like a dodge and you
probably knew most of this already.  Are you saying the public should not
be concerned about seeds created in test tubes-that would never be found
in nature?  Brazil nut genetic code in soybeans has already been suspect
in severe allergic reactions. You honestly haven't heard of situations
getting out of hand- like the reported Fort Detrick, Maryland laboratory
incident or the potential imbalances from antibiotic tracers in
genetically engineered plants?   Thoughtfullness about the possibility of
an eventual virus created directly or indirectly by this genetic tampering
doesn't sound hysterical to me.  It sounds like responsible, cautious,
concern.  As a concerned consultant in food technology, I'm surprised
you're not already espousing the Natural Law Party position.  We have
scientists in America turning down huge amounts of government grant money
that could further their careers, because of the obvious dangers of
reckless advancement in this field.  May be it's time to listen and take
this area seriously.
> 
Joe:> >But you
> >will not know what you are eating because the government has decided
that
> >labeling of genetically modified foods is not necessary. Your precious
> >right to choose what you and your family eats has been lost.

Ralph:> By the way, are you not aware that newsgroups are international,
and
> references to "the government" are therefore meaningless unless you
> specify which government? 
> What you say is certain false as regards Europe. 

JJ  :-0  Point scored Ralph!  I've read about this agreement
somewhere....I'll get back to you on the actual agreement he is refering
to, but I believe it had international implications.  If your government
allows labeling of non-genetically engineered foods and vegetables then I
applaud them.  I understand that under the current agreement in the states
even food labeled "organic" will not be safe from gene splicing in 2
years. Hmmm  This might be a good tip for your agricultural exporters...
maybe persons not wanting to eat gene spliced test tube foods in the
states could buy organic, genetically untampered food from abroad if US
organic farmers are unsuccessful in changing this law.  What about it
Ralph, we could start a blackmarket for illegal "pure foods".  :-)   


Ralph:> Anyway, you seem to be oblivious to the fact that _all_ foods
produced
> by traditional breeding methods are "genetically modified", but by
> more hit-and-miss methods.

JJ: Specious argument, Ralph.  We're not stupid just because we are
American.  We know the difference between gene splicing and selective
breeding. :-)
> 
Ralph:> To read a balanced and responsible scientific account of genetic
> modification, and the real concerns that have to be (and are being)
> addressed in order that the world may benefit from the tremendous
> advantages that genetic modification has to offer in the field of
> food, medicine and public health, visit the Institute of Food Science
> & Technology's Web site at <http//www.easynet.co.uk/ifst/> where you
> will find links to this and other "hot topics" Position Statements by
> IFST.

JJ: Sounds very Utopian! Forgive my scepticism.  I'm sorry, but Hitler
spoiled my genetic utopian optimism and naevete'.  

But who knows.. Maybe it will work this time...  Maybe we don't need to be
carefull....maybe our scientists and lawyers are infallible...  I should
be more trusting... Maybe we don't need checks and balances anymore... 

I'd like to hear from other readers... It's lonely being a non-conformist.
   :-)   

Oh, did I say... either your site address wasn't working or my Netscape
Navigator wasn't able to address it. It makes you wonder doesn't it- we
can't even get computers to work properly when we have full control over
how they are programmed- how can we start playing and programming natures'
building blocks-splicing genes- the complex genetic code of our planet.  
Maybe bioengineers are just smarter than computer engineers.  There sure
seems a lot of money at stake as international corporations are now able
to own varieties of foods and vegetables.  
I'd like the public to hear some independent scientists not just industry
spokesmen.

As a professional in the field, it's time for you to do the right thing
Ralph, why not save your integrity,  join the Natural Law Party campaign
in this campaign and help assure a safe future for all mankind.   
> 
> 


Follow-Ups: References: