[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Moratorium Called on Genetically Modified Foods
joshua@cimatron.co.il wrote:
>
> No paranoia, just two important points:
>
Which you immediately wrap in paranoia.
> 1. Genetic engineering dramatically interferes with the natural
> mutation processes which caused improvements to our food plants
> for centuries. Gene splicing canNOT be compared to natural
> mutation in terms of stability or safety. It's like comparing
> regular photography to x-rays.
>
You are unbelievably naive. Of course they can be compared. Natural
mutations are quite often unstable and unsafe--and those individual
plants do not survive. Your comparison of regular photography to x-ray
photography is interesting. Regular photography is so extremely useful
in determining internal damage that it is used almost exclusively rather
than the oh-so-dangerous Mr. X-ray. Give me a break.
> 2. The corporations behind these new "mutivars" are lobbying
> Congress and the EU to prevent these experimental foods from
> being labelled as such - in other words, they want to overcome
> market resistance by keeping you ignorant, by not offering you a
> choice. Rather than convincing you the technology is safe (which
> should be easy if it's the truth, no?) they want to take the
> decision out of your hands. Your health may be held hostage to
> their desire for profit. And THAT stinks.
If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, do
you need a label to tell you what it is? As I have said before in this
forum, and I will say again as it is only MY opinion, the alternative to
scientific agriculture on a large production scale is Hobbes description
of life as "nasty, brutish, and short." I don't like having my health
held hostage to some thickwit's desire for Luddite politics, either.
THAT stinks even worse--in my opinion only.
I want to emphasize that this discussion is about opinions only, and is
appearing in sci.agriculture, where I came across it. At least for that
forum, some evidence (citations, peer reviewed science) should be
provided to support your assertions. I fully intended to remove
sci.agriculture from the newsgroups line, but changed my mind. Why?
::climbs onto soapbox, while putting on flame protective underwear::
Perhaps even the sci.* hierarchy needs a fair to middling flamefest every
once in a while. So excuse me while I climb into my flame retardant
pajamas, and take a nap, while you try to use whatever feeble reasoning
power you possess in order to justify your position. I suspect it will
boil down to: "There are some things man is not meant to know or do.
And, in particular, if someone takes on risk to try to make a profit,
they are devils and must be shat upon." Thank you, your holiness. Hope
you enjoy life on the savannah, running from hyenas and leopards. And
the next time one of your sidekicks uses a sharp rock to kill lunch or
cut some fruit off a tree, be sure and tell him to either quit making
those sharp things or, at least start labeling the rocks, cause somebody
might cut their fingers.
Steve Denham
References: