[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: