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

Re: Moratorium Called on Genetically Modified Foods



SteveDrD wrote:
> 
> 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. 

Meaning - they do not make it to market, or become significant parts of the 
food chain. Thank you for proving my point.

The original poster basically said, 'Most of our food is hybrids, bred and 
selected by farmers and scientists, THEREFORE all tinkering by scientists is 
just as safe.' 

This is not the case. Nowhere in the traditional hybrid breeding process are 
genes from totally different organisms combined as they are in genetic 
engineering. Given the chemical and genetic complexity of even the simplest 
organisms, it is clear that nobody can come out and say that this is safe. 
THAT's why Monsanto's scientists aren't making that claim, and why its ad 
men are not turning this whole thing into a public relations coup - which 
they would if the technology were proven safe.

 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.

Again, you prove my point. I was challenging someone who said that because 
hybridization is safe, gene-splicing is safe. I said: that's like saying 
that because visible-light photography is safe, then X-rays must be safe, 
too.

Do you know what an analogy is?

> > 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 agree with you that scientific improvements to agriculture are 
necessary. But there's a long road between that need and its responsible 
realization. Do you object to FDA testing of medicines, because people die 
from the delays and added expense? Or do you agree that the greater good is 
served by subjecting this vital industry to regulation and rigorous testing?

Well, foodstuffs have an infinitely greater impact on public well-being than 
drugs do. Pharmeceutical companies call their sector the 'ethical drug 
business' which implies a certain level of responsibility. Why shouldn't 
agritech have to be 'ethical' as well - by proving harmlessness and 
effectiveness before releasing its products to the public?

Joshua


Follow-Ups: References: