>Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 14:35:12 +1000
>From: Damien Broderick <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: SOC/BIO: Rifkin's "worldwide moratorium" on genetically
>I was dumbfounded to hear a news report, allegedly sans editorial
>posturing, on the Aussie national TV news the other night refer to
>legislation that will require food growers and retailers to list details of
>any GM-crop `contamination'.
I have heard this on UK and continental coverage also.
>Shit, eh. I'm all for knowing what I eat, but
>I wonder why we don't hear more about added `vitamin contamination', `folic
>acid contamination', `iodine contamination' (of table salt)... The memetic
>war is being won by default.
Or contaminated by phosphates, insecticides and weedkillers indeed.
The difference between GM and the others you mention is that GM spores are
freed into the environment to affect other (non-GM crops) whether the
farmers like it or not. There is also some evidence that ecological balance
(certain butterflies and so on) are harmed by GM cultivation.
Just because a technology is new, like GM, does not automatically mean it is
good. Proper long term testing does not seem to have occurred with GM in the
same way as a new drug testing, although the technology impacts on more
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:25 MDT