> >Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 14:35:12 +1000
> >From: Damien Broderick <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Subject: Re: SOC/BIO: Rifkin's "worldwide moratorium" on genetically
> modified organisms
> >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.
Actually, there is no evidence that butterflies are harmed by pesticides
produced by plants in the field, and evidence to the contrary has been pretty
overwhelming that the 'sky is falling' whines of the anti-GM greenies is
unfounded in any way.
As for 'spores' being 'freed' into the environment, plants do not reproduce by
'spores', so any greenies telling you that are obviously ignorant. Since
agronomists are aware of the risks, they typically plant a band of crops around
test fields that cannot cross pollinate with the test plants. THe pollen only
drifts so far before settling to the ground, where it rots.
> 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
Just because technology is new does not mean you have to fear it like the H
Proper testing has progressed as far as it can in the laboratories. They must be
tested in the field, but all attempts at this testing are being sabotaged by the
anti-GM greenies, which proves that they are not, in fact, interested in 'proper
testing'. That is merely a straw man for them to present themselves as
'moderate' while they vilify their opponents.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:26 MDT