From: Greg Jordan (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu)
Date: Mon May 12 2003 - 16:07:22 MDT
On Fri, 9 May 2003, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> Greg, I strongly object that this statement is extremely unbalanced.
> Crops which have had the BT gene added actually require *less* pesticide
> administration than normal crops.
If that is so, then I'm applauding. But other GMs have had the opposite
direction, and that's what I was disappointed by.
With respect to herbicides, for
> example adding enzymes to crops, e.g. soybeans, that allow them to
> be tolerant of herbicides such as round-up -- humans do not have
> the enzymes that the plants have that the herbicides inhibit. So
> there is no toxic effect of increased levels of increased herbicide
> (glyphosate) on humans.
http://www.naturescountrystore.com/roundup/index.html
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-Roundup-MSDS25jan01.htm
http://dragon.zoo.utoronto.ca/~jlm-gmf/T0701D/Env-2.htm
> You are spouting the (green) party line and on this list that isn't
> going to get you far unless you back it up with some really hard science.
I probably shouldn't have answered an email in which I am accused of
"spouting" ... but here I am. Anyway, spouting the Monsanto company line -
even with scientific research paid for by Monsanto, surprisingly in
Monsanto's favor - won't get you very far with *me* :)
> Citations *please*?
For using disease genes and antibiotic resistance markers? As someone else
told me on this list, go ask Google. It's pretty basic.
> Organic food certification is simply a way to allow small-farm and/or
> government subsidized farms (in Europe) farmers to compete against large
> farms that have mass production advantages. Its health benefits
> are marginal if any.
Umm, you *do* realize organic foods are certified in the U.S., don't you?
> For example -- go find some statistics that state that "organic" peanuts
> have less aflatoxin than "non-organic" peanuts. Aflatoxin is a known
> carcinogen produced by fungi that grow on peanuts -- it is known to cause
> mutations in the p53 gene that lead to cancer. The amount one ingests
> is regulated by food safety regulations -- but clearly less would be better.
> The amount one ingests has little or nothing to do with how the peanuts
> are grown and a lot to do with how they are stored.
>
> That isn't a GM/organic debate -- its a food processing (cost) debate.
Well, it's another debate. But it's a different one than the debate over
GM foods versus non-GM foods.
Again, I believe GM had great potential, and I support it in theory. But
as applied, it decided to ignore health, safety, and public opinion and so
sabotaged its own technology. Not that the poison manufacturers haven't
made their steep, short-term profits. GM could have enabled greater
implementation of organic food production. Instead, it's ended up being
excluded from organic labeling.
gej
resourcesoftheworld.org
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 12 2003 - 16:18:55 MDT