> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More
> In another article I read today, "Genetically Altered Foods are the Key to
> Feeding Increasingly Hungry World" (August 27, 2000, Op-ed By Richard
I should begin by saying that I'm all in favor of genetically altering food
crops. I dislike some of the specific alterations that are presently being
marketed, for example varieties that are being produced that will *only*
grow well with the use of large quantities of fertilizers and herbicides.
I'm also aware that there are plenty of people making big bucks selling
"organic" food. It's also true, as far as I know, that there has been no
indication that any of the GE food crops are unhealthy (with exception of
the potato study that Berman refers to in his article. In that study, the
brains of rats fed on GE potatoes failed to develop normally.).
But I find it disturbing when people use scare tactics such as stating, as
Berman does, that GE crops are the only way to prevent massive famine. This
makes me wonder if Berman doesn't have some hidden agenda. I don't know
where he got the following information; I do know that it's meaningless as
presented. He says:
Paradoxically, too, this natural food is hard on nature: On the same
acreage, organic farms produce up to 40 percent less food than conventional
farms, meaning they plow up that much more land. Widespread organic
agriculture would also require nitrogen-rich green manure, entailing the
conversion of more millions of wilderness acres to pasturage.
This is one of the most absurd paragraphs I've seen lately. I'd like to know
which farms? Where? What crops? Over what periods of time?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:01 MDT