From: J Corbally (icorb@indigo.ie)
Date: Wed Jan 29 2003 - 17:01:21 MST
>Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:09:55 -0800 (PST)
>From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com>
>Subject: Genetic Engineering: Bradbury trumps Burch?
>Or another subject line might be "Europe demonstrates its stupidity".
>The article: "GM cows to please cheese-makers".
>http://www.newscientist.com/news/print.jsp?id=ns99993307
>Bottom line -- Europe will have to allow its cheese makers
>(not a *small* business in Europe) to import and use GM cows
>to produce its cheese (if they do not do this they aren't
>competitive on a cost basis) or ban the import of cheese from
>New Zealand or other countries using such animals (presumably
>violating various free-trade agreements).
Since they complained so much about the U.S. upping its taxes on European
imports, they wouldn't have much of a case for banning the importation.
>Interestingly, since cheese is "protein" and not "DNA"
>(though I do not know the extent to which cheese might
>contain some fraction of DNA), the argument with respect
>to the transfer of genetic material, genetic corruption, etc.
>becomes *much* reduced with respect to cheese derived from
>GM cows.
This is an important point. It may very well be the *products" of GM, and
not necessarily GM that will win the day. I don't think the greens really
grasp this.
>It is a really *stupid* argument in the first place since both
>cows and the bacteria one applies to the milk to produce cheese
>have been *highly* bred/selected by humans. They are certainly
>not "natural" or "green" (whatever that means).
They'd still find some pseudo-mythical way to facilitate allowing those and
not direct GM.
>The only point of this message is to recall how over the last
>several years Greg and I have had some duels with regard to
>how significant the "green" movement might be with respect to
>negative impacts on the use of genetically modified organisms.
>I have consistently maintained GMO will trump green. I simply
>offer up the above news item as a case where technological
>progress is backing green into a smaller and smaller corner
>of the playing field.
Agreed. GM has technological mobility on its side. Where one approach
doesn't work, another (more palatable) way will be found. The greens are
trying to stay put, technologically. GM tech is agile. The greens will be
outflanked, it's just a matter of time.
>[I will note as an aside that I strongly support *sustainability*
>which is a very limited subset of what is generally involved
>in the green/organic mentality.]
>Robert
>------------------------------
James...
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and
crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures
to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
-Q, Star Trek:TNG episode 'Q Who'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST