Teman-teman, Ini ada debat menarik tentang GMO product. Tuti > > > WE CAN ENGINEER NATURE. BUT SHOULD WE? > > from The New York Times > > > > Just as 130 nations were meeting in Montreal recently to forge the first > > global treaty regulating genetically modified crops, Frito-Lay Inc. was > > telling its farmers in the United States not to grow genetically > > engineered > > corn for use in Doritos chips and other snacks. The problem, the company > > said, was not a risk to health from the corn but a risk that consumers > > wouldn't want it. > > > > These two events reflect the unease with which genetically engineered > > foods have been received. Science has reached what might be the takeoff > stage > > for a new green revolution. But it may instead go the way of nuclear power > -- > > a once-promising technology largely rejected by society. > > <http://www.nytimes.com/library/review/020600genetic-food-review.html> > > ------------------------------------------------- > > Kim Webb > > U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service > > 4001 N. Wilson Way > > Stockton, CA 95205 > > (209) 946-6400 x 311 > > (209) 946-6355 fax > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ted Mosquin [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 12:39 PM > > To: Aliens-L List > > Subject: Re: Future Aliens? > > > > Dear Aliens-L: > > > > The post by Rick Roush belittles and dismisses the many concerns about the > > risks that GMOs pose to ecosystems and to closely related organisms. > > Rick Roush wrote: > > > > I don't think that we want to get into an extensive debate about GMOs on > > this server, I disagree. This server was set up to discuss invasive alien > species, but > > when entirely "alien" genes are forcefully inserted into the permanent > > breeding system of a plant or animal variety or species, the resulting > > organism is certainly "alien" to the entire history of that evolutionary > > line. So, really, the discussion of these "GMO aliens" could be just as > > important as discussing the control or elimination of alien species such as > goats, > > rats, cats and weeds. > > > > .... I say that GMOs currently get a vastly deeper risk > > assessment than any of the intentional introductions of alien species, > > and obviously a greater risk assessment than accidental (or careless) > > introductions. GMOS are all initially tested in contained conditions > > for years. How many new introductions of ornamentals or new crop species > > are treated similarly? > > > > Let's recall that while 1000s of species of animals, plants, fungi, > > protozoa and microorganisms have been spread by human activities around > > the world for over 10 thousand years, the GMO aliens are a very recent > > phenomenon. Having followed the GMO research and debate for almost a > > decade, I find that the problem is that governments and corporations who > > are creating these genetic aliens and who are promoting GMOs have been > keeping a low > > profile and have imposed a veil of secrecy as to the extent and nature of > > much of this work. The lack of good public information all along as to > > the scope and scale of GMO research is one good reason why the public is so > > > suspicious. And not only do we barely understand just what among humans or > > wild organisms in Nature is at risk but also most risk assessments are > > being done by proponents of the GMOs and by some of their friends in > > closely associated government labs. I don't see the relevance of > > comparing GMOs with horticultural and crop species. One can always compare > something > > bad with something worse but that should not be used to justify the > > former. > > Losey also didn't tell you how far corn pollen > > travels, but recent research shows that it doesn't move more than 2 > > meters at lethal doses. > > The 2 meter data must be a case of poor or biased research. Around here in > > Lanark County near Ottawa, Ontario, we grow a lot of corn and on a warm > > windy day when the pollen is being shed you can see it drifting out into > > adjacent meadows and forest. On a still day, the pollen falls mainly > > directly downward or perhaps a metro or so to one side or another. And > > let's recall that there are dozens of butterfly, moth and skipper larvae > (all > > Lepidoptera) that would, from time to time, be feeding on various plants > > near these corn fields. > > > >On the subject on biodiversity, Peter Raven and David Pimentel have > suggested in an op ed > > piece that Bt corn will likely support biodoversity (ask and I'll email > > it). > > > > Yes, please email or send me a copy of this op ed piece. > > The chance of herbicide resistant gene transfer is appreciable in some > > crops but non-existent in others. While this is a threat to farmers, > > what's the real relevance to alien invasive weed species? > > > > This would be dependent upon the number of related species growing in > > fields, pastures or woods next to the fields of Alien-GMOs. For example, > > corn has no living wild relatives - either here or anywhere in the world > > for that matter. But other GMO crops do have many local wild relatives. > > No one wants us to use herbicides in natural ecosystems anyway. > >In Ontario and indeed across Canada there are quite a few provincial > > agencies that deliberately want to use herbicides (to kill seedlings and > > saplings of hardwood trees, and favour the softwoods) in natural forest > > ecosystems. Such spraying is done at a considerable scale often covering > > large clearcut areas. > > > >To Vivian Parker I would add that I read what ecologists (and > > non-scientists) are saying every day on at least 3 list servers. We all > > agree that we need to be very careful, but I don't believe that the > > majority of ecologists believe that regulation, oversight and monitoring > > is currently inadequate. > > Surely, monitoring must be very inadequate as otherwise we would not be > > witness to continuing pollution buildup world wide from pesticides (e.g. > > Arctic food chains), increasing inedibility of freshwater fish (too toxic > > to eat), etc. The insensitivity of governments that legalize and those > > corporations that produce these global toxins is scandalous. The Earth > > and its time-tested natural systems are being knowingly contaminated and > > destabilized for no good reason. > > > > We have learned from early pesticides. DDT was > > awful. It was replaced by pyrethroids, which are much better, so much > > so that most people have never heard of them. And I would fiercely reject > > your assertion that there have been "urgent global ecological problems" > from > > biocontrol agents. > > > > As noted above here in Canada we now have our contaminated Arctic and we > > can't eat freshwater fish. Our federal Department of Agriculture was a > > great promoter of DDT. When the Wisconsin trials were taking place I was a > >research scientist at Ottawa. The Director of our Institute said: "This > > story about DDT causing eggshell thinning in birds of prey and pelicans > > must a case of bad science." You cannot reject assertions which are > historically > > true. > > I would also fiercely reject your claim that (at least) government > > scientists do not share our concerns for preservation of the planet's > biodiversity. > > In Ottawa, most (but not all) government scientists in the life > > sciencescertainly have a deep concern for the preservation of this > > country's and the planet's biodiversity. But scientists in two major > > departments have been explicitly told to avoid speaking to the media > > about their research. Inquiries from media are to be directed to selected > public > > information staff. > > Taken to its extreme, the precautionary principle > > prevents any action, and yet we know there are risks (such as continued > >pesticide use) that would result from rejecting at least some GMO crops. > > The great damage that has been caused to this world has come not from the > > exercise of the Precautionary Principle but from the reckless abandon of > > this principle by pesticide manufacturing industries, those who get > > contracts from them and by their friends in governments who act as > > lobbyists for these industries rather than acting in the interests of the > > public and the environment as a whole. It is speculation that pesticide > use will be > > reduced through GMOs. Where is the evidence that the world even needs > > GMOs? > > > > Without a more complete understanding of > > the underlying genetics, you will not be empowered to make informed > > decisions about which GMOs are sensible and positive for the environment > > and which really should be opposed. > > > > I find it curious, at this point in time, that anyone would assert that a > > GMO would be something that is "sensible and positive for the > > environment." > > The financial backing that promoters of this technology give to GMOs and > > the greenwash literature that promotes it is grounded not in ecology or a > > concern for the toxification of the Earth and its organisms but rather in > > the vision of increasing corporate profits and of international trade > > advantages. > > > > Ted M > > ___________________________________________________________ > > -- > > Ted Mosquin, Ph.D. (retired) > > Box 279, Lanark, Ontario K0G 1K0, Canada > > http://www.ecospherics.net (literature on ecocentric/ecospheric ethics) > > Tel: (613)267-4899; Fax: (613)264-8469 > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
