On 8/12/06, raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/12/06, ken hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Public confidence is high in our biotechnology and we
> not wan to lose that support from our people. You can
> be sure that before anything we do is released into
> the environment it will be safe."
With all due respect, this assurance of "safety" sounds like a gimmick. How
could anyone be really sure that a GM crop is "safe". What does that even
mean anyway?
What kind and level of safety do we want? Shouldn't we define that,
first of all?
A while ago, Daniel Davies mentioned his article about the nuclear
power lobby, in which he compares that lobby to the anti-GM foods
movement: "fundamentally, the religious right hates stem cell research
not because it involves stem cells, but because it involves research,
and something similar for the anti-GM foods lobby" (at
<http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_davies/2006/07/the_war_on_science.html>).
A fundamentalist opposition to GM foods may make it difficult to
regulate their production sensibly, since such opposition won't get
big enough to stop corporations but can be significant enough to help
block an attempt to get people to try to regulate GM foods, rather
than ban them.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
