Ken,
In the Cuba program they did touch, albeit very briefly, on the GM
program without discussing the issues you raised in your response.
However, most of the emphasis was on selective breeding and natural
selection of superior species, processes, etc.
The opposition to GMOs, as far as I am concerned, is not anti-science or
anti-research as some have claimed but for two main reasons. First, we
don't have long term tests on the safety of these products as food (e.g.
the example of tobacco and asbestos, low levels of heavy metals, etc.
come to mind..) Add to this the fact that those of us who would ere on
the side of safety and refuse to consume these genetically modified
products are denied the right to do so by the refusal of the government
to label the products as GM at the urging of the chemical and seed
companies. Plus, GM has become so general in crops such as corn and
canola that it is virtually impossible as a consumer for me to avoid
ingesting GMO products. This does not even consider the problem that
GMO is spread by seed and pollen to neighbouring crops so that even
those farmers who want to produce organic crops are polluted by their
neigbours.
Second, there is little evidence that GMO seeds actually help
farmers in the longer run but rather hurt them by increasing the
monopoly power of the seed/chemical/agribusiness companies and thus, if
there is any increased surplus, results in it being transfered from the
farmer to the corporate sector. The ultimate in this, of course, is the
terminator seed. Also, the evidence that has been referred to on the
list is that, despite the claims, GMO seeds have not, in the longer run,
decreased the use of chemicals but may, in fact, have increased them.
This has nothing to do with genetic research for health and
pharmaceutical products. No one on the list is, I think, objecting to
research directed at finding defective genes causing illness in people
and even replacing them with healthy genes that would prevent hereditary
illnesses. This is a far cry from putting a fish gene in a tomato to
make a green tomato last longer so it can be shipped longer distances
and remain looking pretty longer in the supermarket to enhance the
profits of the large supermarket chains and their corporate
wholesalers. In short, in this matter you are raising a total red herring.
On the genetic engineering of bacteria to containe/eat pollution spills,
I don't have a ready answer because I don't know what is involved and
whether we risk setting loose a 'frankenbacteria' that will do more harm
than good. We have so many examples of species introduced to new
environments to control bugs or insects etc. that have then turned out
to be more harmful to the environment than the original pest, that I am
not prepared to endorse such genetic experimentation outside a contained
environment without a lot more and a lot longer period of scientific
experimentation, evidence and experience.
Paul P
ken hanly wrote:
So do people also object to the use of GM technology
to produce insulin and also to create bacteria that
consume oil and can cleanup oil spills?
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/417 - Release Date: 8/11/06
