>To get a stream of genetically-engineered products to market, Monsanto will
>need
>to convince the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that these products are
>safe for human consumption. In the past, Monsanto has been able to do this
>partly because former Monsanto officials have become FDA officials, who have
>then
>been assigned to approve Monsanto products--in some cases, the products
>they worked on while at Monsanto. [15]
Brian is confusing the political issue with the scientific. Is there any evidence that the products concerned are dangerous? That would be interesting. But because he cannot provide any such evidence, he smears the FDA as being corrupted. If he has some evidence that the products are dangerous, then he should produce it, otherwise he is just engaging in political hucksterism and demotics.
All of this reminds me of those nuts who think that the fluoride in the water is a plot by the Zionist Occupation Government to mess with out vital bodily fluids.
>
>Monsanto's plans have gone awry in the Third World, too. Monsanto planned to
>introduce its genetically modified seeds accompanied by its patented
>"technology protection system" which makes the seeds from this year's
>crop sterile. Critics call Monsanto's seed sterilizing technology
>"terminator" and "suicide seeds." Wherever suicide seed technology is
>adopted, farmers will have to go back to Monsanto year after year to buy
>a new ration of genetically modified seeds.
Again, Brian should check the facts. Monsanto did patent the terminator gene. But it has not introduced it. If this is a case of 'plans going awry' then every patent not put into operation is an example.
In message <B03898593BC0D011A5B50060973D0F5C0113CC4C at rlm-
exch1.rlmnet.com>, Carl Remick <cremick at rlmnet.com> writes
>Here's some objective science for you, Jim -- from today's NY Times:
>
>Biotech Expert's New Job Casts a Shadow on a Report
>Washington -- A scientist directing a crucial study on genetically
>engineered crops at the prestigious National Academy of Sciences left
>last month for a job with the biotechnology industry, angering
>environmental scientists who fear that the final report will be biased
>toward the industry's points of view.
I read through this article twice, and failed to find one single fact about the science of GE, only some internecine strife amongst scientists, companies and protesters. I don't mean to be picky, but we seem to be going over the same ground again and again. Scientific evidence usually means findings about nature, not journalism about scientists. -- Jim heartfield