In Jim Heartfield's response
>>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.
The scientific debate is difficult to engage in with large corporations so involved in the testing and regulation of technologies they hope to profit from. And Jim Heartfield, what's with all the Kulak and Conspiracy insults, I can tell your well-read but I don't see what it has to do with disregarding a cautious approach to GM in the hands of large corporations.
Jim Heartfield wrote
>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.
All this reminds me of Nicotine not being addictive, cigarretes not causing cancer, DDT being good for you.... anyone have anything to add? I'm not a scientific debater, I'm taking my hints from BBC or PBS specials broadcast by NHK over here in Japan, the scenes of all the picnickers dosed with DDT while eating, something about the "Drop Dead" approach to science. I think that was about getting people to ingest radiactive material. If people didn't keel over withing sight of the material it was probably safe. An exaggeration but there seems to be a lot of examples of safety issues being ignored.
I don't see any big problem that needs the quick application of GM technology. (DDT may have been at the time.) It's advertised as a step towards ending world hunger. I thought critics of the world market today would see structural issues more than technological issues as causing world hunger.Again, what's the rush? Just because a couple royals are in opposition also doesn't mean the whole thing is a conspiracy to drive up "ration" prices. Is that what's bothering you?
Brian