Where I see farmer's unions and political movements that actively criticize 'modern farming' for it's environmental and social cost and try to offer viable alternatives by conducting serious research and creating aware consumer networks.
> I agree with those who would require labeling of GM products even though this
> may indeed increase the costs.
So what ? Considering the amount of food that's wasted in the world by industrially developped countries, that would hardly be a bad thing.
Besides the containment problem, which is a public safety issue and so should not be left in the hands of so called experts, but rather be exposed to the public and discussed openly, there economic issues like Monsanto selling seeds that don't reproduce and keeping farmers to save those for later use. When GM is used to kill life in the sake of profit there is something pretty wicked about it. (check the ref. I give at the end)
> Perhaps you could explain to me how transfer of GM modified traits to the wild
> could be uncontainable?
Maybe you could explain how it _is_ containable ? Or maybe nobody can't ? So why take chances ?
> There are two documented cases: rigid ryegrass in Australia--to Roundup and
> goosegrass, also to Roundup, in Malaysia.
Impressive, 2 documented cases and then we can play with the whole ecosystem...
> before the weeds go to seed. It is not as if there is just one method of
> control of weeds. The only advantage this GM modified weed has is that it will
And the above mentioned romantic farmers have found ways to deal with weeds without resorting to gm or environmentaly dangerous practices. Of course, it costs more (or rather, they produce less), but then, they don't have to label their products...
> no readily available and simple alternative treatment. So antibiotics should
> not have been developed?
I never had the feeling the agro business started gm research with the idea of producing anything more than profit. Convince me.
> By the way, GM technology is also used to create insulin for diabetics, and it
> might be used to inject arctic flounder anti-freeze genes into plants so that
> we could have a longer growing season and use a larger area for food
> production. How does your critique apply to those areas?
Sure gm tech can be applied to many fields, but there is no evidence that applying it to food production is the most useful field of application, but it's definitely where the big money is.
What about actually using the food we are actually producing, and not putting is straight to the garbage when millions of people die of starvation everyday ? That would probably be smarter than finding ways to produce more in even more agro business dependant areas while totally unballancing traditional production in sensible area (like sub saharian countries for ex).
Did it ever occur to you that food production was actually more than just a business ? It is also a social process that roots whole communities. Does food production's social value ever come into account in gm research ?
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
You might want to take a look at this :
CASHING IN ON LIFE Operation Terminator * by JEAN-PIERRE BERLAN and RICHARD C. LEWONTIN
Genetically modified organisms (GMO) are under fire. But the multinational firms which make up the genetic-industrial complex - like the military-industrial complex we used to talk about before - are hiding behind all sorts of committees of ''experts'', most of which they have infiltrated, in their effort to dodge questions from a worried public: is it acceptable to play with living things, or even sterilise them, in order to increase profits? Can the heads of public research establishments, and the ministers they report to, continue - through ignorance, thoughtlessness or self-interest - to back this complex so little concerned with the common good?
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/en/1998/12/02gen
Yours,
JC Helary