GM (was Calling James O'Connor!)

Ken Hanly khanly at
Fri Mar 3 23:37:08 PST 2000

You are looking for a categorical guarantee that there will be no problem at all arising from GM technology. I wish you had told me that originally. I wondered why you did not mention that you support socialism. All those facts you posted are irrlevant as is your supposed support for socialism.. Even if I had disproved every fact in the document you sent, it would make no difference to you--unlike the authors of the document. For you, GM technology would still not be categorically guaranteed as safe. Under socialism it would make no difference either. Even a socialist use of biotechnology could not categorically guarantee no problem.

If you apply the same standard to organic agriculture you could not approve it either. There is no categorical guarantee that the organic farmers' use of bt is problem free. Although it is less likely, it could very well produce resistant strains of colorado potato beetles. The same argument would apply to other techniques and also to use of hybrids, insects to control other insects etc.etc.

You may think that Heartfield slunk off. I can think of other reasons he might have left. He may simply have tired of responding to droll drivel.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

Carl Remick wrote:

> >Carl Remick wrote:
> >
> > > >I agree with those who would require labeling of GM products
> > >
> > > So do I, and the symbol might as well be a skull and crossbones, because
> > > that how much consumer appeal these products would have.
> > >
> >
> >Comment: We will see. Where is the evidence anyone has been poisoned by GM
> >products?
> I'm talking about consumer *appeal* -- perceptions -- not toxicological
> evidence. There is abundant marketplace evidence that consumers simply do
> not want GM foods. If you want to force them to eat their GM spinach, good
> luck to you.
> >
> > >
> > > > Perhaps you could explain to me how transfer of GM modified traits
> >to
> > > >the
> > > >wild could be uncontainable?
> > >
> > > Yikes, the uncontainable ecological damage caused by *natural*,
> >non-native
> > > invasive species is bad enough. See the ample literature on gypsy
> >moths,
> > > kudzu, leafy spurge, melaleuca, purple loosestrife, zebra mussels, and
> >on
> > > and on. Who knows what havoc a GM superweed might cause?
> > >
> >
> >So your explanation is to cite irrelevant facts. The only GM superweeds I
> >am
> >aware of are fairly easily contained. I have explained why they are
> >unlikely to
> >be a huge problem but you do not anwer.
> I don't like the proximity of the word "unlikely" to the words "huge
> problem." I'm looking for a categorical guarantee that there will be *no
> problem at all* arising from GM technology.
> > > Ah, Mick Hume & Co. Always good for a laugh. But if it's facts you
> >want,
> > > see below:
> > >
> > If you think Mick Hume and Co are funny than James Heartfiled's
> >Socialism of
> >Fools will really crack you up:
> >
> Yes, I had many droll moments with Heartfield on this very subject here on
> the list last year. He sort of slunk away after a while.
> Carl
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list