>>I don't want Monsanto running it,
>>but what, in principle, is wrong with biotech? You guys probably
>>would have opposed traditional animal and plant breeding too. Doug
>>Doug
>>---------
>>
>>As I tried to explain to my kid on Sunday, the issue is not the
>>science or the `safety'. The issue is the political economic of GM. It
>>is a means (a new, more pervasive, deeper and more thorough means) of
>>corporate control over the production of food.
>
>That's why I said I don't want Monsanto running it. People have a hard
>time separating science from capital.
>
>Doug
So does this mean that until you have some guarantee or even some reasonable assurance that Monsanto and the like will not be in control you will oppose GM foods entering the food chain? I think the idea behind GM food and genetic engineering of medicines and other things is a great idea. I think they hold tremendous promise. I just don't think that without REAL government oversight or controls into their applications it is a recipe for more harm than good for most of the people on the planet. At least the government is in theory accountable to its citizens and can respond to democratic concerns. This is far from the case with Monsanto and friends. In a democratically controlled environment splicing salmon genes into a tomato to make it more red would be extremely low on the list of priorities. So would "terminator" genes that prevent seed collection. In fact just the opposite might be the case. If increasing yields could mean a smaller proportion of the overall crop would need to be saved for seed stocks this would be a positive. I support government funded research into genetic engineering with the prohibition of any GM food entering production until some serious concerns about their application are addressed.
John Thornton