>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
>
>---------
>
>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.
-----
I understand the annoyance of conflating the two but there are in fact safety and scientific problems with GMO. Excerpt from the Union of Concerned Scientists website:
<http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/biotechnology/page.cfm?pageID=346>
Risks of Genetic Engineering
Many previous technologies have proved to have adverse effects unexpected by their developers. DDT, for example, turned out to accumulate in fish and thin the shells of fish-eating birds like eagles and ospreys. And chlorofluorocarbons turned out to float into the upper atmosphere and destroy ozone, a chemical that shields the earth from dangerous radiation. What harmful effects might turn out to be associated with the use or release of genetically engineered organisms?
This is not an easy question. Being able to answer it depends on understanding complex biological and ecological systems. So far, scientists know of no generic harms associated with genetically engineered organisms. For example, it is not true that all genetically engineered foods are toxic or that all released engineered organisms are likely to proliferate in the environment. But specific engineered organisms may be harmful by virtue of the novel gene combinations they possess. This means that the risks of genetically engineered organisms must be assessed case by case and that these risks can differ greatly from one gene-organism combination to another.
So far, scientists have identified a number of ways in which genetically engineered organisms could potentially adversely impact both human health and the environment. Once the potential harms are identified, the question becomes how likely are they to occur. The answer to this question falls into the arena of risk assessment.
In addition to posing risks of harm that we can envision and attempt to assess, genetic engineering may also pose risks that we simply do not know enough to identify. The recognition of this possibility does not by itself justify stopping the technology, but does put a substantial burden on those who wish to go forward to demonstrate benefits.
[specific concerns follow] -------
The UCS doesn't call for an all-out ban on the practise and neither do I -- I can't speak for whoever is organizing the protest. But since some of what's been developed is as recallable as cane toads and kudzu, and we're talking about the food supply, isn't some caution advisable?
Andy F.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com