As far as how roundup tolerant genes rank
against Mother Theresa, that likely has as much
to do with one's opinion of Mother Theresa
as one's opinion of Roundup. ;-)
Jim
>I sent an email with the above title to the group (see copy below).
>
>In reply, Jim wrote:
><< In my humble opinion genetically altered plants
>and animals are not *always* bad or dangerous, but
>the element of risk can vary substantially between
>the various alterations. Has anyone tried to
>systematically classify the various alterations in
>terms of the type and degree or risk?
>
>Hi Jim -
>
>1) I think the information in this email was being specific in the way you
>requested. It was not saying that all genetically-engineered (GE) plants
>should be classified as toxics - just those "engineered to produce toxins
>that kill insects". Calling them a pesticide will likely cause them to go
>through the Risk Assessment process that would assess the level of
>potential risk, as with any other pesticide. I would guess that the point
>they're making is that if you engineer a plant to carry a pesticide, it's
>still a pesticide, just with a different delivery mechanism, and should be
>subject to the same regulatory structure that other pesticides are subject
>to.
>
>2) I'm trying to get more info on this, but I speculate that this news item
>is about putting Bt in corn, etc.
>
>3) In terms of the larger question of GE and levels of risk - I think the
>main point is _what we don't know_ and our hubris/arrogance rather than
>humility about that. That there is so much we don't know, and that there
>is so much potential risk for harm (to our food supply, our people, to the
>very genetic basis of life), and that we are moving ahead with such speed
>anyway (you should see Monsanto's GE rollout plans!), is a main reason for
>my concern, and I'm sure many others.
>
>Do we really want to have a large-scale global experiment with our entire
>food supply and the genetic makeup of the planet - and then only later go
>"oops!" when the level of potential disaster (or disasters) could make
>Chernobyl and Bhopal seem trivial...! I don't feel this is exaggeration,
>when we are tinkering with the very basis of life, not to mention our food
>supply. Look at the Irish potato famine for a glimpse of the social,
>political, economic, and human costs of food supply disasters. And we
>could easily get the information about our error when it is just too late
>to correct it!! This is serious stuff!! Just because Juraissic Park had a
>happy ending doesn't mean we will. As the Goldblum character said in that
>movie, Just because we _can_ do something, doesn't mean that we _should_!
>
>Prudence would dictate greater caution when there is so much unknown - and
>when there are so many much lower-risk options that could do clear and
>significant good for our food supply (ex. support organic farming and
>research). Unfortunately, chemical companies and their interests seem to
>be setting the agenda based on their desires for products to sell and
>market share to control, not (despite their rhetoric) on the well-being of
>mankind (sorry, but I don't think making the world safe for Roundup ranks
>up there with the work of Mother Theresa!).
>
>I feel that we citizens should stop accepting as a fait accompli their
>self-interested framing and recommendations for solving the world's
>problems, or just nibbling around the edges (ex. "cloning is ok, just not
>human cloning"), and instead reclaim the reins and ask what we want our
>nation's resources to be directed toward, what our priorities and goals
>are, and whether we want to risk the basis of life and our food supply -
>because, have no doubt, we will bear the consequences, so we have a right
>to be involved in the choice of that risk.
>I personally don't think that risk is worth it or necessary, and that there
>are a lot better things we could be doing with our efforts. But in any
>case, I don't appreciate the corporations rushing headlong into this risk
>without any decent control or choice by the citizens, and the governments
>that are supposed to acting in our best interest and instead have become
>corporate mouthpieces on this issue.... You're right assessments should be
>made, and then choices based on those assessments - but _before_ mass
>release of this stuff, not _after_!!
>
>Best regards -
>
>Patricia Dines
>
>>--- FORWARD --
>>
>>Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:40:11 -0600
>>From: "Noel A. Taylor" <nataylor@HSONLINE.NET>
>>Subject: Genetically Altered Foods Classified as Toxins by EPA
>>
>>>From _The Celestine Journal_ Vol. 4 #3 p. 3:
>>
>>"New Toxins in Food:
>>
>>"Corn and potatoes engineered to produce toxins that kill insects are now
>>classified as pesticides instead of vegetables by the Environmental
>>Protection Agency."
>>
>> --Noel
>>
>
>
Jim Wright
Box 129
Lougheed Alberta Canada
T0B 2V0
403 386-2479