A few years ago when the engineered hormone was being readied for
release, the debate on Sanet-Mg centered around two issues. The first
was the reliability of safety trials given the fact that the developing
company had provided grant money for the evaluations and trials. The
second issue was primarily about the health issue with cows and the
likelihood of blood or elevated levels of white corpuscles in their milk.
The current exchange seems to be centered around the presence of the
hormone itself. Since BSt is a naturally occurring hormone, presence or
absence within milk does not seem to be a matter of choice.
This leads me to the derivative question for those involved in the
discussion: is there more concern about the use of bioengineering
technology or about the type of evaluation its products have received?
If trials funded by laboratories approved and selected by organic farmers
showed that there was no greater risk than from products
grown/produced with generally accepted organic practices, would there
still be the opposition to its use?
Natural Resources Conservation Service
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command