You responded to a question posed by Marc:
>>Marc then posed a most thought provoking question:
>><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?>
Then you said:
>>Personally, I am highly skeptical about any evaluation of risks from
>>bioengineering technology no matter who does it. Almost by definition,
>>evaluation requires a) isolation, to avoid interference from extraneous
>>factors, and b) a relatively short time interval, so that testing costs do
>>not eat up potential profits, and c) relatively small samplings being
>>tested. >No evaluation can determine the risk of turning a new product
loose in >the "real world," (cut)
But you didn't really answer the question. Instead, you debated the
reasonableness of his assumption ("..if trials showed no greater risk").
Back to his question, "...would there still be opposition to it's use?"
I maintain that there still would be opposition, because the opposition
is primarily a philosphical issue. People just don't like the idea of
synthetic foods. Most people buy into human/nature dualism (the idea
that people are not part of nature). Therefore, they regard products of
human invention as "unnatural".
I could build a pretty strong case that the "natural" constituents of
ice cream are far more harmful than any synthetic additives. Perhaps
ice cream should be banned. After all, it was invented by humans and it
is obviously addictive and harmful.
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command