> "we need to examine the mechanisms in place to determine what is
> right and what is broken. And then fix the broken parts."
Marc: That statement pretty much sums up MY view of when and why to use GMO's (the
term "biotech" covers a lot more ground and biological control can be considered a
valid use of it). GMO may be a good approach for resolving the problem that a
hemophiliac faces - because HE (or she) has a problem that in itself is an anomaly
(a broken or missing part). But to give GMO solutions the benefit of the doubt
(as you state below)
> "just because a product is genetically engineered we cannot conclude it is
> harmful is very valid."
is itself philosophically invalid. In short: When and where might the use GMO's
be valid? THAT's where this should begin and end (if it ain't missing or broke,
forget GMO“s - and even then, there may be a GENETIC - i.e. "natural, rather than
genetically engineered - solution).
Lastly, if the general public doesn't share this view (which is exactly what those
investing in GMO for everyday solutions (those that DON'T require GMO's) are
afraid of (and there's going to be a lot of money lost by those who are banking on
GMO's for fixes that certainly DON'T require them), it's clear that there is at
LEAST going to be a significant segment of the the world population that will not
stand for an enforced lack of differentiation (the fatal flaw that OFPA shares -
you can't state what you have - you're limited to the undifferentiated,
undiversified OFPA definition - and THAT in itself, is unnatural). But it appears
that there's a lot of money to be made by supplying propietary, closed systems
(ask Bill Gates). And THAT's whats's behind most of this - patents and control
freaks, not a love of nature or what's natural. (It's interesting to note how
OFMA tries to slice & dice it - to "Save Organic" - but for whose benefit)?
I for one, do NOT intend to stand by and see things get as far in the area of
labeling and the whole Freedom of Information issue (the right to inform and be
informed) as things have gotten in relation to grafted trees and their fruit (hope
you didn't think I forgot about that one), which has arrived at the point where
people have no access to fruit from good seedling varieties anymore, and therefore
are without a basis in experience from which to distinguish the difference. (in
other words, the capability - or at least the opportunity to do has been lost for
most people). But that happened so long ago it's taken for granted. (And the
posts done months ago produced no real follow up, to date). Never the less, the
issue hasn't received the attention it deserves and whoever is able to provide it
will earn a lasting place in the evolution (genetic, not surgically nor micro
surgically modified evolution, thank you), of this planet.
It will be interesting to note how many follow (or don't follow) the logic of
this. (last comment added to this reply).
> I appreciate Steve Groff's posting of January 13th. The question
> regarding manipulation of genes...whether it be by induced mutation,
> double back crossing, or newer recombinant processes...and the safety
> of food is important. Steve's point that just because a product is
> genetically engineered we cannot conclude it is harmful is very valid.
> It is the ability to make clear, informed choices in the marketplace that we
> want as citizens and as sustainable agriculturists. It is practically and
> financially impossible for each citizen to test their own food; it is just as
> impossible for each citizen to grow their own food. Therefore, it means
> that we need to examine the mechanisms in place to determine what is
> right and what is broken. And then fix the broken parts.
> Marc Safley
Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) e-mail: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".