>> 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.
Good point, that genetic manipulation goes way beyond transgenics, and
that transgenics are not necessarily evil. Even good old fashioned corn
is a botanical monstrosity created by centuries (millenia?) of human
manipulation. I agree that everything has to be decided on the basis of
>> It is the ability to make clear, informed choices in the marketplace that
>> we want as citizens and as sustainable agriculturists.
How you going to do this in practice? Each plant variety carries it's
own unique risk (IMO, very small). In fact, the only documented cases
(as far as I know) of health problems from new varieties occurred in the
context of traditional breeding (celery, squash). Do you want to attach
pedigrees to each item on the shelf?
>> It is practically and
>> financially impossible for each citizen to test their own food
That's why we do it collectively via the FDA, and EPA. I think they do
a pretty adequate, if inefficient job. I think they are rather
>> 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.
I assume you mean in a political sense. What is broken, and how can the
system be fixed in your opinion?
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command