Is it a viable alternative to demand absolute proof of harmlessness before any new medicine is approved? Any new crop or livestock technology? Any industrial process? Any crop introduction? The world just isn't a very secure place; we have no absolute knowledge in any field. Deciding what to do and when is a matter of trade-offs. Obviously, a great number of SANET participants consider the risks of genetic engineering to outweigh the potential benefits, and that GMO's have no place in a "sustainable" agriculture. I am not convinced this position is correct.
The fact that the vast majority of GMO crops are being introduced into conventional, chemical-intensive (and undeniably non-sustainable) agriculture is a reflection of the motives of the GE companies; it doesn't necessarily imply that the technology itself is malignant. Would one of the CGIAR centres (for example) be able to produce GMO's that overcome specific constraints on third-world agriculture without locking the farmers into a cycle of chemical servitude? My impression is that many (most?) list members would reply, "No". The feeling seems rampant that this technology is bound to create monsters -- and, by extension, that every GMO is a disaster just waiting to happen. Again, I haven't seen evidence to convince me of that.
Hold corporate feet to the fire. Sue their socks off for breaches of public trust. Fine their treasuries to depletion for illegalities. I don't see a reason yet to condemn them for everything they undertake to do -- in the name of profit or otherwise.
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: