I figured out a way to beat the reaction:
the >>knee-jerk, [kick ass], across-the-board rejection by the sustainable ag crowd.
Just find a way to get the same drugs used to diminish the immune response into the food supply.
Whatta ya say? Would it work?
*********** BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE ***********
On 13/05/99 at 10:24 AM Douglas M. Hinds <dmhinds@acnet.net> wrote:
From: Douglas M. Hinds <dmhinds@acnet.net>
To: "Dale Wilson" <WILSONDO@phibred.com>
CC: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 12:21:59 -0600
Subject: RE: information, extension, biotech, philosophy
>
>>knee-jerk, [kick ass], across-the-board rejection by the sustainable ag crowd.
>
>Yup, that's what it is, Dale. An ingrained, intuitive response by biologically evolved organisms in reaction to an invasive and unconscious incursion by hostile forces into the place where we live.
>
>>Was that manipulation "good"? Well, the folks doing
>>the selection thought it was.
>
>Once again - the question is not: To manipulate or not to manipulate. It's different strokes for different folks. It's the methodology. Do genetic (not transgenetic) crosses. Do it sexually, not via micro-surgical implants. You get credit for trying. And GMO's are still on the market - but "the sustainable ag crowd" is getting to be just about everybody. Save the GMO's for clearly justifiable (i.e. necessary) cases.
>
>Have a nice day.
>
>DH
>
>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
>On 13/05/99 at 10:24 AM Wilson, Dale wrote:
>
>>Jane,
>>
>>> Dale used the industry arguments...
>>
>>The arguments are mine, and I am not speaking for Pioneer.
>>
>>> that agricultural products may be "improved" by genetic
>>> manipulation so that fruits may be designed to carry certain
>>> medications; grains will be designed to have particular
>>> nutritional compositions; etc.
>>
>>That wasn't really my point. My point was that the health risk from these
>>manipulations is probably small. "Improvement" is a matter of opinion. I
>>am sure you would agree that plant varieties exhibit a wide range of
>>characteristics within species.
>>
>>> Is not the bounty of nature enough to suit our needs? Have
>>> we not co-evolved with the plants and animals that share
>>> this planet with us?
>>
>>Corn was first domesticated eight or nine thousand years ago. How much
>>biological change do you think occurred in humans since that time?
>>Negligible. How much change occurred in corn? To quote Walt Galinat "A
>>contemplation of the creative power necessary for ancient man to transform
>>the tiny spike of teosinte into the magnificent ear of corn in a relatively
>>short period of time, perhaps 100 yrs, leaves the beholder with a sense of
>>awe if not disbelief." Was that manipulation "good"? Well, the folks doing
>>the selection thought it was.
>>
>>The relevant co-evolution here is the co-evolution of plants with human
>>culture.
>>
>>> we have a *universe* of alternatives if only we would allow
>>> ourselves to see them. How about using an ecological approach,
>>> working with the cycles of nature, the complex dynamics of soil,
>>> and the miraculous natural capabilities of plants to attempt to
>>
>>All successful farmers do this. But, who are you to prescribe practices and
>>varieties, and tell farmers what they can and can't do? On what basis? I
>>can accept the basis of public or ecosystem health, but that is not what you
>>are arguing here. As is so common on this list, you are setting yourself up
>>as arbiter of natural law (and falling into the naturalistic fallacy). IMO
>>the farmer should decide what is an "improvement" and what is not. The
>>arbiter of natural law should be the farmer.
>>
>>> The simple answer is that the profit potential from this
>>> approach is very limited as it relies not on chemical or
>>> biotechnological inputs but on intensive system management,
>>> therefore industry would not be very interested
>>> in it.
>>
>>You might desire to forge your own hoe or make your own nails, but most
>>farmers choose not to do that. Is that bad? Pioneer produces one kind of
>>input, crop varieties (packaged in high-quality seeds BTW). You might take
>>esthetic pleasure in selecting and breeding plants. I know I do. But most
>>farmers choose to have someone else do it for them. We seed industry people
>>make a living doing that. As it turns out, the high-tech, gee-whiz stuff
>>doesn't make much more money than conventional breeding when the dust
>>settles (serves them oversold gene-splicers right ;-). Finely targeted
>>genetic manipulation, not always *trans*genic, is becoming conventional.
>>Human culture continues to co-evolve with the crop.
>>
>>IMO it is appropriate to let farmers themselves decide how they will farm in
>>their own unique situation. They need to decide what inputs should
>>logically be purchased in there situation. I don't think it is fair or
>>efficient for some centralized academic authority to decide what practices
>>or varieties are *natural* enough for them to grow. I think GMO crops are
>>safe and represent an environmentally responsible choice in many cases.
>>Apparently, many farmers want to buy such seed. I don't understand the
>>knee-jerk, across-the-board rejection by the sustainable ag crowd.
>>
>>Dale
>>
>>To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>>"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
>>"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>>To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>>"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>>
>>All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
>>http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
>
>
*********** END FORWARDED MESSAGE ***********
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail