>i wonder, why everyone calls for the government
Because there is a clear and present danger to the biosphere.
This makes the issue one important to the public good.
The fact that I myself do not and will not support GMO's through
my purchasing them is not enough. This is what governments
are for - to protect the public interest. The dangers inherent in
implementing a moratorium (to a few wealthy investors hoping
for a lucrative return) are insignificant, in relation to the multitude
of unknown risks involved and the rapidly accumulating body of
evidence indicating profound, negative effects on the ecosystem.
>i wonder, where we might
>be, if all these billions would have been spent in
>conventional breeding. ...one of the
>most famous breeders from INRA for example published a
>paper, where they showed, that there is no real advantage for
>hybrid seed and conventional corn would have the same
>yields, if breeders had spent the same money in it.
Good point!
Where no clear and present danger to the public good exists,
free choice may be indicated. But here, this is not the case.
Therefore, the appropriate direction taken for investment in
research may need a little guidance (or at least dissuasion).
Alternatively, incentives could be provided for traditional
genetic research.
DH
That's all - it will be difficult for me to follow up this thread much
further for now as I must get ready to return again to the
Papaloapan.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 21/05/99 at 9:00 AM Klaus Wiegand wrote:
>hello douglas,
>
>>The species themselves and not doing the taking and inserting,
>>and the people doing it are doing it via mechanical or chemical
>>means, as distinguished from "husbandry" consisting of breeding
>>methods that involve the appropriate sexual organs of the
>>organisms being combined.
>
>that's only partially true. think of colchicine and gammy
>particle bombarding.
>
>
>>In that sense, the
>>"ownership" is more important than the knowledge, which is more
>>like genetics - easily transferred,
>
>i think, these days unfortunately are also gone in all other
>fields. it began, when the first patent offices was established.
>so genetic engineering is no exception. i'm not surprised to
>find, that private companies are running for patents. the
>shameful thing is, that governmental institutes are also involved
>in patenting (see usda and "terminator", here in germany it is
>the largest scientific research community , the
>max-planck-institute). so you pay twice, first for the research
>for the patent (by taxes) and later the 2nd time for the patent
>license.
>
>>legislative attention must be focused on the issue.
>
>i would say: additionally. but i wonder, why everyone calls for
>the government, when he has the decision in his own hands.
>several days ago there was a posting, in which s.o. asked for
>reasons, why we would refuse gm products. to me that's the wrong
>question !
>
>for example i am almost a vegetarian and am surely not
>willing to discuss with cattle breeders, whether i'm willing
>or even shall be forced to buy their meat, just because he
>grows cattle and because it contains high levels of protein,
>enzymes and vitamins. would i be a total vegetarian, i would
>not even consider to buy something, which MIGHT contain
>meat. no discussion, no reasoning with anyone! it is my sole
>decision. and it has NOTHING to do with scientific
>reasoning. the same goes for kosher meat for jews or swines
>for moslems. do not look for a scientific background, where
>there isn't any (or only a minor one)...
>
>although as an agronomist i see a lot of advantages, this
>does not imply, that i must see the same advantages as a
>consumer.
>
>may i ask, why i (as a consumer) should be in the defense
>situation of explaining, why i refuse this or that ? isn't
>it usually just the other way round ? i have the money and
>so it's me to decide how to spend it. i thought, that was
>one of the best known facts in america and the reason, why
>there are PR-agencies.... and i'm astonished, why a lot of
>writers here feel themselves in the defense and have to
>explain, why they are "luddists".
>
>bioindustry has something valuable to sell ? so they should
>convince me, that my money is well spent in their gene food.
>
>up to now they came up with a flavr-savr, that tasted like a
>paper handkerchief, a better tasting tomato paste (which was
>a market success, you see: no global refusal of gm-products)
>and for the billions spent, an amazingly low number of
>agronomical advantages (which do not interest me at all as a
>consumer). seems, as if all these thousands of nice and very
>special research papers from the lab do not add up to a
>wholesome result in the field. and i wonder, where we might
>be, if all these billions would have been spent in
>conventional breeding. levontin for harvard and one of the
>most famous breeders from INRA for example published a
>paper, where they showed, that there is no real advantage for
>hybrid seed and conventional corn would have the same
>yields, if breeders had spent the same money in it.
>
>a year ago i had a discussion with the represent of the
>largest seed company in germany and he whined, that they are
>tired of explaining the advantages of genetic engineering to
>the public. so i asked the question in the highly frequented
>fido-area "wissen.ger" (german scientific discussion), if
>they heard anything of that company and their explanations.
>guess what ? NOONE EVER heard anything of them, most did not
>even know the company's name !! my oh my!! and they call
>this enlightening the public ??
>
>
>for a better understanding: for a consumer there is no
>advantage in better industrial processing characteristics or
>a bacteria-resistant tomato, he simply buys from another
>batch or switches to a carrot salad...
>
>high vitamin content ? not bad, but consumers can choose among a
>broad variety of vitamin pills maybe from the same "life science"-
>company, who is the owner of the gm-seeds.
>
>some vitamins are produced by gm-bacteria ? for most people
>the advantage will be evident (though in this case not for
>me), so it may be a clear buy !
>
>but not according to the technicians on my lab. i asked those, who
>are gm-opponents, if they would buy a vitamine-enriched
>gm-variety. clear-cut answer: no. then i asked the women among
>them, if, PROVIDED they would get cellulitis, if they would buy a
>salad, which would help against it. they all answered with a YES !
>(i'm almost sure, men would have given the same answer, if
>there were a vegetable producing viagra)
>
>now, would you tell me, if you see is any scheme behind that ??
>i do not see it. (doesn't matter, they would not offer their money
>for the vitamins. case closed)
>
>the leak has virus resistance ? where's the meat ? may they
>sell the veined leak elsewhere...
>
>seedless grapes ? well, but not really needed, god (or
>whosoever) provided me with a tongue to spit them out..
>nothing more but a nice gag, for which only some people are
>willing to pay. and besides (not so important) also
>breedable by conventional means.
>
>higher yields ? we already pay enough subsidaries and each pound
>more increases the sum. as a farmer i would welcome it and would
>as all the others run straight into "the tragedy of
>the commons". no escape ! under this view i also understood ann
>clark's "thank god yields are lower", which people might
>misunderstand at first glance (me too).
>
>ozone-tolerant plants ? wouldn't it be better to solve the
>probleme ozone at it's basis ?
>
>rbgh ? more milk, more mastitis by growth stress, so even
>conflicting for the farmer..
>
>seems, as if for every advantage i also have to
>swallow a toad. nice deal.
>
>an anticancer-drug or hiv-vaccine derived from a gm-plant ?
>where is it ?, i'm sure it would be accepted immediately and
>people would stop throwing bomb after bomb in gene splicers
>gardens.
>
>fusarium-resistant grains ? fantastic ! but this will be an
>"trade-off", for which you can wait until doomsday. it would
>interferes between the seeds and the fungicides of the same
>company.
>
>so where are these fantastic and revolutionary gm-product
>improvements for me, the consumer ?? small improvement -
>small encitement for a buy...
>
>you see, i'm no absolute opponent of biotechnology, but up to now
>i find their advertisements nothing but hype and their behaviour
>against me, the consumer, just disgusting. look at the
>stockmarket, bio technology companies are having more and more
>problems to explain to their shareholders, why despite the
>billions of investment up to now they haven't come up with
>something really worthy. last week i read in the "handelsblatt"
>(the german counterpart of "wall street journal") of an american
>biotech-company, who totally failed in the usa and tried a new
>start in germany's stock market. their big mistake: a reporter
>from the handelsblatt got wind of an internal memo saying, that
>"germans are easier to be DUPED by nice advertisements than
>americans". over and out for their business..
>
>
>or take this research paper title:
>
>PRODUCTION OF FERTILE TRANSGENIC PEANUT (ARACHIS HYPOGAEA L)
>PLANTS USING AGROBACTERIUM TUMEFACIENS
>
>what a marvellous result. fertile peanuts !! they may even have
>celebrated their success. i only can wonder, how peanut growers
>have managed to replicate their fruits in the last 5000 years....
>
>last year i even saw a paper from an american university,
>telling us, that they have successfully cloned a bacterium.
>imagine that !!!! they cloned a bacterium!! some funders
>might even be highly impressed ;-))
>
>i'm tired of these kind of advertisements. take a look in the
>special edition of fortune (25. birthday-edition) in the 50ies,
>where they asked the most prominent scientists for predictions,
>how the world would look like in 30 years. not even SOME of these
>predictions came true, it was NONE of them. and NOONE foresaw ANY
>of the real industrial revolutions.
>
>take the case of your fireants, which increased it's
>percentage among your ants from 1 to 99 % due to pesticid
>recommandations of your marvellous scientists. take the case
>of lead/arsen-pesticides in the beginning of this century.
>the head of the entomological department of the usda
>(certainly a scientist, his name was doggerel), declared
>"there is ABSOLUTELY NO risk in using them" and his
>collegues lamented over "the warnings of of some ignorants"
>they even made a poem for the farmers (i have to retranslate
>it, so mileage may vary):
>
>spray, you farmers, spray with ardour,
>spray peach, pear and apple !
>spray against scab, spray against blight,
>keep on spraying, and do it right.
>
>(taken from james whorton; before silent spring: pesticides
>and public health in pre-ddt america, princeton 1974, p.
>90.)
>
>and if you ask for any responsability for their work, you
>get the same answers, the allies got, when after the war
>they asked for responsablity among the hanger-ons of the
>nazis: "but we did not know...". there were more people, who
>concealed a jew, than we had jews at all. are there any
>scientists, who went to jail for hurting public health ?
>reminds me of one of the nicest scenes in bogarts
>"casablanca". when he was asked by the french officer, why
>he came to marocco, he answered: "i came for the beautiful
>waters". the officer: "but this is desert land, there are NO
>waters here". and rick's answer (which might also be that of
>modern gene splicers in 20 years): "i was misinformed!"
>
>i make a prediction: all these companies will have strangled
>themselves with their indiscriminating sequencing patents in
>acouple of year. these will make research impossible and
>applications more expensive than before. maybe i should
>invest in lawyer incorporated companies....
>
>
>klaus
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