While I would agree with Steve's point regarding GMO's in general terms
(distinguishing agricultural from medical appliations), my emphasis was as
stated: "GMO's should be best reserved for resolving pathologies
unresolvable by other means". "For resolving pathologies" implies medical
applications, that is true; while "unresolvable by other means" is self
explanatory: A good example would be a birth defect requiring that a
product supplied by a missing gene be administered constantly during the
lifetime of the person (or conceivably but improbably, the animal or plant)
involved, often putting that life in danger and/or making it highly tenuous
and complicated (also a medical application - but again, my emphasis is on
"resolving pathologies unresolvable by other means").
Since the intended function here is to correct "pathology" (an anomaly at
best), NO mass use is contemplated, and the only "environment" receiving
the GMO would be that of the target organism (i.e., the patient's own
body). This is the main point: That's the only context in which it's
needed - an anomalous one. (This focus also removes most of the economic
stimulus behind the current frenzy driving the transnational
conglomerates's GMO / R & D budgets - which simply demonstrates where their
hearts and minds are really heading).
In the end, the current rush toward R & D of GMO's will spell grave losses
for the firms now investing in them, but that's their self chosen, prime
area of concern anyway and these endeavors represent a calculated risk that
as mentioned, will simply not fulfill their expectations (but probably not
break them). Everyone else's problem is: How to prevent or minimize the
untold damage already being done to the biosphere by GMO's already, now
being and to be released, in the meantime. THAT IS a serious issue and I
suggest: By charging for it. Accountability is exactly what's lacking.
Otherwise, the buck will continue to be passed to the public at large and I
for one am unwilling to continue paying for someone elses sick intent to
profit at my and everybody else's expense. Certain asses must be kicked,
so to speak. To that end, I have looked for an institution offering a law
degree program in the U.S. available via the internet, but haven't found
one yet, so someone else will have to do the necessary legal defense work
called for, at present: Law suits, injunctions, etc. An ongoing and
extensive public relations effort must also be waged on many fronts, but it
seems clear that all this is being done. (So I'll get back to my own
little area of endeavor - the creation or enhancement of a better way of
doing things in this neck of the woods, that can in turn connect with and
hopefully, constructively influence the course of events on the northern
side of our common border).
Hasta entonces,
Douglas Hinds
Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, A.C. (CeDeCoR)
(Center for Community and Rural Development)
Petronilo Lopez No. 73
Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO
e-mail: dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net, cedecor@ipnet.com.mx
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 4/06/99 at 7:24 PM Sprinkraft@aol.com wrote:
>In Digest 36, Douglas Hinds wrote:
>
>> Perhaps GMO's should be best
>> reserved for resolving pathologies unresolvable by other means (i.e.
>> inserting the gene for prothrombin formation in a hemophiliac)
>
>Tony:
>
>What Doug Hinds indicates is an idea that is common among many antagonists
>toward GE/GMO technology. Strategically, the protagonist point of view is to
>not mix the medical and the agricultural issues because they are not entirely
>the same...However, the two ( Med and Ag) do merge on down the line when
>crops or animals are created that express a medical product...and also there
>is the sidebar regarding the use of antibiotic markers in the crops...and
>even the use of an antibiotic to reverse the Terminator gene technology in
>the field.
>
>In a medical-therapeutic application, at least the patient has the right to
>disagree when offered the remedy. For consumers of the food crops/products,
>they are not offered any right to choose. My personal opinion is that the
>medical applications may have a place-my father has had a pig heart valve for
>two years-but in general a more intelligent lifestyle would prevent some of
>the maladies that GE ag intends to solve, such as cholesterol, low or non
>caffeine coffees....and I also am wary of creating crops that have vaccines
>in them.
>
>The strategy is to focus on the agricultural applications because the
>technology is indiscriminately employed on millions of acres and now, as many
>forecasted, we are seeing the unintended results...including non-target
>insects that are affected by the technology, rapid resistance among target
>pests, loss of the use of Bt because it is expressed on millions of acres
>over a 100 day timeframe, crop losses or lower yields, poor leadership within
>the conventional farming sector-who push the technology even though the
>market is unstable...and so on.
>
>Although the same sort of ovesight should be expected within the medical
>community, including the US FDA and the Center for Disease Control, the more
>imminent concern is towards the broad-acre experiment in the field and the
>contamination of the conventional food supply-and potentially the organic
>food supply as well.
>
>Steve Sprinkel
>Waukon, Iowa
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