Your impression is inaccurate, and is perpetuated by those who want to
discredit the opposition. Long, reasoned, detailed, scientific
arguments never make the news.
> Folks, you have the wrong enemy... Let the GM groups explore the
> potential benefits of such work (if any) and be responsible for their
There is no meaningful way for them to be "responsible" for their
mistakes. No recall is possible. That is the whole point. And the
record keeping is not being done to even make it possible to determine
> why don't 'you
> all' come to Georgia and stomp out the some 35,000 acres of tobacco
> crop which is a "KNOWN" carcinogenic. We don't even have to guess
> about this one. This is a "no brainer."
Tobacco is not working its dastardly deeds while growing in the field!
And when one does consume tobacco in one form or another, it is never
unknown to the user. One has a choice, both philisophically and
practically, because it is physically possible to exercise that choice.
I never worry that I will shake dried oregano on to my pizza, but that
tobacco will fall on it instead. I don't have to grow all my own food
in an enclosed biosphere to avoid consuming tobacco.
How shall I exercise my "right" to not consume GE food? Or do I have
such a right?
How are the ecological effects of someone elses choices to be assessed
or contained? How can they be made to be "responsible?"
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: