You view presumably proceeds from the position that genetic
engineering is basically the same as conventional breeding, the same
view I've heard from other pro-GE people. I really wonder how they
justify to themselves this view, given that you can never
conventionally breed a horse with a pig, or a pig with a fish, or a
corn with a bacterium.
Both the FDA and the EPA ruled that since GE-corn (and presumably
GE-soya too, but the documents I have pertain to GE-corn) is
subtantially equivalent to its conventional counterpart, there is no
need for thorough testing. GMO's have, in fact, avoided exhaustive
testing through the "substantial equivalence" shortcut.
>Of course the hysteria is a problem. But the problem, at it's root, results
>from peoples misplaced fears IMO. But you are right about this being a
You can't say for sure its misplaced because there is no scientific
consensus on the safety issue. Industry said the same thing about
nukes, pesticides, CFCs, etc.
>ugly in the customers field. I don't think anybody thought (at least in the
>production departments) that people would care if we accidentally got a
>little of the GMO pollen onto the non-GMO varieties!
Well, if Pioneer didn't think about these things, I would imagine
there are still other problems they probably didn't think about too!
>fieldman might be shunned though!). I believe that if you want
>isolation from someone elses genetics, then you have to arrange it.
>If you want to isolate your organic corn field 660 feet from GMO
>varieties, you have to deal with, and possibly pay the surrounding
>growers to not grow GMO corn. If the wind blows hard during flowering,
>and you get a percent or two GMO contamination anyway, then it is your
>problem. This is not a new issue, and I believe there is legal
>precedent for all this. I will look into it.
I can why Pioneer would adopt this legal position, because it means
Pioneer won't be liable for all the genetic contamination. But if
non-GMO farmers lose income because their crop is genetically
contaminated with GMOs, I don't think the *source* of contamination
can dodge responsibility and escape liability. Howerver, this is
something your legal system would have to work out.
>> when Pioneer has done no research which has been published on
>> peer-reviewed journals concerning the safety of Bt corn for
>> animal or human consumption?
>Are you sure about that? Pioneer scientists publish in peer-reviewed
>journals quite often. But the main concern is meeting regulatory
I meant feeding tests. I am confident enough to say Pioneer hasn't
done so, because I've really been looking and asking around for
feeding test studies, and I've so far located only 3 that have been
published: Monsanto (<1997, rats), Novartis (1998, broiler chicken)
and Pusztai (1999, rats). If Pioneer has done one, I'll gladly correct
my statement and cite Pioneer's study. I hope you can post the results
I'm starting to repeat myself. I think I'll rest my case.
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: