Tuesday, January 11, 2000, 6:25:43 AM, you wrote to clarify your
meaning when you said:
>>> Chuck is using deliberately inflammatory language here.
After Charles Benbrook wrote:
>>>>> ..engineered to emit Bt through roots and root exudates
WD> I wasn't really trying to comment on Chuck's style (I like the way he
WD> writes), but to correct the inaccuracy in what he implied about
WD> rootworm-resistant corn.
Now you are saying that YOUR choice of words was inaccurate. IF indeed
an inaccuracy was present (and this is a point that requires
verification) in what Chuck stated (and perhaps assumed) about
rootworm-resistant corn's exuding Bt, then obviously there was no
"deliberately inflammatory language" used on his part, but rather
yours. YOU were inaccurate, and he may or may not have been also, but
there was certainly no "deliberately inflammatory language" used on
I can accept that rephrasing on your part.
WD> Bt corn of all types is not engineered to "emit" or "exude"
WD> anything into the environment. Rather, it is engineered to contain
WD> certain narrowly targeted toxins that control certain pests that
WD> feed on the corn.
Whether the inert state you describe really exists is exactly what
needs to be defined through long term studies, long before these
products are released to the environment. If these studies were not
done or done adequately, this indicates a lack of oversight on the
part of the Federal Agencies responsible for same, and implies the
possibility that the wrong (read industry) influences are being given
precedence over the greater public good, in terms of the (as yet
unknown) environmental consequences and the corresponding public
health issues involved. The reasons underlying how and why certain
priorities were given preference over others, is a serious matter in
WD> My point to Toni was that this kind of biological control of
WD> rootworm is preferable to soil-applied insecticides from the
WD> perspective of non-target effects.
Perhaps. Would you prefer a lethal injection, the gas chamber, the
electric chair, the scaffold, guillotine, rack, firing squad or just
live a little longer; within a biological frame that took thousands of
millenniums to develop and deserves some respect?
Why the haste to short circuit a set of processes that we've only just
begun to understand with any depth? These biological processes CAN be
worked with in ways that are fully compatible with the balanced
eco-systems now supporting all life as we know it, by first developing
a deeper, more detailed understanding of existing biological systems.
We can work WITH (rather than against) the many non-pathological
biological mechanisms available for accomplishing the really important
goals of sustainable agriculture.
Developing GMOs in order to establish a proprietary economic advantage
for the patent holder is not in the best interests of the world's need
for sustainable agricultural development. Agriculture is not by nature
a pathological activity and does not require solutions best suited for
correcting some pathologies (i.e. providing the gene required for
prothrombin formation that a hemophiliac lacks).
That is the only application where GMOs may possibly do more good than
harm - where no better alternatives exist, and they have no place in
agriculture itself, The very supposition that this is not the case is
very suspect in itself and speaks eloquently regarding the current
state of affairs, that WILL never-the-less be corrected. The question
is: At what cost and to whom?
It would be to your personal benefit to give full credit where credit
is due, and by beginning to base your own research on these principles,
which WILL prove to be sustainable (providing we prevent the
impatient, ignorant and / or exploitive elements of society from
fouling the nest in a serious way, meanwhile).
Douglas Hinds, Dir. Gral. - CeDeCoR, A.C.
Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil
(Center for Rural and Community Development, a Mexican non-profit organization)
Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico
Mail: Apdo. Postal No. 171
Fortin de las Flores, Veracruz 94471 Mexico
Tel: 011 522 713 2888 (Direct at present)
U.S. Voicemail (email linked) 630 300 0550
U.S. Fax Mailbox (email linked) 630 300 0555
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
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:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 06 2000 - 12:00:19 EST