Karen: well, I'm a luddite, so I guess I can respond to a heretic (just
joking!).
As for GMO's, as discussed on this list in recent days, even seemingly
defensible uses of GMO's may be a questionable or even objectionable approach
(e.g. Vit A deficiency) - once you know the whole story. Thinking and working
holistically is, after all, the real underpinning and strength of organic
farming, at least in my opinion. I agree that it is unwise to reject out of
hand all future GMO developments based on what is currently in or near entry to
the marketplace. Nonetheless, it would seem to me that in the unlikely event
that a genuinely useful and defensible GMO were to come onto the market, the
issue could be reconsidered - no? I mean, rules that are made can be unmade -
right? This rule is not set in stone.
It is also important to recognize that the process - not just the projects - of
genetic engineering appears to engender inherent and unavoidable risks of gene
expression, owing specifically to a) the randomness of transgene packet
insertion in and among chromosomes, and b) the generation of unintended and
unpredictable gene:gene and gene:environment interactions. I discuss this at
length, with references, in
http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/faculty/eclark/laird.htm - but in a nutshell, genes
don't act alone. The complexity of gene:gene interactions simply boggles the
mind - it is no wonder it is proving so difficult to get stable and reliable
transgene expression, and these are all single-gene traits so far. To the best
of my undertstanding, multigeneic or quantitatively inherited traits will pose
exponentially more difficulty in getting stable and reliable expression without
incurring unintended expression by other genes.
As for use of antibiotics, I have to say that a great deal of my own use of
antibiotics, such as it is, is to fix problems caused by other people. I buy
Holstein bull calves (200 lb) and grow them for meat, in a microfarming context
(12-20 calves a year). About 100% of my use of antibiotics comes from curing
pneumonia, shipping fever, and other maladies which could have been avoided if
a) I had taken more care to source the animals (I haven't needed any antibiotics
when I do my job right!), or b) suppliers had taken care to provide colostrum to
and manage the young calves properly. These are management issues.
I read that somewhere - perhaps Denmark? - pig producers had bit the bullet and
withdrawn prophylatic use of antibiotics from their production systems. They
developed new management methods, including group farrowing in heavily bedded
straw packs etc, which essentially eliminated the problems. There was a small
cost disadvantage to the alternative approach, but I cannot recall if the extra
cost persisted or was just during the first few years - perhaps someone else can
refer us to the article. So, my point is that the need for antibiotics in the
first place is a management issue, and methods can be developed to avoid this
need through pro-active and intentional system design. I don't think I'm being
utopian on this. Ann
karenm@vt.edu wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> At the risk of being a heretic (yes, you have permission to burn me at the
> stake), I'd like to ask for comments on the use of GMO's and antibiotics for
> organic production. The new proposed rules forbid both. I understand the
> reasoning.
> Has anyone considered that maybe some of the consumer GMO's might actually
> be a good thing? For example, the vitamin enhance rice? By forbidding ALL
> GMO's is the organic community ultimately shooting itself in the foot? If
> use of GMO's is limiting to nutritional enhancement of the crop would it be
> acceptable?
> Low doses of antibiotics fed to maintain animal health because of rapid
> weight gain and small space for the livestock/poultry strikes me as being a
> bizarre way to treat animals to begin with. However, if an animal on
> pasture gets sick and the treatment is antibiotics and the recommended
> withdrawal period is adhered to, is that also a bad thing? If antibiotics
> are forbidden in organic livestock/poultry production, will we have any?
> Since one of the issues is the amount of space animals need, has anyone done
> any studies on what might be required for the livestock/poultry to be
> considered for organic production? To simple respond to USDA with "You have
> to say the animals have to be outside" without some science to back up how
> much is enough "outside" doesn't seem to be very productive.
> Thanks for your patience with my heretical comments.
> k.
>
> Karen Mundy
> Communications Coordinator
> Rural Economic Analysis Program
> Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics (0401)
> Virginia Tech
> Blacksburg, VA 24061
> (540) 231-9443
>
> 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/san/htdocs/hypermail
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/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 05 2000 - 20:00:26 EDT