A Common, Unrecognized Genetic Engineering Correlation in "Every Day Life"
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: A Common, Unrecognized Genetic Engineering Correlation in "Every Day Life"
- From: Douglas Hinds <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 22:09:27 -0600
- Organization: Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C.
- Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Unfortunately (and as the subject indicates), there's a common,
unrecognized genetic engineering correlation in "every day life" -
meaning maybe the past century & a half (don't have the figure) that is
just as un-natural as molecular GE and although there may be no well
documented deaths connected with it, I consider it a highly destructive
practice, not the least of which is the loss of a level of quality of
life that I'm afraid is so far removed from the experience of the vast
majority of you (I'm really sorry to have to say this), that most may
well be unwilling to even contemplate (much less recognize or take an
interest in) this.
However, having first worked with a UCR botanic geneticist (who agreed
in principle, even if he lacked the courage to follow it up on his own),
then obtained a confirmation of the basic thesis from a a UCSD /
Beltsville MD Experimental Station Plant Scientist (we lack the genetic
competence to act on this, said he, adding that "it's not really a
SIGNIFICANT imbalance"), authored an article on the subject published in
a rare fruit growers yearbook (not a particularly scholarly publication
- but I still stand behind the article) and left the U.S. (I'm still
gone), all in the early 1970's; I'll spell it out again: There is a
metabolic imbalance, a biochemical disturbance, INHERANT to
budded/grafted trees and their fruit that negatively affects those who
eat it (and obviously the trees themselves).
How could that be if it's been done for so long, is so universal and has
so many "good" reasons behind it? (i.e. diease resistant rootstock,
early productivity - it's the same BS we're hearing today from the GE
people, who use a similar, i.e. non-biological, non-evolutionary,
interventionist, overly agressive "technology"). That's herd mentality,
folks. Undramatic? That's comparative - (to Terminator movies maybe),
but where's the basis for comparison?
I can remember quite well when the concept of organics was considered a
fools realm, so I don't really care that much about the fallout from
having posted this, but the fact is that the subject just never has been
well documented. The reseach was never carried out. And I'll just tell
you one thing - don't offer ME fruit - free or otherwise, from a grafted
tree. I don't eat it. (And there's plenty of good seedlings where I
Varieties can be selected for desireable (commercial or otherwise)
qualities and propagated genetically without using surgical (micro or
otherwise) techniques, and BETTER reasons abound for doing so.
That's probably enough for now. I still have the original article and
would be glad to share it w/ any interested party and REALLY glad to
discuss with anybody who has access to chromatagraphic, electron
microscopic or other instruments capable of demonstrating differences in
metabolic efficiency within the contexts of photosynthesis (plants),
digestion (animals) (without excluding the possibility of focusing on
other metabolic processes) in order to quantify the degree of deviation
that exists (that the deviation exists is not really in question) and
thereby the importance of the issue: The need to develope seedling lines
of genetically stable fruit bearing trees.
Douglas M. Hinds
Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR)
(Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit)
Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (as dialed from U.S. & maybe Canada)
e-mail: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org