[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Moratorium Called on Genetically Modified Foods



Here are more quotes I found on the internet taken a chapter from the book
Guide to Wild Foods, by Christopher Nyerges.. Seem like everywhere I look I
find people that feel this stuff should be labeld.

'The genetic alterations are not all good. The new attempts (successful) at
producing a super soybean with Brazil Nut genes backfired. Thousands of
people are severely allergic to Brazil Nuts. Early tests showed that these
people were now allergic to this super soybean. What will happen when a
genetically altered food contains several or dozens of other food genes?
I've written about this in my book and in my columns for Nutrition Advocate.
Whenever we get away from natural foods we pay a price somewhere. Corn's
alteration was gradual over several centuries, but today it's one of the
leading allergenic foods I encounter in my pediatric practice."
--Charles Attwood, M.D.
The scientist's problem is that the unknown is so much larger than the known.
"I'm not sure I am happy about your tenet of my ignorance of science ... (I
am a scientist, but obviously not in the field of food/genetics) ... but the
scientific method has taught me that a) no one can predict the consequences
of non-trivial actions (does anyone still believe that nuclear power
stations are "safe" and can be controlled ... ?), and b) modern technology
often does things 'in principle' the same as before (a database is like a
card file) but there is often a qualitative difference as well as a
quantitative one. I think in drawing the parallel between classic mutations
(due to gamma rays ...) or even traditional man-made ones (cross fertilising
flowers to yield new types ...) to the modern industrial strength genetic
engineering one must surely see a difference not only in quantity (number of
mutations produced, difference to previous strains etc.) and also the
quality (targeted differences, genetics applied not for survival of the
fittest but to maximise industrial profits etc.).

Call me an old fuddy-duddy if you like, but I am worried about this
development."
--Michael Salmony
"Unfortunately, we will not know whether you are right or wrong until 50
years from now. The possible deleterious effects if you are wrong are not
worth the risk. Artificial selection and/or cross-breeding cannot be
anywhere near as intrinsically dangerous as anything that uncontrolled
science can do. It's more a concern over the unproven rather than a fear of
the unknown. Genetic engineering hasn't been around long enough for anyone
to have determined what actually happens over the long term when such things
are done. Asbestos insulation was considered safe at one time. Silicon
implants were considered safe at one time. Leaded gasoline was considered
safe at one time, as well as lead in paint. Smoking was considered safe at
one time. Fallout from atomic bombs was considered safe at one time. It took
decades to come to the conclusion that all of the above were/are not safe at
all. Personally, I do not wish to be the guinea pig in somebody's experiment."
--Jim Showalter
What's really incredible about the genetic engineering big business is the
legal fracas over "who owns the creations." Greed compounded by arrogance?

>From  The Progressive Farmer, 1995:

"Although public outcry over biotech crops has softened, a little publicized
and sometimes bitter battle is being fought within the biotech industry
itself over who owns this new technology.

The fight is over patent rights. These patents can include the genes as well
as the methods of transferring them. Biotech companies say they need patent
protection to secure their multimillion-dollar investments in research and
development.

Mycogen versus Monsanto is a case in point. The companies had been
negotiating over a licensing agreement for transfer of Bacillus
thuringiensis genes. Following a breakdown in the negotiations, Mycogen sued
Monsanto. Mycogen claims ownership of a patent covering all insect-resistant
transgenic plants now under development that use synthetic gene technology.
Mycogen officials say their goals are to settle out of court, allow Monsanto
to commercialize Bt crops, and be paid for the rights to their patent.
Monsanto officials say the company has been developing this technology for
15 years and that Monsanto products will be marketed freely despite
Mycogen's allegations.

One more point. Just as biotech companies vigorously defend gene technology
against the competition, you can also expect them come down hard on any
farmers who use so-called brown bag seed sales and violate plant variety
protection laws.