Subject: Moratorium Called on Genetically Modified Foods

From: [email-masked] (Joe Toth)
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 15:02:47 -0500

Dr John Hagelin's Natural Law Party is calling for a total moratorium on
the release of genetically modified
organisms. At the *very least* any food products containing such materials
should be clearly labelled so that we can choose what we eat.

Strange new artificial foods never envisaged by nature are already
appearing in your supermarkets. The effects of these foods are as yet not
fully understood but some have already been devastating for health. In one
case in the U.S. 37 people died and 1500 were left disabled. Other
products had to be abandoned when they went disastrously wrong. But you
will not know what you are eating because the government has decided that
labeling of genetically modified foods is not necessary. Your precious
right to choose what you and your family eats has been lost.

Please read the real story behind genetically modified foods at 
http://www.natural-law.org/nlp

---

From: "J Jacobson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 08:03:18 -0600

Joe,
I'm appreciated your moratorium post- I think it is time for our food
scientists to slow down and stop releasing anything they have been able to
create in their test tubes until at least it has undergone independent
testing by outside agencies and more time has gone by for evaluation. The
voluntary standards set up at the Asilomar conference in 1985 do nothing
to protect the public from "rogue" scientists. 

Perhaps your remarks indicate it should be stopped altogether until we get
a better perspective on what consequences we may invoke.   Responsibility
rests on the shoulders of these genetic technicians for our childrens
future.  It should not be taken lightly.   Recklessness and haste with the
planets gene pool is just plain foolish.  Congress also must bear
responsibility for legislating away any checks and balances for
genetically altered foods or viruses.  I don't feel they were acting in
the publics interest by outlawing labeling.  Gene splicing and species
altering goes far beyond the hybridization and optimal yield techniques
that have advanced modern agriculture.  Genetic splicing and the dangers
>from  bacteria hosting recombined hybrid DNA should not be treated in the
same light.  Certainly the justifications for many of the altered seeds
are enticing to the agri-busiess communittee- opportunities for use with
narrow band herbicides, longer shelf life, potential for resistance to
pests and disease.  Similar hope was given to nuclear energy.  Yet still
today no one knows how to get rid of the nuclear waste and the chances of
a "genetic Chernoble" are not beyond the range of possibility.

You said:
> products had to be abandoned when they went disastrously wrong. 

I've found examples of new genetically engineered foods about to be
released on other web sites.  Do you have documentation for this case
where 37 people died .. etc..  I've heard of the Fort Detrick, Maryland
laboratory incidents.  This shows how dangerous and how careful even the
studies must be and the need for at least monitoring and regulation.

 I'll check out the Natural Law Party website.  It's important that some
one is bringing the issue forward to the public.  Our government and
industry has failed us on this issue.

-- 
"In Jurassic Park, Michael Crichton engages the issue of unanticipated 
(and unanticipatable ) dangers from genetic engineering of animals...
including scientists distancing themselves from ethics through their
ideology and ... the attitude that leads investigators to try things with
out deeply concerning themselves about potential consequences."
Bernard Rollin, "The Frankenstein Syndrome". New York: Cambridge UP, 1995

---

From: SteveDrD <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 14:34:06 -0700

> should be clearly labelled so that we can choose what we eat.

Then Dr John Hagelin's Natural Law Party is full of blooming idiots who have 
no conception of the tools of animal and plant improvement.  All, yes every 
single one, of the products we consume today have been genetically modified, 
using selection processes, either natural or accelerated.  By calling for a 
total moratorium, the Naturally Foolish Party is calling for a moratorium on 
all food products.  I suppose all that would be left to eat are some prebiotic 
chemicals.

> right to choose what you and your family eats has been lost.

That's right.  It has been lost.  Unless you go hunting for it yourself.  The 
sooner we can abandon modern (or even primitive) agriculture and it's mad 
tendency to keep back the better varieties and animals for breeding stock, and 
return to a hunter-gatherer society, the better we (or at least those who 
survive) will be.  Give me a break.

> http://www.natural-law.org/nlp

This sentence should read:  Please read a bunch of propaganda designed to 
further a political goal by using half-truths, scare tactics, and outright 
lies.

Steve Denham

---

From: [email-masked] (J Ralph Blanchfield)
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 18:05:16 GMT

Hello Joe and Everyone

On Sun, 28 Jul 1996 15:02:47 -0500, [email-masked] (Joe Toth)
wrote:

>appearing in your supermarkets. 

How about naming some?

>The effects of these foods are as yet not
>case in the U.S. 37 people died and 1500 were left disabled. 

Please give precise chapter and verse with scientific references --
if you can. Sounds like unbalanced  rabble-rousing scaremongering.

>Other

Names please, with detailed chapter and verse, and scientific
references

>But you
By the way, are you not aware that newsgroups are international, and
references to "the government" are therefore meaningless unless you
specify which government?

What you say is certain false as regards Europe. 

Anyway, you seem to be oblivious to the fact that _all_ foods produced
by traditional breeding methods are "genetically modified", but by
more hit-and-miss methods.

To read a balanced and responsible scientific account of genetic
modification, and the real concerns that have to be (and are being)
addressed in order that the world may benefit from the tremendous
advantages that genetic modification has to offer in the field of
food, medicine and public health, visit the Institute of Food Science
& Technology's Web site at <http//www.easynet.co.uk/ifst/> where you
will find links to this and other "hot topics" Position Statements by
IFST.

Regards

Ralph

******************************************************************
J Ralph Blanchfield
Food Science, Food Technology & Food Law Consultant
Chair, IFST Member Relations & Services Committee
Web Editor, Institute of Food Science & Technology
IFST Web address: http://www.easynet.co.uk/ifst/ 
******************************************************************

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 22:38:33 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, Joe Toth
<[email-masked]> writes
>organisms. 

I take it that you are aware that, as a genetic modification of your
parents, that you are a genetic modification too?

Of course you may well, and probably do, contain in your genetic makeup
bits of virus and bacteria inherited from the present to right back to
the dawn of life.

And your mitochondria are almost certainly bacterial organells which
divide independently and are thus only inherited from your mother.

And that is before we start considering genetic mutations. Anre you
aware, for example, that 15% of haemophilia cases are due to mutations?

Wheat and maize are natural genetic mutations. In fact, have you the
faintest idea what you are talking about?

------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

---

From: [email-masked] (Tracy Aquilla)
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 96 12:42:57 GMT

>case in the U.S. 37 people died and 1500 were left disabled.

Are you sure about that? What is your intent when making such a statement?
I think it would be appropriate for you to be more specific when making such
claims. Aren't you referring to tryptophan here? Since when is tryptophan a
food product?

> Other products had to be abandoned when they went disastrously wrong.

Can you name just one? "Other" is too vague.

>right to choose what you and your family eats has been lost.

NOT! You may still buy organic, or grow your own food.
Tracy