Re: Scientific Point-of-View


Sorry, I forgot that Medit-plants posts set up "Reply To:" to the
original sender, not the List. My reply went off to "Freddel" only - it
was meant for the List.....

> 
> Hi Fred (and others of like mind),
> 
> What is claimed in the following item MAY be fine, BUT, what many of us
> fear is that these changes are being pushed through /far/ too fast, and
> with only the skimpiest testing for dangers. But is NOT being tested for
> /at all/ (because the promoters will not wait so long) is what long-term
> deleterious effects may result.
> 
> Many "bright ideas" of the scientists in the past have proved to be
> disastrous in the long run, either because certain dangers were
> unforeseen, or not tested for, or - very often - the dangers did not
> develop for some time.
> 
> In the past, these ideas and their consequences have never involved the
> creation of new plants (and animals) by mixing genes from different
> Orders. The new ideas do. What the consequences of this may be, at this
> stage we have no way of knowing. Testing has been absolutely minimal
> (feed twenty rats on the substance for two weeks. Are they still alive?
> Then this product is OK and safe! I do not say this is exactly the
> testing done, but it of this kind - far too simplistic and /far/ too
> quick.) In some cases, genetic or other damage to humans (or other
> creatures) using these products may not appear for 20-30 years. It may
> not even appear at all until succeeding generations. Nobody is prepared
> to wait for this testing.
> 
> I myself will not knowingly have anything to do with these products. If
> necessary I will (and am already doing so) restrict my diet to avoid
> them. I advise anyone who seems interested to do the same. Our own
> government here is preparing legislation requiring adequate labelling of
> all foodstuffs, so that consumers who care can avoid GE foodstuffs, so
> are a substantial number of other governments.
> 
> I am not saying that all of these developments are /necessarily/ bad,
> what I am saying is that they have not been adequately tested in all
> possible ways for safety. There are significant dangers that /can/ be
> foreseen (as well as - probably - many that cannot be foreseen), many
> responsible and senior scientists hold these views too, and meanwhile,
> the release of these crops and foodstuffs on a general public kept
> ignorant as far as possible of the possible consequences is totally
> irresponsible and inexcusable.
> 
> Tony Ryan
> 
> Fred Thompson wrote:
> >
> > Helping to Save the Environment
> >
> >        Some agricultural practices, such as heavy tillage and
> > overuse of chemicals, have led to environmental damage to our
> > rivers and soils.  Responsible use of the products of agricultural
> > biotechnology can help solve these problems.
> >
> > Crop plants can be refined by biotechnology to fight off many
> > pests on their own. This can reduce insecticide use up to 50%,
> > leading to less insecticide in run-off water.  This means less
> > damage to our waterways and less exposure of farm workers to
> > insecticides when applied to fields and when crops are harvested.
> >
> > Crops are being developed that better utilize fertilizers. This
> > will lower the amount of chemical input needed to achieve the same
> > crop yields.
> >
> > Plants resistant to weed killers can lead to less tilling of
> > production fields. Less tillage leads to less soil erosion and
> > less pollution of our waterways.
> >
> > Insect-protected crops can lead to lower insecticide use and lower
> > fungal contamination.  Bt corn prevents insect damage that leads
> > to fungal infections, like Fusarium, which produces a toxin that
> > causes illness in humans and animals.  Use of Bt cotton in 1998
> > resulted in 5.3 million less insecticide treatments than previous
> > years.  Insect resistance to Bt crops needs to be managed to
> > prolong the life of Bt approaches for conventional and organic
> > farming.
> >
> > Greater drought, salt and cold tolerance in plants is being
> > achieved through biotechnology.  Farmers in developing countries
> > can achieve suitable yields even if their climatic and soil
> > conditions are not ideal.  These approaches also open up farmlands
> > in California that have been lost to salt intrusion.
> >
> > Better livestock feeds are being developed that increase the
> > ability of animals to absorb phosphorous and other nutrients.
> > These approaches reduce the amount of damaging phosphorus found in
> > animal wastes that end up polluting our ground water.  The amount
> > and quality of the protein in feed can also be improved to
> > increase the nutrients animals and humans can get from the same
> > amount of food.
> >
> > Let's Get the Facts about GMOs
> >
> >        Agricultural biotechnology provides benefits to a world
> > population that needs increasing amounts of food to survive and
> > with less environmental damage.
> >
> > New farmland is limiting.  Twelve billion people will be on this
> > earth in 2035 (six billion today).  Agricultural biotechnology can
> > help us develop crops with higher yields that can grow in less
> > optimal soils and climates.  We don't want to sacrifice more
> > rainforests.
> >
> > Countries worldwide need to be self-sustaining. Agricultural
> > biotechnology can help people in developing countries to plant
> > crops that are hardier and that farmers can grow on their own
> > farmland at yields that can support their families and neighbors.
> >
> > Pharmaceuticals are expensive and often difficult to deliver. For
> > developing countries and often large animal populations, the
> > delivery of vaccines is problematic.  Agricultural biotechnology
> > can help put vaccines into dietary staples, making them easier to
> > deliver and more likely to save lives.
> >
> > Vitamin consumption needs to be increased.  The value of vitamins
> > and micronutrients in our diet is increasingly apparent.  In
> > developed countries, kids and adults often don't get enough of
> > these health-enhancing compounds.  In developing countries this
> > lack can lead to blindness and immune deficiencies.  Biotechnology
> > can be used to enhance the level of these nutrients.
> >
> > Our water needs to be kept free of agricultural chemicals.
> > Insecticide use needs to be reduced.  One way of achieving this is
> > to use crops developed by biotechnology that fight off insects
> > themselves, without adding insecticides.
> >
> > Allergens and naturally occurring toxins in foods can be reduced.
> > Many foods contain naturally occurring compounds that are toxic or
> > allergenic to humans.  Biotechnology can be used to reduce or
> > eliminate the levels of these antinutrients.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------- ------------------
> > Wilhelm Gruissem, Professor
> > Department of Plant and Microbial Biology
> > 111 Koshland Hall
> > University of California
> > Berkeley, CA 94720-3102
> > (510) 642-1079
> >
> > Susan G. Laughlin, Ph.D
> > Director, Central Coast and South Region
> > DANR
> > University of California at Riverside
> > Riverside, California 92521
> > Phone: 909-787-3321
> > Fax: 909-787-4675
> > Cell phone: 510-367-5562
> >
> > http://www.ideachannel.com/Ames.htm

-- 
Tony & Moira Ryan <theryans@xtra.co.nz>
Wainuiomata, New Zealand. (on the "Ring of Fire" in the SW Pacific).
Lat. 41:16S Long. 174:58E. Climate: Mediterranean/Temperate
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index