This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: Unidentified subject!

At 08:12 PM 2/23/98 -0600, you wrote:
>I would like to take up an intelligent and educated discussion on this
>topic.   I don't want to start a bitter or irrational arguement about this
>issue, but I would like to hear your opinion on why you feel anything
>"genetically altered"  or treated with radiation cannot be organic.    

Hi.  Doesn't the word 'organic' have a specific definition as far as the
USDA is
concerned?  I am sure that it does, but don't know what the boundaries of
that definition are.  That would be a good place for the discussion to
start, since I imagine that is what the flap is about.

After all, by using a dictionary definition, genetically altered and
irradiated foods are not any less 'organic' than those not so treated.  The
USDA's intention is the meat of the question.  I believe people fear that
consumers will see a food labelled 'organic' and interpret that as 'safe',
and some don't believe irradiated or genetically altered foods ARE
safe...or wholesome.  

As far as I am concerned, hybrids, naturally-occurring mutations, and
chimeral rearrangements are genetic alterations.  Interspecific hybrids are
commonplace in breeding programs involving many plant genera; intergenetic
hybrids are pretty unnatural, and I believe the problem some people have
with them, as well as with gene splicing (where a gene from a bacteria or
other completely different organism is integrated into a plant's system -
splicing may not be the correct term) is that there is no predicting how
this will pan out in future generations.  I am not sure why people would
reject irradiation of foods, as I understand it doesn't render the foods
radioactive or otherwise dangerous.  Maybe someone can enlighten me about
this.





Sheila Smith
mikecook@pipeline.com
Z 5/6
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index