Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Pyrrho · 04-03-2003, 05:21 PM

The portions in bold within the quotes were originally posted by me.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
If you do not claim that, then why do you ridicule the idea that maybe some company is going to be feeding us something that will harm us?

Because I think such "worry" is often carried to an undeserved level of hysteria/paranoia. It might be the case that something someone develops by GE might end up being harmful, but this damn sure doesn't mean that everything so developed is harmful, more harmful than "natural" products, or that such GE should be banned or seriously limited.

But that is NOT what has been stated in this thread. People have NOT been ridiculing only those who have been hysterical or paranoid, but the ridicule extends to ANYONE and EVERYONE who even suggests that there might possibly be a concern. Corwin is a good example here; he or she has not been showing hysterical or paranoid tendencies, but has been ridiculed for suggesting that there might be a legitimate concern.

Furthermore, I don't recall ANYONE in this thread saying that "everything" that was genetically modified was unsafe.

Frankly, if only a very small percentage will be unsafe, then I think that is sufficient to say that unless the products are first shown to be safe (obviously not beyond all doubt, but beyond a reasonable doubt), they should not be allowed to be sold at all. Remember, the genetic modifications we are talking about can be much greater than what would occur through traditional methods of breeding, so the changes can be much more drastic, and consequently we are much more likely to create an unsafe product. True, there might be a great potential benefit from genetic engineering, but that does not mean that we should all be subjected to whatever risks there might be. Especially when the motive is more profit for some company, not the betterment of humanity.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
By the way, one can be rationally opposed to practices that have unknown effects. The reason being, of course, that the effects, being unknown, might be harmful, and one may not wish to take any unnecessary risks.

Well, the same would hold true for everything you eat, completely natural, modified using "classic" genetic techniques/selective breeding, or modified using modern GE techniques. So does this mean we should all starve ourselves lest the foods we enjoy are someday linked to cancer?

IMO, the risk from eating GE foods is no greater than the risk of eating non-GE foods, if you can find any (wild deer, rabbits, and blackberries, I guess). [/B]

Well, obviously many 'natural' things are unhealthful, and it is not a good idea to eat them any more than an 'unnatural' thing that is unhealthful. However, with things that have been eaten in the past, we can have some idea of which ones are healthful and which ones are not. If some new, radically different item is introduced, we have no way of knowing whether it is healthful or not, particularly with long term concerns, such as cancer.

The fact that, in your opinion, there is no greater risk with genetically engineered foods is not comforting. Show me evidence, or I will not be convinced. Keep in mind, evidence that one genetically engineered product is safe does not go very far with showing that ALL genetically engineered products are safe. Supposing that genetically engineered products are safe without evidence is as irrational as assuming that they must be unsafe.

And let me remind you, Corwin did NOT say that they ARE unsafe, only that they might be.

Wounded King · 04-04-2003, 05:46 AM

Dear Corwin,

You say

Quote:

In addition, once you get into 'thousands of generations...' guess what? You're well outside the realm of 'selective breeding.' You've just crossed over into there being effectively no difference between what YOU are calling 'selective breeding' and natrual evolution.

Surely this depends very much whose generations you are talking about. Do you suppose that the history of agriculture doesnt encompass 1000 generations of crops? Could we not selectively breed yeast or E.coli for some desired trait over 1000 generations. Was the domestication of dogs purely the result of natural selection?

Certainly one person could not guide the selective breeding of cattle for 100 generations, but it could be done, and it would be distinct, though perhaps not distinguishable depending on how detrimental the trait was, from evolution by means of natural selection.

ps418 · 04-04-2003, 06:14 AM

Pyrrho,

What you say above assumes that transgenic crops are NOT tested for safety, which is factually wrong. This page of the transgenic crops resource guide has information on the regulatory process for transgenic crops in the US. Maybe you meant to say that the testing standards are simply insufficient. If so, what sort of testing standards would you like?

And would you apply these testing standards to all new crops, or only to transgenic crops? For instance, Corwin stated his view that not only transgenic crops, but ALL crops that have been genetically modified by chemical or radiation mutagenesis techniques (which includes thousands of commerically available varieties, including iceberg lettuce and red grapefruit), should be taken off the market. Do you agree with that? Why or why not? The effects of these mutations are every bit as "unpredictable" as transgenic combinations (as are the natural mutations occurring in each generation in all crops without human help, BTW), yet they are available everywhere right now.

And what about the food that we already know to increase risk for cancer or heart disease? Should they be banned or at least labelled?

Quote:

Crops modified in any way might not be safe to eat, so any major change in the food supply should be tested. This applies to changes made by genetic engineering but it ought logically to apply even more to changes made by other techniques. To a great extent, genetic engineers know what they are doing. There can be unanticipated consequences, but by comparison, all other methods of improving crops involve an element of luck. The conservative approach is to test all crops whose genetics has been modified in any significant way.

An example of a possible safety issue was brought out clearly several years ago. Although soybeans are a good source of protein, soy protein is low quality. It doesn't have enough of the essential amino acid methionine. So scientists in Nebraska planned to transfer a gene from a Brazil nut to a soybean to get better quality protein from soybeans for use as an animal feed. Unfortunately, some people are allergic to Brazil nuts and it turned out that the better quality protein was one of the Brazil nut allergens. Since this fact was quickly revealed by testing, the genetic modification project was abandoned. This example shows that testing for safety is necessary. It also shows that such testing is being done and is working. But can new foods ever be tested enough for complete assurance of safety?
. . .
Even conventional breeding techniques can accidentally create harmful foods. In a famous example, an improved variety of celery caused farm workers who picked the celery to become hypersensitive to sunlight. In another example a potato variety, Lenape, was withdrawn from the U.S. market in the 1960s when it was found to contain dangerously high levels of potato toxins (solanidine glycosides).

Even without mutations, there is a large pool of genetic variability in every variety or species. This means that unfavorable combinations are possible. In every instance of sexual reproduction the child gets some genes from each parent, in a random assortment. If John and Jane have a few hundred different genes (and about 30,000 that are identical), their children will each inherit a different subset of John's genes and a different subset of Jane's genes. Nobody can predict the characteristics each child will inherit from its parents. Sometimes, two apparently healthy parents have a child with a genetic disease. Similarly, sometimes two plants which bear nutritious food can have offspring which are more toxic. This is not an argument against having children or against breeding crops, so it ought not to be an argument against transferring genes by biotechnology.

In summary, genetic engineered crops need to be tested for safety. In the US, transgenic crops are tested much more strictly than crops developed by traditional breeding. So far the testing that has been carried out has been sufficient to protect the public. During the ten years that we have been eating transgenic foods, nobody has ever been exposed to unsafe genetic engineered food. Meanwhile there have been many thousands of deaths because of unsafe conventional food. So it seems to me that the issues of food safety are being better managed for genetic engineered foods than for conventional foods.

A Report on Genetically Engineered Crops

Patrick

Dr Rick · 04-04-2003, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
If some new, radically different item is introduced, we have no way of knowing whether it is healthful or not...

GM crops are not radically different; they are much more similar to their "parents" because only one or at most a few genes are mixed with transgenic technology, whereas in traditional breeding methods, literally thousands of genes are mixed to produce a hybrid.

The objection you raise could be more readily applied to almost anything else that is new, from a mixed-breed puppy to a new model car.

Rick

Mageth · 04-04-2003, 08:48 AM

But that is NOT what has been stated in this thread. People have NOT been ridiculing only those who have been hysterical or paranoid, but the ridicule extends to ANYONE and EVERYONE who even suggests that there might possibly be a concern.

Well, speaking for myself, I have not been ridiculing anyone in this thread. (I should have mentioned this, perhaps, in my response to your "why are you ridiculing" question in the previous post). In fact, if you look back earlier in the thread, you'll find some posts where I expressed my own concerns about genetic engineering.

Corwin is a good example here; he or she has not been showing hysterical or paranoid tendencies, but has been ridiculed for suggesting that there might be a legitimate concern.

If you look carefully, any "ridicule" on this thread of Corwin has more than likely not been for his expression of concern about GE, but instead about his general misunderstanding of the science involved (in this and other matters); e.g. his earlier claim that mutation played no part in earlier selective breeding. NOTE: that's my personal opinion.

Furthermore, I don't recall ANYONE in this thread saying that "everything" that was genetically modified was unsafe.

Well, I don't recall charging anyone in this thread with saying that. My comment wasn't directed to anyone on this thread, but to the paranoia/hysteria about this subject that can be found in the public.

Do some claim that all GE products should be pulled from the market until "proven safe"? Does that not indicate that they think it's all to be considered unsafe until proven otherwise? Do some claim that "modern" GE should be completely banned? Does that not indicate that they think it's all to be considered unsafe? That's the kind of hysteria I'm talking about.

Frankly, if only a very small percentage will be unsafe, then I think that is sufficient to say that unless the products are first shown to be safe (obviously not beyond all doubt, but beyond a reasonable doubt), they should not be allowed to be sold at all.

ps418 took care of this. But I would point out that if you claim genetically modified products "should not be allowed to be sold at all", then you appear to consider them all unsafe. Yet you said "I don't recall ANYONE in this thread saying that "everything" that was genetically modified was unsafe."

Remember, the genetic modifications we are talking about can be much greater than what would occur through traditional methods of breeding, so the changes can be much more drastic, and consequently we are much more likely to create an unsafe product.

I'm not convinced that this assertion is true. Any science to back it up?

It is perhaps true that, because we can now make more changes in a shorter time, that we are more likely to hit on an "unsafe change" (simple probability). But I'm not so sure that making a greater change is riskier than making a simpler change.

True, there might be a great potential benefit from genetic engineering, but that does not mean that we should all be subjected to whatever risks there might be.

Well, there's always risk in any such endeavor, and due to the nature of this endeavor, many if not all may be subjected to it. The task is to minimize the risk, while maximizing the benefit. As ps418 outlined above, considerable effort to minimize risk is being made.

Especially when the motive is more profit for some company, not the betterment of humanity.

I thought about this last night a bit. I think this is little more than an ad hominem. I also think it's a bit of a false dichotomy, as it's possible for a corporation to work towards both of these goals and be quite successful.

First, underlying this is the "all corporations are evil" mindset, fostered by TV and movies, and bolstered by some real-world examples (tobacco companies and Enron come to mind). I do not accept that mindset. As I indicated, a corporation can make more profit by benefitting humanity.

Second, the scientists working in this area have friends, family, and humanity in general who are going to be consuming their product. It would seem that most of them would take this into consideration when developing and testing their product.

Third, much of the "grunt work" in this area is being performed by universities and other non-profits, not corporations (e.g. Texas A&M).

Fourth, as I said earlier, a wise company will realize that their profit ultimately comes from their consumers, so providing a product that will harm or kill some of their consumers is not such a good idea, particularly in today's world with global communications and intense media scrutiny when the media will pounce on the first sign of a corporation producing a risky product.

Well, obviously many 'natural' things are unhealthful, and it is not a good idea to eat them any more than an 'unnatural' thing that is unhealthful. However, with things that have been eaten in the past, we can have some idea of which ones are healthful and which ones are not. If some new, radically different item is introduced, we have no way of knowing whether it is healthful or not, particularly with long term concerns, such as cancer.

Well, yes we do. Refer to ps418's posts above. And as I said earlier, history has taught us that it's possible that just about any product we eat or otherwise use in our daily lives may be linked to cancer or other problems in the future.

The fact that, in your opinion, there is no greater risk with genetically engineered foods is not comforting. Show me evidence, or I will not be convinced.

Yet you seem to be convinced that there is greater risk, and I haven't seen you or anyone else produce any evidence of that. All I've seen you produce is your assertion that "more drastic change is riskier."

That's why I think this attitude borders on paranoia. Do you have one example of a modern GE food that's been made available to the public that has been proven a health hazard because of its GE traits?

Thus, at this time I don't think one can realistically claim that there is greater risk associated with "modern" GE foods.

Keep in mind, evidence that one genetically engineered product is safe does not go very far with showing that ALL genetically engineered products are safe.

Of course not; that's why they all are tested and not just one of them. And obviously, more than one have proven to be safe.

Supposing that genetically engineered products are safe without evidence is as irrational as assuming that they must be unsafe.

So are you admitting that assuming they're unsafe (which you and others are doing) is irrational, or claiming that both views are rational?

BTW, I'm not assuming they're safe without evidence. Such products have been generated, tested, approved, marketed, and consumed for some time now. I have yet to read a "horror story" in the paper about any of them. I consider that evidence. Thus, I think my position is rational. Now establish why you think your position is rational.

And let me remind you, Corwin did NOT say that they ARE unsafe, only that they might be.

And I'll remind you that I never claimed Corwin said that. Here is Corwin's position, apparently:

Genetic engineering can be a wonderful thing. Genetic engineering controlled by wealthy, powerful corporations with a long and well established history of caring ONLY about their bottom line, and fuck anything else, is not.

His position seems to be "GE when performed by corporations IS unsafe."

Wyz_sub10 · 04-04-2003, 12:09 PM

General note to everyone:

When quoting other posters, could you please use the 'QUOTE' function?

If you would rather use bold or colours (which many of you seem to do - Mageth, this isn't directed to you. I just saw your post, but many, many users do this), please be sure to identify who you are quoting and which part of the message belongs to you (or whoever else).

I ask this because we (mods) are often asked to review posts at someone's request, and it makes it really hard to review the history of a discussion when the players and their words are difficult to identify.

Thanks all, and thanks for maintaining a very civil discussion in light of the different view points presented!

Wyz_sub10,
S&S Mod

MadKally · 04-04-2003, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
GM crops are not radically different; they are much more similar to their "parents" because only one or at most a few genes are mixed with transgenic technology, whereas in traditional breeding methods, literally thousands of genes are mixed to produce a hybrid.

The objection you raise could be more readily applied to almost anything else that is new, from a mixed-breed puppy to a new model car.

Rick

Or a beautiful lavendar rose?

beausoleil · 04-05-2003, 12:56 PM

While not anti-GM, three aspects of the debate bother me.

People in Europe want GM products labelled as such. The industry resists it. Label the products, then the problem will go away because the products will be unsellable. In a democracy, people should be free to choose whether or not someone in power thinks they will make a rational choice. Label the products and let the public decide.

Introducing new plants or animals to an environment has been disastrous in the past even before GM technology. With GM technology the rate of new introductions can increase vastly. I'm concerned that there is insufficient caution. One argument seems to be that genetic modification occurs naturally or is what plant breeders have been doing for millenia, therefore GM technology is ok. Isn't this like saying there is a natural background level of radiation, therefore a vastly increased level of radiation is not to be worried about and nuclear waste can just be dumped into landfill sites? In fact, isn't this the same argument that GM supporters laugh at - isn't arguing that GM is natural and therefore all right as silly as arguing that chemical X is natural and therefore all right?

A UK point. My concern is heightened because the people reassuring us that GM crops are just the ticket are officers of the same department that reassured us that BSE could not possibly be a danger to humans. They have no credibility, the situation being worsened by their failure in the 1980s apparently having been nobody's fauly, even though lots of people at the time were pointing out that BSE could well be a danger to humans.

Finally, an anecdote. The Royal Society is keen on the benefits of GM technology. Last time I visited, however, there was a large sign in their canteen reassuring us that their food contained no GM products.

ps418 · 04-07-2003, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by beausoleil
One argument seems to be that genetic modification occurs naturally or is what plant breeders have been doing for millenia, therefore GM technology is ok. Isn't this like saying there is a natural background level of radiation, therefore a vastly increased level of radiation is not to be worried about and nuclear waste can just be dumped into landfill sites?

No, it is not the same argument at all, because we already know that radiation is harmful except at extremely low levels, and no one here is saying 'dump all the GM organisms you want into the environment with no safety tests because mutations occur in every organism.'

GM organisms are not intrinsically harmful. They are possibly harmful -- just as any unfamiliar organism is possibly harmful-- which is why safety testing is and should be required for transgenic crops. GM crops are also potentially extremely beneficial , particularly in countries where higher yield may mean preventing deaths from malnutrition or poverty. So, it is necessary to examine both the promise and dangers of any GM crop.

Quote:

In fact, isn't this the same argument that GM supporters laugh at - isn't arguing that GM is natural and therefore all right as silly as arguing that chemical X is natural and therefore all right?

Again, no one here is saying that 'GM is safe because GM is natural.' Natural does not equal safe or desirable, and a natural poison is still a poison. Which is why I said I have no problem with safety testing, especially for crops that have genes from very distantly related organisms that are not usually consumed (e.g. a fish gene in rice) and will likely be widely used. The point is that many of the same biological arguments being made against GM techniques also apply with equal force to most non-GM techniques (mutagenesis, forced hybridization) and even to natural mutation and combination processes occuring in existing crops (e.g. the unpredictable effects of novel genetic combinations), and therefore are not very convincing as arguments against GM specifically.

. . . . .

In other news, there is an editorial in the latest issue of Science about regulations on transgenic crops that have been altered by inserting genes from closely-related plant species. The author argues that regulations on this type of GM crop are unnecessarily prohibitive:

Biotech regulations impede crop domestication

Patrick

ps418 · 04-08-2003, 08:08 AM

There is a recent article in the PNAS about genetically-modified Aspen trees. The goal of the modifications was to reduce "lignin quantity and reactivity," so as to make the production of pulp from these trees easier (Laigeng et al, 2003). The reactivity is largely a function of the ratio syringyl/guaiacyl. The researchers hypothesized that the lignin quantity and S/G ratio were regulated by two particular genes, 4-coumarate-CoA ligase (4CL) and coniferaldehyde 5-hydroxylase (CALd5H).

Three types of modified trees were made. In one group, an gene which is antisense to (4CL) was added, essentially silencing or downregulating the expression of the 4CL gene. In this group, lignin was reduced by 40%, and cellulose increased by 14%. In a second group, a (CAld5H) gene was added. In this group, S/G ratio increased 3-fold, while lignin and cellulose content remained constant. In a third group, both modifications were made to the same trees. In this group, lignin was reduced by 50%, cellulose content increased 30%, and S/G ratio increased 64%.

Laigeng et al, 2003. Combinatorial modification of multiple lignin traits in trees through multigene cotransformation. PNAS published March 31, 2003, 10.1073/pnas.0831166100.

According to the press release on ScienceDaily: Transgenic Trees Hold Promise For Pulp And Paper Industries, there is a potential benefit to both the paper industry and to the environment:

Quote:

Fast-growing, low-lignin trees offer both economic and environmental advantages, because separating lignin from cellulose -- using harsh alkaline chemicals and high heat -- is costly and environmentally unfriendly. Harvesting such trees, using them as "crops" with desirable traits, would also reduce pressure on existing forests.

04-04-2003, 12:09 PM	#56
Wyz_sub10 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep. Posts: 9,890	Mod's note General note to everyone: When quoting other posters, could you please use the 'QUOTE' function? If you would rather use bold or colours (which many of you seem to do - Mageth, this isn't directed to you. I just saw your post, but many, many users do this), please be sure to identify who you are quoting and which part of the message belongs to you (or whoever else). I ask this because we (mods) are often asked to review posts at someone's request, and it makes it really hard to review the history of a discussion when the players and their words are difficult to identify. Thanks all, and thanks for maintaining a very civil discussion in light of the different view points presented! Wyz_sub10, S&S Mod

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-04-2003, 08:48 AM	#55
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	But that is NOT what has been stated in this thread. People have NOT been ridiculing only those who have been hysterical or paranoid, but the ridicule extends to ANYONE and EVERYONE who even suggests that there might possibly be a concern. Well, speaking for myself, I have not been ridiculing anyone in this thread. (I should have mentioned this, perhaps, in my response to your "why are you ridiculing" question in the previous post). In fact, if you look back earlier in the thread, you'll find some posts where I expressed my own concerns about genetic engineering. Corwin is a good example here; he or she has not been showing hysterical or paranoid tendencies, but has been ridiculed for suggesting that there might be a legitimate concern. If you look carefully, any "ridicule" on this thread of Corwin has more than likely not been for his expression of concern about GE, but instead about his general misunderstanding of the science involved (in this and other matters); e.g. his earlier claim that mutation played no part in earlier selective breeding. NOTE: that's my personal opinion. Furthermore, I don't recall ANYONE in this thread saying that "everything" that was genetically modified was unsafe. Well, I don't recall charging anyone in this thread with saying that. My comment wasn't directed to anyone on this thread, but to the paranoia/hysteria about this subject that can be found in the public. Do some claim that all GE products should be pulled from the market until "proven safe"? Does that not indicate that they think it's all to be considered unsafe until proven otherwise? Do some claim that "modern" GE should be completely banned? Does that not indicate that they think it's all to be considered unsafe? That's the kind of hysteria I'm talking about. Frankly, if only a very small percentage will be unsafe, then I think that is sufficient to say that unless the products are first shown to be safe (obviously not beyond all doubt, but beyond a reasonable doubt), they should not be allowed to be sold at all. ps418 took care of this. But I would point out that if you claim genetically modified products "should not be allowed to be sold at all", then you appear to consider them all unsafe. Yet you said "I don't recall ANYONE in this thread saying that "everything" that was genetically modified was unsafe." Remember, the genetic modifications we are talking about can be much greater than what would occur through traditional methods of breeding, so the changes can be much more drastic, and consequently we are much more likely to create an unsafe product. I'm not convinced that this assertion is true. Any science to back it up? It is perhaps true that, because we can now make more changes in a shorter time, that we are more likely to hit on an "unsafe change" (simple probability). But I'm not so sure that making a greater change is riskier than making a simpler change. True, there might be a great potential benefit from genetic engineering, but that does not mean that we should all be subjected to whatever risks there might be. Well, there's always risk in any such endeavor, and due to the nature of this endeavor, many if not all may be subjected to it. The task is to minimize the risk, while maximizing the benefit. As ps418 outlined above, considerable effort to minimize risk is being made. Especially when the motive is more profit for some company, not the betterment of humanity. I thought about this last night a bit. I think this is little more than an ad hominem. I also think it's a bit of a false dichotomy, as it's possible for a corporation to work towards both of these goals and be quite successful. First, underlying this is the "all corporations are evil" mindset, fostered by TV and movies, and bolstered by some real-world examples (tobacco companies and Enron come to mind). I do not accept that mindset. As I indicated, a corporation can make more profit by benefitting humanity. Second, the scientists working in this area have friends, family, and humanity in general who are going to be consuming their product. It would seem that most of them would take this into consideration when developing and testing their product. Third, much of the "grunt work" in this area is being performed by universities and other non-profits, not corporations (e.g. Texas A&M). Fourth, as I said earlier, a wise company will realize that their profit ultimately comes from their consumers, so providing a product that will harm or kill some of their consumers is not such a good idea, particularly in today's world with global communications and intense media scrutiny when the media will pounce on the first sign of a corporation producing a risky product. Well, obviously many 'natural' things are unhealthful, and it is not a good idea to eat them any more than an 'unnatural' thing that is unhealthful. However, with things that have been eaten in the past, we can have some idea of which ones are healthful and which ones are not. If some new, radically different item is introduced, we have no way of knowing whether it is healthful or not, particularly with long term concerns, such as cancer. Well, yes we do. Refer to ps418's posts above. And as I said earlier, history has taught us that it's possible that just about any product we eat or otherwise use in our daily lives may be linked to cancer or other problems in the future. The fact that, in your opinion, there is no greater risk with genetically engineered foods is not comforting. Show me evidence, or I will not be convinced. Yet you seem to be convinced that there is greater risk, and I haven't seen you or anyone else produce any evidence of that. All I've seen you produce is your assertion that "more drastic change is riskier." That's why I think this attitude borders on paranoia. Do you have one example of a modern GE food that's been made available to the public that has been proven a health hazard because of its GE traits? Thus, at this time I don't think one can realistically claim that there is greater risk associated with "modern" GE foods. Keep in mind, evidence that one genetically engineered product is safe does not go very far with showing that ALL genetically engineered products are safe. Of course not; that's why they all are tested and not just one of them. And obviously, more than one have proven to be safe. Supposing that genetically engineered products are safe without evidence is as irrational as assuming that they must be unsafe. So are you admitting that assuming they're unsafe (which you and others are doing) is irrational, or claiming that both views are rational? BTW, I'm not assuming they're safe without evidence. Such products have been generated, tested, approved, marketed, and consumed for some time now. I have yet to read a "horror story" in the paper about any of them. I consider that evidence. Thus, I think my position is rational. Now establish why you think your position is rational. And let me remind you, Corwin did NOT say that they ARE unsafe, only that they might be. And I'll remind you that I never claimed Corwin said that. Here is Corwin's position, apparently: Genetic engineering can be a wonderful thing. Genetic engineering controlled by wealthy, powerful corporations with a long and well established history of caring ONLY about their bottom line, and fuck anything else, is not. His position seems to be "GE when performed by corporations IS unsafe."

04-05-2003, 12:56 PM	#58
beausoleil Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: US and UK Posts: 846	While not anti-GM, three aspects of the debate bother me. People in Europe want GM products labelled as such. The industry resists it. Label the products, then the problem will go away because the products will be unsellable. In a democracy, people should be free to choose whether or not someone in power thinks they will make a rational choice. Label the products and let the public decide. Introducing new plants or animals to an environment has been disastrous in the past even before GM technology. With GM technology the rate of new introductions can increase vastly. I'm concerned that there is insufficient caution. One argument seems to be that genetic modification occurs naturally or is what plant breeders have been doing for millenia, therefore GM technology is ok. Isn't this like saying there is a natural background level of radiation, therefore a vastly increased level of radiation is not to be worried about and nuclear waste can just be dumped into landfill sites? In fact, isn't this the same argument that GM supporters laugh at - isn't arguing that GM is natural and therefore all right as silly as arguing that chemical X is natural and therefore all right? A UK point. My concern is heightened because the people reassuring us that GM crops are just the ticket are officers of the same department that reassured us that BSE could not possibly be a danger to humans. They have no credibility, the situation being worsened by their failure in the 1980s apparently having been nobody's fauly, even though lots of people at the time were pointing out that BSE could well be a danger to humans. Finally, an anecdote. The Royal Society is keen on the benefits of GM technology. Last time I visited, however, there was a large sign in their canteen reassuring us that their food contained no GM products.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.