You have reached iGreens.org.uk. In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards. Click here to follow us.
|
You have reached iGreens.org.uk. In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards. Click here to follow us. |
|
Jim I'm a libertarian
and a farmer and in my opinion transgenic crops should be kept out of the
environment until more is learned about them. They have been advertised as
a great benefit to farmers this just isn't true. They are a benefit to the
trans-national cartels that are monopolising the food supply. You need to be very
aware of who you’re listening to, 90% of the groups who claim to be speaking
for individual producers are the whores of agribusiness. Monsanto is a
good example of the agribusiness' controlling functionaries. Unless you
have confused libertarian with corporatism, you should be able to follow what I
am saying. Genetic engineering
is a term that is being twisted and spun and creates a lot of confusion for
those outside agriculture and horticulture. There is gene splicing
within species and there is transgenic splicing, there is a world of
difference between the two. It's not only the harm that may come from
the food; it's the effect of releasing transgenics into the environment. The
large corporations who have the patented products they are selling are spending
lavishly to put across a lot of bullshit and steamroll the scientific
community, which has not been able to investigate the effect of these
organisms in the environment. In the words of one biologist: "Such
intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the natural
order of living organisms; animal and plant breeding, for example; or the
artificial induction of mutations, as with X-rays. All such earlier
procedures worked within single or closely related species. The nub of the
new technology is to move genes back and forth, not only across species lines,
but also across any boundaries that now divide living organisms. The
results will be essentially new organisms, self-perpetuating and hence
permanent. Once created, they cannot be recalled." There is some
evidence that the vectors used to overcome the target organism's natural
defences against foreign elements entering its DNA, breaking down barriers
between distant species and allowing horizontal transfer of genetic material,
and the promoters used to influence the reception of the genetic codes remain
with the new organism and is transferred by normal breeding into unintended
species. This is not good, very bad. The bottom line is
that these corporations are pressed to return a profit on their research,
regardless of the consequences. This is irresponsible and very dangerous. John A Lappart Dear John, Thanks for yr thoughts.
I'm very interested to meet a libertarian opponent of GM crops and would
like to debate with you. Are you just trying to persuade people like me to stop
buying GM food by the power of your argument?
If so I applaud you. You've
failed so far, but do keep trying. Or are you suggesting that Monsanto and their ilk be banned from their GM business? If so, you're no libertarian. If it is not true that GM crops benefit farmers, then why
do farmers buy them? A food supply monopoly is news to me. I'd like to see one. So, I bet, would Monsanto! Tell me more. You suggest that gene transfer between distantly related species is something new. My understanding is that you are wrong here. Many genes in one species have counterparts in distant species. Gene sequences have crossed species naturally for years, using natural viral vectors. I’m interested to learn that the scientific community has been unable to test the safety of GM crops. Why ever not? I thought they'd been doing little else for years. I know some "environmentalists" have disrupted a few experiments but many other experiments and field trials have gone on. I'm dying to hear some example of these harms that GM food
and GM crops are supposed to cause. Of course companies want to make profits.
As a farmer, don’t you? Unless
you are a government or a thief, you only make a profit if you provide a service
someone wants. Everything has potential harms, but we have to decide.
Doing nothing also has the real harm of letting billions go hungry, and
millions starve for lack of decent food. We must make our best judgment of the benefits and risks.
The companies have made theirs, and farmers and consumers can make
theirs. Since no harm has happened
so far I really do not think you can justify preventing those farmers and
consumers who want to, from buying the stuff. If you are right and real harm emerges then you'll be able
to say told you so. But I’ve seen
a few scares come and go, and I’m not holding my breath. Jim Thornton |
|
You have reached iGreens.org.uk. In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards. Click here to follow us.
Send mail to enquiries@igreens.org.uk
with
questions or comments about this web site.
|