Agreed - two classes of things although GM is simply a way of doing
the same thing faster or even more strangely.
We had no problem producing low-grade, tasteless, cheap food by
selective breeding and hybridisation. Tough, square tomatoes come to
mind.
But GM fearfulness is a classic example of faddish behavior - there is
a faint possibility that we may produce a toxic hybrid but it's not
terribly likely.
And we eat plenty of foods with toxins in them anyway - I would
recommend not eating too many walnuts at one sitting as I know to my
cost.
Faddish fearfulness is fuelled by people with an agenda - political or
commercial. The people who've convinced us to consume vast quantities
of bottled water, for instance. A good example is the current
popularity of 'gluten-free' foods. Gluten needs to be avoided by at
most 1% of the population with levels of coeliac disease - almost all
of them blue-eyed northern European ethnic types. For everyone else,
it's actually healthy. Very healthy. And as for the idea that a gluten
free diet helps control autistic behaviour - no actual proof whatsoever.
That said, I'm no fan of Monsanto. No, they aren't evil but they are
corporate. The were a chemical company until Plant Variety Rights
legislation was passed (and they were actively involved in promoting
it). Then they got into the seed business as a complementary activity
to glyphosate production (RoundUp).
You might prefer investing in 'ethical' funds - they tend to perform
rather well anyway.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 03/11/2009, at 7:47 AM, Charles Geilfuss wrote:
> In fairness to John, I think we've been talking of two different
> things.
> Humans have been hybridizing plants since we stopped chasing animals
> and
> started scratching at the dirt with a stick in an attempt to feed
> ourselves.
> And its a good thing otherwise we'd still be eating ears of corn the
> size of
> those that Tom Hanks tried to eat in "Big". I certainly don't object
> to
> eating foods that have been created by hybridizing plants or animals
> that
> have desirable traits. I would prefer that they be made more tasty but
> certainly understand the need for more production.
> What I am not interested in consuming is a food item that has had
> genes
> from who-knows-where-or-what inserted into their genome for who-
> knows-what
> reason: resistance to the latest herbicide so they can use buckets
> of the
> stuff; the ability for a plant to produce its own pesticide; a gene
> to make
> the plant glow in the dark so they can harvest at night. I'm being
> facetious
> of course, but you get the point. Now I'm sure all this new food has
> been
> tested out the wazoo with no ill effects, but then so were any
> number of
> medications that had to be withdrawn from the market for unexpected
> side
> effects years after there introduction.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|