Lloyd Spear wrote:
>We should probably drop this subject soon
How could that happen? The way things are going, we can expect a
ragged series of concerns which affect beekeeping, and they should be
discussed, shouldn't they?
>IMHO, governments have little to no role in matters such as this. Let the
>markets decide
That is essentially what has happened in some countries e.g.
Argentina.
In the USA, there has been a form of regulatory control (mainly by
the FDA), but this has exerted little real effect on the deployment of GM
crops. 'The markets' have not worked to protect people, or bees, from
possible harm.
And if labelling of GM food is prohibited, how could the market
work? What is wanted by those who oppose labelling is not any functioning
market but just agribusiness getting its way against the desires of
consumers for an informed market.
>Today in the New York Times, a left-leaning newspaper if ever there were
>one
This assessment is laughable if taken over the whole range of
newspapers worldwide.
>, there is an article titled Gene Altered Foods: A Case Against Panic.
>The opening paragraph reads:
>"Ask American consumers whether they support the use of biotechnology in
>food and agriculture and nearly 70 percent say they do. But ask the
>question another way, 'Do you approve of genetically engineered (or
>genetically modified) foods?' and two thirds say they do not. Yet there is
>no difference between them. The techniques involved and the products that
>result are identical."
This is simply false. The category 'biotechnology' includes, but
is not restricted to, GM. There are important types of biotech that are
nothing to do with GM.
>The article goes on the point out that "people have been genetically
>modifying foods and crops for tens of thousands of years"
This too is false. The verb 'genetically modify' connotes the
novel artificial methods of transferring genes between species, or even
between kingdoms, as does not happen in traditional breeding & selection.
These novel methods of gene-transfer sometimes provoke novel unforeseen
harmful side-effects, and have indeed done so in several cases.
>the current "panic" has been caused by deliberate misinformation and
>misunderstandings.
By far the larger source of this is the propaganda from the GM
trade, such as Lloyd is here quoting. To equate GM to what has been going
on for thousands of years is a statement made with intent to deceive.
True, some opponents of GM do make mistakes. Some of them are
ignorant, and indeed it is a topic which requires some study. The websites
I've referred this list to will give you reliable info on it.
>Such functions include "the ability to resist the
>attack of insects, withstand herbicide treatments or produce foods with
>higher levels of essential nutrients."
more PR deceit; the first two are the main types of GM crops at the
moment, but the last is only a hope not a tested reality. Indeed, the
only nutritionally-enhanced GM food of any visibility, the yellow rice
containing beta-carotene, is many years away from possible commercial
deployment.
> "If the
>most common sources of food allergens - peanuts, shellfish, celery, nuts, mild
>or eggs - had to pass through an approval process..., they would never make it
>to market."
Thought-experiments about what would supposedly have happened are
of very little use.
>Beekeepers need to be able to have some familiarity with the GM controversy
>as they will inevitably have to face questions, just as they do with the use
>of insecticides. Those interested in reading the full article in The New
>York Times will find it on page F8 of today's Science section, or at
>www.NYTimes.com.
The article is mere PR. The NYT should not print such propaganda.
> I am not worried that humankind or our environment will be
>poisoned in the meantime.
That could be said only by one who has not looked into the hazards.
Again I advise listees to study the facts and informed opinions at
www.psrast.org
R
-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949
|
