Re: [RML] genetically modified hysteria

Y Jasperson (jasperson at uq.net.au)
Tue, 24 Aug 1999 21:05:52 +1000

When did scientists / researchers / students begin to claim infallibility?

Until you become omniscient I would be careful about saying some new
scientific development poses no threat to anything. There is no way
geneticists/researchers etc could have covered every cause and effect of
genetically modified plants in the earth's ecosystems let alone make a
thorough examination of possible/known effects on the biological
relationships between the myriads of lifeforms and plants that exist in
these ecosystems. 'Life' on earth is very dynamic and has been known leave
'egg' on the faces of more then a few, who have exhibited such scientific
arrogance.

SHAME!

----- Original Message -----
From: Tyrone <12860379 at narga.sun.ac.za>
To: <rainbowfish at pcug.org.au>
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 4:27 PM
Subject: [RML] genetically modified hysteria

> On 23 Aug 99,, H. Hoekstra wrote:
>
> > I have read about it but I don't think that you are aware of the dangers
> > of genetically modified crops, let me just say that there are better
> > alternatives than insecticides OR genetically altered crops.
>
> Mr. Hoekstra, when you have a degree in genetics and ecology
> then you will be able to comment on genetically modified plants. I
> am 3 months away from both.
> Geneticly engineered plants DO NOT pose a threat to:
> 1) small farmers, infact it will increase yields and decrease
> expenditure. As for saturating the market? We are currently
> approaching the limit set by us by out present technological
> resourses. In contary, the human population in still expanding
> exponetially.
> 2) ecosystems of any sort. Most of the engineered plants are bred
> with "sterilty" genes (as Monsanto for more details) which limit the
> reproductive potential of the plant in the 2st generation. While it will
> produce lots of grain etc... the next generation will be 25% infertil
> and 50% only barely. If the plant had to "escape" it could not
> compete with the natural vegitation. Unlike the Australian Accacias
> introduced here in SAfr. by the idiots log ago, which are now taking
> over.
> 3) there is no proven threat to human health. Despite claims by
> "Green" groups. Infact, milk is a greater health risk than geneticly
> engineered soya beans. (Yes there is a Scientific article to back
> up the milk claim, or at least it is in the process of being published).
> I would also much rather run the risk of geneticly engineered food
> than the eostrogen mimics used in insecticides which induce male
> sterillity and female infertility.
>
> Finally, if you are so concerned for the environment, why not go
> and by a couple square meters of rain forrest some where. The
> fact is that the next generation of medicines etc... will come from
> the rain forrests etc... which are under a much greater threat than
> farmers pasture lands to geneticly engineered crops.
>
> In closing, when next you drink a glass of wine remember that it is
> the product of centuries of genetic modification through
> UNNATURAL selection.
>
> Regards
>
> Tyrone
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************
>
> "Jesus is Lord! Creation's voice proclaims it!"
> -David J. Mensell
>