[muglo] Re: FW: Re: 100% [OT] Biology

>Quite frankly, we have done more to genetically modify man through the use
>of high caloric diets, antibiotics, vaccines, the internal combustion
>engine, population migration, and warfare then any modified food will ever
>do.

Depends on whether GM end up modifying the environment (chances are it 
will... GM animals will be the quickest spreading (since we can detect an 
"invasive" animal a lot quicker than a plant)) -- if it does, the 
technology'll go right up there with the rest!

A big concern is that we are setting ourselves up for an ecological disaster 
of phenomenal proportions by allowing people (biotechnologists with the 
understanding of technicians -- I see it everyday in the molecular heads. 
It's shocking and very disturbing to see how little the *students* of 
molecular biology know (or sometimes care) of the biology outside the world 
of DNA polymerase. These are the people who will become the research leaders 
and technologists of tomorrow?) who know little more than how to splice 
genes and turn them into $$$s to distribute them into the wild.

Plus, there are major problems with the way patents and property rights are 
assigned in Canada, and across much of the world (e.g. patent on the neme 
tree extract that was granted in the US (don't know about Canada) 
(fortunately struck down in Europe b/c it wasn't an invention, nor was it 
original on the part of the company... prior art in 1000s of years of use in 
India)).

As it stands, the property and liability laws are *completely* out of synch 
with the reality of biology -- highlighting the problem of our regulatory 
system where corporate interests hold far more sway than that of the public 
(the US and especially Europe are far better off than we are (believe it or 
not there are *some* areas where the US isn't backwards... though, the 
longer GW Junior is in power, the more they're dismantling their system).

Plants are promiscuous yet it is not the responsibility of the person 
growing the GM crop or its manufacturer to ensure that pollen does not end 
up spreading to either wild relatives or to other non-GM farmer's fields 
(thus, requiring people who are *not* growing GM to accept the financial 
costs associated with non-GM GM conatiminated crops (a requisite for entry 
into nearly all major markets)). The example of the litigation against Percy 
Schmeiser highlights this failure of the legal system and patent law as it 
applies to genetic constructs. In that case it is not the responsibility of 
the producer to ensure that his "seed" does not contaminate other people's 
crops, but the other way around.

In the end this will likely come back to haunt Monsanto (though probably not 
since they have a long, and illustrious history of environmental and social 
citizenship... I guess you don't have to worry about little irritants like 
laws and regulations when you're a multi-national (& Rich... this isn't any 
liberal conspiracy theory -- this company has been convicted on numerous 
occasions in a number of countries over the years of violating pretty 
serious laws (*knowingly* ignoring data showing the dangers of their 
chemicals and practices) and of suppressing crucial information (like the 
hazards of dioxins in PCBs))),
Fortunately, the realities of the market place are causing the use of GM 
crops to shrink (& thus the long-term potential for profit from this 
technology :) since the major world markets (the ones that can pay) have 
rejected GM.

Ah well, that's the nature of the Canadian market -- we're shutting 
ourselves out of Europe and Japan by adopting GM prematurely. These markets 
will *always* require labelling and, unless you can demonstrate either (a) a 
strong environmental benefit (to galvanise that segment of opposition) or 
(b) a strong consumer benefit (cheaper or healthier foods are likely the 
only arguments that will stick) you're not going to convince people they 
should eat GM foods... and rightly so.

At the moment this is not a technology which is making much of a difference 
(and likely won't) to what matters to people -- cost, environment and health 
(not necessarily in that order). It is perfectly reasonable that they reject 
this as it is an unproven technology and the onus shouldn't be on those who 
reject it to prove the food *unsafe*. Proving something unsafe is what the 
corporate community is used to as a standard (since they're the ones who 
pull the wool over people's eyes... deny, deny, deny until you're blue in 
the face and have killed thousands, if not millions and destroyed 
environments), but this GM thing in Europe and Japan has them flummoxed -- 
for once the onus is on them to prove that something is *safe* (instead of, 
oh, let's see, tobacco, lead, alcohol, etc.). They're not used to having to 
actually do the hard work themselves rather than being able to use people as 
guinea-pigs ;-).

Europe has learned from the mistakes of the past where such industries like 
tobacco were allowed free reign. Germany did the right thing in the 70s of 
adopting the beginnings of the precautionary principle. Their motivation for 
getting the rest of Europe on board wasn't altruistic -- they wanted a 
"level playing field" where their corps weren't disadvantaged vs. the rest 
of Europe -- but they did succeed in the end and this is perhaps the best 
example of the application of the precautionary principle (though, it is 
also a function of the BSE scare and foot-and-mouth).

PS I once read a very interesting web article contrasting the European 
empire vs. the American one and evaluating their modes of action. America is 
omni-present in the media and blows the snot out of its enemies (and 
solicits pretty violent responses). Europe is omni-present in the legal 
arena. They don't (by-and-large, UK excepted ;) blow the snot out of the 
rest of the world -- their success is the exportation of their regulations. 
You want to play ball with Europe (a larger market than the US)? You better 
meet their standards. You're American? You better meet their standards. 
...one of the reasons many states in the US are *waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay* ahead of 
Canada in adopting carbon-emission reduction strategies (even Texas has a 
very impressive wind-power programme).

Yes, we are the most wasteful country in the world -- we're even worse than 
the Yanks (well, they do generate more CO2 but they use less energy).

Anyway, this has gone on long enough.

Eric.

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


_________________________________________________

For information concerning the MUGLO List just click on

           http://muglo.on.ca/pages/members.html#Joinmuglo

Don't forget to periodically check our web site at:

           http://muglo.on.ca/

Other related posts: