GENTECH archive 8.96-97


Re: Survey Shows Americans Want Labels On Genetically Altered F

I beg the pardon of all.  

The bottom line here is we should not be "MESSING AROUND WITH MOTHER
NATURE"  !!!

Things spoil and are effected by insects for "reasons".  that are part of
a plan.


On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 12:03:43 EST10 "janelle kennard"
<> writes:
>While I agree with Peter when he asserts of companies selling 
>genetically engineered products:
>>They want to argue that cross species genetic
>>engineering of food is the same thing as
>>traditional reproductive crossbreeding that has been going
>>on since time immemorial.
>But, I wish to comment on:
>>Genetic engineering is actually a new and radical technology
>>of dubious "benefit" for consumers.
>While I agree that Genetic engineering IS a new technology, quite 
>distinguishable from traditional breeding practices, I wish to comment 
>on the view that there are no benefits to be had from the technology 
>the public, the environment or for consumers and that the only benefit 
>is to be enjoyed in terms of profit by the companies involved.  It is 
>view quite often expressed by posts to this list.  But take for 
>these projects:
>Comsumers in the UK have been quite impressed with the (clearly 
>labelled) "genetically modified" tomato paste.  They have commented on 
>the superior taste of the product, are pleased that it costs less, and 
>the fact that in now occupies 17% of the paste market is testimony to 
>"Bt cotton" in Australia has led to decreased spraying of cotton 
>with chemical pesticides (from between 6 and 16 spray runs a season 
>to 2) - surely an environmental benefit.  (I spoke to a farmer 
>who said he was very pleased with this aspect and would use the cotton 
>again next season despite that it offers no  cost savings to him - 
>though Monsanto IS making a profit !!).  Similiarly, potatoes 
>genetically engineered to be resistant to viral attack are decreasing 
>the need for chemical spraying proviously used to control aphids which 
>transmit the virus.
>Various projects worldwide aimed at changing oil compositions in 
>and other common vegetable oil providers to increase the amounts of 
>unsaturated fats - a health benefit to those eating the product.
>Various projects aimed at increasing the nutritional value of various 
>foods or increasing the levels of natural anti-cancer agents produced 
>some fruits.  I'm think comsumerrs will be interested in the benefits 
>such products.  
>While Big Companies ARE making Big Money with genetic engineering, 
>face it, the technology wouldn't go ahead if there wasn't a buck to be 
>made.  And there ARE benefits to be found in the new technology - for 
>the general good (even if that is not what motivates the Big 
>It is unfortunate that the first genetically engineered organism 
>generally released (in the US) is the RoundUp ready soybeans - the 
>benefits to consumers, to the environment (while expoused by Monsanto) 
>ARE,in this case, DUBIOUS.  But let's not tar all genetic engineering 
>with the same brush.  It's a technology that can be used for a wide 
>variety of purposes.  Each needs to be assessed individually before it 
>is condemed or accepted.  Some are "beneficial", others will not 
>society and only make a quick buck for those with plenty already.  
>a big ask, but  thought, understanding and individual assessment is 
>I think I've said enough !!
>Cheers,  Janelle
>Life comes with no instruction book. 
>						- Some make their own 
>										Others

>enjoy the freedom.
>Janelle L. Kennard
>CRC for Plant Science
>PO Box 475
>Australian National University.
>Canberra  ACT 2601
>Phone 249 2878 
>The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe,
>subscribe or help is: