GENTECH archive


comments on an ad of the turnpoint project

Dear Rick,
You posted an article from the Washington Times that contains various
errors and lies while pretending to denounce lies (from the greens, ..
and so on. see
As the author seems not to know part of the image so much criticized, I'd like 
to stress those lies.

I quote :

>Of course, if the pictured mouse reproduced, no "new" creature would be
>created. A normal mouse would result because the mouse's genetic makeup
>was not changed.

False. The author is criticizing the use of a photo of a mouse with a
human ear on its back and claims :

>the mouse with the attached "human ear" has nothing to do with
>genetic engineering.
>If the photo has no connection to the topic of the ad, what's it doing

It happens that it has links and your friend does not know. the mouse has been 
GE so
as not to reject the human ear and this stubborn writer has not asked 
his question to the turnpoint project because they would have answered this.

Moreover, the writer quotes the ad and comments after :

>"The genetic structures of
>living beings are the last of Nature's creations to be invaded and altered
>for commerce... the infant biotechnology industry feels it's okay to ...
>reshape life on Earth to suit its balance sheets... Who appointed the
>biotech industry as Gods of the 21st century... "
>Dramatic language, indeed.
>Eventually this technology may help children who are either born without
>ears or who lose their ears through injury. The advantage of the technique
>is tissue grown from a patient's own cells avoids the problem of

and he quotes the ad :

>"Biotech companies are blithely removing
>components of human beings (and other creatures) and treating us all like
>auto parts at a swap meet."

I happen to have had a car injury (In morroco not France ;) and my girl friend 
has lost her ear. So I'm personnaly touched.

Although you may not beleive me, I agree that this vision of ear
replaced is the prototype of the scientific
myths : as if the ear was only the appearance of it !!!
while ear is also the fact that one knows this miss (lack ?).
In a world in which everybody will be esthetically with perfect ear
(and at least with an ear even if one has lost it), in a world that
would suit our desirs, the desir for beautiful appearance will be a
new form of totalitarism. Even if most people would ask for such a world.

We accept more mongolian if we meet them in the street than if they are hidden 
in specialized homes ! all the same, I like to know that some people are
different. even if they are less beautiful. And the (social) pressure
for conformation is more and more oppressive (in France at least, where I live).

So, I agree with the turnpoint project. 

>A long-standing approval process for genetically modified crops involves
>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture and the

I hope you too have laughed reading this !
It has been posted on gentech that the scientists, internally to FDA,
said that GE was inherently different from normal foods, ... etc
their advice was not followeds because of the interests.

I remember that even the texte could be seen on the web (I can find back the URL 
someone is intersted).

>The FDA standard for approving GM foods is whether they are "substantially
>equivalent" to non-GM foods.

>not "substantially equivalent," but deemed "safe" must be labeled as to
>what is different.

>This regulatory process was subject to notice and public comment prior to
>adoption. The FDA is currently holding public hearings around the country
>to determine whether the public wants more involvement. Where's the big

Blablabla ... 
>These ads aren't intended to inform; they're intended to scare. Who plays
>God in the 21st century? I've got a better question: When will the Greens
>tell the truth?

I think they are telling the truth of the world in which GE is driving all of 
us. That is another reason why I will keep on fighting against GE.