GENTECH archive


Re: The turning point project, archive 2383

>>Herve replied:
>>Yes, but the difference between the "reality" and the wording is much
>>smaller than the one in ads from biotechs that claim GMO are strictly
>>identical to normal plants.
>>Do not you agree ?

>>Rick replied:
>>(1) Show me such an example of a biotech ad; I have not seen anything that
>>would lead me to agree with you.
>First, you know that biotech claim (and have forced the FDA to claim all the
>same) that GMO=standard plants. It's the main argument against labelling.
>Maybe it has not been written in an ad. But it's precisely because it
>was claimed in small comittees where it was decided not to label.

(1) The FDA has not been forced to claim anything.
(2) It is at least arguable that GMO plants are the same as standard plants
in terms of food quality, which is what the FDA has often stated. The
turning point ad is not even close to accurate. It shows a medical
experiment not directly related to genetic engineering and implies that it
is.  It further quite deliberately sought to scare people into believing
that biotech companies were looking to develop hideous human-animal

>Rick wrote:
>>(2) It seems to me that you are arguing that "because the other guys lie, I
>>have the right to do so also". Do you really believe that?
Herve replied:
>No I don't. It's not what I said. Please, re-read what you quote yourself.
>I said that the difference between the exact truth (fr which we are still
>waiting for the confirmation) and what was said was smaller in the ads of
>turnpoint than in the ads of biotechs. This does not legitimate distortion.
>But I consider the distortion in the turnpoint ad as very small.
>Mainly compared to the distortion in the ads of biotechs (some of which have
>been condemned).

Herve, even here you wrote "But I consider the distortion in the turnpoint
ad as very small." Do you mean a little lie is ok but a bigger lie isn't?
How do we begin to quantify the size or weight of a lie to judge which are
ok and which aren't? Thank you for at least accepting that there is
distortion in the turning point ad.

>>Herve wrote:
>I believe that the vision of humans as mechanisms is very usual in science
>because Science is (and must be) reductionist.
>Yet this vision should remain in labs and not be propagated in society.

Ok, let's push that reductionist science back into the labs, and go back to
medicine as it was practiced in the 1700's.  Forget antibiotics; they're
based on a reductionist (even if French!) and accidental experiment in a
reductionist petri dish.  Where will all this end?