Re: Re US FDA and turning point, archive 2386, 2387
- To: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Re US FDA and turning point, archive 2386, 2387
- From: Rick Roush <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 15:41:22 +0930
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
- Resent-From: email@example.com
Just for clarity, I'll identify my comments here and add 3 replies.
Dubreuil: We definetely have many common views.
> >Dubreuil: Well my comments include transforming animals in factories of
Dubreuil: This bothers me much from an ethical point of view.
Who's the pig ? Sometimes it's hard too tell. ANd to what extent shall we
right to discard animal suffering ?
Roush (new): I agree that these issues are troubling. I limit my support to
> >They include the idea that better than producing genetic food for expanding
> >population it would be better cheaper and less risky to try to curb the
> >rate of
> >expansion of that population. And it has been proven that sending girls to
> >was a very effective and cheap way to do so.
> Roush: I agree that this is at least one thing we should do!
> >Dubreuil: I don't like the fact that in its present form genetic
> >for more wealth and power concentration.
> Roush; Then let's break up the GM companies, and make the technologies
> for free to subsistence farmers.
Dubreuil: YES !
> >...the herbicid (defoliant) resistant species. These new plants may
> >the environment genes that give a very high selective advantage to
> >would like to grow in our fields. I don't believe Monsanto or anyone in
> >the agro industrie as the financial ability to cover the damage that would
> >be caused if new pests become resistant to their herbicid because of GE
>To be fair, the people who have to worry about this most are farmers, and
> they generally don't seem very concerned. Still, I think we should be very
> cautious about this with crops like canola where they have compatible
Dubreuil: They have not been encouraged to feel concerned (safe products +
they don't know if
they will be in activity 5 years from now)
Roush (new): Here in Australia, my group raises these concerns with farmers
at every meeting!
> >I understand that as a scientific you may fear any form of control over
> >your right to search...
> Not at all, as long as the controls are reasonable and fair.
Dubreuil: OK I take note of that. But I still believe that there is no sign
and it is more
and more puzzling as we get into highly sensible reasearch (such as
that the scientific community is ready to accept a form of regulation
external since internally the pressure for discovery is too strong).
Roush replies (new): In 1975, scientists limited themselves in genetic
engineering, starting at a meeting at Asilomar California. Most still
impose internal limits through biosafety meetings. Your argument is really
that you don't believe the limits are strict enough. To be fair, you could
only judge that when you learn more about the bases of the decisions. Talk
to some of the scientists; the complaint that they have is that Greenpeace
et al only want to talk to the media.