Re: GM food and the media, archive 754
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: GM food and the media, archive 754
- From: Rick Roush <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:51:29 +0930
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
- In-Reply-To: <199902161233.NAA00501@lan43.math.u-psud.fr>
- Resent-From: email@example.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"uiLwIB.A.wQE._rgy2"@bakunix.free.de>
- Resent-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Herve LE MEUR wrote (in part):
>First because those who have this knowledge do not come in the city to
>Second, because the scientists have choosen the side of multinationals.
>They cannot be believed anymore because they have not been honest.
>All the same as for BSE : Those who have not been honest will be lynched.
>Every day, you choose the side you will have to take up.
>You may make mistakes. Not deforming truth, firing Pusztai while not
>checking his experiments, validating Bst whiling omiting some figures,
>validating Aspartame and not publishing the figures of the main study...
Herve, this is defamatory, inflammatory, and absurd. At least in some
cities in the world, you could be charged with a crime if you called for
lynching in public, and I suggest that you and Werner should be more
careful about what you broadcast here.
Those who do have knowledge try to explain. Some opponents of GE refuse to
listen. And to imply here as you have done that scientists have chosen the
side of multinationals is wrong and personally offensive. I defend some GE
crops because after careful study (including looking into the issues raised
here by opponents) I have concluded that they have far fewer risks to
health and the environment than the alternatives, despite an innate anxiety
about who owns them. You may refuse to agree, but to imply that those who
disagree with you are somehow corrupt is defamatory and offensive.
Finally, it has become very clear to me that many opponents of GE crops are
if anything far more willing than the multinationals they criticise to omit
and distort facts to support their views, and have therefore lost the moral
high ground to lecture the rest of us. I find myself in complete agreement
with a comment made yesterday on another list server and unconnected to
>Greenpeace, the Environmental Defence League(?), etc. are political lobby =
>groups, and are no more soundly based in science, nor more supportive of =
>ecology than their counterparts on the other side of the political =
>spectrum. All such groups care about are their politics. All I as an =
>ecologist care about is scientific understanding.