GENTECH archive


Re: reply to archive 1165

    You are obviously never going to be satisfied by anyone's research unless it
proves something that you want to see. If you're really this worried about this
issue, then why don't you go get a Ph.D. in biotechnology (or biochemistry, or
plant genetics, or microbiology, etc), never to actually use it to create GMOs,
but simply to go do risk assessment of these products. It is easy to criticize
other people, but much harder to do their work. While the "revolving door" you
speak of does exist between industry and the government, it exists, because these
agencies must recruit people who are trained in whatever the focus subject is.
There will always be those people who use their positions abusively by backing
products that shouldn't be backed, but for every one of those, there are just as
many people who try to do objective testing of products. Please, try to work past
your paranoia. It does not serve you or anyone else well. wrote:

> In a message dated 5/14/1999 7:07:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, NinaLynn
> writes:
> << Putting aside the defamatory implication that no one in government can be
>  trusted, who is left to do the work that meets your approval?  Even
>  University researchers need funding from with government or industry to do
>  the experiments. >>
> Good point, Mr. Roush! The "science" of biotechnology is drowned in a
> conflict of interest. The results they produce cannot be spoken of as science
> in the same sense as we understand science from Newton, Gauss, or Einstein.
> Biotechnology has a vested interest in marketing its products quickly, and
> that of course conflicts with the production of long-term feeding trials.
> Steven Druker expressed the opinion that if 7-10 years of human feeding
> trials were required to test the safety of transgenic food, it would put the
> whole gene-food enterprise out of business. Labeling GMO's for the consumer
> has also been cited as "just too expensive and impractical." Sorry if the
> cost of doing business is so high!
>  <<Personally I must reject the view that government regulatory "agents" can't
>  be trusted. The must be at least as reliable as professional critics such
>  as those in Greenpeace and FOE, who have a financial interest in keeping
>  people worried. >>
> The "financial interest" of organizations like Greenpeace and FOE, which
> exist largely on the basis of volunteer time, and whose profit apparently
> comes from selling a product called "keeping people worried." Thank you from
> George Orwell! Would you like to live on their salaries? (by all means,
> include their stock options and other perks!)
> FDA regulators of transgenic products are generally recruited directly from
> the biotechnology industry and then return to it when their stint in
> government is done.
> - Nina Moliver
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe,
> subscribe or help is:
> The searchable WWW list archive is available at