GENTECH archive

[Index][Thread]

Deep Inside the "Rational" Thinking of the GE Industry




Here's a quick trip
Deep Inside the "Rational" Thinking of the GE Industry

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act." George Orwell

A Much More Accurate Portrayal of Henry I. Miller's
"Rational Approach to Labeling Biotech-Derived Foods"

________________________________________________________________




GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PSEUDO-SCIENCE,
Volume 666, Number 45 Issue 698 of 29 May 1999, pp. 564 - 786

GENETIC ENGINEERING:

A Pseudo-Rational Approach to Labeling Biotech-Derived Foods

Commentary on the Genetic Engineering
Industry and it's Pseudo-Science by Peter M. Ligotti

Scientists around the world are using recombinant DNA
techniques to improve plants.

  >Notice how they put their main baseless presupposition right up
   front. They have not said anything at all, but here comes the
   conclusion that GE plants are improved. No reason, no explanation,
   no evidence, no short-term human studies, no long-term human studies,
   just the assumption, just the literally baseless presupposition
   that these plants are not only safe for humans and the environment,
   but that they are "improved." Ridiculous !!

   Right from the get-go it's obvious that this is the baseless
   opinion of fraudulent, fake, pretend, flunky, "science," -- when
   the conclusion they want is right up front, and all the rest of their
   play-pretend "pseudo-science" then follows. But it does not
   follow logically or otherwise. For example, let's
   see what's next.....



These transgenic plants can have enhanced resistance to pests,
disease, drought, salinity, frost, and herbicides, as well as
enhanced nutritional
value, improved processing characteristics, and better taste.

   >More baseless theory and presuppositions especially with
    "enhanced nutritional value." Oh...by the way... excuse me
    Mr brilliant Scientist...is this
    "food" ....ahh....safe to eat?   OH YES.
    How do you know?
                                  WE THINK IT'S not only safe but..
                                  SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVILENT.
                                  We can assure you that it's safe.
                                  Just like we can assure you
                                  that it's improved. Our nutritional
                                  value is much better. We assure you.
                                  Yes we certainly do assure you.
                                  We know because we're real smart.
                                  The FDA and USDA says it's ok.
                                  We don't need any independent
                                  third party long-term human testing.
                                  We are scientists and we use big words.
                                  We can assure you we know everything.
                                  You do not want labelling. WE REPEAT.
                                  You do not want labelling. You might
                                  get the wrong idea like this food
                                  is somehow experimental, untested,
                                  or unproven. We don't want you
                                  thinking that. Definitely not.
                                  We do not need any long-term testing.
                                  We just need profitability, er...I
                                  mean our pure and holy ambition is to
                                  FEED THE WORLD after all with Round-up
                                  engorged mutated plants...er...I
                                  mean genetically enhanced products...
                                  er...I mean biotech enhanced products...
                                  And look how smart we are, we even
                                  have referrences at the end
                                  of our corporate propaganda !!


In 1998, they were
cultivated on about 69.5 million acres (1).

   >Finally a statement that can be backed up. Yes these experimental
    crops have been planted on 69.5 million acres. This amounts to
    a criminal act based on the above baseless fantasy and their
    presupposition that these pesticide engorged
    crops are an improvement over Nature.

   >If this text is an example of a "rational" approach
    I shudder at what they might do next.

                                   STOP COMPLAINING and eat your
                                   genetically engineered food !!


In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible
for ensuring the safety and profitability of the Biotech Industry....
blah....blah....blah......


References

    C. James, Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops
     (ISAAA Briefs No.
    8, ISAAA, Ithaca, NY, 1998). Excludes acreage in China.
    Federal Register, +ACI-Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant
    Varieties+ACI- 57, 22984 (29 May 1992).
    M. Chrispeels and D. Sadava, Plants, Genes, and Agriculture (Jones and
    Bartlett, Boston, 1994), p. 348.
    National Research Council, Field Testing Genetically Modified Organisms:
    Framework for Decisions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1989).
    H. I. Miller, Policy Controversy in Biotechnology: An Insider's View
    (Landes, Austin, TX, 1997), chapters 3 and 4.
    Appropriate Oversight for Plants with Inherited Traits for Resistance to
    Pests: A Report from 11 Professional Societies (Institute of Food
    Technologists, Chicago, 1996).
    Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties: Consultation Procedures (Center
for
    Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and Center for Veterinary Medicine,
FDA,
    June 1996).
    T. Ayers, Science 281, 714 (1998)+ADs- N. Williams, ibid., p. 769.
    Compilation of Food and Drug Laws (Food and Drug Law Institute,
Washington,
    DC, 1993), pp. 30-62.
    J. A. Nordler et al., N. Engl. J. Med. 334, 688 (1996).
    H. I. Miller, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 269, 910 (1993).
    R. M. Goodman, H. Hauptli, A. Crossway, V. C. Knauf, Science 236, 48
(1987).

    K. Takemoto, M Yano, Y. Akiyama, H. Mori, GenoBase 1.1 Escherichia coli,
    March 1994.
    International Dairy Foods Association v. Amestoy, 92 F. 3rd 67 (2nd Cir.
    1996).
    Consumer Alert, before the National Biotechnology Policy Board, 20
September
    1991, as quoted in National Biotechnology Policy Board Report (Office of
the
    Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 1992), p. E-27.


The author is at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
94305, USA, and is an Adjunct Scholar, Competitive Enterprise Institute,
Washington, DC 20036, USA. E-mail: miller+AEA-hoover.stanford.edu


__________________________________________
Ms. Renske van Staveren, Coordinator
International Forum on Food & Agriculture (IFA)
c/o Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)
2105 First Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN, USA  55404-2505
ph: 612-870-3423       fax: 612-870-4846
rvanstaveren@iatp.org>
http://www.iffah.org
__________________________________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act."  George Orwell


================================
How to Use this Mailing List
================================

You received this e-mail as a result of your registration on the
biotech_activists mailing list.

To unsubscribe, please send an email to listserv@iatp.org. In the body of
the message type:
unsubscribe biotech_activists

To post messages, send email to biotech_activists@iatp.org.

For a list of other commands and list options, please send email to
listserv@iatp.org.
In the body of the message type:
help


For other questions email support@iatp.org