16 Gauge Stainless Steel Skull Crossbones at Amazon
|
The biotech industry has experienced explosive growth, dwarfing that of the high tech industry. It’s driven by two constituents – the curiosity of it is scientists and the payoff. The profits to be made are enormous, and it’s these profits that are blinding it is proponents and driving the debate. o Foods more tolerant to chemicals & better resistance to pests & diseases o More nutritional content and bettered feed processing traits o Resistance to unfavorable soils and weather circumstances o Improved ripening, texture and flavor in foods But Is It Safe? Although the technology is impressive, the question of feed safety remains skeptical and claims illusory. Genetic technology is only in it is infancy and scientists have no idea what they’re messing with. By inserting genes to change design and content, they intervene in DNA which is a self-organizing, self-replicating macromolecule, with the capacity to carry out error correction. Introduction of an alien gene introduces instability. The stress will cause the molecule to try and expel, or mutate the alien gene, with the result being a new structure, and the possibleness of gross malfunction. This instability or undesired characteristic may not become apparent for assorted generations. At this point in time, Agriculture Canada and the USDA have not identified long term health risks. All testing done to date, in spite of reassurances to the contrary by the biotech industry and regulatory authorities, are construed to safeguard the industry not guarantee public safety. Standard toxicology tests are conducted by the industry that benefits, no testing is done by regulatory authorities (they rely on industry data), no independent scientific tests, no long term studies, no sixth, seventh, eighth and later generation studies, and no monitoring of releases to the environment. In other words, testing is grossly one-sided. The only significant tryouts taking place are those that use the humane population as involuntary guinea-pigs and the environs as an outside laboratory. The biotech industry specializes in half-truths, downright deceptions, and extravagant claims. It comes as no surprise to learn that companies big in the formulate and distributions of biocides (e.g. Monsanto) are likewise major biotech players. Nor will have to it come as a surprise that intense lobbying by the same companies has led to a massive increase in the permitted herbicide residues on crops. GM crops may tolerate increased herbicide applications, therefore leading to a substantial increase in usage. So we may without apparent effort see that biotechnology, rather than being applied to solve agricultural problems, is more net income driven than need driven. It intensifies the farmers’ dependence upon industrial inputs to legally inhibit the right of farmers to reproduce, share and store seeds. By controlling the germplasm from seed to sale and by forcing farmers to remunerate inflated prices for seed-chemical packages, companies are determined to extract the most net profit from their investment. Opinion polls show the world public to be overwhelmingly versus genetically altered foods. In France, Britain, Denmark, USA and countries of Europe, amidst 68-90% of all surveyed were dogmatically versus the use of GM products. The giant chemical companies are well conscious of this dilemma. (There is substantial opposition from the public, from the media, and not least, from retailers) – Leaked internal Monsanto report. Yet we’ll likely carry on to dine on DNA altered cuisine without ever knowing it. Peddlers of genetically modified foods carry on to slip their adulterated merchandise onto the world market in the hope that no one will notice. Producers deliberately mix GM and non-GM merchandise in their foods, which amounts to force-feeding an unsuspecting public. How galore people in Canada recognise they’re eating an approximated diet of 60% genetically processed foods? How galore know that the US, Canada and Argentina account for more than 90% of the world’s GM feed crops? Absence of feed labeling helps tremendously in this growing market (as it does with irradiated food). [Labeling is the key issue ... If you put a label on genetically engineered food; you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it. - head of Asgrow, Monsanto seed subsidiary]. More genetic danger What in regards to ecological balance? Modified crop genes could cross-pollinate into the countryside, destructing wild habitats and creating a genetically polluted environment. Once released, genetic material may never be retrieved again. These organisms are a new life form that may mutate and breed for generations with other living things. It is a non-indigenous species that has utterly no natural habitat outside the laboratory. Their introductions will most surely set off parts of the surroundings that have a domino effect of cascading changes all around the entire eco-system. “If something does go seriously wrong we will be faced with the problem of clearing up a kind of pollution which is self-perpetuating. I am not convinced that any individual has the introductory idea of how this could be done, or in truth who would have to pay.” – Prince Charles, Seeds of Disaster, The Daily Telegraph, 8 June 1998 Here are a few examples of agricultural genetic failures illustrating galore of the difficultnesses that have been encountered: o The Flavr Savr tomato was a mercantile disaster o Bt-cotton suffered spacious harm from Bt-resistance pests o Roundup Cotton shed it is cotton balls when sprayed with Roundup o A soybean with a Brazil nut gene holds a protein fatal to those with nut allergy o Genetically modified potatoes damaged the immune system in rats o Transgenic canola may hurt bees by demolishing their capacity to recognize flower perfumes These are but a few samples taken from known examples. There may be a lot of more that we don’t know when it comes to because latent genetic abnormalities have not yet surfaced. It takes only one rogue gene to cause a disaster. Biotechnology offers no gains to the public or to the environment, only to the biotech companies which hope to make a killing. It may be a more prominent killing than they anticipated. Using genetically modified crops is the same as conducting a gigantic experiment on the world’s ecosystem. But with this experimentation, the extreme price could be life itself. “My worry is that other advances in science may result in other means of mass destruction, possibly more readily available even than nuclear weapons. Genetic engineering science is rather a possible area, because of these frightening developments that are taking place there.” – Joseph Rotblat, Nobel Prize Laureate. Sources: 1) Allen, Scott – Tinkering with DNA on Your Dinner Plate – New York Times Syndicate, 1999 2) Alison Abbot, German Physicians Warn of Genetics Risks, Nature, Vol 384 No 9, 1997 3) Andy Coghlan, The Devil We Don’t Know – Virus Resistance Is What Keeps Genetic Engineers Awake At Night, New Scientist, 12 September 1996 4) Anon, Gene Food Row, News in Brief, the Sunday Times, 16 August 1998 5) Anon, Battle Lines Drawn Over Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods, Campaigns & News, the Ecologist, July/August 1998 6) Ambassador College Agricultural Department – Genetic Engineering, Complex Path To Failure – Your Living Environment, May 1970/73,Vol.1,No.5. 7) Asda, Labeling of Genetically Modified Ingredients, Asda, 28 January 1998 9) BBC, Report on Virulent and Cross-Species Viruses, Frontiers, Radio 4, BBC, 24 February 1999 10) BBC, Report on GM Crops, One Planet, BBC World Service, BBC, 16 December 1998 11) Clive Cookson, Field of Genes, Financial Times, 11 August 1998 12) Cummins, E.Joseph – More On Tinkered Genes – Alive, Canadian Journal of Health & Nutrition,Issue 3,p.135,1993. 13) FDA, Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition-Emerging Technologies – Biotechnology, 1995 14) FDA/CFSAN, Fed.Register – Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties – Vol.57, No.104, p.22984-22989, May 29, 1992. 15) Food Labeling; Foods Derived from New Varieties, Federal Register, April 28, 1993, Vol. 58 pages 25837-25841 Hsu, Karen – The Future Of Food Is Now – New York Times Syndicate, 1999. 16) Kendall, Patricia-Food Biotech.: Boon or Threat-Journal of Nutr. Education, 1997 – Society for Nutrit.Education. 17) McCullum,Christine – The New Biotechnology Era: Issues for Education and Policy – Journal of Nutrition Education and Policy, May/June 1997-Society for Nutritional Education. 18) P. Hatchwell, Opening Pandora’s Box – The Risks of Releasing Genetically Engineered Organisms, the Ecologist, July/August 1989 19) Reuters – Fooling With Mother Nature – Copyright 1998 ABC News 20) Reuters – Suit Warns of Food Risks – Copyright 1998 ABC News. 21) Staunton, Dennis & Others – GM Food Threatens The Planet – Guardian Newspapers Ltd., 1999. 22) Steve Gorelick, Hiding Damaging Information From The Public, The Ecologist, Sept./Oct. 1998 23) Wales, Prince Of – Genetically Modified Food: Is It An Innovation We Can Do Without? – Online Forum, Copyright St. James Place and the Press Association Ltd. 1999 |
BBC, News Item On Genetically Modified Food, The World at One, Radio 4, BBC, 10 August 1998
