Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
RECLAIM THE COMMONS: Racial Justice & Equality Day: June 7th
Early in June the Genetically Engineered food industry holds its annual international convention -- BIO 2004 -- in San Francisco at Moscone Center.
Outraged San Franciscans will greet them with a series of actions and activities. This video gives details of Racial Justice & Equality Day: Monday, June 7th, 10am, Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate.
One minute QT movie. 5MB.
More information at
http://www.reclaimthecommons.net/
Outraged San Franciscans will greet them with a series of actions and activities. This video gives details of Racial Justice & Equality Day: Monday, June 7th, 10am, Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate.
One minute QT movie. 5MB.
More information at
http://www.reclaimthecommons.net/
For more information:
http://fog.ccsf.edu/~wcarpent
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
No children, it is NOT a convention of genetically engineered food marketers. It is all biogenetic researchers, producing things like cancer drugs, HIV drugs, and all those medicines people take these days so they don't die at 35 like people used to. You grew up eating genetically modified corn flakes and wearing genetically engineered cotton in your jeans. Take a deep breath and go read a book and learn something. And leave the people at Moscone alone. They are spending money and leaving tips for working people. Do you think you will have the support of working people inconvenienced by your silly activities? You never learn.
We are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences." Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist
"All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defence against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector." The Lancet
"We strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly nor economically beneficial..." Delegates from 20 African Countries to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN meeting on Plant Genetic Resources
"Certainly, humanity's record for using technology wisely, sensitive to its potential effects on society, on people, on environment is, at best, mixed and hardly encouraging." Robert Shapiro, when Chief Executive of Monsanto Corporation
But first the view of a non-scientist - Phil Angell, when director of corporate communications at Monsanto Corporation: "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible."
Scientists on GM:
Professor Richard Lewontin, professor of genetics, Harvard University, "We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another."
Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist, "This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment. The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences."
Professor Norman Ellstrand, ecological geneticist at the University of California, "within 10 years we will have a moderate to large-scale ecological or economic catastrophe, because there will be so many products being released."
Dr Harash Narang, microbiologist and senior research associate at the University of Leeds, who originally pointed to the possible link between mad cow disease (BSE) and CJD in humans, "If you look at the simple principle of genetic modification it spells ecological disaster. There are no ways of quantifying the risks... The solution is simply to ban the use of genetic modification in food."
Dr. Erik Millstone, Sussex University, "The fundamental problem of the way in which GM foods have been approved is that they haven't really been tested properly at all. All that has happened is something which I would characterise as an exercise in wishful thinking."
Dr Ian Gibson MP, former Dean of Biology at the University of East Anglia, has expressed concern about the inclusion of GM ingredients in school meals: "There is an awful lot unknown about hazards of new [GM food] crops and until it is fully tested we should not be subjecting people to risks, least of all young children."
"With genetic engineering familiar foods could become metabolically dangerous or even toxic." Statement by 21 scientists including the following, Professor Brian Goodwin, Professor Jacqueline McGlade, Professor Peter Saunders and Professor Richard Lacey
Professor Richard Lacey, microbiologist and Professor of Food Safety at Leeds University - one of the scientists who predicted the BSE disaster from early on - has spoken out strongly against the introduction of genetically engineered foods because of "the essentially unlimited health risks."
Professor Arpad Pusztai, world-leading nutrintional science expert, formerly of the Food, Gut, and Microbial Interactions Group, Rowett Research Institute, "If it is left to me, I would certainly not eat it. We are putting new things into food which have not been eaten before. The effects on the immune system are not easily predictable and I challenge anyone who will say that the effects are predictable."
Professor Colin Blakemore, Waynflete professor of physiology at Oxford University and former President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, has said of the genetic engineering of food crops: "We shouldn't be complacent in thinking that we can predict the results."
Professor James (the main architect of the UK Food Standards Agency) has commented on genetically engineered food: "The perception that everything is totally straightforward and safe is utterly naive. I don't think we fully understand the dimensions of what we're getting into." He has also said, ""There is... a need to develop more effective and appropriate screening methods to alert companies and government agencies to the unexpected consequences of the often random insertion of genetic traits into plants." Professor James has also remarked that the current regulatory system is open to challenge simply because we are making all sorts of judgments with so little evidence at hand."
Dr Andrew Chesson, vice chairman of European Commission scientific committee on animal nutrition, "Potentially disastrous effects may come from undetected harmful substances in genetically modified foods"
Dr. Gerald B. Guest, Director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), "...animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns ... Residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk products may pose human food safety problems."
Professor Gordon McVie, head of the Cancer Research Campaign: "We don' t know what genetic abnormalities might be incorporated into the genome [the individual's DNA]. I' m more worried about humans than about the environment, to be honest. One of the problems is that because it' s a long-term thing, you need to do long-term experiments."
Dr Vyvyan Howard, expert in fetal and infant toxico-pathology at Liverpool University Hospital, "Swapping genes between organisms can produce unknown toxic effects and allergies that are most likely to affect children"
Dr Mae Wan-Ho, geneticist in the UK Open University Department of Biology says: "Genetic engineering bypasses conventional breeding by using artificially constructed parasitic genetic elements, including viruses, as vectors to carry and smuggle genes into cells. Once inside cells, these vectors slot themselves into the host genome. The insertion of foreign genes into the host genome has long been known to have many harmful and fatal effects including cancer of the organism."
Professor Dennis Parke of University of Surrey School of Biological Sciences, a former chief advisor on food safety to Unilever Corporation and British advisor to the US FDA on safety aspects of biotechnology writes: "In 1983, hundreds of people in Spain died after consuming adulterated rapeseed oil. This adulterated rapeseed oil was not toxic to rats". Dr Parke warns that current testing procedures for genetically altered foods including rodent tests are not proving safety for humans. He has suggested a moratorium on the release of genetically engineered foods.
Dr Peter Wills, theoretical biologist at Auckland University writes: "By transferring genes across species barriers which have existed for aeons between species like humans and sheep we risk breaching natural thresholds against unexpected biological processes. For example, an incorrectly folded form of an ordinary cellular protein can under certain circumstances be replicative and give rise to infectious neurological disease".
Dr Michael Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Pathology at Guy's Hospital says, "The generation of genetically engineered plants and animals involves the random integration of artificial combinations of genetic material from unrelated species into the DNA of the host organism. This procedure results in disruption of the genetic blueprint of the organism with totally unpredictable consequences. The unexpected production of toxic substances has now been observed in genetically engineered bacteria, yeast, plants, and animals with the problem remaining undetected until a major health hazard has arisen. Moreover, genetically engineered food or enzymatic food processing agents may produce an immediate effect or it could take years for full toxicity to come to light." Dr Antoniou recently warned MPs against believing there was any safe alternative to a ban on GM foods, "We should not lull ourselves into a false sense of security: we should not think that by regulating something which is inherently unpredictable and uncontainable it automatically becomes safe!"
Dr. George Wald, Nobel Laureate and Higgins Professor of Biology, Harvard University, wrote "Up to now, living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations ..going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise, but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics."
The British Medical Association, which represents over 80% of practising doctors in the UK, has called for a ban on GM crop trials and questioned "whether there is a real need for genetically modified foodstuff", warning that "an artificial market may have been created by researchers and producers."
"All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defence against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector." The Lancet
"We strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly nor economically beneficial..." Delegates from 20 African Countries to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN meeting on Plant Genetic Resources
"Certainly, humanity's record for using technology wisely, sensitive to its potential effects on society, on people, on environment is, at best, mixed and hardly encouraging." Robert Shapiro, when Chief Executive of Monsanto Corporation
But first the view of a non-scientist - Phil Angell, when director of corporate communications at Monsanto Corporation: "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible."
Scientists on GM:
Professor Richard Lewontin, professor of genetics, Harvard University, "We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another."
Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist, "This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment. The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences."
Professor Norman Ellstrand, ecological geneticist at the University of California, "within 10 years we will have a moderate to large-scale ecological or economic catastrophe, because there will be so many products being released."
Dr Harash Narang, microbiologist and senior research associate at the University of Leeds, who originally pointed to the possible link between mad cow disease (BSE) and CJD in humans, "If you look at the simple principle of genetic modification it spells ecological disaster. There are no ways of quantifying the risks... The solution is simply to ban the use of genetic modification in food."
Dr. Erik Millstone, Sussex University, "The fundamental problem of the way in which GM foods have been approved is that they haven't really been tested properly at all. All that has happened is something which I would characterise as an exercise in wishful thinking."
Dr Ian Gibson MP, former Dean of Biology at the University of East Anglia, has expressed concern about the inclusion of GM ingredients in school meals: "There is an awful lot unknown about hazards of new [GM food] crops and until it is fully tested we should not be subjecting people to risks, least of all young children."
"With genetic engineering familiar foods could become metabolically dangerous or even toxic." Statement by 21 scientists including the following, Professor Brian Goodwin, Professor Jacqueline McGlade, Professor Peter Saunders and Professor Richard Lacey
Professor Richard Lacey, microbiologist and Professor of Food Safety at Leeds University - one of the scientists who predicted the BSE disaster from early on - has spoken out strongly against the introduction of genetically engineered foods because of "the essentially unlimited health risks."
Professor Arpad Pusztai, world-leading nutrintional science expert, formerly of the Food, Gut, and Microbial Interactions Group, Rowett Research Institute, "If it is left to me, I would certainly not eat it. We are putting new things into food which have not been eaten before. The effects on the immune system are not easily predictable and I challenge anyone who will say that the effects are predictable."
Professor Colin Blakemore, Waynflete professor of physiology at Oxford University and former President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, has said of the genetic engineering of food crops: "We shouldn't be complacent in thinking that we can predict the results."
Professor James (the main architect of the UK Food Standards Agency) has commented on genetically engineered food: "The perception that everything is totally straightforward and safe is utterly naive. I don't think we fully understand the dimensions of what we're getting into." He has also said, ""There is... a need to develop more effective and appropriate screening methods to alert companies and government agencies to the unexpected consequences of the often random insertion of genetic traits into plants." Professor James has also remarked that the current regulatory system is open to challenge simply because we are making all sorts of judgments with so little evidence at hand."
Dr Andrew Chesson, vice chairman of European Commission scientific committee on animal nutrition, "Potentially disastrous effects may come from undetected harmful substances in genetically modified foods"
Dr. Gerald B. Guest, Director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), "...animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns ... Residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk products may pose human food safety problems."
Professor Gordon McVie, head of the Cancer Research Campaign: "We don' t know what genetic abnormalities might be incorporated into the genome [the individual's DNA]. I' m more worried about humans than about the environment, to be honest. One of the problems is that because it' s a long-term thing, you need to do long-term experiments."
Dr Vyvyan Howard, expert in fetal and infant toxico-pathology at Liverpool University Hospital, "Swapping genes between organisms can produce unknown toxic effects and allergies that are most likely to affect children"
Dr Mae Wan-Ho, geneticist in the UK Open University Department of Biology says: "Genetic engineering bypasses conventional breeding by using artificially constructed parasitic genetic elements, including viruses, as vectors to carry and smuggle genes into cells. Once inside cells, these vectors slot themselves into the host genome. The insertion of foreign genes into the host genome has long been known to have many harmful and fatal effects including cancer of the organism."
Professor Dennis Parke of University of Surrey School of Biological Sciences, a former chief advisor on food safety to Unilever Corporation and British advisor to the US FDA on safety aspects of biotechnology writes: "In 1983, hundreds of people in Spain died after consuming adulterated rapeseed oil. This adulterated rapeseed oil was not toxic to rats". Dr Parke warns that current testing procedures for genetically altered foods including rodent tests are not proving safety for humans. He has suggested a moratorium on the release of genetically engineered foods.
Dr Peter Wills, theoretical biologist at Auckland University writes: "By transferring genes across species barriers which have existed for aeons between species like humans and sheep we risk breaching natural thresholds against unexpected biological processes. For example, an incorrectly folded form of an ordinary cellular protein can under certain circumstances be replicative and give rise to infectious neurological disease".
Dr Michael Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Pathology at Guy's Hospital says, "The generation of genetically engineered plants and animals involves the random integration of artificial combinations of genetic material from unrelated species into the DNA of the host organism. This procedure results in disruption of the genetic blueprint of the organism with totally unpredictable consequences. The unexpected production of toxic substances has now been observed in genetically engineered bacteria, yeast, plants, and animals with the problem remaining undetected until a major health hazard has arisen. Moreover, genetically engineered food or enzymatic food processing agents may produce an immediate effect or it could take years for full toxicity to come to light." Dr Antoniou recently warned MPs against believing there was any safe alternative to a ban on GM foods, "We should not lull ourselves into a false sense of security: we should not think that by regulating something which is inherently unpredictable and uncontainable it automatically becomes safe!"
Dr. George Wald, Nobel Laureate and Higgins Professor of Biology, Harvard University, wrote "Up to now, living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations ..going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise, but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics."
The British Medical Association, which represents over 80% of practising doctors in the UK, has called for a ban on GM crop trials and questioned "whether there is a real need for genetically modified foodstuff", warning that "an artificial market may have been created by researchers and producers."
Some Quotes:
We are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences." Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist
"All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defence against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector." The Lancet
"We strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly nor economically beneficial..." Delegates from 20 African Countries to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN meeting on Plant Genetic Resources
"Certainly, humanity's record for using technology wisely, sensitive to its potential effects on society, on people, on environment is, at best, mixed and hardly encouraging." Robert Shapiro, when Chief Executive of Monsanto Corporation
But first the view of a non-scientist - Phil Angell, when director of corporate communications at Monsanto Corporation: "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible."
Scientists on GM
Professor Richard Lewontin, professor of genetics, Harvard University, "We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another."
Professor Norman Ellstrand, ecological geneticist at the University of California, "within 10 years we will have a moderate to large-scale ecological or economic catastrophe, because there will be so many products being released."
Dr Harash Narang, microbiologist and senior research associate at the University of Leeds, who originally pointed to the possible link between mad cow disease (BSE) and CJD in humans, "If you look at the simple principle of genetic modification it spells ecological disaster. There are no ways of quantifying the risks... The solution is simply to ban the use of genetic modification in food."
Dr. Erik Millstone, Sussex University, "The fundamental problem of the way in which GM foods have been approved is that they haven't really been tested properly at all. All that has happened is something which I would characterise as an exercise in wishful thinking."
"With genetic engineering familiar foods could become metabolically dangerous or even toxic." Statement by 21 scientists including the following, Professor Brian Goodwin, Professor Jacqueline McGlade, Professor Peter Saunders and Professor Richard Lacey
Professor Arpad Pusztai, world-leading nutrintional science expert, formerly of the Food, Gut, and Microbial Interactions Group, Rowett Research Institute, "If it is left to me, I would certainly not eat it. We are putting new things into food which have not been eaten before. The effects on the immune system are not easily predictable and I challenge anyone who will say that the effects are predictable."
Professor Colin Blakemore, Waynflete professor of physiology at Oxford University and former President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, has said of the genetic engineering of food crops: "We shouldn't be complacent in thinking that we can predict the results."
Professor James (the main architect of the UK Food Standards Agency) has commented on genetically engineered food: "The perception that everything is totally straightforward and safe is utterly naive. I don't think we fully understand the dimensions of what we're getting into."
Dr Andrew Chesson, vice chairman of European Commission scientific committee on animal nutrition, "Potentially disastrous effects may come from undetected harmful substances in genetically modified foods"
Dr. Gerald B. Guest, Director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), "...animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns ... Residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk products may pose human food safety problems."
Professor Gordon McVie, head of the Cancer Research Campaign: "We don' t know what genetic abnormalities might be incorporated into the genome [the individual's DNA]. I' m more worried about humans than about the environment, to be honest. One of the problems is that because it' s a long-term thing, you need to do long-term experiments."
Dr Mae Wan-Ho, geneticist in the UK Open University Department of Biology says: "Genetic engineering bypasses conventional breeding by using artificially constructed parasitic genetic elements, including viruses, as vectors to carry and smuggle genes into cells. Once inside cells, these vectors slot themselves into the host genome. The insertion of foreign genes into the host genome has long been known to have many harmful and fatal effects including cancer of the organism."
Professor Dennis Parke of University of Surrey School of Biological Sciences, a former chief advisor on food safety to Unilever Corporation and British advisor to the US FDA on safety aspects of biotechnology writes: "In 1983, hundreds of people in Spain died after consuming adulterated rapeseed oil. This adulterated rapeseed oil was not toxic to rats". Dr Parke warns that current testing procedures for genetically altered foods including rodent tests are not proving safety for humans. He has suggested a moratorium on the release of genetically engineered foods.
Dr Peter Wills, theoretical biologist at Auckland University writes: "By transferring genes across species barriers which have existed for aeons between species like humans and sheep we risk breaching natural thresholds against unexpected biological processes. For example, an incorrectly folded form of an ordinary cellular protein can under certain circumstances be replicative and give rise to infectious neurological disease".
Dr Antoniou recently warned MPs against believing there was any safe alternative to a ban on GM foods, "We should not lull ourselves into a false sense of security: we should not think that by regulating something which is inherently unpredictable and uncontainable it automatically becomes safe!"
Dr. George Wald, Nobel Laureate and Higgins Professor of Biology, Harvard University, wrote "Up to now, living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations ..going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise, but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics."
The British Medical Association, which represents over 80% of practising doctors in the UK, has called for a ban on GM crop trials and questioned "whether there is a real need for genetically modified foodstuff", warning that "an artificial market may have been created by researchers and producers."
We are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences." Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist
"All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defence against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector." The Lancet
"We strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly nor economically beneficial..." Delegates from 20 African Countries to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN meeting on Plant Genetic Resources
"Certainly, humanity's record for using technology wisely, sensitive to its potential effects on society, on people, on environment is, at best, mixed and hardly encouraging." Robert Shapiro, when Chief Executive of Monsanto Corporation
But first the view of a non-scientist - Phil Angell, when director of corporate communications at Monsanto Corporation: "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible."
Scientists on GM
Professor Richard Lewontin, professor of genetics, Harvard University, "We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another."
Professor Norman Ellstrand, ecological geneticist at the University of California, "within 10 years we will have a moderate to large-scale ecological or economic catastrophe, because there will be so many products being released."
Dr Harash Narang, microbiologist and senior research associate at the University of Leeds, who originally pointed to the possible link between mad cow disease (BSE) and CJD in humans, "If you look at the simple principle of genetic modification it spells ecological disaster. There are no ways of quantifying the risks... The solution is simply to ban the use of genetic modification in food."
Dr. Erik Millstone, Sussex University, "The fundamental problem of the way in which GM foods have been approved is that they haven't really been tested properly at all. All that has happened is something which I would characterise as an exercise in wishful thinking."
"With genetic engineering familiar foods could become metabolically dangerous or even toxic." Statement by 21 scientists including the following, Professor Brian Goodwin, Professor Jacqueline McGlade, Professor Peter Saunders and Professor Richard Lacey
Professor Arpad Pusztai, world-leading nutrintional science expert, formerly of the Food, Gut, and Microbial Interactions Group, Rowett Research Institute, "If it is left to me, I would certainly not eat it. We are putting new things into food which have not been eaten before. The effects on the immune system are not easily predictable and I challenge anyone who will say that the effects are predictable."
Professor Colin Blakemore, Waynflete professor of physiology at Oxford University and former President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, has said of the genetic engineering of food crops: "We shouldn't be complacent in thinking that we can predict the results."
Professor James (the main architect of the UK Food Standards Agency) has commented on genetically engineered food: "The perception that everything is totally straightforward and safe is utterly naive. I don't think we fully understand the dimensions of what we're getting into."
Dr Andrew Chesson, vice chairman of European Commission scientific committee on animal nutrition, "Potentially disastrous effects may come from undetected harmful substances in genetically modified foods"
Dr. Gerald B. Guest, Director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), "...animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns ... Residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk products may pose human food safety problems."
Professor Gordon McVie, head of the Cancer Research Campaign: "We don' t know what genetic abnormalities might be incorporated into the genome [the individual's DNA]. I' m more worried about humans than about the environment, to be honest. One of the problems is that because it' s a long-term thing, you need to do long-term experiments."
Dr Mae Wan-Ho, geneticist in the UK Open University Department of Biology says: "Genetic engineering bypasses conventional breeding by using artificially constructed parasitic genetic elements, including viruses, as vectors to carry and smuggle genes into cells. Once inside cells, these vectors slot themselves into the host genome. The insertion of foreign genes into the host genome has long been known to have many harmful and fatal effects including cancer of the organism."
Professor Dennis Parke of University of Surrey School of Biological Sciences, a former chief advisor on food safety to Unilever Corporation and British advisor to the US FDA on safety aspects of biotechnology writes: "In 1983, hundreds of people in Spain died after consuming adulterated rapeseed oil. This adulterated rapeseed oil was not toxic to rats". Dr Parke warns that current testing procedures for genetically altered foods including rodent tests are not proving safety for humans. He has suggested a moratorium on the release of genetically engineered foods.
Dr Peter Wills, theoretical biologist at Auckland University writes: "By transferring genes across species barriers which have existed for aeons between species like humans and sheep we risk breaching natural thresholds against unexpected biological processes. For example, an incorrectly folded form of an ordinary cellular protein can under certain circumstances be replicative and give rise to infectious neurological disease".
Dr Antoniou recently warned MPs against believing there was any safe alternative to a ban on GM foods, "We should not lull ourselves into a false sense of security: we should not think that by regulating something which is inherently unpredictable and uncontainable it automatically becomes safe!"
Dr. George Wald, Nobel Laureate and Higgins Professor of Biology, Harvard University, wrote "Up to now, living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations ..going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise, but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics."
The British Medical Association, which represents over 80% of practising doctors in the UK, has called for a ban on GM crop trials and questioned "whether there is a real need for genetically modified foodstuff", warning that "an artificial market may have been created by researchers and producers."
Fine. Don't eat what you don't want to eat. Buy organic. Do whatever you want, but leave the REST of us out of it. Are you terrified of ears of corn? Nectarines? Santa Rosa plums? Plucots? Cornish game hens? All of these things were created by people by crossing different organisms and getting a new one. We have been doing this for thousands of years. Just because it is happening faster today does not make it any more dangerous. Almost all of our grains, legumes, fruit, vegetables have been "designed" by someone to produce a better result than the original item. The same goes for human bred livestock. You can always find someone who will cry wolf - so what? Golden rice keeps millions of kids brom going blind every year. Would you like to take their place? Would you like to do without livesavinig medicines and vaccines?
Thank you sfres, sustainable organic plant breeding is exactly the sort of non-proprietary, time-tested bio-engineering which *will* be on display at Reclaim the commons.
Golden rice, on the other hand, has never been put into production. It exists only in one experimental laboratory in the world. And you would have to eat a gigantic sack of golden rice every single day to get your USRDA of Vitamin A -- 16 pounds to be exact. Essentially, golden rice is nothing but golden PR for the industry.
Golden rice, on the other hand, has never been put into production. It exists only in one experimental laboratory in the world. And you would have to eat a gigantic sack of golden rice every single day to get your USRDA of Vitamin A -- 16 pounds to be exact. Essentially, golden rice is nothing but golden PR for the industry.
To SFRes,
Thanks for writing, It seems like you are interested in the topic, and are trying to understand why we are doing this. I'm happy to respond, and it is encouraging to have the dialogue.
You wrote... " Leave the rest of us out of it." If only it were that simple... In fact, it's been made inpossible by the very corporations you are defending. I'm all for letting everyone do what they want to do UNLESS IT AFFECTS THE REST OF US by running our government, impacting our choices or impacting the only planet we have to live on.
Unfortunately, the biotech and pharmaceutical industry is (who are coming to Moscone for their annual international convention - and it is NOT just "researchers" at this, it is the same corporate execs that are running our government) putting profit before human need in their greed for new markets. The Denver Post printed an amazing article about what some of us have called "the revolving door", called "When advocates become regulators" on May 23, 2004 - you can find it here: http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E23827%257E2164693,00.html?search=filter
Corporations are patenting seeds - and when their genetically engineered crop pollen drifts over onto organic crops and contaminates the organic crops, then companies like Monsanto sue the organic farmer for using their patented "technology". Many, many, many small farmers have been completely ruined. Beyond that, for centuries, indigenous peoples and small farmers have saved their seeds from crops and sown them over and over from their own stock - no longer do they have that right! With corporations patenting the seeds, the farmers and indigenous people are now being sued and told that they cannot use their own seeds because corporations own the technology.
And if that isn't bad enough check out how many corporations OWN YOUR HUMAN DNA... Do you even know which companies own YOUR Body's DNA? Care to find out?
And look into who is on the boards of the pharmacuetical companies (selling CURES for diseases) - could they be the same people on the boards of the biotech companies (seeling toxic fertilizer that is linked to causing cancer) ? It certainly merits some of your time to research if you are at all interested. Follow the money...
I'd sincerely be interested in your thoughts after you follow your own advice and "read a book and learn something". We can give you a list of resources if you like - many of them are online at http://www.reclaimthecommons.net and more are being added daily. All of the above mentioned things are only the very tip of the iceberg. I encourage you to take the time to find out why ordinary San Francisco citizens and residents (who, by the way, have already passed a SF ordinance called "the Precautionary Principle: located at http://www.sfgov.org/sfenvironment/aboutus/policy/legislation/precaution_principle.htm) are outraged at the Bio and Pharma industry and are going to be shining a bright light on them by protesting at Moscone Center.
I hope you keep up the dialogue, it's great to have the opportunity to chat with you.
Thanks for writing, It seems like you are interested in the topic, and are trying to understand why we are doing this. I'm happy to respond, and it is encouraging to have the dialogue.
You wrote... " Leave the rest of us out of it." If only it were that simple... In fact, it's been made inpossible by the very corporations you are defending. I'm all for letting everyone do what they want to do UNLESS IT AFFECTS THE REST OF US by running our government, impacting our choices or impacting the only planet we have to live on.
Unfortunately, the biotech and pharmaceutical industry is (who are coming to Moscone for their annual international convention - and it is NOT just "researchers" at this, it is the same corporate execs that are running our government) putting profit before human need in their greed for new markets. The Denver Post printed an amazing article about what some of us have called "the revolving door", called "When advocates become regulators" on May 23, 2004 - you can find it here: http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E23827%257E2164693,00.html?search=filter
Corporations are patenting seeds - and when their genetically engineered crop pollen drifts over onto organic crops and contaminates the organic crops, then companies like Monsanto sue the organic farmer for using their patented "technology". Many, many, many small farmers have been completely ruined. Beyond that, for centuries, indigenous peoples and small farmers have saved their seeds from crops and sown them over and over from their own stock - no longer do they have that right! With corporations patenting the seeds, the farmers and indigenous people are now being sued and told that they cannot use their own seeds because corporations own the technology.
And if that isn't bad enough check out how many corporations OWN YOUR HUMAN DNA... Do you even know which companies own YOUR Body's DNA? Care to find out?
And look into who is on the boards of the pharmacuetical companies (selling CURES for diseases) - could they be the same people on the boards of the biotech companies (seeling toxic fertilizer that is linked to causing cancer) ? It certainly merits some of your time to research if you are at all interested. Follow the money...
I'd sincerely be interested in your thoughts after you follow your own advice and "read a book and learn something". We can give you a list of resources if you like - many of them are online at http://www.reclaimthecommons.net and more are being added daily. All of the above mentioned things are only the very tip of the iceberg. I encourage you to take the time to find out why ordinary San Francisco citizens and residents (who, by the way, have already passed a SF ordinance called "the Precautionary Principle: located at http://www.sfgov.org/sfenvironment/aboutus/policy/legislation/precaution_principle.htm) are outraged at the Bio and Pharma industry and are going to be shining a bright light on them by protesting at Moscone Center.
I hope you keep up the dialogue, it's great to have the opportunity to chat with you.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$170.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network