Kamilla Ludwig wrote:
<< I just have one question for the proponents of genetically engineering our
foods, especially those within the government and its agencies that are
supposed
to be protecting consumers. If this is such an unqualified benefit for the
consumer, why won't they label the foods so we can be sure to pick these
"superior" products? >>
I'm not a proponent of GM foods, but I think much of this is
actually psychological if you really think about it. For example,
the tomato you buy in the store is not a "natural tomato". It has
been breed for size, for skin thickness, and possibly other features.
A "wild tomato" has long since passed from this planet. Corn can
not live anymore without "man" to fertilize it.
Moreover, rats have been transported throughout the world descimating
natural habatates for ages now. I think rabbits were introduced in
Australia and now they are a pest. Packs of dogs have created
problems both in the US and Japan. Cats have descimated the bird
populations in Tokyo --- the only birds that are successful now are
crows, ducks and pigeons. Now if the cats had be GM, someone would
come up with "franken-feline" and they entered Japan, but those
cute little bred kittens (with all those pretty colors) all become
cats and then they are not so cute anymore, and so they become abondoned
nightmares in Tokyo.
Sometimes I really think we need to get our priorities straight.
It seems to me that the majority of these "environmental issues"
only arise when our own pocket book is not affected. Consumers
will support and condone all kinds of stuff that borders on utter
irresponsibility, yet they flee from a mutant tomato. What gives?
by Grace alone do we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 18 2000 - 10:18:23 EDT