|
LadyEllen -> RE: over 50% killed (1/19/2007 6:30:58 AM)
|
I think GM crops could be of huge benefit to us, BUT
We cannot afford to do trials of them on the general population - of ANY country. And that includes the somewhat suspect way in which they are being touted to third world countries as a means of solving their problems. It may be true that the crops are resistant to this, that and the other. It may be true that yield rises. It may even be true that quality in terms of taste and appearance is improved. But how often are the definite and potential downsides not informed?
Definite downsides such as, GM crops are made so that they do not produce seed for the following year's sowing - so the farmer in the third world must buy more, or such as the farmer must use the right chemicals in their growing - which again he must buy in.
Potential downsides such as that outlined in the OP, and by post 2 from MC.
I wonder how interested the makers of GM seeds will be, when a third world country suffers massive death and/or injury to its people and its land, because of the helpful trials they have been encouraged to conduct?
Of course, this makes for a difficult situation - the only real means of trialling these GM seeds is to shut off a piece of land and a population for at least a whole generation, making it and them exclusively rely on GM seeds - and no company would ever do that, simply on cost basis and of course because no one would want to take part in such a trial, given that the need to trial implies that there may be dangers in all this. But, it is wholly necessary for us to know for sure that these things are safe; remember, any potential genetic problems brought about by eating GM crops will only be revealed in the offspring predominantly, and these effects may well skip a generation or be cumulative in their effect.
Do the board of Monsanto, and their researchers and scientists and all their children eat GM crops? There's a question.
E
|
|
|
|
