Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[quack AT ibiblio.org]

Another Jeremy wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 15:35, Shea Tisdale wrote:
>> But I can't resist all their ads and their chemically engineered,
>> bio-engineered, genetically modified food stuffs they sell!
>>
>
> Your comment of course was sarcastic.  But it brings up a point that I
> have -- why is there a common assumption (at least among
> leftists/liberals) that "bio-engineered" or "genetically modified" foods
> are such a horrible thing.  After all, they allow for a number of things
> that help the environment, supposedly a liberal cause.

Part of the problem is that the scientific method is spottily (I'd argue
shoddily, but we won't go there now) applied.  Especially when such
bio-engineered products are treated as closed-source, and the techniques
to produce and results of testing are not open for public review.  Like
most industries, the focus is getting the product out the door and making
money.


> For example,
> crops that are modified to resist Roundup herbicide ("Roundup Ready"
> soybeans and corn from Monsanto) reduce the use of other herbicides that
> can cause plant damage downstream.

Crops modified to resist an herbicide are made so that farmers can use the
herbicide to remove non-wanted plants ("weeds", in some circles, or
"volunteers" in others) from their fields.  This isn't reducing herbicide
use; it's just increasing the efficiency of the particular herbicide.


> Or, crops modified to bring higher
> yields reduce the need for fertilizers that can cause algae blooms and
> fish kills.

What about crops modified to produce their own pesticides?  You get the
benefit of not needing to spray other pesticides (at least until the bugs
develop immunity, or worse, preference, for the pesticide the plant
produces) ... but you get the detriment of toxins in your food you can't
get rid of by washing the produce off.


> Such crops contain no difference whatsoever in the end
> product, and as such are perfectly safe for human and animal
> consumption.
>
> Sure, like any new technology, genetically engineered foods need to be
> evaluated carefully, weighing costs and benefits.  I'm not arguing for
> an end-run around the scientific method.  But when the scientific method
> is applied, we should pay attention to it!

The scientific method does not require me to take anyone's word for their
results; in fact, it obligates me to treat their results as possibly
suspect until I have tested it myself.  The problem with these
technologies is that their long-term effects on the environment have not
been established.  There's a simple reason:  they haven't existed long
enough.  We don't know how they will evolve, how other plants and
plant-eating insects in their environment will be affected by their
introduction.

If we were developing these for lab-growth only, or clean-greenhouse
growth, such that whole crops were grown in a sealed environment, I
wouldn't object.  I wouldn't consume them, but I wouldn't stop others from
choosing to do so.  I object to tampering with the overall environment
when the results of such tampering are completely unknown.  We
industrialized nations have a horrible track record of not looking before
we leap in this regard.  Here again, Monsanto and friends want us to leap
down the bio-engineered landslide before we look to see where we'll land.

--s