> 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.
What is interesting to me, an American in another land, is that in America,
I didn't give this issue much thought. Being here in the UK where 10 years
ago they had a 'science run amok' event in which cows got BSE (otherwise
known as crazy cow disease) which is transmittable to humans, I have seen
this issue from another view point. In the UK lots of people, including
scientists, don't like GM. I think it is a remnant of the BSE epidemic which
was caused by scientists telling farmers to feed their cows on processed cow
parts. In other words they had cannibal cows over here. Because of this,
the citizens here are much more cautious about GM and I think I understand
why.
For me, I think it is probably going to be ok, but that is only a
probability.
glenn
see http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 18 2000 - 13:24:21 EDT