Thank you for your reply. As you know this is a huge subject and we
can go back and forth citing quotes -- so much so that we can repeat
ourselves like our resident vegan "Bob Howes" or "David McDonagh" and
drive everyone crazy.
I am only concerned by the uncritical acceptance of this technology
and the biotech companies' manipulation and suppression of knowledge
for their own profit-seeking purposes. As you rightly point out, in a
socialist society where there is no money, thus no profit motive and
control of ideas (and people can speak their minds freely without
dispossession of their living) there will be much discussion of the
uses of genetic manipulation. [Are you old enough to remember the
tale of Rachel Carson and what they tried to do to her to suppress
her research concerning what pesticides were inflicting on the planet
and bird life? This "scientific discussion" of gmo's rings the same bell.]
You are very fortunate to be able to write: "In contrast to Obama's
approval, France has this week banned Monsanto GM maize sowing, i
believe." (Africa doesn't have the same clout against the U.S. food
juggernaut.) Firstly Obama has given away his right of approval to
the biotech companies. Secondly, unlike Europe, there is absolutely
no labelling of foods containing genetic modification in North
America, both in the U.S. of A. and Canada. Thirdly, anything goes
-- including the genetic manipulation of wildlife, which, like plant
life can spread and intermingle and pollute other species -- for
which nature has no protection.
Your are quite right that I cited information from the Organic
Consumers Association and your definition of its capitalist interest
is spot on. However there is a difference in their purpose (or
should be). They are not advocating the banishment of genetic
modification as such but 1. the labelling of foods and 2. the
prevention of genetically-modified crops and sentient wildlife from
polluting organic produce. In the latter case, the biotech companies
swore there could be no cross pollination until two years later after
the first GM crops were sowed when it was proven to be a big fat lie,
that in socialism would never be made. OCA cites for the most part
information from other scientific organisations, which one can
consider, dismissing the profit incentive behind the OCA's arguments.
Just take a look at this series of statements from other scientific
organisations published by the OCA to ask for donations so that it
can hire signature gatherers to collect 830,000 signatures by the
April 22 deadline in order to get the California initiative on the
ballot in the November vote, and "to run an effective PR campaign
against Monsanto, Dow, Cargill and the rest of the Biotech Bullies."
[This just popped up on my incoming mail today.]
The right to label is a right you in Europe have already (to a
certain extent) I believe.
OCA WROTE: "The Union of Concerned Scientists, doctors at the
American Academy of Environmental Medicine, and many others continue
to warn us: Genetically engineered (GE) foods are making us sick.
Auto-immune disorders. Liver and kidney damage. Nutritional
deficiencies. Allergies and autism. Accelerated aging. Infertility.
"Between 75% - 80% of all processed foods on our grocery store
shelves now contain GMOs. They're in almost all non-organic foods
containing soy or canola oil, corn, sweeteners, artificial and
natural flavorings, and in common ingredients like aspartame. Yet
believe it or not, there's no law requiring food manufacturers or
food retailers to tell you if the food you buy contains genetically
modified organisms (GMOs)."
I think these concerns at least deserve to be investigated in an unbiased way.
Yours to incite World insight, Trevor Goodger-Hill (non-WSM)
"Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot
make a worm, and yet he will be making
gods by the dozens."
1533 -1592 - Michel de Montaigne