Re: Four-legged hen


"Susan Hogarth" <hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1159360282.135703.268000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Lyle Robeson wrote:
...
The hen in question was probably one of those natural mutations or
another
plausable explaination would be the 2 embryo egg ie. double yolk that
conjoined and developed naturally after that. very similar to the low
incidence of conjoined twins in humans and other mammals.

I honestly think the first person who mentioned GM was joking; I don't
think anyone was seriously suggesting GM is responsible for a
four-legged hen.

- Susan

It was me :-)

I said nothing about the bird in question being genetically modified.

But since the tropic has broadened I'll put in my two pennorth.

GM might or might not be an advantage FOR SOME PEOPLE - especially those who
market the products. That in itself makes me suspicious of their motives.

GM foods might or might not be safe to consume by humans, animals or
whatever. There hasn't been enough time to determine that.

My objection to GM foods is that we, the consumers, are having them foisted
on us, we're not being allowed to decide for ourselves whether we want to
consume them or not. In Britain the government at one time said that GM
foods should not be labelled as such.

GM foods have 'accidentally' (?) been allowed into countries where they are
not allowed.

Public consultation in Britain on the matter has been weak and the results
(most people were against GM) not implemented.

Very many of us don't want to eat GM foods or to feed them to our animals.
We might be cranks, we might be wrong (although that's a value judgement)
but surely we should have the right to choose?

I choose not to eat some foods for various reasons, sometimes that
irrationality costs a lot. But I should have that right.

As for inter-species deliberate genetic modification, well that's not always
been a success, especially on welfare grounds, has it?

Mary


.