Re: Four-legged hen
- From: "Farm1" <please@askifyouwannaknow>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:55:24 +1000
"Susan Hogarth" <hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Farm1 wrote:tomatoes
"Susan Hogarth" <hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
chickenman wrote:long
define gm?? Are you genetically modified,,I think so.
Indeed. Deliberate genetic modification has been happening for a
time!
But past genetic modification followed the laws of nature unlike
current GMO. No-one ever managed to put genes from fish into
ofin a natural way.
Lateral transmission (species-to-species or even kingdon-to-kingdom)
genetic material isn't unknown - viruses and perhaps othermechanisms
serve this role in the wild.
You've just described a natural process.
I think the distinction between 'natural' and 'artificial' is a bitlaboratory
spurious. Humans are -part- of nature, and what we do in the
is as -natural- as a bird building a nest. More dangerous; possibly.
I believe that analogy to be spurious. Birds building nests no doubt
do it for the same or very similar reasons that women go into a frenzy
of house cleaning immediately prior to giving birth. It's about
preparedness for the young of the species. Fiddling in a lab is due
to many other reasons, none of which would be related to hormones or
instinct. Interest, ambition, education and curiosity are far more
likely reasons for being in a lab than it merely being "natural" to be
there.
But condemning it *just because* humans do it is ridiculous andbrands
you (probably unfairly) as a luddite); you need to give -reasons-for
not wanting any particular thign to be done - real reasons, not
spurious ones like 'it's not natural!'
By "you" do you mean that term generically or do you mean me by that
term? If you mean me, then you are reading something into my post
which was not there.
moreIn fairness, I think the concerns of the anti-GMO crod are abit
allergynuanced. They fall into two categories:
1) concern that introduced and expressed proteins will cause
concernsor
other autoimmune issues when the product is consumed.
2) concern that introduced genes will spread into the wild plant
poluation.
And not just the wild plant population. Farmers have lots of
notabout the contamination from GMO crops. And these concerns are
Canada???allayed when Monsanto acted like thugs with that farmer in
weedwhose crop was contaminated by it's GMO canola.
None of these things are really new - they are just happening more
quickly now. Farmers have always quarreled with one another over
seeds, interbreeding (your bull got into my cows!), and other such
genetic and property-rights issues.
But that is not the sort of disagreements which I described. You give
examples of disputes between farmers and neighbours. And yes, they
have always happened but this is not the situation with Monsanto.
Disputes between neighbours are where the much touted "level playing
field" applies and local social checks and balances would seldom if
ever result in neighbors going to court.
The case of Monsanto as in multinational company taking a Canadian
farmer of limited resources to court is not a level playing field. It
was their product that ruined his crop, organic status and wrecked his
many years of saved seed development..
New techniques call for caution and
careful application of principles of justice, but they do not callfor
wholesale abandonment of useful technology.
I agree, but unfortunately it would appear that the necesary checks on
the products are not as effective as they should be and nor do the
promises about the quality of the product as good as they were first
touted to be.
.
- References:
- Four-legged hen
- From: Susan Hogarth
- Re: Four-legged hen
- From: Mary Fisher
- Re: Four-legged hen
- From: chickenman
- Re: Four-legged hen
- From: Susan Hogarth
- Re: Four-legged hen
- From: Farm1
- Re: Four-legged hen
- From: Susan Hogarth
- Four-legged hen
- Prev by Date: Re: Getting hens in coop
- Next by Date: Re: Over run with eggs
- Previous by thread: Re: Four-legged hen
- Next by thread: Re: Four-legged hen
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|