Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Monsanto Co. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (2329)	7/24/1999 8:30:00 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

Jim, excellent point. I'm not sure who decided what was organic and what wasn't -- and if they did so, why? (And why should people be forced to take a certain definition of this?) Certainly, that article implies that there is some firm reasoning behind this, but in fact that isn't true. The genes of everything we eat are vastly changed through selection, and chemical- and radiation- induced mutagenesis. For example, the only organically ocurring corn has 1/2 inch long ears. So then the term organic is incorrect if genes are included at all. Looking at it another way, if there are radiation-induced gene changes flying around in organic gardens, what is the point of bringing up genetic engineering now as unnatural? ...the barn door has been open for a long, long time! Also, if the papaya virus-resistance gene is in replanted "organic" seed, it would only benefit those farmers who them planted them, since then the papaya trees wouldn't die. Moreover, there is a great irony here. If disease-resistance is bred in, it can result in much lower (even zero) chemical use, since many diseases are treated with strong chemicals as a last resort. ...so a geneticially engineered papaya may be more "organic" (in terms of growing methods) than one that doesn't have such a trait. Not to mention, if you are losing half your papayas to disease, you have to dig up twice as much land for the same output. Guess which way has less of a footprint on the environment? Dan (You said) Dan, I'd like to ask a (probably stupid) question