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: Dan Spillane who wrote (2357)	7/29/1999 4:40:00 AM
From: Anthony Wong	Respond to of 2539

Melchett freed on bail John Vidal The Guardian Thursday July 29, 1999 Lord Melchett, head of Greenpeace, was released from Norwich prison yesterday on strict bail conditions but with "no regrets" for his dawn raid on a government genetically modified crop trial or for his two nights in custody after being arrested for criminal damage. His companions in jail were most kind, he said, lending him a copy of the Guardian and expressing their support. • Four people who pulled up GM sugar beet at an agricultural show last month were yesterday found in contempt of a general high court injunction preventing the Genetic Snowball campaign interfering with Monsanto crops, writes Paul Brown. One, a fulltime campaigner, was given a one month suspended sentence. And some related stories from July 28: Trampling crops can be fun newsunlimited.co.uk The greening of Melchett newsunlimited.co.uk Lord Melchett refused bail newsunlimited.co.uk

To: Dan Spillane who wrote (2357)	7/29/1999 4:58:00 AM
From: Anthony Wong	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

Trashing the trials, Greenpeace shouldn't go over the top The Guardian Wednesday July 28, 1999 Life (in the form of the fourth Baron Melchett) imitates art (in the form of Tommy Archer). The Eton-educated executive director of Greenpeace was last night still in custody for sabotaging field trials of genetically-modified crops. If allowed access to a radio in his cell he will have been able catch the latest episode of the radio soap and hear Tommy Archer taking Usha through the expert witness evidence about GM crops which he is planning to use at his own forthcoming appearance before the Borchester bench. Lord Melchett was one of 28 Greenpeace activists arrested for attacking a field of GM maize near Norwich on Monday morning. Before their detention they had managed to destroy about a quarter of the six-acre site, which was part of the government's testing programme to determine whether GM crops can safely be grown in the British countryside. Forms of direct action against GM field experiments are understandable. Large international corporations and governments have done too little to answer the rational fears of individuals faced with radical new technologies which appear untested, intrusive and threatening. Direct action against GM field trials is part of a new tradition of "neo-Luddism" which raises entirely legitimate questions about the possibility of democratic control over science and technology. The faster corporations and politicians seek to push technologies such as GM food, the more violent the counter-reaction will be. That does not mean that Lord Melchett and his fellow saboteurs were right. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is a possibility that genetic modification of crops could bring great benefits to mankind - not necessarily in Norfolk or Kansas, but in parts of the developing world where starvation and disease are rife. It might well be thought immoral not to develop a science which could bring widespread and lasting relief to the suffering - always assuming that the technology was rigorously tested and regulated. Attacking the very tests which would determine whether or not the technology is safe may be thought morally questionable. Greenpeace argues that the field trials currently being undertaken in the UK are of doubtful scientific value. It points out, for example, that the scientific steering committee set up to control the experiments was not established until after the crops had been planted. It says that the experiments are on such a scale that they risk contaminating non-GM and organic crops as well as natural flora, and that this contamination might be irreversible. Some of these arguments deserve answers. Equally, there appears to be a certain lack of discrimination about the current wave of direct action. Even Greenpeace concedes that there is in the UK no related wild flora to the maize attacked in Norfolk and thus no apparent risk of pollinating local wild species. We may wish that the tests were conducted anywhere but our own back yard. On the other hand few lessons would be learned by simply growing GM crops in laboratory or prairie conditions. The response of the original Luddites to the advent of the power loom was understandable. The response of the neo-Luddites to the rapid, unregulated application of untested new technologies is equally so. But somehow we must test the potential benefits and dangers of GM. Wrecking the tests does not, on the face of it, seem a terribly constructive response. Designing tests that satisfy all parties is what is needed. Scientists, politicians, businessmen and green activists should talk - soon. newsunlimited.co.uk