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: Anthony Wong who wrote (1413)	2/28/1999 3:21:00 PM
From: Edscharp	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2539

In light of the last few posts, I am under the impression that if the British tabloids have their way Briton's will soon be using daisy-cups-on-a-string for communications and eating worm-infested tomatoes with their contaminated fish and genetically compromised chips. At this juncture it seems completely appropriate to include the following article written by Prince Charles on his website concerning his position on gene modified foods. His misconceptions and gross assumptions about gene modification permeate his article. If anybody is looking for an argument against royalty, look no further. Please note that the Prince encourages people on both sides of the issue to use the response section of his website to voice their opinions. ---------------- GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD The Prince of Wales asks: Is it an innovation we can do without? "I have already explained my own concerns about genetically modified food, in some detail, in a series of speeches and articles. But I am keen to encourage wider public debate about these fundamental issues, which concern us all, and have chosen this as the subject of my first Online Forum. Perhaps I can just summarise the things I have said previously, as follows: I believe that genetic modification (GM) is much more than just an extension of selective breeding techniques. Mixing genetic material from species that cannot breed naturally, takes us into areas that should be left to God. We should not be meddling with the building blocks of life in this way. I do acknowledge that genetic manipulation could lead to major advances in medicine, agriculture and the good health of the environment. There are certain highly beneficial and specific medical applications which have brought massive benefits to mankind. But advanced technology brings its own dangers. I am not convinced we know enough about the long-term consequences for human health and the environment of releasing plants (or, heaven forbid, animals) bred in this way. I suspect that planting herbicide resistant crops will lead to more chemicals being used on our fields, not fewer. But this isn't the whole story. Such sterile fields will offer little or no food or shelter to wildlife, and there is already evidence that the genes for herbicide resistance can spread to wild relatives of crop plants, leaving us with weeds resistant to weedkiller. Plants producing their own pesticides sound like a wonderful idea, until you find - as the scientists have - that beneficial insects, like lacewings and ladybirds, are also affected. And because the pesticide will be everywhere in the crop it is predicted that the pests will rapidly acquire resistance to it. What do we do then? Genetic material does not stay where it is put. Pollen is spread by the wind and by insects. GM crops can contaminate conventional and organic crops growing nearby. This cannot be right. Major problems may, as we are assured, be very unlikely, but if something does go badly wrong with GM crops we will be faced with a form of pollution that is self-perpetuating. I don't think anyone knows how to clean up after that sort of incident, or who would have to pay for it. And I expect someone thought it was a good idea - at the time - to introduce the rabbit and the cane toad to Australia! I wonder about the claims that some GM crops are essential to feed the world's growing populations. Is it really true? Is the problem sometimes lack of money, rather than lack of food? And how will the companies who own this technology make a sufficient profit from selling their products to the world's poorest people? Wouldn't it be better to concentrate instead on the sustainable techniques which can double or treble the yields from traditional farming systems? The public discussion so far has concentrated on the risks and capabilities of the technology and the effectiveness of the regulations. These things are important, as are effective and comprehensive labelling schemes to ensure that those consumers like me who do not want to eat GM foods can avoid them. But there is an important public debate needed also on whether we need GM crops at all. You may want to use the response section of this Forum to add your views to the discussion. We shall monitor responses and publish a selection from both sides of the debate on a regular basis." The Prince of Wales St James's Palace, December 1998 princeofwales.gov.uk

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (1413)	2/28/1999 5:05:00 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Respond to of 2539

Now let me get this straight...Greenpeace et al. wants to censure Monsanto in the press for good science, whereas they have spread just about every lie in the book over the past few weeks, using bad science? What's more, accusations by Greenpeace et al. (as complained to the ASA) "uphold" the same earlier accusations? An accusation is suddenly a "report"? What's wrong with this picture? Is this a western nation we are talking about? I thought scientists were the ones who helped decide scientific issues...now instead we are relying on press bureaucracies tied to the industry which has been cranking out trash for weeks on this very subject? (from the article) The report, on objections to seven adverts, is being sent for comment to the advertisers and >>>complainants<<< thisislondon.co.uk