RE: [pf] Risks, imposed or chosen

by tully

17 December 2000 19:08 UTC

At 07:50 AM 12/17/00 -0800, David A wrote:
>Vicki Madden wrote:
> > "Science" is a human endeavor and therefore not perfect.
>
>Who said it was?

David, you sure do get testy sometimes.  I see no need for this sort of 
response.

> > When GMO-advocates wave science around and imply that those who
> > believe that food as nature created it is the best kind are just >
> > hysterical, it is absurd.
>
>What foods do you currently eat that you believe are "nature created?"
>Very few, in fact.

Whole food cookery is still possible as we have not yet reduced all our 
foods to chemical pablums.  Any whole fruit, vegetable, grain, meat, etc. 
that is not genetically modified is as nature created it, albeit too often 
"helped" with massive doses of chemicals such as fertilizers, pesticides, 
hormones, antibiotics, etc.  Avoiding that chemical soup is why the organic 
industry is succeeding.

> > Their track record is not that great.
>
>Really? Have you ever heard of penicillin, x-rays, vaccines, MRIs, the
>eradication of smallpox, etc etc etc?

I could be testy and ask what the medical industry examples you cite have 
to do with the subject at hand...

> > "Science"/corporations created baby formula, remember?
>
>"Science" is a way of acquiring knowledge. Corporations are a way of
>selling products. See the difference?

Sheesh David.  How obnoxious can you get?  Do you work for the biotech 
industry?

> > But...guess what? Science has turned out to be really really
> > wrong on this one.
>
>It's customary to offer proof and evidence when making bold assertions,
>if you want to be taken seriously. Or is that too much bother?

Are you denying that there is plenty of evidence that mother's milk is 
superior to baby formula?  I thought this was a given by now.  Do you work 
for Nestle?