RE: [pf] Risks, imposed or chosen

by tully

17 December 2000 21:05 UTC

At 12:18 PM 12/17/00 -0800, David A wrote:
>Actually very few of the vegetables in your typical produce section are
>as nature created them. Potatoes aren't. Corn doesn't exist naturally
>(it's been breed over the centuries from teosinte, which is a veritable
>weed). Broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, kale, and collards don't exist
>naturally. Nor brussels sprouts--they were developed in the 19th
>century.
>
> >From Alan McHughen's "Pandora's Picnic Basket," p. 70:
>
>"...almost none of the foods we now consume existed when human
>civilization arose some 40 thousand years ago.... Those of us who demand
>only natural, unmodified food are necessarily limited to such a
>selection as wild berries, some fish, perhaps watercress, and whatever
>wild animals might be trapped and slaughtered...."

OK, your definition of "nature developed" was different than mine.  You are 
quite right that very few of the foods we use nowdays were available 40,000 
years ago.  And this alone is a major reason for alarm, since many of the 
original plants are difficult if not impossible to find anymore due to the 
lack of wild places left.  Somewhere I heard that a simple 5 degree change 
in the average temperature of the planet would throw all our agriculture 
systems into chaos, since the hybridization employed over the years has 
been so extremely fine-tuned to this average and our current crops would 
fail with such a "minor" change.  Since the original plants used to develop 
these hybrids may now be gone, we stand to lose many such crops, wheat 
being the one touted most often, which was apparently developed from a 
native grass that may only be found nearby old railroad beds on the 
prairies, since nearly every other square inch is cultivated or otherwise 
non-wild.  One hopes that organizations like Seed-savers has kept us from 
possible ruin in what may be the not-too-distant future.

> > Do you work for the biotech industry?
>
>No.

May I ask who you do work for and/or what the company does?

 >Oops--sorry about that one. I thought Vicki's comment 'science has
>turned out to be really really wrong on this one' pertained to GMOs, not
>formula and mother's milk. It's a little confusing in her paragraph.

OK, but may I suggest that you give us a little benefit of the doubt in the 
future and not be quite so quick with the patronizing responses?