Re: [pf] Risks, imposed or chosen

by Jill Taylor Bussiere

18 December 2000 20:34 UTC

I am glad that some of you found the discussion on GMO's helpful to you.  I
did not.  I feel it is a rehashing of ground we have already covered, with
no gains made anywhere, with David's in-your-face sort of arguing that makes
gross generalizations about people, and then practices some of the very
things that he challenges others on.  I don't appreciate this method, so I
sure am glad that some of you got something out of it.  He assures me that
he enjoys it.

                    Jill

> > Fitzsimmons, Diane wrote:
> > > The force-feeding I was referring to is that *some*
> > > scientists believe GMO-foods will spread their "enhancements" to
> > > other plants via pollination, wind, etc., that someday our food
> > > chain will not be free of what I believe to be a contaminant.  >
> > > Consider it the second-hand smoke of the food world.
> >
> > No, that's not a fair comparison. Second-hand smoke is a proven
> > carcinogen. GM foods aren't, unless you have some proof (of
> > which I'd be
> > interested to see).
> >
> > David
>
> Now it is a proven carcinogen.  It was also a carcinogen in 1966, when I
> first remember sitting in a closed truck cab on a cold day and getting big
> lungfuls of a friend's father's cigarette.  Even my 10yo brain thought
that
> couldn't be good for me. But it took awhile before the public knew the
full
> story on the dangers of tobacco.
>
> I don't want to wake up in 2020 and find out that GM foods are *surprise*
a
> contaminent that has caused the degradation of our food supply or physical
> problems in those who eat them.
>
> I think the example set by the tobacco industy is precisly why many of us
> are cautious about the glories of GM foods.
>
> Diane