Home Page Link AgBioWorld Home Page
About AgBioWorld Donations Ag-Biotech News Declaration Supporting Agricultural Biotechnology Ag-biotech Info Experts on Agricultural Biotechnology Contact Links Subscribe to AgBioView Home Page

AgBioView Archives

A daily collection of news and commentaries on
ag-biotech.


Subscribe AgBioView Subscribe

Search AgBioWorld Search

AgBioView Archives

Subscribe

 


SEARCH:     

Date:

April 29, 2000

Subject:

Combined Contributions April 29, 2000

 

- http://www.agbioworld.org, http://agbioview.listbot.com

(Three contributions below)

From: dkim@NMSU.Edu
Subject: Re: DNA-Free Food?

Wow! I am just fascinated by the amazing progress made by the scientists
at the DNA Free Food Society. I think it would almost be worth while to
pay for a sample of DNA Free Food and, well, check it for the presence of
DNA.

Daniel Kim

p.s. At first, I thought it was tongue-in-cheek, and was laughing. Now I
want to cry . . .
us more than the facts..." sterling says:
INTUITION MAYBE,, BUT BELIEFS ARE LEARNED, IT IS THE FAULT OF THE
educational system of our society .. not an innate function of the mental
process of the mind...its it the stuff of our public media.. established
under the regulatory guidance of our government..

"rejecting scientific facts.." sterling says...
science itself rejects its own facts.. science has no facts it has the
wisdom derived from the constant result of an evaluation system that
attempts to account for all of the variables in a system.. but there are
no facts.. just things which pass the test of the evaluation system called
outcomes..

Science used to say the world is square, nor if finds it round..

"instinctive information-processing tendencies..." sterling says:
these are the result of our educational system, or government regulated
media and the failure of science to influence real life outcomes.. it is a
default seeped in failure on the part of science to really do anything..
science just attempts to explain .. until it actually controls it is no
better than a good teacher who knows what is known...

"biophilia he calls it, is an innate epigenetic program handed down to us
by way of natural selection.1 However it got here, the idea that natural
things are good for you, certainly better than synthetic ones, and its
corollary--don't muck about with nature--is widespread and fiercely held...."

the natural things is a default for the failing of science.. science has
not really done anything.. it just explains things.. sometimes correctly.
sometimes incorrectly.. but it is a system of explaination.. not a system
of facts..

"version to Change..." sterling says: when in doubt do nothing.

>Beliefs, and Genetically Modified Food
>
> By Walter A. Brown The Scientist April 17, 2000
>
> For more than two millennia philosophers and psychologists have discovered
>and rediscovered a prevailing psychological truth: Intuition and fiercely
>held beliefs often guide us more than the facts. Nonetheless, the
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jim Petitte"
Subject: RE: Comment on USDA's proposed organic rule

I would like to respond to some of Ann Oaks' comments:

In regards to DDT, it is a pesticide that probably saved 500 million lives
worldwide by eradicating mosquitoes causing malaria during the time prior to
its abandonment. DDT and DDE were accused in Rachel Carsonís book, "Silent
Spring," of poisoning the environment and as you know, it was eventually
banned although new evidence shows it has done more good than harm. A lot of
things blamed on DDT, such as causing an increase in breast cancer, have
been disproved in scientific studies. In addition, subsequent studies on
DDT and bird eggs showed no effect on thinning eggshells. The diets used in
the first study were calcium deficient. Since the ban on DDT, malaria has
substantially increased. Much of the scientific literature regarding this
issue has been summarized by the American Council on Science and Health with
the specific references.

As far as bST and milk goes, you were drinking plenty of bovine growth
hormone prior to its the use, even progesterone (a steroid) because the cow
must be pregnant to yield milk. bST is not absorbed directly from the GI
tract, it is a protein and would be digested. That is why growth hormone
must be injected to correct abnormal growth in humans. I would be more
concerned with the "herbal" preparations that undergo NO testing. Should we
do a "long term" study on the phyto-estrogens that people are taking WITHOUT
a prescription? No one seems concerned about this when they buy it from the
"health food" store.

Jim Petitte
Department of Poultry Science
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
NC State University

-----Original Message-----
From: Ann Oaks [mailto:aoaks@uoguelph.ca]

When the recombinent bovine growth hormone was a hot topic I visited profs
with expertise in milk production to find out how milk was produced. What
-----------------------------------------------------------------------