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

Subscribe AgBioView Subscribe

Search AgBioWorld Search

AgBioView Archives





May 3, 2000


May 5, 2000


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

From: "Alan H.Hall M.D."
Subject: Re: [Comments from Ann Oaks]]

One of the things I completely advocate and practice whenever possible when
engaging in a rational debate is that all parties should clearly state who and
what they are and what their training/potential biases/background/ideology or
whatever that is relevant to the discussion truly is/are. We don't, of
course, have to post our resumes/CVs, but without some open frank discussion,
as the cartoon of two dogs, one of whom is at the keyboard, says: "On the
internet, nodody knows you're a dog."

Yours truly,

Alan H. Hall, M.D., FACEP
Medical Toxicologist
deterring which variety of corn cases my problems. I want the
breed of cattle on all my meat and the inspectors name on
all my chicken so I know who to sue if I get food posining.

I most defiantly want organic produce labeled that it may contain
bacteria and aflotoxin.

Also I want all EU beef products labeled, "May contain BSE".

That should give them a dose of their own medicine and be very
profitible for folks that print labels.

For the humor impaired this is satirical.

A sane labeling method is to do it like we do organic produce. The
people that grow and consume these "value added products" agree
on what they want and produce a GMO free labile. Then they
can pay the price for labeling not the producer that want to
raise food for the vast majority of the people that want safe, nutritious,
inexpensive food. Let the Eco freaks buy what they want and label
it any way they want. Don't impose what ever passes for reality
for them on the rest of the world.


Gordon Couger gcouger@couger.com

Stillwater, OK www.couger.com/gcouger
405 624-2855 GMT -6:00

From: Malcolm Livingstone
Subject: GM potato chips

This proposed scenario (GM chips + non-GM chips) highlights one important
issue with regards to agricultural biotechnology. Many biotech plant
From: gunther ruckl
Subject: Re: Bias

Dear Dr. Prakash:

Thank you for your response.

I commend you for admitting to bias on issues of your field. ALL scientists
have a bias in their fields but few are aware of it; that is why healthy
critique often comes from different corners of society.

You write, ".... I am certainly biased in believing that technological
progress is important...". This opinion of yours does NOT reflect a bias
and I dearly hope ALL members of society, scientists or not, support
technological progress. It IS important.

As to biotechnology, not every viable GM product will turn out to be a
blessing to us or the environment. I personally am very skeptical to change
passages in a book whose messages we have only just begun to partially
understand. We might know how many chapters the book has and into which
sections it is organized. I strongly believe Nature is a better bioengineer
than human can ever dream of becoming. That's why my prime thrust for the
future is in the area of population growth control, not expansion of food

G. Rückl

----- Original Message -----
From: "C. S. Prakash"
To: "gunther ruckl"

> Dear Sir:
> I thank you for taking time to write to me express your views and for
> sending me the New York Times article. I am certainly biased in believing
> that technological progress is important and biotechnology represents a
> great hope in improving food supply and quality. There will be issues
> need to be addressed and that is why we need individuals like you who
> question this and helps ensure equitable path in this journey.