Multiple Contributions.....May 8, 2000
AgBioView - http://www.agbioworld.org, http://agbioview.listbot.com
(Nine contributions below.........)
From: Gordon Couger <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: high school presentation
Unless you get it from a producer or elevator that keeps track of
it you can't tell the difference. You might find some roasting
in far south Texas or some whole corn and make corn bread,
hominy or parched corn with it. You might check with local
dairies and see if any are using BGH on their cows. Trying
to find roasting ears in south Texas will be the easiest. Field
corn makes very good roasting ears and most of the other
things you do with corn require an acquired taste. Making
from scratch with soybeans is pretty involved and oil is the only
thing edible by humans that comes from cotton. You can probably
find some cranola oil that comes from GM crops if you talk to
If you can find any of the extended shelf life tomatoes they make
a great demo. Just set them and a regular tomato on your desk
and watch them rot.
You might be able to get some GM potatoes from producers.
Field corn, cotton and soybeans make up the most of the GM crops
and most of them go to animal feed not human feed.
From: Andrew Apel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: high school presentation
Has anyone heard the phrase, "agent provocateur?"
> im now going to do a presentation on my topic: genetics. I
was thinking of feeding my audience, guess what, genetically
From: sterling stoudenmire <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: responses for article for Odyssey children's magazine
I suggest it is learning filtered to "the basics" that is
the attitudes of those who should know better.?
What is needed is to recognize that children are quicker than adults
learning new knowledge but slower at understanding the religious
cultural bias, political bias(the way the writer wanted the readers
it) because bias is engrained in the mind of the "Knowledge
the knowledge provider".
The only uncertainity or risk in disclosing all information to
found in not telling them everything.. all of it, including the
one sided, arguments..Resolution of heated argument and personal
the facts of realism are without doubt the best teachers.. that's why
graduate programs use panel group methods (instead of
Learning, not teaching, is possible!
Every third grade student should be made to experience projections of
cause consequence relationships. Like learning about the
problems of dying
emphezema or cancer patients; like being shown, and being allowed to
the physiology of the lungs with adequate demonstrations of what
happens to the lungs of those with lung disease(pictures of the lungs
appropriate animations). Wouldn't it be better to teach that
consequence of smoke, whether primary or secondary, is a nasty,
slow death from lung disease. Only a few people are lucking
avoid it, instead of suggesting there will be, a few, victums.
its not you!
The statistics and the physiology of the disease should be taught
school.. why is not? to sort the basics?
What in denying culture, politics, and belief system oriented
children is to be gained? Which basic should be taught: That it
is cool to
smoke or that smokers usually get sick and die?
Show them all of it, just be sure they understand it, them let them
out over the next few years .. their belief.. the idea that
society should filter the influence of politics, culture, or religion
"basic knowledge" is aburd.
Filtering knowledge to accomodate a "political, religious, or
belief system" is like trying to sort the physiology of
breathing from the
necessity for air. The mere act of supplying knowledge for
purpose which has been prepared by applying cultural, religious,
political filtration is a violation of the basic civil rights of
This is the kind of thing that makes war possible.
At 09:35 AM 05/05/2000 -0700, you wrote:
> Save the political discussions until at least
high school or, even
From: "Mary McMurphy"
Dear Women Say No to GMOs,
Recently I saw a British documentary about
GM food which featured members of 'Women Say No To GMOs'. They seemed
like a bunch of spoiled, middle-aged housewives who have enough money
to spend on organic food and enough free time to tell everyone else
that they should as well.
When asked why she's against GM food
despite lack of proof of it being unsafe, one woman replied, "I
don't need to know the science behind it. I just need my instincts,
and they say it is bad." I wonder what her instincts told her
when she was a little girl and a doctor with a big scary needle tried
to immunize her.
I wonder if she understands the science
behind the internal combusion engine, or, for that matter, the
lightbulb. Probably not, yet I'm sure she uses both. This is of
course her choice and she's free to do as she pleases. But she should
be ashamed that she is working and donating money in order to deny
people in the developing world an agricultural tool which can
potentially save millions of lives.
I am not writing this to tell you that
these women are a bunch of gits. That point should be obvious. What
really irks me is that when I visited their web site, I found that it
was nothing but one huge advertisement for organic food -- complete
with a mail-order form for Organics Direct!!
You people really don't care about the GM
debate or the people who may see the benefits of this technology. You
simply want to sell your over-priced products.
Shame on all of you!!
of the industry leaders interviewed are quite
about the benefits of biotechnology.............. They clearly
do not agree with most of the opponents claims and tend to have
almost no trust in such groups. >>
Dear Dr Hoban
I think perhaps the distrust is mutual. Thank you for sharing the
information you learned through your interviews and polls. They are
to those we derived in a small set of three focus groups about 18
Since the issue of corporate greed is one that bothers both
proponents of biotechnology, it would be interesting to learn what
industry" believes about profit from biotechnology. It is no
learn the industry is 'excited' about increased nutrition and the
possibilities of assisting developing countries, but the corporate
line and financial strategy is where some people would like some
about the industry's 'excitement.' Thanks again.
From: "Javier Verastegui" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Press releases
Dear Professor Prakash,
First let me congratulate for setting AgBioWorld Discussion List
as well as for drafting the Declaration in Support of Agricultural
Biotechnology. Regarding Nicholas Clark's message, from the
emerging developing countries, it would be extremely helpful to have
reliable resource of outstanding experts to draw up and provide
arguments to the press in a consistent and timely way. This
surely help regional and national efforts in building public
education, and enhancing public perception, especially in emerging
developing countries where anti-biotech groups are increasingly
where sound counter arguments are very difficult to access.
aware about it because we constantly receive specific requests
American written media firms, some specialized in
biotechnology. Thus, I
fully support Nicholas suggestion to AgBioWorld to explore setting
system. Although I am not an expert, I am ready to collaborate
dissemination, promoting articles from Latin American scientists).
For your information, a number of training activities on public
are being undertaken by CamBioTec in Argentina, Chile, Colombia and
CamBioTec is the Canada-Latin America Initiative in Biotechnology
Sustainable Development, a de-centralized network with focal points
Latin American countries and Canada, which is sponsored by IDRC
a number of local industry, government, academia and
organizations. CamBioTec-Canada is already re-disseminating
information from AgBioWorld to dozens of key Latin American
(including the Declaration of Scientists in Support of
Dr. Javier Ver·stegui
Focal Point Canada
Tel: (613) 231-5237 & 236-9606.
Fax: (949) 277-3731.
----- Original Message -----
From: N.R. CLARK <bgy7nrc@LUCS-03.NOVELL.LEEDS.AC.UK>
>A recent comment on this network was that there were never any
> scientists around to give counter arrugments to the press.
> Surly this network is nearly ideal to try to set something like
From: Meredith Lloyd Evans - BioBridge
Subject: Judging gene foods
To: The Editor New Scientist <email@example.com>
I was pleased to see the balanced tone of
your editorial 15 April 2000, because it makes a great change from
the tired posturing exemplified by your quote from Greenpeace and by
the responses of other activist groups. When such groups cannot
attack on a scientific basis, they propagandise their targets into
some kind of non-human or undesirable group, in this case 'grandees'
- my view is that these are the people with contextual experience of
how new technology in agriculture has brought astounding benefits to
every part of the world, over the past generations.
We may now need to re-evaluate how we make use of new
technology for future benefits, but to claim, as Greenpeace
does, that the consumer is generally against genetic improvement of
farming and crops is way off the mark.
Don't overlook that Greenpeace is the
giant multinational misinformation group that is now spending over
$3m USD on trying to destroy biotechnology in crops, including
developments that will actually reduce the load of pesticides in the
environment and increase food security and nutritive value. And they
are not experts in biotechnology and the benefits it can bring, they
are just experts at scaring people. If we head-count the actual antis
who remain after they've had the pros and cons explained to them, we
would undoubtedly find a minute percentage of people still against
biotechnology, and most of those would be irrationally against it. So
John Krebs's initiative will be a very valuable one, if it does not
become a forum whose only function is to talk-out potentially useful
advances, or delay the recognition and removal of real problems in
agriculture and food, such as E coli-laden organic foods.
Just one more point - you question where
the referee is. In Both US and Europe, the referee is the regulator.
Indeed, regulators on both sides of the Atlantic have done very good
jobs in scrutinising. reviewing and approving for market safe and
effective biotech advances. So far, in US, the FDA and USDA still
carry respect. In the EU, the activist groups have demonised
regulators and their independent advisory committees and persuaded
governments and consumers that there is something wrong with them.
This should not go unchallenged.
Mr Meredith Lloyd-Evans, Managing Partner BioBridge
Arcadia International 45 St Barnabas Road Cambridge CB1 2BX tel
+44 1223 566850, fax +44 1223 470222
From: "M.S. Swaminathan"
Subject: 'Green Revolution' Made us (Literally) Stupid?
My dear Prakash,
(this part cut....)
I thank you for sending me the article about micro nutrient
While the article is full of exaggerations and distortions, it
underlines the importance of our efforts to diversify food
As you know, we held a major workshop on widening the nutrition
basket through revitalisation of the cultivation of under-utilised
can discuss a strategy for this purpose when you come here in
With warm personal regards,
M S Swaminathan
Chairman & UNESCO Cousteau Chair in Ecotechnology
M S Swaminathan Research Foundation
3rd Cross Street, Taramani Institutional Area
Chennai (Madras) 600 113, INDIA
Tel: (91 44) 235 1698/ 0698/ 0699
Fax: (91 44) 235 1319
From: Jim Mullen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I have two small responses and suggestions.
1. Those of us supporting genetic modification should offer up
petitions to company board members that they should use genetically
products. We dcould even use the exact verbiage of our
are making very could tools and we could easily make them into double
swords without attacking their environmental messages and
we could write to companies explanaing we will boycott their
whould they seek to ban genetically altered products from their
am certain we are amuch larger group.
2. And concerning the lack of micronutrient uptake. It
appears to me the
problem is diet, not the crop. And what is our
alternative? Let these
people starve? How humane is that?