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 7, 2000


Multiple Contributions.....May 8, 2000


<br /> Multiple Contributions.....May 8, 2000<br />

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

(Nine contributions below.........)

From: Gordon Couger <gcouger@rfdata.net>

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.


Gordon Couger




From: Andrew Apel <agbionews@earthlink.net>

Subject: Re: high school presentation

Has anyone heard the phrase, "agent provocateur?"

Pudenzia@cs.com wrote:

> im now going to do a presentation on my topic: genetics.  I
was thinking of feeding my audience, guess what, genetically
engineered foods.

>=============================================================== >========
From: sterling stoudenmire <sstouden@thelinks.com>

Subject: Re: responses for article for Odyssey children's magazine

I suggest it is learning filtered to "the basics" that is
responsible for

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
to see

it) because bias is engrained in the mind of the "Knowledge
beholder and

the knowledge provider". 

The only uncertainity or risk in disclosing all information to
children is

found in not telling them everything.. all of it, including the

one sided, arguments..Resolution of heated argument and personal
emotion to

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
the ultimate

consequence of smoke, whether primary or secondary, is a nasty,

slow death from lung disease.  Only a few people are lucking
enough to

avoid it, instead of suggesting there will be, a few, victums. 
Let's hope

its not you!

The statistics and the physiology of the disease should be taught
early in

school.. why is not? to sort the basics?

What in denying culture, politics, and belief system oriented
knowledge to

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
professors or

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
an educational

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

>better, college.

>=============================================================== >===

From: "Mary McMurphy"

To: info@organicsdirect.co.uk

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
months ago.

Since the issue of corporate greed is one that bothers both
opponents and

proponents of biotechnology, it would be interesting to learn what

industry" believes about profit from biotechnology. It is no
surprise to

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.

Joseph Houseal

>--------------------------------------------------------------- >---
From: "Javier Verastegui" <jveraste@magma.ca>

Subject: Re: Press releases

Dear Professor Prakash,

First let me congratulate for setting AgBioWorld Discussion List
& Website,

as well as for drafting the Declaration in Support of Agricultural

Biotechnology.  Regarding Nicholas Clark's message, from the
perspective of

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
system would

surely help regional and national efforts in building public
awareness and

education, and enhancing public perception, especially in emerging

developing countries where anti-biotech groups are increasingly
active, but

where sound counter arguments are very difficult to access. 
CamBioTec is

aware about it because we constantly receive specific requests
from Latin

American written media firms, some specialized in
biotechnology.  Thus, I

fully support Nicholas suggestion to AgBioWorld to explore setting
such a

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
in 5

Latin American countries and Canada, which is sponsored by IDRC
(Ottawa) and

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


Javier Verastegui


Dr. Javier Ver·stegui

Coordinator, CamBioTec

Focal Point Canada

Tel:   (613) 231-5237 & 236-9606.

Fax:  (949) 277-3731.

E-mail:  jveraste@magma.ca


----- Original Message -----


>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 <letters@newscientist.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
crops. We

can discuss a strategy for this purpose when you come here in

With warm personal regards,

Yours sincerely,

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        
E-mail: msswami@mssrf.res.in

>-------------------------------------------------------------- >--------
From: Jim Mullen <jmullen@entekcorp.com>

Subject: confusion

I have two small responses and suggestions.

1.  Those of us supporting genetic modification should offer up
our own

petitions to company board members that they should use genetically

products.  We dcould even use the exact verbiage of our
counterparts. They

are making very could tools and we could easily make them into double

swords without attacking their environmental messages and
agendas.  Also,

we could write to companies explanaing we will boycott their

whould they seek to ban genetically altered products from their
menus.  I

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?


>--------------------------------------------------------------- >----