Re: [Biofuel] Why genetic engineering is dangerous
Hi Keith ; -cut- These critical remarks should be read in light of growing evidence of extremely serious impacts on health, environment and the livelihoods of Third World farmers. A European regulatory requirement for genetic safety testing, which is not required in Canada or the US, has revealed genetic instability in many GM crop varieties. Scientists are finding harmful impacts on soil micro-organisms, beneficial insects and laboratory animals exposed to genetically modified crops and GE food. Farmers in India are committing suicide by the hundreds in Andra Pradesh and other states because of GM crop failures. (www.navdanya.org/articles/seeds_suicide.htm) People and animals have become ill and even died after consumption or exposure to products containing genetically modified organisms. Unlike traditional plant breeding, in genetic engineering of crops, unrelated organisms, such as bacteria, are snipped apart and sections of their genes inserted into plants with unpredictable results. -cut-- While I agree wholeheartedly with the basis of the post, these types of posts seem to suggest that GM would be OK if all the problems with the environment and harmful effects could be solved. Sorry for repeating myself ad nausium, but GM is still incredibly dangerous even if there were NO harmful effects at all and they actually did produce bumper crops. Why? Answer : By purchasing and using GM products, we are supporting and allowing the GM industry to proliferate in knowledge, equipment, and people who know how to use it. And there has never been a single instance where a new technology has not been siezed by the military (and ordinary people as well) and examined for every possible method to harm and kill people. In addition to the military, sadly some people have bad intentions. For a small example, consider how many computer viruses there are. Who writes a computer virus and for what purpose? Some are for marketing and some are solely destructive. These poeple have taken a positive force (computers) and turned it into a highly negative and destructive force. These posts worry about accidental side effects. I am talking about deliberately designing an organism whose effect will be to kill people (either through disease or starvation or some other mechanism). So don't worry so much about the accidental side effects (which undoubtedly can be significant). Worry much more about the deliberate side effects from militaty usage where the goal is to kill people. If the accidental side effects of GM are disastrous, how much more so will the results of deliberate harmful and destructive actions by individuals or the military? BR Peter G. Thailand __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Why genetic engineering is dangerous
Why not look at removing all left hands and genetically installing all right arms as most use right arms and thus they are stronger and more use in the work force. Why not remove and replace the nose so it does not pick up bad smells, surely the technology is there to GE the body of each individual? Now who is going to volunteer? Once the money to support GE and GM gets rolling the ball will not stop. GE, GM or any other such is just another road to the dark pit no matter how the picture is painted the abuse is inherent already. Sadly we now have China into export of GE to very poor countries in the form of aid/trials/experiments with promises of enormous increases in crop gains? Doug - Original Message - From: Guag Meister [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 5:39 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Why genetic engineering is dangerous Hi Keith ; -cut- These critical remarks should be read in light of growing evidence of extremely serious impacts on health, environment and the livelihoods of Third World farmers. A European regulatory requirement for genetic safety testing, which is not required in Canada or the US, has revealed genetic instability in many GM crop varieties. Scientists are finding harmful impacts on soil micro-organisms, beneficial insects and laboratory animals exposed to genetically modified crops and GE food. Farmers in India are committing suicide by the hundreds in Andra Pradesh and other states because of GM crop failures. (www.navdanya.org/articles/seeds_suicide.htm) People and animals have become ill and even died after consumption or exposure to products containing genetically modified organisms. Unlike traditional plant breeding, in genetic engineering of crops, unrelated organisms, such as bacteria, are snipped apart and sections of their genes inserted into plants with unpredictable results. -cut-- While I agree wholeheartedly with the basis of the post, these types of posts seem to suggest that GM would be OK if all the problems with the environment and harmful effects could be solved. Sorry for repeating myself ad nausium, but GM is still incredibly dangerous even if there were NO harmful effects at all and they actually did produce bumper crops. Why? Answer : By purchasing and using GM products, we are supporting and allowing the GM industry to proliferate in knowledge, equipment, and people who know how to use it. And there has never been a single instance where a new technology has not been siezed by the military (and ordinary people as well) and examined for every possible method to harm and kill people. In addition to the military, sadly some people have bad intentions. For a small example, consider how many computer viruses there are. Who writes a computer virus and for what purpose? Some are for marketing and some are solely destructive. These poeple have taken a positive force (computers) and turned it into a highly negative and destructive force. These posts worry about accidental side effects. I am talking about deliberately designing an organism whose effect will be to kill people (either through disease or starvation or some other mechanism). So don't worry so much about the accidental side effects (which undoubtedly can be significant). Worry much more about the deliberate side effects from militaty usage where the goal is to kill people. If the accidental side effects of GM are disastrous, how much more so will the results of deliberate harmful and destructive actions by individuals or the military? BR Peter G. Thailand __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Lao Telecom MailScanner with NOD32, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Lao Telecom MailScanner with NOD32, and is believed to be clean. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Why genetic engineering is dangerous
On Monday 07 August 2006 8:39, Guag Meister wrote: I tend to agree with you. Imagine a simple molecule such as caused Thalidomide. Even worse imagine a molecule that affected a gene contained in a single racial type. (Maybe we should start looking for a distinct gene in crooked pollies! ..known as the greed gene.) regards Doug While I agree wholeheartedly with the basis of the post, these types of posts seem to suggest that GM would be OK if all the problems with the environment and harmful effects could be solved. Sorry for repeating myself ad nausium, but GM is still incredibly dangerous even if there were NO harmful effects at all and they actually did produce bumper crops. Why? Answer : By purchasing and using GM products, we are supporting and allowing the GM industry to proliferate in knowledge, equipment, and people who know how to use it. And there has never been a single instance where a new technology has not been siezed by the military (and ordinary people as well) and examined for every possible method to harm and kill people. In addition to the military, sadly some people have bad intentions. For a small example, consider how many computer viruses there are. Who writes a computer virus and for what purpose? Some are for marketing and some are solely destructive. These poeple have taken a positive force (computers) and turned it into a highly negative and destructive force. These posts worry about accidental side effects. I am talking about deliberately designing an organism whose effect will be to kill people (either through disease or starvation or some other mechanism). So don't worry so much about the accidental side effects (which undoubtedly can be significant). Worry much more about the deliberate side effects from militaty usage where the goal is to kill people. If the accidental side effects of GM are disastrous, how much more so will the results of deliberate harmful and destructive actions by individuals or the military? BR Peter G. Thailand __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Why genetic engineering is dangerous
Ah, the absolute Luddite. First we figure out how to use a rock, then somebody wants to kill us by clubbing us with a rock. We were better off running down the gazelles and ripping their throats out with our teeth. ;- Guag Meister wrote: Hi Keith ; -cut- These critical remarks should be read in light of growing evidence of extremely serious impacts on health, environment and the livelihoods of Third World farmers. A European regulatory requirement for genetic safety testing, which is not required in Canada or the US, has revealed genetic instability in many GM crop varieties. Scientists are finding harmful impacts on soil micro-organisms, beneficial insects and laboratory animals exposed to genetically modified crops and GE food. Farmers in India are committing suicide by the hundreds in Andra Pradesh and other states because of GM crop failures. (www.navdanya.org/articles/seeds_suicide.htm) People and animals have become ill and even died after consumption or exposure to products containing genetically modified organisms. Unlike traditional plant breeding, in genetic engineering of crops, unrelated organisms, such as bacteria, are snipped apart and sections of their genes inserted into plants with unpredictable results. -cut-- While I agree wholeheartedly with the basis of the post, these types of posts seem to suggest that GM would be OK if all the problems with the environment and harmful effects could be solved. Sorry for repeating myself ad nausium, but GM is still incredibly dangerous even if there were NO harmful effects at all and they actually did produce bumper crops. Why? Answer : By purchasing and using GM products, we are supporting and allowing the GM industry to proliferate in knowledge, equipment, and people who know how to use it. And there has never been a single instance where a new technology has not been siezed by the military (and ordinary people as well) and examined for every possible method to harm and kill people. In addition to the military, sadly some people have bad intentions. For a small example, consider how many computer viruses there are. Who writes a computer virus and for what purpose? Some are for marketing and some are solely destructive. These poeple have taken a positive force (computers) and turned it into a highly negative and destructive force. These posts worry about accidental side effects. I am talking about deliberately designing an organism whose effect will be to kill people (either through disease or starvation or some other mechanism). So don't worry so much about the accidental side effects (which undoubtedly can be significant). Worry much more about the deliberate side effects from militaty usage where the goal is to kill people. If the accidental side effects of GM are disastrous, how much more so will the results of deliberate harmful and destructive actions by individuals or the military? BR Peter G. Thailand __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- -- Bob Allen,http://ozarker.org/bob -- - The modern conservative is engaged in one of Man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness JKG ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Why genetic engineering is dangerous
So don't worry so much about the accidental sideeffects (which undoubtedly can be significant).Worry much more about the deliberate side effects frommilitaty usage where the goal is to kill people.Ifthe accidental side effects of GM are disastrous, howmuch more so will the results of deliberate harmful and destructive actions by individuals or themilitary?Imagine a time when instead of dropping bombs, our military drops genetically modified food aid that induces chemical phsychosis of the entire population of a country with no need to even step foot in it to bring down the government. One only need look at they current US proxy war with Iran, in which neither US nor Iranian troops are dying, but thousands of lebanese (and also israeli) civillians are being killed, to see that there are people in world who might like such a weapon __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Why genetic engineering is dangerous - technology.
Howdy Peter, I am sorry if I came off as flippant. I just was pointing out the obvious- technology is a double-edged sword. It is not technology itself that gets us in trouble, but rather the application. Guag Meister wrote: Hi Bob ; We were better off running down the gazelles and ripping their throats out with our teeth. ;- Ha, don't laugh. Where I have my farm in Cambodia, the local poeple have no running water, no electricity, almost no roads. They manage to live without most of the modern conveniences and most appear to be happy people. Yet many are deformed physically (not to mention dead) due to a long war and landmines. If I asked them what has science and technology done for them, almost all the answers would be negative. A few good things are the creation of sensitive mine detectors and decent prosthetic limbs. Technology and medicine is great but these things matter little when the Americans are carpet bombing your country out of existence, and the Russians are planting landmines at a furious pace with no record keeping. In Thailand there is a saying : When elephants fight, ants die. All things considered I believe the net effect of technology is negative. Taken to it's logical conclusion, the best course for mankind would be to live like we lived long ago. There once was a prominent leader who advocated living this way. His name was Jesus. BR Peter G. Thailand __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- Bob Allen, http://ozarker.org/bob = The modern conservative is engaged in one of Man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness JKG ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Why genetic engineering is dangerous - technology.
Hi Bob ; We were better off running down the gazelles and ripping their throats out with our teeth. ;- Ha, don't laugh. Where I have my farm in Cambodia, the local poeple have no running water, no electricity, almost no roads. They manage to live without most of the modern conveniences and most appear to be happy people. Yet many are deformed physically (not to mention dead) due to a long war and landmines. If I asked them what has science and technology done for them, almost all the answers would be negative. A few good things are the creation of sensitive mine detectors and decent prosthetic limbs. Technology and medicine is great but these things matter little when the Americans are carpet bombing your country out of existence, and the Russians are planting landmines at a furious pace with no record keeping. In Thailand there is a saying : When elephants fight, ants die. All things considered I believe the net effect of technology is negative. Taken to it's logical conclusion, the best course for mankind would be to live like we lived long ago. There once was a prominent leader who advocated living this way. His name was Jesus. BR Peter G. Thailand __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Why genetic engineering is dangerous - technology.
Hi Bob ; No problem at all. It is not technology itself that gets us in trouble, but rather the application. Yes this is true. You know when I am editing a Word document I am amazed at how long it takes to create the document from scratch, but I can delete it almost instantly. The point is that destroying is so much easier than creating. A single match can destroy a house, but nothing similar to a match could create a house. Even if 99 people out of one hundred are good, the one bad can cause so much destuction that the balance can be shifted enough so that the net effect is negative for all. If we could weed out the 1 bad guy out of 100, then I would be all for technology. But even so there is always the cumulative effect of technology which is not so easy to identify. If we lived simply, yes we would have leprosy (but probably a lot less cancer), we wouldn't have open heart surgery (but probably less heart disease), we would have to walk to work (but we wouldn't have global warming or Peak Oil or obesity problems), we wouldn't have electricity (but no low level uranium dumps or acid rain or the atom bomb or Depleted Uranium munitions), general sickness, even plagues (but not anti-biotic resistant organsms, the jury is still out on plagues, we still have HIV, H5N1, TB), etc. IMHO, it is not at all clear that the net effect of technology is a positive one. My recommendation is approach with caution. Keep up the good work. I have yet to make my first test batch (sorry Keith), but I'm working on it. BR Peter G. Thailand __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Why genetic engineering is dangerous
We must stop de use of GM products now not tomorrow, and promove the ecological agriculture, here in south america (Argentina) the people have a lot of problems with GM soja, the fields of the owner´s don´t produce any more when GM soja is used. its a great problem. peace Juan Carlos from lima Peru. --- Doug Foskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 07 August 2006 8:39, Guag Meister wrote: I tend to agree with you. Imagine a simple molecule such as caused Thalidomide. Even worse imagine a molecule that affected a gene contained in a single racial type. (Maybe we should start looking for a distinct gene in crooked pollies! ..known as the greed gene.) regards Doug While I agree wholeheartedly with the basis of the post, these types of posts seem to suggest that GM would be OK if all the problems with the environment and harmful effects could be solved. Sorry for repeating myself ad nausium, but GM is still incredibly dangerous even if there were NO harmful effects at all and they actually did produce bumper crops. Why? Answer : By purchasing and using GM products, we are supporting and allowing the GM industry to proliferate in knowledge, equipment, and people who know how to use it. And there has never been a single instance where a new technology has not been siezed by the military (and ordinary people as well) and examined for every possible method to harm and kill people. In addition to the military, sadly some people have bad intentions. For a small example, consider how many computer viruses there are. Who writes a computer virus and for what purpose? Some are for marketing and some are solely destructive. These poeple have taken a positive force (computers) and turned it into a highly negative and destructive force. These posts worry about accidental side effects. I am talking about deliberately designing an organism whose effect will be to kill people (either through disease or starvation or some other mechanism). So don't worry so much about the accidental side effects (which undoubtedly can be significant). Worry much more about the deliberate side effects from militaty usage where the goal is to kill people. If the accidental side effects of GM are disastrous, how much more so will the results of deliberate harmful and destructive actions by individuals or the military? BR Peter G. Thailand __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Why genetic engineering is dangerous
Why genetic engineering is dangerous by Pat Howard and Arne Hansen Common Ground (Canada) August 2006 http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0608181/cg181_GMOs.shtml Common Ground - July 2006 - The world is not an ice cream cone The Canadian GM risk assessment process is so simplistic that not a single submission has ever been rejected in Canada. Everything submitted, almost wholly by industry, has been accepted, according to Ann Clark PhD, one of this country's leading experts on the dangers of genetically modified organisms. The Canadian GM regulatory process is a ruse, claiming to safeguard human and environmental health, but actually intended to facilitate commercialization of GM crops, according to Dr. Clark. In a 2005 brief to Parliament regarding its controversial Bill C-27, Clark warned that if the federal government passes the pending Canadian Food Inspection Agency Enforcement Act, it will have voted to, Facilitate international trade primarily by streamlining inspections, replacing Canadian assessment with those by foreign powers, and harmonizing regulations with the US and other countries, all of which challenge, rather than safeguard, the health and safety of Canadians. Clark is an outspoken critic of Canada's regulatory policies and the processes related to field trials and commercial production of genetically modified crops, whether modified to produce pesticides in every cell of the plant, to resist spraying by soil-sterilizing herbicides, or to produce proteins for medicinal or industrial uses. She provided expert advice to the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on Food Biotechnology in 2001. The panel, the most influential and respected group of scientists in the country, concluded that the regulatory process was severely flawed, despite the government's claim that ours is the best regulatory system in the world. Beth Burrows, president and director of the Edmonds Institute, a public interest organization working on ecology, technology and social justice, tells us that Genetic engineering increasingly means agribusiness and pharmaceuticals, two industries already important as sources of funding for science, higher education and those who run for office. Talking biosafety can mean putting one's job and financial security at risk. Even diplomats charged by their governments to discuss biosafety balk at doing so, perhaps because they are also charged to protect their countries' industrial interests. The discussions that took place during the biosafety protocol negotiations begun in 1995 under the aegis of the UN Convention on Biodiversity were almost surreal in their avoidance of the topic [of bio-safety], she stated recently. Burrows ought to know. She has spent more than a decade attending UN biodiversity meetings and continues to provide vital background information on biosafety issues to Third World delegates negotiating these international agreements. Beth Burrows is founder of the non-profit public interest think tank, the Edmonds Institute, a group of smart, passionate people working flat-out for environmental and social justice. These critical remarks should be read in light of growing evidence of extremely serious impacts on health, environment and the livelihoods of Third World farmers. A European regulatory requirement for genetic safety testing, which is not required in Canada or the US, has revealed genetic instability in many GM crop varieties. Scientists are finding harmful impacts on soil micro-organisms, beneficial insects and laboratory animals exposed to genetically modified crops and GE food. Farmers in India are committing suicide by the hundreds in Andra Pradesh and other states because of GM crop failures. (www.navdanya.org/articles/seeds_suicide.htm) People and animals have become ill and even died after consumption or exposure to products containing genetically modified organisms. Unlike traditional plant breeding, in genetic engineering of crops, unrelated organisms, such as bacteria, are snipped apart and sections of their genes inserted into plants with unpredictable results. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5705 Ann Clark and Beth Burrows are outspoken citizens of Canada and the US respectively who are not afraid to speak truth to power. Join them for a public forum: Watchdogs or Lapdogs? Is the Regulation of Genetic Engineering Adequate? SFU [Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada] Harbour Centre, Fletcher Challenge Theatre, September 5, 7:30 - 9:30pm. The event is sponsored by the SFU faculty of applied sciences, the schools of communication and kinesiology, the Institute for the Humanities at SFU and by Common Ground. Pat Howard is a professor of communications at SFU. [EMAIL PROTECTED]/ Arne Hansen is a Vancouver writer and can be contacted at [EMAIL PROTECTED]/. ___
