Hi all, This is the e-mail exchange between Merla and Fred Kirschenmann
> At 04:47 PM 1/24/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> >Dear Dr. Kirschenmann:
> >
> >My Biodynamic list/serve is having a discussion on the sustainable
> >label and we found the W. K. Kellogg Initiative Food and Society.
> ><public.iastate.edu/~food and society/conceptpapers/foodlabel.html>
> >on the Internet. Could you comment on this? Why has
the Leopold Center
> >embraced marketing GMOs under the sustainable label?
> >
> >One of our members from Australia thought it would be important
first
> >to establish science-based sustainability indicators for GMOs before
> >launching a labeling campaign . Given that you are Biodynamic, we
> >were surprised.
> >
> >Thank you for any help on this.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Merla Barberie
* * * * * * * * *
* * * *
Hi Merla,
To set the record straight, the Leopold Center has NOT endorsed ANY
label
for GMO---sustainable or otherwise. I have not looked at the
Kellogg web
site, but will do so given your inference. We do work with the
Kellogg
Foundation on other issues---specifically mid-tier value chains for
organic
and other locally produced, environmentally friendly food production
systems.
On our own web site at WWW: http://www.leopo0ld.iastate.edu you will
find
our position on GMO's. Please see back issues of our newsletter.
In brief
our position calls for more science-based research and an adoption
of
genetic research along the lines suggested by Evelyn Fox Keller, which
is
that what we now know from the field of genetics itself, is that the
single
gene/single response theory is seriously flawed and that we now know
that
there is an ecosystem at the genetic level equally dynamic and complex
to
the eco-system at the bio spheric level. Keller suggests that
what we
will, consequently, learn from genetics in this century is "humility".
Sounds like what we learned in sustainable agriculture---don't
you think?
Thanks for calling this to my attention.
Fred
_____________________________________________________________
Hi again,
Just downloaded the "Sustainable food Labeling" document you referred
to
from the web site you cited. Now I am confused. This was
a concept paper
which only "proposed" a set of partners (Leopold Center mentioned among
them), which never went beyond the concept stage and that we never
signed
on to since it never got to that point. More importantly, the
document
never mentions GMO's!!! So I am having difficulty ascertaining
how you
came to your conclusions. Can you enlighten?
Fred
* * * * * * * * *
* * *
Dear Dr. Kirschenmann,
Thank you for your reply. I am glad to learn that "the Leopold
Center
does not endorse any label for GMOs, sustainable or otherwise."
I
skimmed what I thought were the relevant parts of <leopold.iastate.edu>
and found that you approached it in as neutral a manner as you could
by
comparing all aspects. I also see you noted public opinion favored
non-GMOs. It is very confusing to see the Leopold Center listed
in the
W. K.Kellogg "proposal" (copied in its entirety below). It is
natural
to assume that if the Leopold Center is mentioned, that there has been
some contact made and permission given to use the center's name.
If you
will look under "Six Hats Comments" you will see that it says "both
GMO
and non-GMO." I merely put "sustainable label" into my search
engine to
learn what I could about what is being thought of around the country
after reading an article in July 2001 issue of AcresUSA, p. 7, under
"
'eco' labeling" in "Transitions-Certified Organic Industry News".
Sincerely,
Merla Barberie
* * * * * * * * *
* *
Merla,
Thanks for the additional info. Now I understand where the confusion
comes
from. If you look closely you will note that the "Six Hats" idea
is a
separate submission, submitted by the same team of three individuals,
nevertheless a separate "concept paper" from the sustainable labels
one. Again, however, it is important to recognize that these
are simply
"concept papers" submitted to the foundation for possible funding.
So far
as I know the Foundation has not requested these individuals to submit
full
proposals based on the concept papers---at least we have not been contacted
as to any potential support or partnership with any of them.
As to our "neutrality"---as a research institute it is, of course,
incumbent upon us to explore options. Science always has to come
to a
consensus based on the best available data, but always ready to accept
the
fact that the current consensus could be wrong. So, while I personally
do
not see transgenic technologies currently being used in ways that are
ecologically sound, I do not think that means that we should close
ourselves off to doing sound genetic research that could help us better
understand how eco-systems function so that we can do farming activities
(as well as other activities) that ARE more ecologically sound.
In short,
fundamentalism has never served us well in any arena that I can think
of no
reason why it would serve us well here.
Always open to continuing the conversation.
Fred
| 