In a message dated 98-11-08 02:32:53 EST, you write:
<< After that the goddess will return to common exceptance & worship.
So do us all a favor & stop proseltizing & preaching to us cause I for one
am
sick of reading all your arguments about why we are wrong when to what I'm
seeing of your comments I can tell you aren't listening to a word of what we
are saying except to produce more arguements against us. In other words your
aren't really hearing what we are saying other wise your comments would
change
& they aren't.
BB
Aedrienne
>>
Hi! Aedrienne - I have two words for you "Get Real!" If the Earth is a
Goddess what then are the Sun and the Moon?
Peace!
Angela
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Nov 8 11:16:30 1998
by harborside.com with smtp (Exim 1.62 #3)
From: "Robinmcc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Boycott Monsanto
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 10:15:57 -0800
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, November 07, 1998 2:37 AM
Subject: Boycott Monsanto
<snip>
Hi, all! This is a list I much enjoy reading over-the-shoulder, and I
especially enjoy where information about ecological concerns is being
shared. I haven't got to read all of Bunny's forward on genetically
engineered crops yet, so I don't know if I'm being redundant, but here are a
few things that trouble me, for what they are worth, largely leaving out
many ethical issues, like the plants the proprietary genes are being
introduced into likely being heirlooms and the particular ingratitude, or
the rate at which these things are intering into agriculture against all
caution or reason.
I couldn't agree more with the sentiment of boycotting Monsanto.
I have to wonder, beside just the possibity that inadvertant cross-breeding
is going to create some new menace that destructive and hard to manage, of
what inadvertant cross-breeding is going to do simply in the case of a
proprietary gene.
If Monsanto's genes manage to end up in some other crop down the road,
because it's very hard to imagine someone containing the pollen effectively,
does this mean Monstanto owns that other crop that contains their gene? The
case may be that they could lose ownership of a gene for it "entering into
nature", as it were, so easily that they wouldn't be even be undertaking
this if they weren't assured that things would already be biased in their
favor. I'm still looking, however, for where this has been made clear.
There's also a lot of retardation of research, or apparent retardation of
it. There are obviously a lot of genes out there, and there's no rule that
says that if the research gets done, it gets announced. Imagine the
situation where a corporation isolates a gene in nature, patents it as their
own, which they're allowed to do because it "wasn't found in nature yet"...
well, not that authorities knew about. I have no idea what happens when the
gene is later found in a natural specie. This doesn't as far as I know
overturn the patent rights. So do they own the natural specie, or better yet
for them, can they spearhead it through the legal system that they should as
easily as they walk right through with the whole thing in the first place?
What's also troubling is that now it's expected to uphold the idea of
ownership when there's no label on the product, or the idea of
responsibility to the consumer when there's no label on the product. At the
very least, there should be marking genes included so that the engineered
crops are distinguishable. The engineered tomatos should have some
distinctive design engineered in, the plants should also have some
identifying trait. The owners could accuse virtually anyone of infringement,
and they could have their lives destroyed while it comes out in the wash. I
don't even know it they have to be compensated. Whose job is it technically
supposed to be to make the determination?
Certainly, nothing has been done up-front as it should have been done.
Everyone who is going to come into contact with these products should
already know the answer to these questions. This alone says so much about
the character of those in question that little more need be said. It is
intolerable.
Contained pesticides are frightening. Up until now, even with the option of
organic ones, we've had the opportunity to wash them off. Not any more. Some
apparently very biased people have argued that pesticides are part of the
natural process and the pesticide level in organic crops could therefore be
even higher than those that had pesticide introduced into them.
I have a problem with this logic. Certainly, a tremendous number of plants
can produce pesticide, especially when under attack. On the other hand, it's
been a large part of conventional logic in many cases that plants showing
insect damage should be avoided for use. While this is probably far more
true of herbs than vegetables, it's been something to reckon with.
Maybe the pesticide contents are cooking off safely, but either way, we
should have been told.
I also have a great deal of trouble with the corporate rhetoric about
"sustainability". That doesn't seem to fit very confortably in the same
arena where "surplus" is such a common word. So without them, the whole
world will starve, whether that's anything like the reality or not, without
them we are nothing. In my humble opinion, this kind of preposterous
self-aggrandizement is in no way different that the worst, psychologically
oppressive garbage that can be thrown at anyone.
Just my humble opinions of course, but if you find anything here you feel
like passing on to anyone, you certainly have my permission. Thanks for you
time.
Best Regards,
Robert Carl
