
Biotech in the UK 4
tomknight writes: "The Guardian have a astory about how Aventis, a biotech company appear to be sending fax messages on behalf of farmers, saying that the farmer really does want to have GM crops tested on their land. Sadly I can't find any information about this on their site. Other people say a little more about Aventis.... information can be found out about these guys from the gm-info website, but some might consider them biased. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have details of other GM crop trial sites planned for this Spring."
what a spoof!!! (Score:1)
hello mulder, i think we have a case here....
for more of stupidity, get to Timepasstown [timepasstown.com]
Bad PR (Score:1)
aventis (Score:1)
Trying to get the facts out on biotechnology. (Score:1)
American Society for MicroBiology [asmusa.org]
The ASM believes that labeling on the basis of process is not scientifically warranted. Genetic modification has long been used to enhance the production of plants and animals for food. Indeed it is doubtful that there exists any agriculturally important product that can be labeled as not genetically modified by traditional breeding procedures or otherwise. Biotechnology as practiced in agriculture today is part of a continuum of ever more refined attempts to breed better plants and animals for food or show.
American Society for Cell Biology [ascb.org]
Many individuals and groups have raised concerns about the safety of transgenic BT crops despite the fact that the bacteria that naturally produce BT have been applied directly to crops as a form of organic pest control for over 40 years. Transgenic BT crops have passed rigorous testing in the US, Canada, and Japan, and they have been found to pose no threat to other insects, animals, or humans. The primary alternative to BT is large-scale spraying of pesticides which kills both beneficial and harmful insects and has other negative environmental consequences.
National Academy of Sciences
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309069300/html/ [nap.edu]
Since the National Academy of Sciences is the nations premier scientific organization, they best represent the current scientific consensus in the field, so I will quote from their report, first stated in a 1987 white paper and reitterated April 2000:
American Medical Association [ama-assn.org]There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods, as a class, and voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education.
American Dietetic Association [eatright.org]
Society for In-Vitro Biology [sivb.org]
American Society of Plant Physiologists [aspp.org]
You'll note that ASPP treats the issue as self-evident that there is nothing especially dangerous about transgenic crops, as their page acts as a resource and communication site for scientists interested in countering anti-GMO propaganda. This shows just how strong the consensus on this issue is within the scientific community. Very, very few scientists seriously think that genetic engineering is inherently unsafe. Those who do are less common than creationist biologists
Univeristy of California - Biotechnology Working Group [ucbiotech.org]
.