[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> DNA bombs against DNA

[Ian andrews <i.andrews@metroscreen.com.au>]

>So my next question specific to this topic, is to ask; if all GM is not
>bad, why the opposition over transgenic crops? Biodiversity is already
>threatened by widespread agriculture regardless of whether the crops are
>genetically modified or not. Certain grasses are the most successful plants
>on the planet -- they selected humans such that we spread them practically
>everywhere we go. And of course all agricultural crops and animals are 'GM'
>by virtue of selective breeding anyway.

Scot, there is one major difference between GM crops and non GM crops and
that is that the (Monsanto) seeds are engineered to be barren in the next
generation, requiring the farmer to purchase more seeds for the next crop.
The concern amongst both protesters and farmers is that a GM farm could
"genetically pollute" neighboring farms through cross fertilization when
pollen is carried by wind, thus rendereing those crops infertile. I don't
know enough about plant genetics to be able to say whether this is true or
not, but I think it would be safe to say that reseach into the
environmental consequences of of this aspect of GM agriculture is far from
complete. Some of the effects on the environment might only show up after
many years. One only has to look at the cane toad problem to see the
results of hasty and unresearched biotech solutions. In Australia a number
of rural local councils are wanting to ban GM farming but the Howard
government, in its unrelenting zeal for the rights of big business, is
planning to override local bylaws in this issue.

regards,

Ian



_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold