OT: RE: [CH] Anti Bt in your food?
Inagaddadavida, Baby (raelsixfour@home.com)
Thu, 23 Aug 2001 23:44:01 -0600
> > The stuff you spray on your plants is a naturally occuring organism.
>>
>
>No. It is a chemical compound found in a bacterium.
>
>> The stuff that is gene spliced is a synthetic version.
>>
>
>No. It is identical, same gene, as that found in a bacteria. Same as
>above. Let's clarify this. You say it's ok to have and eat it on the
>outside, but not on the inside, right?
Bt sprayed on crops can be washed off (for the most part). Bt
engineered crops cannot have the Bt washed off. I'm sure you
understood Brother Byron's point, or at least you do now. Somewhat
akin to the fact that most veggies are grown in dirt which can, for
the most part, be washed off...and is thankfully not found inside the
veggie (for the most part). But even if it *is*, such as in leeks,
one simply soaks the veggie and amazingly, the dirt falls free. I'd
wager you could soak Bt corn for a day and Bt genes would still
remain, no?
> > The Bt gene splice is now banned in EU, Brazil, Auz, Japan,
>> China and a few
>> others, In the US you do not have the right to know it's in
>> your food and
>> have no choice.
>>
>> Byron
>
>
>Actually if I try I can find out what is in my food. In the EU, BZ etc
This is quite a feat to accomplish without having access to
laboratory equipment as well as expertise. I would dare say that the
average person could *not* go out and purchase a bag of cornmeal, for
example, and find out the type of corn(s) ground for the product,
unless he/she spent quite a bit of time on the phone....and I
seriously doubt one would get very far.
>I don't have the right to make the choice. What I want to eat is
>outlawed. Because I prefer food that has a BT gene and is hence not
>sprayed with pesticide.
So you'd rather eat the pesticide. In that case, a sprayed veggie or
one with a Bt gene would be the same for you, no?
As for ones "rights", there are usually multiple choices in respect
to any decision. One has the freedom and the ability, usually, to
make a choice, but not a right, per se. No one is guaranteed any
kind of "right" to make a choice that may, or may not, injure, or
damage, or destroy, etc. Be it GM crops or be it violence, we all
have the ability to make a choice; and more importantly, we *should*
bear the responsibility honorably, thus uphold the understood
acceptance of any/all consequence(s) of a choice/action.
Call it an issue of semantics, but there is a distinction. It's
getting far too watered down over time.
For a chilehead example, it isn't JoeBob's "right" to grow heatless
jalapenos down the road from my superhot chilepatch. He can choose
to do so, has the choice of doing such. Yet, in making his choice,
he had better damn well make certain that his plants do not
crossbreed with mine, and if they do, he should compensate me
properly. In orther words, his choice should not impead nor inflict
damage on my choice, which would be to grow some tasty hot chiles.
And if he does not do the honorable thing, if he say's "that's
life...i can't control the pollination process", well, then he should
be prepared to pay the price...which I leave up to one's imagination.
--
Peace, Hendrix, and Chiles.......
Rael64