Auckland Debates Genetically Modified Products
Click
Here to Add CommentSubject: GEez........
Date:
Mon, 8 Jul 2002
From: Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State
of California, Department of Pesticide Regulation
cc: Christine Whitman whitman.christine@epa.gov
TUESDAY, 09 JULY 2002 GE - who really knows best? 02 JULY 2002
To GE or not to GE? Suburban Newspapers consulting
editor Pat Booth asks the question.
A man with a big subdivision problem in west Auckland; yet another of those controversial statements from the Prince of Wales; one New Zealander in four with a major worry.
They're all relevant in differing ways in this GE issue, which could be such a contaminant in election thinking, strategy and outcomes.
First, that one-in-four ratio.
It's fashionable - even tactical in some cases - to quote the results of the latest surveys, showing that approximately 66 per cent New Zealanders would go along with commercial release of genetically modified products under strict conditions after a detailed inquiry.
Another 6 per cent say, in effect, "go for it - exploit the method as much as practical".
Which leads some GE supporters and commentators to hail the outcome as a vote for GE.
Not so. A majority want, at the very least, strict conditions, detailed inquiry. While one in four New Zealanders wants GE organisms banned for good - their good, the national good and the global good.
It's a deep worry which now has a "By Royal Appointment" label attached.
In a speech which got little - in some cases no - media cover here, Prince Charles told an environmental conference in Germany that the risks of GE contamination were "becoming clearer and clearer".
He totally contradicted an earlier view by British Prime Minister Tony Blair that there was no evidence "of serious health risks in GE crops".
Prince Charles called for policy-makers and research funders to look to traditional and organic methods, even though they were regarded as "a great deal less exciting".
He said: "At the moment, the emphasis seems to be on supporting research into genetically-modified crops which, regardless of any possible environmental threat, certainly pose an acute threat to organic farmers and all those consumers who wish to exercise a right of choice about what they eat.
"... I find it hard to understand how the companies, which will profit from having developed these crops and which are taking out patents to ensure that they do, should be able to avoid taking liability for any damage that occurs."
Later, and inevitably, the biotechnology industry said it would be fully liable for any products which caused damage , whether they were GE or not - and dismissed his views as irrelevant and out of touch.
Just as GE advocates here quite clearly regard any doubters and their concerns as similarly irrelevant and out of touch.
"Trust us," they say. "We know what we're doing."
And they believe that.
Just as the people who produced the problems for that west Auckland property owner believed they had all the answers.
They were the experts and the chemical producers, who urged the use of copper spray for fruit trees on the site.
Years of that "trust us" attitude encouraged orchardists to spray with copper solution as a fungicide. Result: The soil is now so heavily contaminated that it may have to be scraped off and taken away. (Next question: And taken where?)
OK, OK. So it's not GE. It was the next best thing in its time - a scientific advance which would help growers and "do no one any harm".
Like DDT and 2,4,5-T. In a different way, like asbestos, that wonderful building aid now a chronic soil pollutant in areas of Manukau City and beyond.
Like thalidomide, like dangerous breast implants, like those fume tins we once set alight in our homes to rid the furniture and architraves of borer.
Like the feed made from dead stock which turned other animals into cannibals, then into mad cow disease victims and finally as carriers for a death sentence, killing humans who unknowingly ate their infected meat.
All brought about by the misjudgement of people who honestly believed they knew best.
Prince Charles is not everyone's idea of an ideal banner-carrier. But at least he shows that the anti-GE lobby is not made up of dreadlocked sandal-wearers with a taste for illegal substances and gross international conspiracy theories.
Just ordinary people - one in four New Zealanders - the sort of committed support group certain political parties would give their all for in these campaign weeks.
Wouldn't you, Jim and Richard, Winston and Peter?
If you had that backing, you wouldn't shrug it off, you might even be talking up your prospects for a coalition Cabinet seat.
So don't disregard the same lineup, whose common bond is a real concern about their country, the world and its future. And who will vote accordingly.
Well, Mr. Helliker, reminds me of the promises the snake Kaa, made in the Jungle Book; who told Mogli to "Hold still please.....Trust in me,...... Just in me, .......etc." as he prepared to destroy Mogli.
Respectfully, Stephen L. TvedtenIf you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, please email us at list@safe2use.com.