The Rural Voice, 1996-11, Page 6•
us
0
•
oe
}
ce
•
U
O.
W
W
1
•
0
•
ce
W>-
•
1
U
a
W
W
1
•
0
•
oc
V
•
09,W
•
W
CHRYSLER DODGE
HOME OF QUALITY
USED VEHICLES
"We only sell the best
for less and
wholesale the rest"
CHRYSLER
DODGE
JEEP
DODGE TRUCKS
Sales • Leasing
Parts • Service
If you don't
see what you
want, ask us,
we'll find it
for you.
Sunset Strip,
Owen Sound
Ontario, N4K 5W9
(519) 371 -JEEP (5337)
1-800-263-9579
Fax: (519) 371-5559
•
40
70
•
8
•
pcpN
•
8
8
•
•
Of
X,
•
8
•
•
•
8
•
1)
•
Xv
•
8
•
2 THE RURAL VOICE
Feedback
Food labelling the
mark of good business
I wish to respond to the responses
made by Jack Wilkinson, President of
the CFA and Dennis Jack, Second
Vice -President of the Ontario Corn
Producers Association regarding
Biotechnology and our food
regulation system (September 1996).
Yes, there is a great deal of
education needed about
biotechnology, but it seems there are
few scientific answers to scientific
questions based on controlled release
of genetically engineered organisms
(GEOs) in either animal or plant.
There are few legal answers as to
what constitutes a definition of a
product from biotechnology: ie. is a
plant given genetic traits from fish for
cold tolerance still a plant? It is a
completely different organism not
possible by natural evolution or
selection.
The fundamental issue overlooked
by biotechnology proponents is the
definition and application of a
product within the law according to
society's view. It is entirely feasible
to destabilize hundreds of years of
breeding and selection by allowing
GEOs into an environment which
itself is not prepared for the new
GEO.
Danish scientists have confirmed
that herbicide tolerant genes from
engineered canola became
established in weedy populations
after just TWO generations of
interbreeding. Ecologists have long
predicted that transgenes could
become established in wild
populations which may have
ecological impacts. The Danish study
in Nature 380:31, 1996 proved
incorrect the theory that genetically
engineered crops and weeds would
produce hybrids too weak or infertile
for further interbreeding.
The goal of all living creatures is
to survive and adapt. To create new
life forms without consultation and
unleash that into our society, is
bordering on negligence. Is it
possible gentlemen, the reason no one
wishes to label foods produced with
biotechnology is that no one wants to
be accountable?
You should be aware that labelling
of ingredients and process is the mark
of a good business person. For
instance, peanuts or peanut oil, a very
healthy and nutritious food is
labelled, so people who are allergic
may avoid those foods while not
condemning the plant which so many
people are fortunate enough to enjoy.
In other words, "Can you deliver
what you're selling?" which allows us
to further questions:
1. Can you define?
2. How do you prove it?0
Vic Daniel
Kirkton, ON
Commercial farming
will feed the world
Two items of comment.
I truly enjoyed Robert Mercer's
column on "alternative farming"
in the October issue. It was
completely refreshing to see some
perspective brought forward on
the whole organic farming
movement.
I wholeheartedly agree with the
author when he separates the
ignorant idealists who run around
(with a belly full of cheap food)
praising the organic movement as
the only "sustainable" farm practice
while nations of people continue to
starve.
The problem of world hunger
is a distribution (both food and
wealth) problem. It will not be
solved through the vegetarian
movement which would supposedly
free -up grain for human
consumption.
Such "pie in the sky" solutions
sound great to the unknowing
masses of non -farmers but offer no
true answers to the hungry. It was a
pure pleasure to see Mr. Mercer have
C