6 responses

  1. MaryM
    May 1, 2013

    Some of it is cloned AND patented. Teh horrors!

  2. marco jacinto
    May 2, 2013

    aren’t you trying to compare cloning fears (of human cloning) with GMO food? because if subliminally you are, scientifically is wrong . we’ve been eating, voluntarily, fruits of cloned plants since de dawn of agriculture, not cloned fruits. And now we eat GMO food by force! of the potentates of agrochemical-industries. you should know the differences.

    • Anastasia Bodnar
      May 2, 2013

      By force? Perhaps your grocery store is different from mine, but there’s many non gmo products available and there’s no one using force to make me buy gmo products. Or perhaps my definition of force is different from yours?

      Noun
      Strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement: “he was thrown backward by the force of the explosion”.
      Verb
      Make a way through or into by physical strength; break open by force.

      • marco jacinto
        May 6, 2013

        Maybe the grocery store of my grammar is actually the difference, but I don’t find other way to comment on the obsessive events for total industrial control on the circulation of seeds between people and the limitations that are imposed indirectly to various models of agricultural production. this control is aggressive in the figurative sense of the term when we see how the lobbies of these corporations are moving in the corridors of power or how they avoid labeling their products, or even how they manage to control their safety, but also in the strict sense when you read news like a report by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation (Blackwater’s Black Ops, 9/15 / 2010) who revealed that the largest mercenary army in the world, Blackwater (now called Xe Services) clandestine intelligence services was sold to the multinational Monsanto.
        has for loss of variability of cultivars we know this has happened since the first time someone took a portion of the germplasm from their radiation centers where we suspect their variability was optimum (as taught Vavilov). since then win or loose genes were developmental processes, some random other empirical brought to the present day high quality products, with whom we have established relationships that may well go up to the molecular level (I’m thinking on the implications of the possibility of small ribonucleic acid’s of plants eventually contact more than our intestines). The Plant Sciences are extremely important for the understanding of all these processes in the interest of Humanity, and shouldn’t need to stand permanently justifying themselves economically putting one gene here and knocking one there, always with an eye on the patent and other on the profit.

        P.S about the story of John Apple seed I thought that because of the Homestead Act the settlers just needed to prove that that land was theirs, and how would they do that in a Country where there was no land registration till then? They planted an Apple tree that is (perhaps) native to Lebanon and it should be the landscape difference necessary and sufficient for them to reclaim the property.

        Sorry for the aggressiveness

  3. dorothea
    May 2, 2013

    Nice article. I remember when they did a survey here and asked others: would you eat food with ‘genes’ inside? And the majority answered ‘no way, never’.

  4. theoldtechnite
    May 7, 2013

    You can’t have just one !

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Back to top
mobile desktop