[704] in peace2
GM crops (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Aimee L Smith)
Wed Apr 25 03:37:59 2001
Message-Id: <200104250737.DAA02623@gold.mit.edu>
To: peace-list@MIT.EDU, greens-anounce@MIT.EDU, earth-action@MIT.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 03:37:42 -0400
From: Aimee L Smith <alsmith@MIT.EDU>
Sorry to clog the mailboxes, I was just incredibly outraged by how
biased I found the website to be... here is my response to nova/pbs...
------- Forwarded Message
To: nova@wgbh.org
Subject: GM crops
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 03:16:39 -0400
From: Aimee L Smith <alsmith@MIT.EDU>
To whom it may concern,
I found this GM crops web survey[1] problematic in that I only saw the "pro"
side once I picked "no." I should continue to see both sides of the
argument, unless you are working for the corporations who are waging
the public relations war against public distrust. I would hope there is a
firm wall between your advertising (oops, I meant to write underwriting)
office and your content (both web and TV) production offices. This survey
makes it unclear, as it is widely known that most people oppose GM food when
asked
about it. Your recent promotion of the NOVA program urges viewers to
"stay curious." Well, I am damn curious about how much money PBS
receives from various members of the biotechnology industry and how that
influences your decision making processes.
As a scientist, I have a great appreciation for the limitations of prediction
in relatively simplistic inorganic systems. Genetically altering
self-replicating organisms is not only incredibly unpredictable once
introduced into the environment, this technology can never be completely
recalled from the environment. This technology risks nothing less than
irreversibly and catastrophically eradicating our entire ecosystem. In
short, it is no less than a game of "Russian Roulette" with all of life on
earth held at gun-point while the "life-sciences" corporations hold the
trigger. I prefer to abide by the precautionary principle in such
high stakes matters, as ethically, I feel we have no right to risk our
own and all future generations of our species and the others. We didn't get
to vote on whether or not to introduce this technology. Future generations
clearly cannot vote. What right do profit-seeking corporations have to
subject us all to human experimentation without any kind of consent?
Especially
when we learn that the majority of this technology is for the purpose of
selling more of these companies' own pesticide and herbicide products. Quite
a smooth scam, particularly if they can get "credible" shows like NOVA to
promote it.
Corporations who genetically modified seed, such as Aventis and Monsanto, risk
the public and ecological health and safety for the private profit of their
shareholders. Furthermore, when their investment risks go awry, their
financial risk is socialized in the form of government bailouts for farmers
e.g. with Starlink contaminated seed, rather than a corporate recall-- seems
like a great deal if you are a multinational life sciences corporation.
It is a horrible deal for everyone else. In addition to that, keep in mind
that those who raise objections to GM food do it on their own time or
tiny donated budgets. Those who promote the wonders of the technology are
part of the PR apparatus of these giant firms and do it on the clock.
I have read in sources such as the Fairness and Accuracy and Reporting
web-page[2] that you show preference to corporate bias over so-called
bias of a women who works for a bettered women's support group. I
guess now that corporations seem to own everything, they might as well
own and control the mis-named Public Broadcasting Service. Why not
simply rename your corporation to what it actually is: Corporate Broadcasting
Service. At least that way you wouldn't have to lie.
Sincerely,
Aimee Smith
PhD Student
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest
[2] http://www.fair.org/extra/9801/pbs-film-reject.html
Hmmm, GM crops *might* increase food productivity and profits for the
wealthiest less than 1% of the world population, or they might wipe out all
life as we know it... well, let's just try it and see!
------- End of Forwarded Message
