Re: ingegneria genetica e ibridazioni convenzionali

["Antonio Sortino" <sortanto@tiscalinet.it>]

La gran parte delle persone che sostengono che gli OGM sfameranno il mondo, sono di sicuro in malafede. Infatti sanno benissimo delle derrate alimentari che oggi vengono bruciate per non fare cadere i prezzi.
Antonio   




On Wednesday, December 13, 2000 at 12:22:46 PM, pck-ecologia@peacelink.it wrote:

> Cari tutti,
> posto questo riassunto di lettere scritte da scienziati nel campo medico 
> ,al  NY times riguardo ad un articolo apparso in quel quotidiano.
> 
> e' interessante notare come come i 'cauti' portino argomenti pertinenti 
> alla loro disciplina mentre il 'medical director dell' American Council 
> on Science and Health' usi argomenti che non pertengono alla medicina, 
> ma riguardano la disciplina 'food security' (le biotecnologie sfameranno 
> il mondo), in cui presumibilmente non e' un esperto, e che non sono 
> supportati da evidenza, secondo gli esperti nel settore.
> 
> Per gli interessati segnalo che e' stato aggiunto un nuovo 
> approfondimento al dossier sdi Peacelink sugli OGM. Questo spiega 
> in dettaglio l'affermazione della lettera di  Rob Carlson (Berkley) 
> 
> "Few genes are "known quantities" and the process of introducing a 
> foreign  gene into an organism produces uncertainty about both the 
> gene's function  and the function of the DNA into which it is inserted."
> 
> vedi 
> 
> http://www.peacelink.it/tematiche/ecologia/manipola.html
> http://www.peacelink.it/tematiche/ecologia/link1bis.html
> 
> spero interessi,
> Saluti
> 
> Alessandro Gimona
> PeaceLink
> 
> LETTERS: WHEN FOOD IS MODIFIED
>          December 12, 2000
>          New York Times
>          http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/12/science/12LETT.html
>          Several letters to the Times about the Jane Brody column, 
> column "Gene
>          Altered Foods: A Case Against Panic" (Dec. 5).
>          Dr. Stuart A. Newman of Valhalla, N.Y., a professor at New York 
> Medical
>          College says that while the column tried to claim that unease 
> about medical
>          and agricultural uses of technology is often due to inaccurate 
> terminology
>          and poor understanding of science, unfortunately, it adds to 
> the confusion
>          by mischaracterizing the nature and role of genes. A plant 
> breeder is quoted
>          on the introduction of a gene from the Arctic flounder into 
> strawberries and
>          cites his interpretation: it is "not a flounder gene but a cold 
> tolerance
>          gene."
>          But there is no such thing as a cold tolerance gene independent 
> of the
>          organism in which it acts. Biologists agree that genes are 
> context-
>          dependent and may do different things in different cells and 
> tissues of the
>          same organism, not to mention in organisms as different as 
> flounders and
>          strawberries.
>          Newman suggests that inaccuracies in scientific terminology and 
> concepts are
>          often due to promoters of new technologies.
> 
>          Rob Carlson of Berkeley, Calif., a research fellow at the 
> Molecular Sciences
>          Institute writes that the Personal Health column on genetically 
> modified
>          foods promotes the misconceptions it warns of. The portrayal of 
> current
>          genetic "engineering" as precise and well defined is 
> inappropriate today.
>          Few genes are "known quantities" and the process of introducing 
> a foreign
>          gene into an organism produces uncertainty about both the 
> gene's function
>          and the function of the DNA into which it is inserted.
>          Genetic engineering techniques are abysmally primitive, akin to 
> swapping
>          random parts between random cars to produce a better car. Yet 
> our ignorance
>          will fade; biological engineering will become a reality 
> relatively soon.
>          But it is difficult to discuss this impending development when 
> the public
>          believes that the details are already understood, especially 
> when mistakes
>          are so publicly discussed. The conflation of "engineering" and 
> such failures
>          can only suggest a subtext that the problem is beyond hope and 
> that further
>          work will produce dire consequences.
> 
>          Dr. Gilbert Ross of New York, the medical director of the  a 
> group financed by foundations, trade associations,
>          companies and individuals, writes that the Personal Health 
> column on Dec. 5
>          correctly notes the potential of genetically improved food to 
> help feed the
>          world and reduce the need for pesticides. But many are 
> needlessly concerned
>          about negligible risks posed by this technology. Genetically 
> engineered food
>          is thoroughly regulated by at least three federal agencies.
>          Superstition and fear should not interfere with this 
> technology, which has
>          so much to offer those who suffer from hunger and malnutrition. 
> Unfounded
>          concerns about hypothetical risks are far outweighed by the 
> real benefits
>          that will soon be realized, if scientific research and 
> development of
>          genetically modified agriculture is allowed to proceed 
> unhindered.
> Alessandro Gimona
> agimona@libero.it
> 
> 


--
TiscaliNet, libero accesso ad Internet.
http://www.tiscalinet.it