[MD] Science: Medicine?

[Krimel]

Arlo,

You highlight at least one problem that extends well beyond the issue at
hand. Science gives us the tools to do these things but it is not science
that determines what gets done. Sure we CAN create new species that are more
productive but don't reproduce. But it is economic and political interests
that demand that they are done. It was the Supreme Court in a horrible
decision that allowed the patenting of life forms. I find both concepts
morally abhorrent as I suspect do many in the scientific community but it is
lawyers, and politicians who enable the system. 

I know you and many others are attracted to organic produce but I have to
say there is little or no evidence that the products of the "Green
Revolution" are less nutritious, less tasty or in the least bit harmful. One
of the points made in the lecture was that Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was
a watershed book in that before it no one thought fertilizers and pesticides
were bad. After it lots of people did. While Carson pointed to particular
problems with a particular pesticide it is something of a stretch to extend
that to ALL chemical used in agriculture. He also mentioned Rodale Press as
something of a one man crusade to advocate a "natural" lifestyle based more
on its emotional appeal than on any evidence that an "unnatural" lifestyle
is harmful.

Back to politics, the speaker I heard has been involved in teaching farming
practices to farmers in underdeveloped countries and he was very clear that
in many of the worse hit countries, it is the leaders of the country who are
preventing resources from reaching the populations. It is not just U.S.
politics, morality and capitalism that are problematic.

He also talked about genmod foods which seems to be a much bigger issue in
Europe than in the U.S. but again there is no evidence that genmods food are
not healthy for us. He said that McDonald's has been using genmod potatoes
in their French fries for years. I suspect this does not help make the case
that genmod foods are "healthy" after all it is McDonald's food, but there
is no reason to think they are bad just because they aren't "natural". In
fact almost everything we eat in the modern world has been genetically
modified in some ways for centuries.

Krimel
----------------------------------------------------

[Krimel]
Interestingly I attended a lecture last week on the topic of can 
science help us produce enough food to feed a starving world?

[Arlo]
I've long been a supporter (and member) of the CSA Farming 
initiatives. But even within the movement there is the (often 
unspoken) realization that should tomorrow the entire nation stand up 
and demand local, organic foods, there is simply no way to meet that 
demand. The total amount of wheat, corn, meat, produce consumed by 
our nation alone surpasses the ability for an entirely organic 
farming practice to meet. The only way such a target can be reached 
is if current amounts of consumption drop, if more grain can be 
diverted from livestock (transitioning to vegetarianism) and the 
eating habits of the population shift accordingly. So the 
"local-organic" component must include the recognition that 
consumption patterns much change as well, it can't be "business as 
usual" but with organic produce. (As organic farming becomes more 
established and farming practices refined, perhaps a greater output 
can be expected, but even the most farseeing in the movement would 
never say that in terms of raw output organic farming could ever 
match non-organic farming).

The other conundrum you mention is worth considering more. One of the 
agri-business industries announced a few years back that it had 
sythesized a strain of rice capable of growing in areas of Africa 
where rice would not normally group. This strain of rice is 
undoubtably a strong GMO, spliced with animal somethingoroether. But 
it could potentially bring relief to famine ridden areas of Africa. I 
should also mention it was engineered not to reproduce, so that 
African farmers have to rely on a supplier each year for their seed. 
Now, what is the ethical thing to do? Supply the rice? Not? Is this 
an example of good science? Bad science? Good science but bad 
business? Hardcore organic publications decry this, aid organizations 
see anything as better than nothing, those who condemn the practices 
of agri-business see this as exploitative. Meanwhile, people are 
starving. What do we do? Deliver a GMO rice that ties farmer to 
supplier? Deliver it for now with an eye towards the future?

Underlying this is the question, do we already produce enough food to 
feed a starving world? But do we squander this on the luxories of 
livestock and Doritos in the affluent world? Do warlords in famine 
ridden areas stockpile aid and food for their own militant goals 
while the populations we are trying to help continue to starve?

Just some thoughts...



Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/