@ Death to Monsanto! @
glw at globalnet.co.uk
Thu Mar 25 16:35:39 EST 1999
Isn't there a crucial difference between genetically breeding a tree
and genetically modifying a tree?
Selective breeding has been going on for centuries - ie picking the
best of the crop as a seed plant. But using a virus to kill part of a
genetic code and inserting a string from another species entirely is
And as usual we havn't really got a clue what will be the end result
30 years down the line.
And OK - we don't eat trees but other things do and we eat them.
In the long run its all the same- it will end up in the food chain
sooner or later.
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 05:48:53 -0500, Joseph Zorzin
<redoak at forestmeister.com> wrote:
>Richard Simpson wrote:
>> If it wasn't for geneticaly altered crops there would be no western white
>> pine left in BC as the white pine blister rust wipes them out in entire
>> stands. If we didn't geneticaly breed the crops to resist the disease there
>> would be none left so which is worse letting a species go extinct or
>> geneticly breeding trees.
>Genetically altered trees is one thing - genetically altered food is
More information about the Ag-forst