Transgenic Tree Debate

Karl Davies karl at
Sat Apr 1 10:06:10 EST 2000

Larry "The Mutant" Miller at wrote (privately and in
<saf-member at>, to which I am not subscribed--KD):

> Karl,


> At this point, the kind of extra insurance you are advocating isn't
> required.  Would you carry lots of extra insurance that wasn't required
> under current law and was not needed?

The only reason it isn't required is because the Mutant Industry has managed to
hoodwink and bribe our legislators and regulators into believing all that
"substantial equivalence" crap.  Of course when it comes time to patenting their
mutant inventions, they aren't "substantially equivalent" at all.  This is why
the Mutant Industry is basically a huge FRAUD.


> I believe if you look closely, there is very little native forest in
> Central and South America being converted directly to high yielding
> plantations.  The areas of which I'm familiar are mainly worn out
> agricultural land that got that way from slash and burn abuse.  One might
> argue that putting it back in a tree crop, while not the same native
> vegetation as before, is better than leaving it to wash away in the next
> hurricane, as happened a couple of years ago.

I'm don't know what the numbers are on this, but I've cc'd someone who will.  In
any case, the areas that are being converted NOW are irrelevant.  What is
relevant is the areas that the Mutant Industry intends to convert in the FUTURE.


> I don't understand what you don't understand.  While at present,
> there is no APHIS statutory requirement that transgenic trees be
> reproductively incompetent, in all likelihood this will be required when the
> first application for de-regulated status is made.

Since APHIS is just another bought-and-paid-for extension of the Mutant
Industry, this is to be expected.  But of course neither they nor anyone else
will know whether the supposedly "reproductively incompetent" (read TERMINATOR
TECHNOLOGY) trees really are "reproductively incompetent" because there's no way
of knowing this without doing huge replicated trials and waiting decades.

> You complain that
> transgenic trees might cause some unknown ecological calamity if they
> interbreed with native trees, then complain about scientists doing research
> to try to develop trees that won't.  I don't understand.

Let me make it clear:  I don't want ANY mutant trees.  I don't want any research
into them.  I want the entire Mutant Industry to disappear.  The reason that I
push for full insurance against all potential liabilities is to expose the
fraudulent nature of the Mutant Industry, and to point out to people the
INHERENT DANGER of all mutant research, development and production.


> But you seem to want a world with no risk.  Without
> risk, there can be no reward.

Reward for whom?  That's an important question, isn't it?  You obviously see
rewards for yourself and your associates in the Mutant Industry.  I don't give a
damn about rewards to you or them.  I don't see any rewards to myself or the
public from herbicide-tolerant trees, toxic trees, wobbly trees, or any of the
by-products of their research, development or production.

> Research in transgenic plants is a whole new
> frontier, and risk should rightly be controlled.  But, you seem to want to
> eliminate all risk, at the cost of stopping forever what may be very
> valuable research.

I see the Mutant Industry the same way I saw the Nuclear Industry decades ago,
only worse.

> Until the work is done, none of us know.  Don't you want
> to know if transgenic plants can be deployed safely, rather than parroting
> "might, could, maybe" party line of the Luddites?

No.  I think this technology is too dangerous, just like nuclear technology.
And yes, I am a Luddite when it comes to these and certain other technologies.
Also, I'd much rather be known as a Luddite than a Mengelite.

Karl Davies, Practicing Forester

Northeastern Forestry Reformation List Server

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list