Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 

>    Mr. KIMBRELL: You're taking a gene from a foreign species. Let's--taking
>  flounder gene, for example, and putting it into a tomato. This has actually
>  happened.
>
>    PELLEY: They've taken a flounder gene and put it in a tomato?
>
>    Mr. KIMBRELL: Right, because they want the tomato to grow at lower
>  temperatures, and they also want to be able to store it in freezing for a much
>  longer time than they currently can do.
>
>    PELLEY: And a fish gene helps a tomato do that?
>
>    Mr. KIMBRELL: That's right.

 

You don't have to be a "Bible-thumping Christian" to recognize that sticking a gene from a flounder into a tomato is flirting with ecological disaster.  The fine ecological balance of this entire universe most likely hangs on a thread which can be snapped by such misbehavior by just a few "scientists".  There is nothing to be gained and much to be lost by slapping God in the face like this.  For this Christian nation to permit this just so that jews can make a profit is abominable.

But here is the worst part:

> But people do have a general understanding that, in fact, much of
>  their food is genetically modified.  And you know something? Chicken Little has
>  got all these warnings about the sky falling because of genetic modification,
>  but folks, I got to tell you, it's been 10 years, the sky hasn't fallen.

The sky isn't going to fall.  And you aren't going to know in ten years what the magnitude of the damages are.  And you may be in hell before the world finally faces the full impact of sticking a flounder gene into a tomato.  But we know one thing for sure about folks who make such statements--you jews will go to any lengths to destroy this Christian culture, including but not limited to spouting such LIES.

 

 

 

>                  Copyright 2001 Burrelle's Information Services
>
>                               CBS News Transcripts
>
>                         SHOW: 60 MINUTES II (9:00 PM ET)
>
>                             March 13, 2001, Tuesday
>
>TYPE: Profile
>
>LENGTH: 2633 words
>
>HEADLINE: WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO OUR FOOD?; GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS
>IN OUR
>  GROCERY STORES AND THE RELATED CONTROVERSIES
>
>ANCHORS: SCOTT PELLEY
>
>BODY:
>
>    WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO OUR FOOD?
>
>    SCOTT PELLEY, co-host:
>
>    How much of the food at the grocery store do you imagine is the
product of
>  gene splicing in a laboratory?  It may surprise you that up to 70
> percent of the
>  processed food in your market contains products of genetic engineering,
>  including soft drinks, catsup, potato chips, cookies, ice cream, corn
> flakes, to
>  name a few.  Genes, of course, are the building blocks of DNA, the
> blueprint of
>  life.  You have the same DNA as a redwood tree; the difference is in the
> genes.
>  Each gene expresses a trait--say, tallness in the redwood or brown eyes
in a
>  child.  Six years ago, science began plucking individual genes and
> splicing them
>  into our food crops. Now Americans are beginning to ask: What is genetic
>  engineering?  Is it healthy?  In short, what have they done to our food?
 We
>  start with a fish story.
>
>    (Footage of salmon farm)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) These salmon are going to make history.  They're
> due to
>  be the first genetically engineered animal approved to eat.  They're the
>  invention of a company run by Elliot Entis.
>
>    You know, to my mind, salmon seems OK.  Why did you engineer a new one?
>
>    Mr. ELLIOT ENTIS (Genetic Engineer): Well, it is not that the existing
> salmon
>  aren't OK.  They are.  The problem is that we have to feed
ever-increasing
>  numbers of people in the world today.
>
>    (Footage of salmon farming; a salmon being weighed)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Entis grew up in Boston knowing one thing: He
> would never
>  go into the fish business like his father.  But then, he'd never met a
> fish like
>  this.  Watch what happens when the scales hit the scales.
>
>    Unidentified Man: 2.54.
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) That's a normal salmon, about one year old.  This
is a
>  bioengineered salmon, also one year old, and more than three times
larger.
>
>    Unidentified Man: 9.14.
>
>    Mr. ENTIS: They grow faster.  They get to their full adult size in
roughly
>  half the time that they otherwise would.
>
>    (Footage of the salmon side by side; a salmon tank)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Again, this is a normal fish, and this is Entis'
fish.
>  His supersalmon were created by splicing in genetic material from two
other
>  fish, an ocean pout and a Pacific salmon.  Entis says the result is a
salmon
>  just like any other, except for its remarkable ability to grow.  In the
>  beginning, they expected to increase the growth rate 25 percent.  They
> got 400
>  percent.  Entis says it's a miracle of science. With the genes of two
> fishes, he
>  can feed a multitude.
>
>    You know what your critics say.  They say you're messing around in the
>  genome, and you couldn't possibly predict what all of the outcomes are
> going to
>  be.
>
>    Mr. ENTIS: Well, let me agree with some of my critics.  We are indeed
> messing
>  with a genome.  This is an old human tradition first started 10,000
> years ago
>  when we first began to cross-pollinate crops and to breed mutant
> monsters such
>  as wheat, which is a hybrid of three separate grass species.
>
>    PELLEY: When you crossbreed, you're changing the genome gradually over
> time.
>  But when you do it in the laboratory, you're creating a new organism
> like that.
>
>    Mr. ENTIS: I can't argue against the fact that modern methods of
>  biotechnology are more powerful.  I mean, we can do things with modern
> methods
>  of biotech that could not easily be done--or perhaps not even at
> all--through
>  standard crossbreeding.  But that's the advantage.  That's what we have
> to look
>  at--what is the product, and not the process.
>
>    Mr. ANDREW KIMBRELL (Center for Food Safety): Genetically engineered
> food is
>  really a revolution.  Whether you love it or hate it, it's--it's a
> revolution
>  in--in food.
>
>    (Footage of Kimbrell)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Andrew Kimbrell is a lawyer who runs a consumer
> advocate
>  group called the Center for Food Safety.  He says consumers have no idea
how
>  much science is changing our food.
>
>    Mr. KIMBRELL: You're taking a gene from a foreign species.
Let's--taking
>  flounder gene, for example, and putting it into a tomato. This has
actually
>  happened.
>
>    PELLEY: They've taken a flounder gene and put it in a tomato?
>
>    Mr. KIMBRELL: Right, because they want the tomato to grow at lower
>  temperatures, and they also want to be able to store it in freezing for
> a much
>  longer time than they currently can do.
>
>    PELLEY: And a fish gene helps a tomato do that?
>
>    Mr. KIMBRELL: That's right.
>
>    (Footage of government report)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) It's all in this US Department of Agriculture
permit,
>  which OK'd the experimental gene based on one identified in the winter
> flounder.
>  The idea was that the gene that keeps flounders from freezing in cold
water
>  could also keep the tomato fresh in freezing weather.  The tomatoes were
> grown
>  but never sold.  Still, Kimbrell says it shows that food is changing in
ways
>  that we do not expect.
>
>    Mr. KIMBRELL: We're able to, though this technology, mix and match the
>  genetic code of the entire living kingdom at will.  We've never had this
> power
>  before.
>
>    (Footage of a laboratory site)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Nowhere is that power being put to more use than
this
>  laboratory outside St. Louis.  Those are greenhouses on the roof
sheltering
>  plants the likes of which the world has never seen.
>
>    In a given year in this building, how many new plants do you engineer?
>
>    Mr. ERIC SACHS (Monsanto): My estimate would be tens of thousands of
> plants
>  produced each year.
>
>    PELLEY: Look, this one says wheat transformation.
>
>    Mr. SACHS: That's right.
>
>    (Footage of Pelley and Sachs in the plant; various operations there)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Eric Sachs is a scientist at Monsanto.  After 100
> years
>  of making chemicals, Monsanto is now betting its future on biotech. The
> company
>  is devoting all of its research to inventing new plants. They have
> perfected a
>  family of crops that contain a natural pesticide. Monsanto plucked a
> gene from a
>  type of bacteria, a gene that happens to be lethal to bugs.  They
> spliced that
>  gene into corn, potatoes and cotton.  This cotton, for example, was
> exposed to
>  boll worms.  The worms are feasting on a normal plant, but Monsanto's
>  bioengineered cotton is clean.
>
>    This is strictly the result, you're telling me, of the genetic
> engineering?
>
>    (Footage of Pelley and Sachs in greenhouse)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) When the bugs bite, they they're finished.
>
>    Mr. SACHS: The pests basically have--have died.
>
>    PELLEY: Because the plant killed them.
>
>    (Footage of farmland)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Bioengineered plants have been on the market for
six
>  years.  The bug-killing corn and potatoes are in products you probably
> buy and
>  eat every week.  In fact, the bioengineered corn now makes up 25 percent
> of the
>  nation's corn harvest.  If you think you don't want a bacteria gene in
your
>  corn, Monsanto's Scottish chief operating officer, Hugh Grant, says
> think of the
>  benefits.
>
>    Mr. HUGH GRANT (COO, Monsanto): There's millions of gallons of
insecticide
>  that hasn't been used since these crops were launched. There--today
> there are
>  hundreds of millions of acres of these crops grown not just here in the
> US but
>  increasingly around the world.
>
>    (Footage of Monsanto lab)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) At Monsanto, new plants are created here with a
very
>  simple trick.
>
>    Mr. SACHS: We can actually start...
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) They use a chemical to clip out the gene they want
to
>  transfer.  Then that new gene is carried into the plant's DNA by a type
of
>  bacteria that have a natural habit of invading plant cells with genetic
>  material.
>
>    And how long does that take for the bacterium to change the cotton
plant?
>
>    Mr. SACHS: We allow this to incubate about a day.
>
>    PELLEY: Do we understand what we're doing when we're mucking about
> with the
>  DNA and moving genes from one plant into another?  Do we really know
> what we're
>  doing with a certainty?
>
>    Mr. GRANT: There is a very high degree of certainty in this area. It's
> very,
>  very specific.  And the fascinating thing is, as the technology has
> developed,
>  particularly in the last 10 to 20 years, the degree of certainty
increases
>  tremendously as well.
>
>    (Footage of various demonstrations; Arpad Pusztai)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) But there is much less certainty overseas.
>
>    Unidentified Reporter: There have already been several arrests for
> criminal
>  damage.
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) In Europe, biotech food is protested in the fields
> and in
>  the streets.  Many grocery stores and restaurants refuse to sell it. In
> Japan,
>  protesters are up in arms over whether biotech corn pollen is poisonous
to
>  butterflies, something that our EPA calls a minimal concern.  All of
> this is a
>  tempest in a test tube that you can trace, in part, to a 70-year-old
> Hungarian
>  biochemist with a fondness for bow ties.
>
>    Mr. ARPAD PUSZTAI (Biochemist): Thank you very much, very kind.
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Arpad Pusztai is a respected scientist and a
blight on
>  the flowering ambition of the biotech industry.
>
>    Based on the research that you have done, do you think genetically
> modified
>  foods have moved into the marketplace much too quickly?
>
>    Mr. PUSZTAI: Far, far too quickly.
>
>    (To lecture audience) ...doing the experiment...
>
>    (Footage of lecture hall)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Pusztai is still lecturing audiences about his
> three-year
>  study funded by the British government.  His experiment fed rats both
normal
>  potatoes and bioengineered potatoes.
>
>    You didn't expect to see any difference...
>
>    Mr. PUSZTAI: No.  None whatsoever.
>
>    PELLEY: ...between the regular potatoes and the genetically modified
>  potatoes?
>
>    Mr. PUSZTAI: None whatsoever.
>
>    PELLEY: You were surprised.
>
>    Mr. PUSZTAI: Oh, sha--absolutely shattered.
>
>    (To lecture audience) Now you can see it...
>
>    (Footage of lecture hall; an issue of The Lancet)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Pusztai says the rats that ate the genetically
> engineered
>  potatoes suffered unusual thickening of the lining of the stomach and
> intestine,
>  and a weakening of the immune system.  Part of his work was published by
a
>  respected medical journal, The Lancet.  But some scientists have
criticized
>  Pusztai's methods and other studies have found that bioengineered food
> is safe.
>
>    Doctor, dozens and dozens of genetically modified products are on
grocery
>  store shelves in the United States.
>
>    Mr. PUSZTAI: Yes.
>
>    PELLEY: Virtually everyone in this country is eating some genetically
>  modified food.
>
>    Mr. PUSZTAI: Well, I think that--that we don't know what--what are the
>  consequences of that, that the effect will be long-term effects.  It's
like
>  smoking.  You smoke a cigarette, you don't drop dead; but you may
> develop some
>  real problem in 20, 30 years' time.
>
>    (Footage of Pelley and James Maryanski)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) James Maryanski is a biologist who oversees
> biotechnology
>  at the Food and Drug Administration, the federal agency that polices food
>  safety.
>
>    Mr. JAMES MARYANSKI (Biologist): We are convinced that--that the foods
> that
>  are out there are safe for consumers.
>
>    PELLEY: There are no long-term human health safety tests required for
> these
>  foods, correct?
>
>    Mr. MARYANSKI: That's correct.
>
>    PELLEY: Why is that?
>
>    Mr. MARYANSKI: Because these are foods that we're well familiar with.
> These
>  are crops--soy beans, corn, potatoes.  We know a lot about those and
> have a lot
>  of experience with them.
>
>    (Footage of laboratory)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) In short, FDA generally considers gene-spliced
> plants to
>  be the same as the original.
>
>    But up until now, the 10,000 years of agriculture, nature has imposed
> rules.
>  You can't cross a tomato with a flounder in nature.  Nature won't allow
> it. And
>  now we're breaking all of those rules.
>
>    Mr. MARYANSKI: They are putting pieces of DNA, which is the same in all
>  organisms, together, and it turns out that the genes function in the
> plant the
>  same as they functioned in the source that they were derived from.
>
>    (Footage of moonlight harvesting; grocery shoppers; laboratory works)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) If that sounds comforting, you should know that the
>  federal track record on biotech safety is less than perfect.  Last fall,
300
>  corn products were pulled from supermarket shelves because they might
> have been
>  contaminated with a bioengineered corn not approved for humans to eat.
> The EPA
>  had OK'd the corn, trade name StarLink, for animal consumption.  There
were
>  worries that the genetic modification in the corn could cause allergies
in
>  people.  But America's vast agriculture system couldn't keep StarLink
> separate.
>  It was mixed with most everything else.  Six months later, grain
processors,
>  including Archer Daniels Midland, are still testing for StarLink to
reassure
>  consumers that American corn is safe.
>
>    Unidentified Tester: Pass.
>
>    (Footage of Pelley and Kimbrell)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Consumer advocate Andrew Kimbrell says StarLink is
a
>  warning that federal food safety law hasn't caught up with biotech.
>
>    Mr. KIMBRELL: Right now, we've got eight different agencies regulating
>  biotechnology under 12 different laws, none of them having been passed
with
>  biotechnology in mind.  These are laws that are 30 years old, 40 years
> old, 50
>  years old, when biotechnology wasn't even invented yet. It's a tremendous
>  regulatory tangle, and it's really not in the best interests of
> the--of--of--of
>  the consumer, not even of the industry, I think.
>
>    (Footage of grocery shoppers)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Kimbrell says what is in the interest of the
> consumer is
>  mandatory labeling of bioengineered products, just like that required in
> many
>  European countries.
>
>    You know, I think a lot of people watching this interview would ask
>  themselves, 'If they're not putting labels on these products, they must
be
>  hiding something.  What is it that they don't want me to know?'
>
>    Mr. MARYANSKI: Labeling is a very difficult issue.  And under the--the
>  current law, we don't have authority that's broad to require labeling
simply
>  because consumers would like to have the information.
>
>    (Footage of grocery shopping; robot working in laboratory)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) There may be no plans to label, but there will be
more
>  genetically engineered food in your future.  This robot in Monsanto's
lab is
>  testing candidates for genetic modification.  The interesting thing is
> it tests
>  500 a day.  In a few years, perhaps dozens of genes could be spliced
into a
>  plant to add vitamins, make healthier oils and increase the harvest,
> according
>  to Monsanto's Hugh Grant.
>
>    Mr. GRANT: The world that our children will live in is going to be a
very
>  different world to the world we live in today.  The population will
probably
>  double, and most people agree on that.  The change that will occur--or
> the big
>  question that emerges is: How do you feed twice as many people?
>
>    PELLEY: Just because we can...
>
>    Mr. ENTIS: Doesn't mean we should.  It's true.
>
>    PELLEY: Where are the limits for you?
>
>    Mr. ENTIS: Well, I have to say that some of the limits for me are
> driven by
>  what I believe is acceptable as well as by what is good.  Is there an
> ethical
>  question that's involved with moving a gene from a flounder to a
> tomato?  No, I
>  don't believe that there is an ethical one because, as I pointed out,
> most of
>  our genes are shared between all organisms.
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) The FDA is now reviewing Elliot Entis' supersalmon.
>  Approval is expected in two years, when Entis believes that shoppers
> will accept
>  them.
>
>    Mr. ENTIS: I take a look at what happens in the grocery stores and I
don't
>  see the stampede away from genetically modified foods.  That has not
> happened.
>
>    PELLEY: How would they know?
>
>    Mr. ENTIS: But people do have a general understanding that, in fact,
> much of
>  their food is genetically modified.  And you know something? Chicken
> Little has
>  got all these warnings about the sky falling because of genetic
> modification,
>  but folks, I got to tell you, it's been 10 years, the sky hasn't fallen.
>
>    (Announcements)
>
>LOAD-DATE: March 14, 2001
>
>
>--
>James Bell
>Program Manager
>Sustain
>http://www.sustainusa.org/

************************************************

Philip L.  Bereano
Professor
Department of Technical Communication
College of Engineering
Box 352195
University of Washington
Seattle, Wash.  98195

phone:  (206) 543-9037
fax:       (206) 543-8858
***************************




From:  "Biotech Activists" <biotech_activists@i...>
Date:  Wed Mar 21, 2001 3:58am
Subject:  Fwd: 60 Minutes "What Have They Done To Our Food?"
To:  ARTISTpres@a...

Biotech Activists (biotech_activists@i...)    Posted: 03/19/2001  By 
phil@u...  
============================================================




>X-Sender: jamesbell@1...
>Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:51:57 -0600
>To: sustain@s...
>From: James Bell <jamesbell@s...>
>Subject: 60 Minutes "What Have They Done To Our Food?"
>Cc: chflinn@a..., barrybursak@a...
>
>For those who missed the broadcast:
>
>
>                  Copyright 2001 Burrelle's Information Services
>
>                               CBS News Transcripts
>
>                         SHOW: 60 MINUTES II (9:00 PM ET)
>
>                             March 13, 2001, Tuesday
>
>TYPE: Profile
>
>LENGTH: 2633 words
>
>HEADLINE: WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO OUR FOOD?; GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS 
>IN OUR
>  GROCERY STORES AND THE RELATED CONTROVERSIES
>
>ANCHORS: SCOTT PELLEY
>
>BODY:
>
>    WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO OUR FOOD?
>
>    SCOTT PELLEY, co-host:
>
>    How much of the food at the grocery store do you imagine is the product of
>  gene splicing in a laboratory?  It may surprise you that up to 70 
> percent of the
>  processed food in your market contains products of genetic engineering,
>  including soft drinks, catsup, potato chips, cookies, ice cream, corn 
> flakes, to
>  name a few.  Genes, of course, are the building blocks of DNA, the 
> blueprint of
>  life.  You have the same DNA as a redwood tree; the difference is in the 
> genes.
>  Each gene expresses a trait--say, tallness in the redwood or brown eyes in a
>  child.  Six years ago, science began plucking individual genes and 
> splicing them
>  into our food crops. Now Americans are beginning to ask: What is genetic
>  engineering?  Is it healthy?  In short, what have they done to our food?  We
>  start with a fish story.
>
>    (Footage of salmon farm)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) These salmon are going to make history.  They're 
> due to
>  be the first genetically engineered animal approved to eat.  They're the
>  invention of a company run by Elliot Entis.
>
>    You know, to my mind, salmon seems OK.  Why did you engineer a new one?
>
>    Mr. ELLIOT ENTIS (Genetic Engineer): Well, it is not that the existing 
> salmon
>  aren't OK.  They are.  The problem is that we have to feed ever-increasing
>  numbers of people in the world today.
>
>    (Footage of salmon farming; a salmon being weighed)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Entis grew up in Boston knowing one thing: He 
> would never
>  go into the fish business like his father.  But then, he'd never met a 
> fish like
>  this.  Watch what happens when the scales hit the scales.
>
>    Unidentified Man: 2.54.
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) That's a normal salmon, about one year old.  This is a
>  bioengineered salmon, also one year old, and more than three times larger.
>
>    Unidentified Man: 9.14.
>
>    Mr. ENTIS: They grow faster.  They get to their full adult size in roughly
>  half the time that they otherwise would.
>
>    (Footage of the salmon side by side; a salmon tank)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Again, this is a normal fish, and this is Entis' fish.
>  His supersalmon were created by splicing in genetic material from two other
>  fish, an ocean pout and a Pacific salmon.  Entis says the result is a salmon
>  just like any other, except for its remarkable ability to grow.  In the
>  beginning, they expected to increase the growth rate 25 percent.  They 
> got 400
>  percent.  Entis says it's a miracle of science. With the genes of two 
> fishes, he
>  can feed a multitude.
>
>    You know what your critics say.  They say you're messing around in the
>  genome, and you couldn't possibly predict what all of the outcomes are 
> going to
>  be.
>
>    Mr. ENTIS: Well, let me agree with some of my critics.  We are indeed 
> messing
>  with a genome.  This is an old human tradition first started 10,000 
> years ago
>  when we first began to cross-pollinate crops and to breed mutant 
> monsters such
>  as wheat, which is a hybrid of three separate grass species.
>
>    PELLEY: When you crossbreed, you're changing the genome gradually over 
> time.
>  But when you do it in the laboratory, you're creating a new organism 
> like that.
>
>    Mr. ENTIS: I can't argue against the fact that modern methods of
>  biotechnology are more powerful.  I mean, we can do things with modern 
> methods
>  of biotech that could not easily be done--or perhaps not even at 
> all--through
>  standard crossbreeding.  But that's the advantage.  That's what we have 
> to look
>  at--what is the product, and not the process.
>
>    Mr. ANDREW KIMBRELL (Center for Food Safety): Genetically engineered 
> food is
>  really a revolution.  Whether you love it or hate it, it's--it's a 
> revolution
>  in--in food.
>
>    (Footage of Kimbrell)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Andrew Kimbrell is a lawyer who runs a consumer 
> advocate
>  group called the Center for Food Safety.  He says consumers have no idea how
>  much science is changing our food.
>
>    Mr. KIMBRELL: You're taking a gene from a foreign species. Let's--taking
>  flounder gene, for example, and putting it into a tomato. This has actually
>  happened.
>
>    PELLEY: They've taken a flounder gene and put it in a tomato?
>
>    Mr. KIMBRELL: Right, because they want the tomato to grow at lower
>  temperatures, and they also want to be able to store it in freezing for 
> a much
>  longer time than they currently can do.
>
>    PELLEY: And a fish gene helps a tomato do that?
>
>    Mr. KIMBRELL: That's right.
>
>    (Footage of government report)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) It's all in this US Department of Agriculture permit,
>  which OK'd the experimental gene based on one identified in the winter 
> flounder.
>  The idea was that the gene that keeps flounders from freezing in cold water
>  could also keep the tomato fresh in freezing weather.  The tomatoes were 
> grown
>  but never sold.  Still, Kimbrell says it shows that food is changing in ways
>  that we do not expect.
>
>    Mr. KIMBRELL: We're able to, though this technology, mix and match the
>  genetic code of the entire living kingdom at will.  We've never had this 
> power
>  before.
>
>    (Footage of a laboratory site)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Nowhere is that power being put to more use than this
>  laboratory outside St. Louis.  Those are greenhouses on the roof sheltering
>  plants the likes of which the world has never seen.
>
>    In a given year in this building, how many new plants do you engineer?
>
>    Mr. ERIC SACHS (Monsanto): My estimate would be tens of thousands of 
> plants
>  produced each year.
>
>    PELLEY: Look, this one says wheat transformation.
>
>    Mr. SACHS: That's right.
>
>    (Footage of Pelley and Sachs in the plant; various operations there)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Eric Sachs is a scientist at Monsanto.  After 100 
> years
>  of making chemicals, Monsanto is now betting its future on biotech. The 
> company
>  is devoting all of its research to inventing new plants. They have 
> perfected a
>  family of crops that contain a natural pesticide. Monsanto plucked a 
> gene from a
>  type of bacteria, a gene that happens to be lethal to bugs.  They 
> spliced that
>  gene into corn, potatoes and cotton.  This cotton, for example, was 
> exposed to
>  boll worms.  The worms are feasting on a normal plant, but Monsanto's
>  bioengineered cotton is clean.
>
>    This is strictly the result, you're telling me, of the genetic 
> engineering?
>
>    (Footage of Pelley and Sachs in greenhouse)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) When the bugs bite, they they're finished.
>
>    Mr. SACHS: The pests basically have--have died.
>
>    PELLEY: Because the plant killed them.
>
>    (Footage of farmland)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Bioengineered plants have been on the market for six
>  years.  The bug-killing corn and potatoes are in products you probably 
> buy and
>  eat every week.  In fact, the bioengineered corn now makes up 25 percent 
> of the
>  nation's corn harvest.  If you think you don't want a bacteria gene in your
>  corn, Monsanto's Scottish chief operating officer, Hugh Grant, says 
> think of the
>  benefits.
>
>    Mr. HUGH GRANT (COO, Monsanto): There's millions of gallons of insecticide
>  that hasn't been used since these crops were launched. There--today 
> there are
>  hundreds of millions of acres of these crops grown not just here in the 
> US but
>  increasingly around the world.
>
>    (Footage of Monsanto lab)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) At Monsanto, new plants are created here with a very
>  simple trick.
>
>    Mr. SACHS: We can actually start...
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) They use a chemical to clip out the gene they want to
>  transfer.  Then that new gene is carried into the plant's DNA by a type of
>  bacteria that have a natural habit of invading plant cells with genetic
>  material.
>
>    And how long does that take for the bacterium to change the cotton plant?
>
>    Mr. SACHS: We allow this to incubate about a day.
>
>    PELLEY: Do we understand what we're doing when we're mucking about 
> with the
>  DNA and moving genes from one plant into another?  Do we really know 
> what we're
>  doing with a certainty?
>
>    Mr. GRANT: There is a very high degree of certainty in this area. It's 
> very,
>  very specific.  And the fascinating thing is, as the technology has 
> developed,
>  particularly in the last 10 to 20 years, the degree of certainty increases
>  tremendously as well.
>
>    (Footage of various demonstrations; Arpad Pusztai)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) But there is much less certainty overseas.
>
>    Unidentified Reporter: There have already been several arrests for 
> criminal
>  damage.
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) In Europe, biotech food is protested in the fields 
> and in
>  the streets.  Many grocery stores and restaurants refuse to sell it. In 
> Japan,
>  protesters are up in arms over whether biotech corn pollen is poisonous to
>  butterflies, something that our EPA calls a minimal concern.  All of 
> this is a
>  tempest in a test tube that you can trace, in part, to a 70-year-old 
> Hungarian
>  biochemist with a fondness for bow ties.
>
>    Mr. ARPAD PUSZTAI (Biochemist): Thank you very much, very kind.
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Arpad Pusztai is a respected scientist and a blight on
>  the flowering ambition of the biotech industry.
>
>    Based on the research that you have done, do you think genetically 
> modified
>  foods have moved into the marketplace much too quickly?
>
>    Mr. PUSZTAI: Far, far too quickly.
>
>    (To lecture audience) ...doing the experiment...
>
>    (Footage of lecture hall)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Pusztai is still lecturing audiences about his 
> three-year
>  study funded by the British government.  His experiment fed rats both normal
>  potatoes and bioengineered potatoes.
>
>    You didn't expect to see any difference...
>
>    Mr. PUSZTAI: No.  None whatsoever.
>
>    PELLEY: ...between the regular potatoes and the genetically modified
>  potatoes?
>
>    Mr. PUSZTAI: None whatsoever.
>
>    PELLEY: You were surprised.
>
>    Mr. PUSZTAI: Oh, sha--absolutely shattered.
>
>    (To lecture audience) Now you can see it...
>
>    (Footage of lecture hall; an issue of The Lancet)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Pusztai says the rats that ate the genetically 
> engineered
>  potatoes suffered unusual thickening of the lining of the stomach and 
> intestine,
>  and a weakening of the immune system.  Part of his work was published by a
>  respected medical journal, The Lancet.  But some scientists have criticized
>  Pusztai's methods and other studies have found that bioengineered food 
> is safe.
>
>    Doctor, dozens and dozens of genetically modified products are on grocery
>  store shelves in the United States.
>
>    Mr. PUSZTAI: Yes.
>
>    PELLEY: Virtually everyone in this country is eating some genetically
>  modified food.
>
>    Mr. PUSZTAI: Well, I think that--that we don't know what--what are the
>  consequences of that, that the effect will be long-term effects.  It's like
>  smoking.  You smoke a cigarette, you don't drop dead; but you may 
> develop some
>  real problem in 20, 30 years' time.
>
>    (Footage of Pelley and James Maryanski)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) James Maryanski is a biologist who oversees 
> biotechnology
>  at the Food and Drug Administration, the federal agency that polices food
>  safety.
>
>    Mr. JAMES MARYANSKI (Biologist): We are convinced that--that the foods 
> that
>  are out there are safe for consumers.
>
>    PELLEY: There are no long-term human health safety tests required for 
> these
>  foods, correct?
>
>    Mr. MARYANSKI: That's correct.
>
>    PELLEY: Why is that?
>
>    Mr. MARYANSKI: Because these are foods that we're well familiar with. 
> These
>  are crops--soy beans, corn, potatoes.  We know a lot about those and 
> have a lot
>  of experience with them.
>
>    (Footage of laboratory)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) In short, FDA generally considers gene-spliced 
> plants to
>  be the same as the original.
>
>    But up until now, the 10,000 years of agriculture, nature has imposed 
> rules.
>  You can't cross a tomato with a flounder in nature.  Nature won't allow 
> it. And
>  now we're breaking all of those rules.
>
>    Mr. MARYANSKI: They are putting pieces of DNA, which is the same in all
>  organisms, together, and it turns out that the genes function in the 
> plant the
>  same as they functioned in the source that they were derived from.
>
>    (Footage of moonlight harvesting; grocery shoppers; laboratory works)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) If that sounds comforting, you should know that the
>  federal track record on biotech safety is less than perfect.  Last fall, 300
>  corn products were pulled from supermarket shelves because they might 
> have been
>  contaminated with a bioengineered corn not approved for humans to eat. 
> The EPA
>  had OK'd the corn, trade name StarLink, for animal consumption.  There were
>  worries that the genetic modification in the corn could cause allergies in
>  people.  But America's vast agriculture system couldn't keep StarLink 
> separate.
>  It was mixed with most everything else.  Six months later, grain processors,
>  including Archer Daniels Midland, are still testing for StarLink to reassure
>  consumers that American corn is safe.
>
>    Unidentified Tester: Pass.
>
>    (Footage of Pelley and Kimbrell)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Consumer advocate Andrew Kimbrell says StarLink is a
>  warning that federal food safety law hasn't caught up with biotech.
>
>    Mr. KIMBRELL: Right now, we've got eight different agencies regulating
>  biotechnology under 12 different laws, none of them having been passed with
>  biotechnology in mind.  These are laws that are 30 years old, 40 years 
> old, 50
>  years old, when biotechnology wasn't even invented yet. It's a tremendous
>  regulatory tangle, and it's really not in the best interests of 
> the--of--of--of
>  the consumer, not even of the industry, I think.
>
>    (Footage of grocery shoppers)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) Kimbrell says what is in the interest of the 
> consumer is
>  mandatory labeling of bioengineered products, just like that required in 
> many
>  European countries.
>
>    You know, I think a lot of people watching this interview would ask
>  themselves, 'If they're not putting labels on these products, they must be
>  hiding something.  What is it that they don't want me to know?'
>
>    Mr. MARYANSKI: Labeling is a very difficult issue.  And under the--the
>  current law, we don't have authority that's broad to require labeling simply
>  because consumers would like to have the information.
>
>    (Footage of grocery shopping; robot working in laboratory)
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) There may be no plans to label, but there will be more
>  genetically engineered food in your future.  This robot in Monsanto's lab is
>  testing candidates for genetic modification.  The interesting thing is 
> it tests
>  500 a day.  In a few years, perhaps dozens of genes could be spliced into a
>  plant to add vitamins, make healthier oils and increase the harvest, 
> according
>  to Monsanto's Hugh Grant.
>
>    Mr. GRANT: The world that our children will live in is going to be a very
>  different world to the world we live in today.  The population will probably
>  double, and most people agree on that.  The change that will occur--or 
> the big
>  question that emerges is: How do you feed twice as many people?
>
>    PELLEY: Just because we can...
>
>    Mr. ENTIS: Doesn't mean we should.  It's true.
>
>    PELLEY: Where are the limits for you?
>
>    Mr. ENTIS: Well, I have to say that some of the limits for me are 
> driven by
>  what I believe is acceptable as well as by what is good.  Is there an 
> ethical
>  question that's involved with moving a gene from a flounder to a 
> tomato?  No, I
>  don't believe that there is an ethical one because, as I pointed out, 
> most of
>  our genes are shared between all organisms.
>
>    PELLEY: (Voiceover) The FDA is now reviewing Elliot Entis' supersalmon.
>  Approval is expected in two years, when Entis believes that shoppers 
> will accept
>  them.
>
>    Mr. ENTIS: I take a look at what happens in the grocery stores and I don't
>  see the stampede away from genetically modified foods.  That has not 
> happened.
>
>    PELLEY: How would they know?
>
>    Mr. ENTIS: But people do have a general understanding that, in fact, 
> much of
>  their food is genetically modified.  And you know something? Chicken 
> Little has
>  got all these warnings about the sky falling because of genetic 
> modification,
>  but folks, I got to tell you, it's been 10 years, the sky hasn't fallen.
>
>    (Announcements)
>
>LOAD-DATE: March 14, 2001
>
 

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Hit Counter

 

Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party