Report Backs Modified Crops

When one improves on desirable traits. Sometimes one does not fully realize how this upsets the balance of nature.

Let's give up altogether on attempts to solve present problems, lest we cause future problems, such as upsetting the "balance of nature." Rigorously applied, the so-called "precautionary principle" produces apathy.

[Spiro woulda been proud of that phrase.]

"precautionary principle"

Give up....no I didn't say that. Precautionary approach I would say.

Lets say for example which has happened.

One brings in parasites to control a form of pest that destroys crops, only later after the original pests are taken care of, i.e. eradicated, or brought under control, these parasite attacks a friendly or beneficial insect.

Or what was actually said in the actual article. GMC can create more stronger and resistant insects.

Understand THE CONSEQUENCES both real and potential. And to do that, one has to understand the "Balance of Nature", which is more than just words, and just as difficult to be described completely.

Another question that goes with it is basically this, if or when you defeat an issue such as disease or a pest using a Modified Gene.....then what. Due you revert back to heirloom type crop. or stick with the modified gene crop, or modify it farther.

p911

I am not saying that one should proceed willy-nilly into new technologies. Of course, one should assess the plausible risks of a new technology, so far as they can be reasonably determined.

But if you employ the "precautionary principle," you can get into an infinite delay such as this: We don't know what harm this may cause in a year, so let's wait a year before we do anything. Then, we don't know what harm this may cause in ten years, so let's wait ten years before we do anything. Ad infinitum/nauseam, there being no end to this type of thinking.

Right now we face the increasing resistance of certain bacteria to certain antibiotics. Had we predicted this problem 60 years ago, and simply abandoned the idea of antibiotics, how many people would have died prematurely?

Instead of the inhibitive "precautionary principle," a better approach might be "presumption of innocence." We remain vigilant for possible side effects of new technologies, but until adverse effects are demonstrated, we benefit from the upside. This buys time. If a problem is discovered later, then address it in due course.

"precautionary principle,"

I agree, a stalemate, when over zealous environmentalist and fence sitting politicians are involved.

And development does not happen over night, there is a time to reflect during development but it could be bias.

It comes a time when one has to act, in anything we do, there is going to be detrimental effects somewhere. One can be responsible and we are suppose to be on top of the food chain, one needs to look at where we are what our needs are...........

The over zealous enviro's and politicians, can get in back of the bread line, if anything is left, they can eat too......

p911