US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
Moratorium, Ban, or Eradication?
27 Mar 2000
Do we only want to place a moratorium on mutant crops? Do we want to ban them? Or do we want to totally eradicate them?
Several speakers at this past weekend's Biodevastation Conference proposed that a moratorium or ban be placed on mutant crops. While such measures would certainly be a huge improvement over the current mutant free-for-all, would they go far enough? And what are the implications of moratoria and bans?

As I understand the term "moratorium," it means a temporary halt to some practice, a halt that may be lifted at a time in the future when conditions have improved. As I understand the term "ban," it means a permanent end to something--as in no more, never. You place a moratorium on something that you're not so sure about. You place a ban on something that you're very sure about, and want to put a permanent end to.

What are we talking about here with regards to mutant foods? Is the jury still out on the things? Or is the jury in, and the guilty verdict read? From all that I've seen, it would appear to be the latter case. If this is indeed the case, then why are we talking about moratoria at all? Why aren't we talking about bans, or even eradications--as in total elimination from the face of the Earth?

Eradication would seem preferable to a ban because even with an effective ban, there would still be all those existing crops out there, and there would still be all those mutant products of genetic drift out there, free to mutate even further, and free to wreak further genetic havoc. Is this what we want?

So shouldn't we really be talking eradication instead of ban or moratorium? Also, talking eradication would more clearly state to the public the level of the danger that we face from these mutant crops. Furthermore, talking eradication would help to undermine the undeserved legitimacy that mutant crops currently enjoy.

Karl Davies
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.