I found this particular testimony most interesting:
the “push to redesign human beings, animals and plants to meet the commercial goals of a limited number of individuals is fundamentally at odds with the principle of respect for nature.”
“Respect for nature”? What principle is that? Is it universally shared? He speaks as though there’s some sort of well-defined societal consensus for such a principle.
I’ve already disquisited on this subject; there is nothing holy or sacrosanct about nature. Nature in itself has no intrinsic value.
If this FOE member believes that nature should not be trifled with, then no anaesthetics for him next time he needs dental work. In fact, no dental work allowed, other than knocking aching teeth out with rocks. And no plastic toothbrushes or floss, or anti-cavity toothpaste–they’re unnatural.
This falls into the same category of nonsense as Jeremy Rifkin’s “integrity of the genome.”