wparrott wrote:

wrote:
Indeed. One is forever hopeful.


Here's further confirmation that it would be financial suicide to grow
GM wheat...

For once, I totally agree with Marcus. The limitations are due to
social issues that influence market forces-- not to real safety issues


"Safety issues are not real" That is the attitude of the industry and of
some of the US public that repeats this propaganda like a
lobotomized Parrot.

In November of 2002 the USDA ordered the disposal (destruction or diversion
to non food uses -maybe to put the stuff for sale to an unsuspecting third
world country-) of half a million bushels of potentially contaminated beans.
The company involded? ProdiGene, a texas based company. What does ProdiGene
make to generate such response? well, it makes oral vaccines!
ProdiGene conducted trials of corn that makes vaccines
for transmissible gastroenteritis virus.
The problem is that grain elevators very often mix grains. One day they
move corn, next day beans, next day corn again. The geniuses at
ProdiGene forgot that little detail! Well, they also forgot that plants
have sex. And plants like corn have the most promiscuous sex of all
crop plants! contamination is no problem when the objective is to
contaminate!

I wonder what US university generated such moraly dead imbeciles!

But hey, this is the Bush era. Let's keep things secret:
Neither ProdiGene nor the government will disclose exactly what genetic
modification the errant corn contained, but Anthony Laos, the company's
chief executive officer, says it was a protein for "persistent digestive
health conditions."

only a diareea vaccine? or is it an HIV vaccine?:
Just imagine: HIV antibody positives all around the country!

Here is the quote for my editor.
Corn is currently being used in an attempt to genetically engineer an
HIV vaccine using a protein from the monkey version of HIV. Imagine
people taking an HIV vaccine by eating corn (28). The technology is being
developed by Texas-based Prodigene.
Young, Emma. 2002. How long before HIV vaccine is growing in a field near you?
New Scientist. vol.174. Issue 2339. p13.

Like someone said:
"If the USDA continues to allow biopharm food crops to be planted,
someone is going to get prescription drugs or industrial chemicals
in their cornflakes,"

but, that is exactly the strategy: contaminate, taint, contaminate,
n January 2001, Don Westfall, a food industry consultant formerly with
Promar International, an American company that advises large food
corporations on industry trends and marketing strategies, told the
Toronto Star exactly that: "The hope of the industry is that over time
the market is so flooded that there's nothing you can do about it.
You just sort of surrender."

In conclusion, dear parrot, keep reading!
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6157
....
Biotech supporters claim that GM food is no different than food derived
from conventional breeding techniques and that the technology of genetic
engineering simply enables scientists to improve crops more quickly and
with greater precision. Credible scientists question both claims.

Biotechnologists have no control over where the genes they are inserting
end up in the modified species' genome, leading one geneticist to dub
the technology "genetic randomeering." The location is important, because
where the gene ends up -- actually it's a package of several genes,
because several different genes are needed to make the technology work
-- will determine whether toxic byproducts or allergens are created, or
whether the nutritional value of the modified food is altered.
The placement of foreign genes can also disrupt the normal functioning
of the modified organism.

David Schubert, a cell biologist at The Salk Institute for Biological
Studies in San Diego, says there is no way to predict these outcomes in
advance. He points to one particularly tragic incident to illustrate
what can go wrong with genetic engineering. In the late 1980s, Showa
Denko, a Japanese chemical company, began producing the amino acid
L-tryptophan with genetically engineered bacteria. Unfortunately the
modified bacteria also produced a novel amino acid that turned out to
be highly toxic, killing 37 people, permanently disabling 1,500 and
making more than 5,000 sick.
---

Here we are debating again the same stupid technology, migh as
well restart puting lead in the gas and paint, or as the Bush administration
did, to hell with pesky regulations about arsenic in the water (we might
even get UNICEF to advise us in how to poison a nation and how to ignore
such pesky problem)