On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:16:23 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On 25 Jul 2003 09:48:22 -0700, (Hua Kul) wrote:

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
t...
"Oz" wrote in message
...
Hua Kul writes

Another naif who seems to believe that governments and their
regulations will save us. It was a British government regulation
requiring cattle to be heavily dosed with organophosphate pesticides
which may have triggered the BSE outbreak. See Mark Purdy's
research.

Had organophosphates caused it or fairies dancing ainti clockwise on
the
dark of a blue moon BSE is still no more than a fart in a hurricane in
the
problems of world health.

Gordon

You missed my point, which was that government actions (regarding
*anything*, and no matter how well intentioned) can't be relied upon
to protect us from much of anything, as you seemed to imply by your
vague "testing" post.

Elect a proper government, and it is the only thing that will protect
you. The public are incapable of knowing the full story, the
corporations are doing their job making money for their shareholders.
An elected, effective regulator is the only thing left.

The USDA does a very good job with food safety. Not as good as the guys in
OZ they seem to have it down right. The FDA has a good record as well. Many
think that they are too careful.

I reckon they do a reasonable job considering. Although there are some
who think they are too careful, there are many who think that they are
in the pockets of Monsanto, et al.

You still haven't addressed my larger point, posted in response to
your challenge, that the pharmaceutical industries are intent upon
using elements of our food production systems not to improve the food
but to contaminate it for the purpose of increasing their profits,

Their sole job in life!

To do that job they must provide safe product.

Well yes, that generally follows. But it is not a foregone conclusion.
If shareholders returns are increased by cutting corners where
possible, guess what will, and arguably should, happen

A recall cuts deeply into
those profits and the loss of pubilc turst puts them out of business.

But that is the regulator doing its job. So many complain that the
regulator is useless, and is taking kickbacks.

I know
a substantial number of people in the food producion and seed prodution
business and every one is trying to make money by making the products that
the market wants.

That seems to be the logical way to succeed in the long haul. But
those who do otherwise should (and usually do) get clobbered by the
regulator.

They don't risk their business by tying to make a few
cents intentionaly adultring their products.

Well no, not generally, but there was a large alternative
pharmaceutical company here who let bad product through more and more
with inadequate regulation which finally shut them down and
prosecuted.

If they get caugt intentionaly
endangering the public the inspection system does not deal with them very
kindly.

Nope, and a good thing too. Both of us seem to agree that the
regulator does a reasonable job in a very tough environment. If you
are not pleasing everyone equally, you have it just about right

and
the demonstrated danger in that being the total contamination of an
entire crop globally, as is happening with Monsanto's Starlink GM
corn.

If you don't like what they do, get your regulator to change its
legislation. QED.

To me that one example is enough to totally prohibit any GM
changes, with the possibe exception of those changes that actually
improve the nutrition, safety, or yield of the crop.

What about chages that improve the crops impact on the envionement. Less
erosion and less pesticide aren't those good for society as a whole.

Absolutely. And I would hope that is take into account.

Cotton
account for 25% of the insecticde used it the the world. BT cotton can cut
that by 50 to 100% will the world not be a better place if we use 12 to 20%
less insceicide?

Yep.

Humans don't eat any protien from the cotton plant that
hasn't be run throug a cow first becuse it is natuarly toxic to simple
stomaced animal from cotton's own built in insecticide.

Yep, we are at one mind