Moosh:] wrote:
On 29 Jul 2003 03:09:42 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Gordon Couger wrote:

From: "Brian Sandle"
: As well as looking a bit less curly your non-GM plants are a darker green,
: less yellow than the GM ones. How much of that is due to moisture storage
: by the mulch, as opposed to some sort of residual effect of the Roundup
: on the RR plants, or differences in film? I presume the film was the same.

http://www.couger.com/farm

There is no differece from the RR resistance most of the differece is one is
taken faceing west and on is take facing south and the convential till has
been out of the ground a little longer and is greener from more
photosyntisis and less disease problems.

But is the disease resulting from the need for the plant to put more
energy into making the RR metabolizing protein?

Brian, please look at some plant biochemistry texts and see how
glyphosate resistance works and how protein expression takes
negligible energy from the plants normal processes. That's a greenie
scare tactic.

Or is the yellowness something else, too?

Lack of sunlight by comparison to the others, as he said. Plants need
sunlight to actually make chlorophyll


Linkname: Citizen's Vigil Exposes Bad Science in GM Crop Trial
URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MunlochyVigil.php
size: 204 lines

[...]
"The control crop has substantial leafage and a closed canopy,
thus restricting the amount of light available for weeds to
grow," explained Anthony and Nigel. There was much more
variation among the plants in the GM crop. Many of the leaves
had turned yellow or had yellow edges. And one of the plants in
the GM field had started to flower, "probably four months
early".

In other words, the crop was showing typical signs of genetic
instability that has plagued many other GM crops (see "Scrambled
genome of RR soya" and other articles, ISIS News 9/10). This
alone would invalidate any findings from the field trials,
making the entire exercise pointless, particularly in the light
of the new European Directive governing deliberate release of GM
crops (see below).

The GM oilseed rape fiasco was reported in the local Highland
News at the beginning of December. Aventis' response was that
although the varieties used are "very similar", the GM crop was
of a "different" variety from the control, a fine example of
Orwellian `doublespeak'.

And no wonder, this particular GM oilseed rape was approved as
"substantially equivalent" (to non GM oilseed rape) by the
Scientific Committee on Plants in Europe. But that was before
the European Directive for deliberate release has been
substantially strengthened last year (see "Europe's new rules
could sink all GMOs" ISIS News 11/12 www.i-sis.org.uk). This
change of reference makes the farm-scale field trials obsolete,
because they are unlikely to pass muster for commercial approval
at the end.

According to the report by the Agriculture and Environment
Biotechnology Commission, the object of the farm-scale field
trials is not to find out if the GM crops are safe. Yield is
also not relevant measure, even though some farmer experiencing
such a drastic crop failure might well commit suicide. Both
those aspects have already been "approved by the regulatory
authorities". The farm-scale field trials are not designed to
answer all key questions about GM crops. Only "some key
indicators of biodiversity" will be monitored to see if there
are differences between the two halves of each field.

"This obviously makes a complete mockery of the science
involved." Anthony and Nigel rightly conclude. The scientists
who have approved such crops should be held to proper account.


Where are some other honest comparison photos?

Of what?

You can't deny the instabilities.