I know that Marcus does not like to reply to me in public and replies to
my personal box intead, but I really rather keep these exchanges public.

In his last reply, Marcus wrote:

In the UK and US this meant an increase of 200 times in the allowed
residue for RoundUp as can be seen he
http://www.gmfoodnews.com/dm210999.txt

This was done for only one reason...for the benefit of companies
producing RR products.

====
My reply
Yes it is an increase of residues. That much was in the reference from
the Federal Register I provided for you.

Your reason as to why it was done is probably correct. In that case,
companies have been benefitting from residue standards since long before
there were transgenics.

Keep in mind that there have been residue standards for a long time now.
Prior to RR crops, the standards only had to account for glyphosate
residues from drift, rather than from direct applications. These same
crops however, also had residue tolerances for those herbicides actually
being used for their production.

At worst, you have traded one residue for the other. At best, there is
a lot less to worry about glyphosate residues than other type of residues.















wparrott wrote:
wparrott wrote:

Marcus Williamson wrote:

There are legitimate reasons for skepticism regarding GM crops, but
please lose the "untested" contention.




I have been asking scientists and politicians for the last 4 years to
provide me with evidence of safety tests which prove that GM crops are
safe. None have been able to provide the evidence.



Marcus,

Given that you refuse to accept or acknowledge any of tha data out
there, the onus is on you to state what you want to see. Be specific.
Do not say a vague thing like "safety data," because there is already
an abundance of that, and you refuse to accept. Time for you to come
up with the details....

Marcus,

I know you like to reply to my personal email, but I rather reply in
public. Here is your question to my personal email, and my response
follows:

Marcus wrote:
How about toxicological data proving that GM soya (for example) is not
more toxic (with and without RR spraying) than its conventional
equivalent?

For example, contains glyphosate residues which would be harmful to
humans or animals. Or contains toxic novel proteins as a result of the
RR genetic modification...
-------

Parrott answered:

The use of glyphosate on soybean inevitably leads to the presence of
glyphosate residues in the soybean plant and seed. Accordingly, the EPA
(2000) established acceptable glyphosate residue levels of 20 mg kg-1
for the soybean seed itself, 100 mg kg-1 for the soybean hulls, 50 mg
kg-1 for aspirated grain fractions, 100 mg kg-1 for soybean forage, and
200 mg kg-1 for soybean hay.

See: EPA. 2000. 40 CFR part 80. Glyphosate; pesticide residues. Fed.
Reg. 65:52660-52667.


As far as toxic novel proteins, where would they come from? Please
explain, and please be specific.

You cannot be referring to the RR protein itself. The protein made by
the RR (which incidentally, is only slightly different from one already
in soybean, and every other bacterium or green plant) has been
extensively characterized. You should have seen the data, as I have
pointed you in the data's direction in the past.









regards
Marcus