On Wed, 14 May 2003 02:56:56 GMT, wrote:

Thanks for all of your responses, pro and con. All responses to my
questions help me compile useful statistics.

I will respond to some of your questions and comments.

First, many of your comments seem to come from a perspective of belief in
traditional farming practices, combined with fear and distrust of scientific
agriculture. I would point out that, at one time all of these old
technologies were new and untested. Selection and mass planting of
cultivars has generally been benign, but there are examples of traditional
crop plants that have had negative ecological effects. The near extinction
of wild relatives of rice due to gene flow from crops in Taiwan is an
example.

Secondly, several responders have stated that genetically modified plants
will lead to ecological disaster. On what basis is this alarm raised? The
primary ecological effect of GM plants to date has been the decreased
pollution with pesticides of groundwater under BT cotton fields. Please
document your accusations.

There you go then - if it's possible for mankind to make a right royal
screw-up by simply "pick 'n mixing" natural varieties, how much
greater is the potential for disaster by forcibly fooling about at the
genetic level.
Clearly there are many interactions that we do not yet understand.

That there may be no documentary evidence of ecological disasters with
regard to genetic modifications as yet doesn't preclude the potential
for an incident.
Whom do we trust - x million years of evolution, or some geezer in a
lab clutching a degree?

I's also like to add that it's never reassuring to see proponents of
gene technology write off their opponent's point of view by describing
it as coming from 'fear and distrust' - rather you're up against deep
scepticism and a firm belief that money, rather than philanthropy, is
the driving force behind the argument.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

wrote:

Thanks for all of your responses, pro and con. All responses to my
questions help me compile useful statistics.

I will respond to some of your questions and comments.

First, many of your comments seem to come from a perspective of belief in
traditional farming practices, combined with fear and distrust of scientific
agriculture.

I have no fear or distrust of 'scientific agriculture' _per se_.
I do, however, both fear and distrust the motives, greed and selective
blindness of the multinationals driving the production of genetically
modified crops.


I would point out that, at one time all of these old
technologies were new and untested. Selection and mass planting of
cultivars has generally been benign, but there are examples of traditional
crop plants that have had negative ecological effects. The near extinction
of wild relatives of rice due to gene flow from crops in Taiwan is an
example.

Secondly, several responders have stated that genetically modified plants
will lead to ecological disaster. On what basis is this alarm raised? The
primary ecological effect of GM plants to date has been the decreased
pollution with pesticides of groundwater under BT cotton fields. Please
document your accusations.

Hmm. I no longer follow the debate as closely as I did, but I recall
being horrified to note that the companies encouraging farmers to switch
to Bt cotton first denied there was any chance that this new crop would
speed the development of BT resistant bollworm, then (once research
proved it possible), recommended small 'normal' refuges, then larger
ones. Then there's the complexity of the possible refuge strategies...
Foliar sprays were a better way of utilising Bt.

Then there's the speed with which weeds are developing glyphosate
resistance. Once it was thought impossible, then there was ryegrass.
Used with care glyphosate could remain a useful herbicide for decades;
spread about with gay abandon by those growing GM crops, resistance will
develop more quickly. GM herbicide tolerant/Bt crops are a short term
solution to a problem that was crying out for other solutions.

Then there's the problem of GM traits spreading into wild relatives of
that crop. A specific example would be the probability of virus
resistance spreading from cultivated GM squash to its wild relative
_Cucurbita pepo_, which is already an agricultural weed in the southern
US, thought to be restricted (somewhat) by its vulnerability to those
viruses.

Then there's the business of the monarchs dying after eating leaves
dusted with pollen from GM maize. [Don't comment yet]

Then there's the research showing that populations of insect predators
such as lacewings suffer as a result of eating caterpillars that have
fed on Bt maize. Novartis' safety tests had found no such effect because
they were conducted in apparent ignorance of the way in which lacewings
feed.

Now, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the fuss over monarchs was
discredited after further research, but that entirely misses the point.
Which is that these topics should have been researched in detail BEFORE
GM crops were released into cultivation. The fact that companies
developing GM crops failed to accurately examine even the most obvious
ecological effects has completely destroyed their credibility as far as
I'm concerned. As a result I will not knowingly support them, or their
research.

And then there are the effects on those who grow GM crops...
inadvertently.

While I don't know whether Percy Schmeiser was guilty or not, I do know
that oil seed rape now grows freely in road verges across the UK. The
chances are good that if GM OSR was grown here, some of those plants in
the verges would be herbicide tolerant, contaminating non-HT crops in
adjacent fields. Leaving organic farmers without their certification,
and perhaps leaving other unfortunates in court facing prosecution for
growing GM crops without a licence.

There certainly are beneficial uses for the technology, but they are
limited. Bananananas come to mind. Golden rice is often cited as
miraculous, but a rice researcher posting to the biotech mailing list at
the time it was announced commented that there are existing varieties
producing more beta-carotene. And it's very likely that those growing
golden rice would have to use more fertilisers and more pesticides.
Better to address Vitamin A deficiency by providing a proper balanced
diet including the green leafy vegetables that were more commonly eaten
before intensive rice cultivation became so widely practiced.



Some comments deserve a direct response.

One respondent implied that modified plants are not likely to have an effect
on airborne toxics or oderants in homes. I can assure you that both of
these goals are practical.

Another respondent suggested that it was perverse to remove pollutants from
air rather than prevent their formation in the first place. I agree, but
odors are unavoidable, and pollutants are an unfortunate fact of modern
life. Airborne pollutants come from chlorinated water used to shower and
washing, releasing chloroform into the air; from clothing that has been dry
cleaned (perchloroethylene and methyl chloroform); from attached garages
(benzene and toluene); and various household products (methylene chloride
and many others). You may avoid dry cleaning and other sources of toxic
volatiles, but chlorination of water is the rule in the US and most of the
UK, so your house air does contain chloroform, and short of a whole house
carbon filter, well maintained, there is no way to avoid it. Isn't a
practical way to reduce that risk to your family worth considering?

Certainly. Why not open a window and provide efficient ventilation? If
the air outside is worse, why not invest in public transport to reduce
air pollution in urban areas? Lots of knock-on benefits there. Why rely
on the application of layer upon layer of technology to solve problems
that might be better, more easily solved by stripping away
*inappropriate* technologies?


[-]

I hope this answers your questions.

And, with the greatest respect, I hope this at least suggests that my
stance on GM/GE is not based on ignorance. Remember, one man's prejudice
is another's informed, intelligent distrust :-)

regards
sarah


--
"Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view,
is silence about truth." Aldous Huxley

paghat wrote:
In article , "Kat" wrote:


"Vox Humana" wrote in message
.. .

I can just see

entire lawns flashing out Morse Code and the religious fanatics who claim
that the plants are sending obscene messages that threaten the stability

of

the nuclear family.

Hybrid plants used to be considered the work of the devil, against nature,
and the fall of mankind, when they were first introduced.


Well, they ARE banned in Leviticus.

-paghat the ratgirl


Yes - but what isn't?

I would be interested BUT only if these plants were also made sterile, as
all GM plants should be. (yes it precludes any fruiting plants)
Sweetcorn has to be the most dangerous plant to try GM on and is an
indication of the stupidity of the scientists/bean counters involved.
With sterility there is no chance of a cross escaping into the real world.
The thought that it may be my plant that contaminates the world is
horrendous.

--
Bob


Assuming of course that such sterile plants remained 100% sterile. I very
much doubt that would be the case in reality. To quote someone from the film
Jurassic Park "Nature will find a way". Either through chance mutation or
viruses swapping bits of DNA about (as they do from time to time with their
hosts) or even just down to human error.

The worst case scenario in my opinion is not a dodgy sweetcorn but something
on the virus level. Suppose a virus was created (for whatever reason) that
had the ability to spread as easily as the common cold, but was as more
lethal than HIV. The entire human population of the planet could be wiped
out in a matter of months.

--
Drakanthus.


(Spam filter: Include the word VB anywhere in the subject line or emails
will never reach me.)

snip
Sweetcorn has to be the most dangerous plant to try GM on and is an
indication of the stupidity of the scientists/bean counters involved.
With sterility there is no chance of a cross escaping into the real
world.
The thought that it may be my plant that contaminates the world is
horrendous.

Only in the Americas, where wild relatives of maize exist. In the "real
world" outside there's less of a danger.

I'd say oilseed rape/canola is more of a problem, at least more widespread
as it has natural wild relatives almost everywhere, and in fact has spawned
"superweeds" in some
places.[http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...?id=ns99991882]
Although these superweeds often do less well than the wild varieties, as
producing insecticide resistence costs energy which could otherwise be used
to grow/reproduce more. Still it's a difficult subject with little
conclusive evidence on both sides.

Have you heard of the Terminator gene for stopping the next generation's
growth? And the new "Excorcist" technology?

Just a question to put things in a bit of perspective. There are thousands
of different sorts of plants all growing together "out there".
What's the rate of natural gene transfer between them? Do you know of any
cases, especially any that
may have been damaging ? I don't but I'm not an expert. I'm sure somebody
must know.
You don't suddenly see a clematis developing rose thorns in your garden
very often, despite them growing very close to each other and almost
certainly get lots of each-other's pollen.

I guess it all comes down to a knee-jerk reaction (in either direction) in
the end at the moment.
Tim.

How about a truly RED iris?



How about the red varieties of Louisiana Iris?? They're a deep red, not
fire-engine color.
zemedelec

Or plants that have been crossed with fireflies that produce flowers that
glow in the dark.

Aha, you must've seen the same article about the recombinant DNA
experiments that produced living glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants, &
glow-in-the-dark mice, by splicing in firefly genetic information!! Who
says science fiction can't happen?

-

Or visited New Orleans around Christmas, when some people light their gardens
with colored lights of the appropriate color for each plant bed--wild!



zemedelec

Where can I get my own home transgenic kit? I want to make a few combos
myself! How much will it cost?

"Zemedelec" wrote in message
...
How about a truly RED iris?



How about the red varieties of Louisiana Iris?? They're a deep red, not
fire-engine color.
zemedelec

In article , "Kat" wrote:

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...
"Perrenelle" wrote in message
news:TWXva.824960$L1.238840@sccrnsc02...
Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of transgenic
plants by answering three simple questions below.

snip
What does 'transgenic' mean?

It means the genes of another species were used to alter the genetics of the
existing plant or animal. If you live in the USA, Transgenic goods are in
your home, unlabeled, right now. Look it up.
The future is here.

Unlabeled because a fundamental DISHONESTY in this industry has lobbied
Congress and SUED organic farmers out of existence & done everything in
its considerable Monsantoesque authoritarianist POWER to keep the public
from HAVING A CHOICE.

If it were such a great technology, the public would be given a choice.

Since they have PROVEN don't want us to have a choice, hence care NOTHING
about individual wishes, that suggests they may also not care about our
health.

If the industry were honest, they wouldn't fear full disclosure on labeling.

Since they have PROVEN they cannot stand proud in the light of day with
full disclosures & honesty, how does that make their claims of unutterable
safety more credible?

Until this industry stops being merely propogandistic & attempts honesty,
nothing they say about safety can be believed either. Until this industry
permits personal choice in product selection by full disclosure on labels,
it is rightly assumed all claims of concern for human well being & health
is mere pretense.

Note that companies like Monsanto who dominate this field also dominate in
the field of toxic chemical pollutants which they likewise promote as safe
& healthful & through deceit & propoganda encourage people to dump
willynilly throughout the environment.

Finally, because so many of the products are sterile OR re-propogation is
criminalized to protect the chemical & transgenic industry's profits,
farmers can no longer save their own seed for future crops, but are
imprisoned by the requirement of buying new seed for every crop. As this
industry muscles into third-world economies, they suck the lifeblood out
of already impoverished peoples.

Public DISCLOSURE for public CHOICE. Until those two fundamental
essentials are met, this industry exists upon lies, & most certainly
nothing else they say can be assumed to be honest either.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

In article ,
(swroot) wrote:

wrote:

Thanks for all of your responses, pro and con. All responses to my
questions help me compile useful statistics.

I will respond to some of your questions and comments.

First, many of your comments seem to come from a perspective of belief in
traditional farming practices, combined with fear and distrust of scientific
agriculture.

I have no fear or distrust of 'scientific agriculture' _per se_.
I do, however, both fear and distrust the motives, greed and selective
blindness of the multinationals driving the production of genetically
modified crops.

Absolutely right. Companies like Monsanto have a long history of abusing
public trust, harming public health, lying like crazy, falsifying
scientific data, & let's face it, killing people. They now are using
political might to limit or remove the public right to even know.

Even if it were the utopian solution to all mankind's problems as
propogandized, the people in charge have already proven time & again they
are the poorest of all guardians of the public interest.

Since the chemical industry dominates transgenic research & owns nearly
all the patented seed, a lot of what they are peddling is designed to
increase chemical sales. Monsanto, caught falsifying data on extremely
dangerous weed retardants, peddles crop seed that can survive having more
of these chemicals dumped on them so they can sell more weed-killer.
That's just one of the obvious self-interests of these giant companies
that is diametrically opposed to public health interests. At every stage
they use what might or might not be a wonderful science to cause harm, &
"spin" it with happy-faces to increase profits, all the while doing
everything they can to destroy farmers' right to choose, & public's right
to know.

-paghat the ratgirl

I would point out that, at one time all of these old
technologies were new and untested. Selection and mass planting of
cultivars has generally been benign, but there are examples of traditional
crop plants that have had negative ecological effects. The near extinction
of wild relatives of rice due to gene flow from crops in Taiwan is an
example.

Secondly, several responders have stated that genetically modified plants
will lead to ecological disaster. On what basis is this alarm raised? The
primary ecological effect of GM plants to date has been the decreased
pollution with pesticides of groundwater under BT cotton fields. Please
document your accusations.

Hmm. I no longer follow the debate as closely as I did, but I recall
being horrified to note that the companies encouraging farmers to switch
to Bt cotton first denied there was any chance that this new crop would
speed the development of BT resistant bollworm, then (once research
proved it possible), recommended small 'normal' refuges, then larger
ones. Then there's the complexity of the possible refuge strategies...
Foliar sprays were a better way of utilising Bt.

Then there's the speed with which weeds are developing glyphosate
resistance. Once it was thought impossible, then there was ryegrass.
Used with care glyphosate could remain a useful herbicide for decades;
spread about with gay abandon by those growing GM crops, resistance will
develop more quickly. GM herbicide tolerant/Bt crops are a short term
solution to a problem that was crying out for other solutions.

Then there's the problem of GM traits spreading into wild relatives of
that crop. A specific example would be the probability of virus
resistance spreading from cultivated GM squash to its wild relative
_Cucurbita pepo_, which is already an agricultural weed in the southern
US, thought to be restricted (somewhat) by its vulnerability to those
viruses.

Then there's the business of the monarchs dying after eating leaves
dusted with pollen from GM maize. [Don't comment yet]

Then there's the research showing that populations of insect predators
such as lacewings suffer as a result of eating caterpillars that have
fed on Bt maize. Novartis' safety tests had found no such effect because
they were conducted in apparent ignorance of the way in which lacewings
feed.

Now, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the fuss over monarchs was
discredited after further research, but that entirely misses the point.
Which is that these topics should have been researched in detail BEFORE
GM crops were released into cultivation. The fact that companies
developing GM crops failed to accurately examine even the most obvious
ecological effects has completely destroyed their credibility as far as
I'm concerned. As a result I will not knowingly support them, or their
research.

And then there are the effects on those who grow GM crops...
inadvertently.

While I don't know whether Percy Schmeiser was guilty or not, I do know
that oil seed rape now grows freely in road verges across the UK. The
chances are good that if GM OSR was grown here, some of those plants in
the verges would be herbicide tolerant, contaminating non-HT crops in
adjacent fields. Leaving organic farmers without their certification,
and perhaps leaving other unfortunates in court facing prosecution for
growing GM crops without a licence.

There certainly are beneficial uses for the technology, but they are
limited. Bananananas come to mind. Golden rice is often cited as
miraculous, but a rice researcher posting to the biotech mailing list at
the time it was announced commented that there are existing varieties
producing more beta-carotene. And it's very likely that those growing
golden rice would have to use more fertilisers and more pesticides.
Better to address Vitamin A deficiency by providing a proper balanced
diet including the green leafy vegetables that were more commonly eaten
before intensive rice cultivation became so widely practiced.



Some comments deserve a direct response.

One respondent implied that modified plants are not likely to have an effect
on airborne toxics or oderants in homes. I can assure you that both of
these goals are practical.

Another respondent suggested that it was perverse to remove pollutants from
air rather than prevent their formation in the first place. I agree, but
odors are unavoidable, and pollutants are an unfortunate fact of modern
life. Airborne pollutants come from chlorinated water used to shower and
washing, releasing chloroform into the air; from clothing that has been dry
cleaned (perchloroethylene and methyl chloroform); from attached garages
(benzene and toluene); and various household products (methylene chloride
and many others). You may avoid dry cleaning and other sources of toxic
volatiles, but chlorination of water is the rule in the US and most of the
UK, so your house air does contain chloroform, and short of a whole house
carbon filter, well maintained, there is no way to avoid it. Isn't a
practical way to reduce that risk to your family worth considering?

Certainly. Why not open a window and provide efficient ventilation? If
the air outside is worse, why not invest in public transport to reduce
air pollution in urban areas? Lots of knock-on benefits there. Why rely
on the application of layer upon layer of technology to solve problems
that might be better, more easily solved by stripping away
*inappropriate* technologies?


[-]

I hope this answers your questions.

And, with the greatest respect, I hope this at least suggests that my
stance on GM/GE is not based on ignorance. Remember, one man's prejudice
is another's informed, intelligent distrust :-)

regards
sarah

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

In article , Someone who spammed me
wrote:

paghat wrote:
In article , "Kat"
wrote:


"Vox Humana" wrote in message
.. .

I can just see

entire lawns flashing out Morse Code and the religious fanatics who claim
that the plants are sending obscene messages that threaten the stability

of

the nuclear family.

Hybrid plants used to be considered the work of the devil, against nature,
and the fall of mankind, when they were first introduced.


Well, they ARE banned in Leviticus.

-paghat the ratgirl


Yes - but what isn't?

Uhhm, unfortunately, slavery isn't.

-paghat

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

In article ,
"Drakanthus" wrote:

I would be interested BUT only if these plants were also made sterile, as
all GM plants should be. (yes it precludes any fruiting plants)
Sweetcorn has to be the most dangerous plant to try GM on and is an
indication of the stupidity of the scientists/bean counters involved.
With sterility there is no chance of a cross escaping into the real world.
The thought that it may be my plant that contaminates the world is
horrendous.

--
Bob


Assuming of course that such sterile plants remained 100% sterile. I very
much doubt that would be the case in reality. To quote someone from the film
Jurassic Park "Nature will find a way". Either through chance mutation or
viruses swapping bits of DNA about (as they do from time to time with their
hosts) or even just down to human error.

Anyone who pretends there are no risks to nature or to food resources are
merely hoping the listener hasn't read the already extant science that
documents problems already, & no serious reason to believe such a
dishonest industry will set up better safeguards in the future when they
couldn't be bothered with them up to now.

Researchers at the University of Chicago & several others have shown
categorically an enormous problem with "transgenic plant promiscuity" with
purportedly "sterile" plants cross-pollinating with surrounding-area
weeds. The Chicago study showed that herbicide resistant crops (already a
problem encouraging the dumping of increasing tons of chemicals onto
crops) have passed this resistance on to surrounding weeds. The
outcrossing rate DOUBLED for transgenic plants vs normal hybrids, but the
normal hybrids don't pass on herbicide resistance to weeds. Bob Hartzler
of the University of Iowa Dept. of Agronomy notes, "At the time of release
of this article the authors did not have an explanation why genetic
transformation of A. thaliana should increase the outcrossing potential.
These findings support concerns of critics of genetic engineering who have
stated that we really know very little about how these types of
modifications of plants (or animals) will influence their behavior once
they are released into the wild." THAT is the BASIC REALITY of
transgenics, & promoters of these crops rather than address it repeatedly
deny the independent science in favor of Monsanto spin. The promoters
begin from a position of profoundly lying!

Transgenic cotton & brocoli crops have been studied apart from Monsanto
funding & spin-doctors, & it is now well established that transgenic
insecticidal crops have been killing off beneficial insects, whereas
harmful insects like have very swiftly adapted. A study of diamondback
moths on transgenic insecticidal broccoli showed that the insect had
increased its resistance to pesticides 31 fold [Zhao, Collins, et al,
2000]. Helicoverpa armigera on transgenic insecticidal cotton "spares"
about one-fifth of the Helicoverpa larvae, to reproduce a new super-strain
of Helicoverpa that will not be manageable at all [Liang et all, 1998].
Transgenic oilseed rape crops sold & planted with the promise that it was
resistant to beetle larvae INCREASED THE BEETLE LARVAE POPULATION! [Gerard
et al, 1998], giving clear evidence that the transgenticists don't know
what the **** they're doing. Larvae raised to adulthood on the
insecticidal rape crop showed an extravagant weight-gain ahead of the same
species on a control crop, PLUS the fatter healthier larvae on the
transgenic crop had gained a two-fold resistance to insecticides! The
mechanism by which first-generation insects adapt wholesale through
ingestion during larval stage was not something the transgenicists
predicted. In all these cases, transgenic crops have produced
insecticide-resistance insects that not only continue with abandon to live
happily in transgenic crops, but are an increased threat to organic crops.


Only two possibilities when assessing the developers of this crop: Either
they don't know what they're doing since the outcomes are generally the
opposite of the intent -- or they do know they are increasing insecticide
& herbicide resistance in insects but that fits neatly into their agenda
of also selling more insectides & herbicides! I would like to vote on the
side of their just being plain ignorant & therefore an enormous danger to
public health & the environment. Except Monsanto encourages the paranoid
stance that it is all intentional -- their #1 herbicide accounting for a
HUGE percentage of their annual profits has led them to develop
herbicide-resistant crops for the express purpose of increasing their
herbicide sales hence their profits. The more resistant the weeds become,
the more of this herbicide Monsanto sells. The more insect-resistant
plants become, the more insecticide they sell. It seems never to have EVER
been the intent to develop crops that did not need chemicals dumped on
them!

Simultaneously, Monsanto is suing, left & right, any organic grower who
attempts to market non-transgenic products. They don't want the public to
havea choice; they certainly don't want an educated public on these
issues.

And another problem is to the economic environment. Where sterile or
patented transgenic crops are concerned, they bind the farmers into
servitude to gigantic overbearing companies that provide the seed, & once
safed-seed practices have been sufficiently interrupted, independent
farming is only history, & like any other monopoly, the seed providers
will raise prices until their serf-farmers are bled dry. Even the smallest
farmers end up being serfs to international conglomerates such as have
never in the past had human welfare in mind, & certainly will not
magically have that in mind from now on.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

"Perrenelle" wrote in message
news:TWXva.824960$L1.238840@sccrnsc02...
Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of transgenic
plants by answering three simple questions below.

The reason behind this questionnaire is to determine whether genetically
modified household and garden plants would be accepted by gardeners.
Please
reply either to the newsgroup or to me directly.

Would you purchase the following genetically modified plants? Assume that
the price of the plant was reasonable. Please specify which you would be
interested in, if any.

1. A flowering houseplant (for example a scented geranium) modified to
produce three times more aroma than regular flowers.
I would buy
I would not buy it

2. A transgenic indoor ivy that removed toxic chemicals from household air
100 times better than regular plants.
I would buy
I would not buy it

3. A genetically modified blue rose.
I would buy
I would not buy it

4. A transgenic houseplant that efficiently removed odors such as hydrogen
sulfide from the air.
I would buy
I would not buy it

Thanks for your help!

Perrenelle


1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No

Something tells me that sooner or later nature will turn around and bite us
on the bum for being so ignorant of her ways!
L

"Tim wrote in message
Bob wrote:

: I would be interested BUT only if these plants were also made sterile,
: as all GM plants should be.

That's the luddite position.

I don't think it will last - in the future most probably all living things
will be "transgenic".
--

Thanks for that, I'm therefore proud to be a "Luddite".
Better than being responsible for the GM parsley fiasco in France, the GM
Sweetcorn pollen fiasco in the UK. I wouldn't mind if it was an exact
science but it isn't, even those doing it can't be certain about the outcome
as the introduced gene often causes other dormant genes to react.
I for one don't think we are knowledgeable enough yet to use GM outside the
lab.

--
Bob

www.pooleygreengrowers.org.uk/ about an Allotment site in
Runnymede fighting for it's existence.

In article , "Sue & Bob Hobden"
wrote:

"Tim wrote in message
Bob wrote:

: I would be interested BUT only if these plants were also made sterile,
: as all GM plants should be.

That's the luddite position.

I don't think it will last - in the future most probably all living things
will be "transgenic".
--

Thanks for that, I'm therefore proud to be a "Luddite".
Better than being responsible for the GM parsley fiasco in France, the GM
Sweetcorn pollen fiasco in the UK. I wouldn't mind if it was an exact
science but it isn't, even those doing it can't be certain about the outcome
as the introduced gene often causes other dormant genes to react.
I for one don't think we are knowledgeable enough yet to use GM outside the
lab.

Oh, they're certain of the outcome. The outcome is POWER and PROFITS.
They'll control all the primary methods we have for feeding ourselves &
profit by every mouthful we bite. When it goes all wrong, the profiteers
will never have to pick up the costs of cleaning up after themselves, &
won't be the ones left in the dust starving.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/