animaux wrote:
BT spliced into corn is killing monarch butterfly larva, that's a fact.

And these facts are located where?

--
Travis in Shoreline (just North of Seattle) Washington
USDA Zone 8b
Sunset Zone 5

On Fri, 16 May 2003 02:35:02 GMT, animaux wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 20:30:53 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:

Not much of a choice if its a meaningless word.
And on the other hand, eco-terrorists scaremongers come up with labels
that
scare the public, and prevent a choice that way, since they brainwash
the
public into believing that every genetic change is bad unless it
occurred
randomly.

"Eco-terrorist?" Now that's a useless term if I ever saw one. The fact
is,
Round Up ready corn or X is indeed harmful. BT spliced into corn is
killing
monarch butterfly larva, that's a fact.



from http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9999499
Reports that 22 million monarch butterflies have been slaughtered in Mexico
have been greatly exaggerated, according to the World Wildlife Fund and
American Monarch researchers.
"It's been overblown," says Monica Missrie, monarch butterfly co-ordinator
for the WWF in Mexico City. "It was probably two or three million." ......
But Missrie told New Scientist that the mass deaths were probably caused by
cold, not pesticides. Recent heavy snowfalls in the area would have been
particularly devastating to butterflies trying to winter in the heavily
logged forest, she says. A similar cold snap in 1996 also killed millions
of Monarchs.

"It can look like they were sprayed," says Missrie, because the
butterflies' fat comes to the surface of their wings when they die, giving
them an oily feel. The WWF has sent biologists into the field to collect
samples and they expect to confirm the cause of death within a few weeks.

see also http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991274

Tim.

On Thu, 15 May 2003 16:15:55 +0100, Stephen Howard
wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 14:36:14 +0200, Tim
wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 12:52:10 +0100, Stephen Howard
wrote:

Just because something's unpleasant to US doesn't mean it doesn't have
a valuable part to play in nature. We'd be knee deep in carcasses if
it wasn't for the 'nasty' bluebottle.

Absolutely. But the places these GMOs are likely to be used is on
agricultural land. Not really a natural environment is it.#

Yes it is.
OK, not natural in the sense that if you left nature to itself you'd
be unlikely to come across acres of wheat - but the fact that big
fields of single crops DO exist makes them part of the natural
environment.
Likewise the car - not natural, but nonetheless something that has a
dramatic effect on the environment by mere virtue of being in it.

You cannot bung a few dozen acres of GM crops down and not expect it
to interact with the environment in which it exists.

And compared to the effects man has had on the environment, even in
places that are called "natural" and "wild", the effects may be
negligable.

May be???
There's that unsettling uncertainty again.

Then no one should do anything, because whaever we do, [that unsettling]
maybe something horrible will happen.
Tim.

....Probably the most "natural" part of the country is the stagnant rock
pool just below high tide.

I'm not sure 'stagnant' is the appropriate word for a pool receiving an
influx of sea water twice a day.


Ok, just below spring high tide, then if you want to be picky.

:-P
Tim.

Researcher,

Is there any scientific proof that one particular gene is responsible for
only one trait in the subject plant?

Is there any scientific proof that two (or more) genes do not act in concert
thereby being responsible for three (or more) traits?

Geoff

On Fri, 16 May 2003 09:11:15 +0100, geoff
wrote:

Researcher,

Is there any scientific proof that one particular gene is responsible for
only one trait in the subject plant?

Is there any scientific proof that two (or more) genes do not act in
concert
thereby being responsible for three (or more) traits?

Of course it cannot be proven, you can't *prove* the absence of something
(although you can often be pretty sure sometimes).

A gene would code for a single protein, however, this protein may have
differing effects in different tissues at different times, and in different
organisms. Tim.

"Travis" expounded:

animaux wrote:
BT spliced into corn is killing monarch butterfly larva, that's a fact.

And these facts are located where?

It was heavily reported a couple years back, a Google search would
turn it up.

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

On Fri, 16 May 2003 09:51:23 +0200, Tim
wrote:



And compared to the effects man has had on the environment, even in
places that are called "natural" and "wild", the effects may be
negligable.

May be???
There's that unsettling uncertainty again.

Then no one should do anything, because whaever we do, [that unsettling]
maybe something horrible will happen.

I accept that there's always risks involved with the business of life
- but I much prefer to deal with the risks that come from interacting
with nature rather than tweaking it at a fundamental level.

Regards,



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

"Polar" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 May 2003 08:56:21 GMT, Tim Tyler wrote:

In uk.rec.gardening paghat wrote:

: I'd vastly prefer to correct the problem that caused the indoor air to
be
: full of toxic chemical gasses.

Dispense with your material posessions and move to the country.

What, and breath the methane from all those cow farts?


--
Polar

Now now according to Countryfile it's only their burps which contain
methane.
Duncan

On Thu, 15 May 2003 20:30:53 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:

Not much of a choice if its a meaningless word.
And on the other hand, eco-terrorists scaremongers come up with labels that
scare the public, and prevent a choice that way, since they brainwash the
public into believing that every genetic change is bad unless it occurred
randomly.


The real terrorist are the blinded followers of uncharted science.
GMO foods are cross pollinating organic crops, they are limiting the
world seed bank and move towards monoculture. Any gardener with half
their wits understands the dangers of monoculture and world food
production.

GMO crops limit my ability to be free of GMO, now you're polluting my
crops.

Sustainable farmers and organic farmers are being imposed upon by bad
science.


"Nature, left alone, is in perfect balance.
Harmful insects and plant diseases are always present,
but do not occur in nature to an extent which requires the use of poisonous chemicals.
The sensible approach to disease and insect control is to grow sturdy crops in a healthy environment."

Masanobu Fukuoka, One Straw Revolution--1978

In uk.rec.gardening Sue & Bob Hobden wrote:
: "Tim wrote in message

: I also think GM food has great potential. For example, currently I suffer
: from the effects of many natural pesticides our food plants employ - the
: powerful acids in spinach - the phytoestrogens in legumes - and so on.
:
: Personally I can't wait for scientisits to genetically engineer some
: of the anti-nutrients out of the vegetables I eat - and use mechanical
: barriers - instead of toxic poisons - to prevent pests.

: You suffer from natural pesticides AND you want GM foods. I think you aught
: to study what genes they are transposing as a lot of them are those very
: "natural" pesticides you dislike.

Well, obviously you can make things worse as well as improve them.

It's the same with selective breeding of crops.

GM is similar to the breeding done under domestication - but more
powerful, fast and directed.

: Did you hear about Monsanto taking a farmer to court because his crops had
: been contaminated by their trials and their lorries carrying the their seed
: away. They accused him of stealing their product/research and they won!!!
: How arse about face is that.

I didn't, no.

Monsanto appear to me to be a company with a terrible track record, though.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

In uk.rec.gardening Stephen Howard wrote:
: On Thu, 15 May 2003 10:37:35 GMT, Tim Tyler wrote:
:Stephen Howard wrote:

:: 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?
:
:Nature doesn't have our best interests at heart.
:
:Remember that it produces Deadly Nightshade, Hemlock and Poison Ivy.

: Isn't that all the more reason not to screw around with it then?

A bit late for that ;-)

Humans will transform the natural world.
I can't realistically see any way out of that.

Western housewives may have had some success in slowing progress by
depriving GM food companies of market success - but it won't make
much difference in the long run.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

In uk.rec.gardening Victoria Clare wrote:

: Forget that: with all the resources of the plant world at their disposal,
: these are the most imaginative and useful they can come up with?

: They're all just a bit dull. I mean, a fart-removing pot plant? Not
: going to be number one on the gift list, is it?

The "transgenic indoor ivy that removed toxic chemicals from household air
100 times better than regular plants"... would be extremely useful to
health-conscious individuals - /if/ it worked better than dedicated air
purification machines. I'm not sure that is very realistic, though.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Victoria Clare wrote:

: Forget that: with all the resources of the plant world at their
disposal,
: these are the most imaginative and useful they can come up with?

: They're all just a bit dull. I mean, a fart-removing pot plant? Not
: going to be number one on the gift list, is it?

The "transgenic indoor ivy that removed toxic chemicals from household air
100 times better than regular plants"... would be extremely useful to
health-conscious individuals - /if/ it worked better than dedicated air
purification machines. I'm not sure that is very realistic, though.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

Ferns are quite good indoor plants for atmosphere issues.
L

"Tim wrote in message
..

GM is similar to the breeding done under domestication - but more
powerful, fast and directed.


Not quite, you could never cross a frog with a plant, it's impossible, but
the GM folks can take genes from one and splice them into the DNA of the
other and they do.
So you have cotton with genes from a bacterium...........

--
Bob

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