John Thomas expounded:

Thanks for perfectly illustrating the point I was trying to make in my
original post. Raven has done more for preserving diversity than a
million bedwetting so called environmentalists who think the solution to
every problem is imposing their views on poor rural people, while they
commute in SUV's, overconsume, and work as hard as they can to alienate
the very people who are in a position to solve problems.

Someone is channelling John Riley.......
--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************

"Ann" wrote in message
...
John Thomas expounded:

Thanks for perfectly illustrating the point I was trying to make in my
original post. Raven has done more for preserving diversity than a
million bedwetting so called environmentalists who think the solution to
every problem is imposing their views on poor rural people, while they
commute in SUV's, overconsume, and work as hard as they can to alienate
the very people who are in a position to solve problems.

Someone is channelling John Riley.......
--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a

I'll get the candles. You got the incense?

In article ,
"Snooze" writes:
| "John Thomas" wrote in message ...
| Whenever I talk with the hysterical people this article is lampooing, my
| standard line is...
|
| All varieties of food crops are genetically modified. Just what the heck
| do you think 'plant breeding' is, anyway? At least the people doing it
| have a better idea of exactly what happened, unlike pre-recombninant
| methods.
|
| I don't think most people have a problem with the use of genetic
| modification if they used dna already present in that particular species
| genome. That's the just producing a hybrid with hopefully less trial and
| error. However I do have a problem with using dna from an entirely different
| species to produce something that wasn't naturally possible.

You can relax that a little - there was a local project to insert
a gene for rust resistance from a grass into wheat, to obviate the
need for fungicides (very much needed in the UK). That is good
genetic modification.

Leaving the gene for antibiotic resistance in, putting in a gene
for herbicide resistance and so on (all of which came from very
different organisms, often not plants) is another matter.

| Even with buffer zones, accidents are going to happen.

Possibly catastrophic ones. For example, let's take a gene for
(say) scorpion venom introduced into an oil seed plant (say rape
or flax), on the grounds that it protects from insect attack,
doesn't get into the seed, and breaks down with heat. Now, let's
say that it escapes into the wild, crosses with wild species (both
of which are near-certain), and starts to express in the nectar
or pollen. The result could be a near wipe-out of almost all
pollinating insects - and not JUST honey bees. Which would cause
ecological and agricultural catastrophe.

It isn't likely, but it isn't impossible, either. And the cost
is so large that a 0.0001% chance of it occurring is unacceptable.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"John Thomas" wrote in message ...
some ignorant poster wrote:

I saw the thing I posted as a lampoon of the manufacturer, which is
precisely what Monsanto is. You might want to read a bit more before
being so sure about "the people doing it". A book called "The Botany of
Desire" would be a good start. Easy reading, very informative.
Read? I've been working in this for over 20 years. With a PhD in a related
field, I just might know what the hell I'm talking about, even more so
than your average poster here. Just maybe.

If you want a good popular writer on the topic, try Peter Raven instead.

I propose, then, that you are too close to "the field" to see the simple
logic you missed in this paragraph, written by you earlier:

"All varieties of food crops are genetically modified. Just what the heck
do you think 'plant breeding' is, anyway? At least the people doing it
have a better idea of exactly what happened, unlike pre-recombninant
methods."

Get back to me tomorrow after you've thought about it a bit, and I'll
straighten you out. It involves a factor you cannot deal with in a
scientific fashion.

"John Thomas" wrote in message ...
Doug Kanter wrote:
From www.theonion.com. Actually, from their 2005 desk calendar. Be glad
you're a gardener. :-)

Genetically Modified Broccoli Shrieks Benefits at Shoppers

Bremerton, WA - A head of genetically modified broccoli shrieked its
numerous benefits at shoppers Monday in a Seattle-area Safeway. "I
contain 40 percent more vitamin A than non-modified broccoli!", the head
screeched at terrified produce aisle customers. "I can fight off insects
and disease without the use of pesticides!" Monsanto, which produced the
vegetable, stressed that genetic-modification technology is still in its
infancy, and that more pleasantly voiced broccoli should hit store
shelves fairly soon.

Whenever I talk with the hysterical people this article is lampooing, my
standard line is...

All varieties of food crops are genetically modified. Just what the heck
do you think 'plant breeding' is, anyway? At least the people doing it
have a better idea of exactly what happened, unlike pre-recombninant
methods.

I saw the thing I posted as a lampoon of the manufacturer, which is
precisely what Monsanto is. You might want to read a bit more before being
so sure about "the people doing it". A book called "The Botany of Desire"
would be a good start. Easy reading, very informative.

"John Thomas" wrote in message ...
some ignorant poster wrote:

I saw the thing I posted as a lampoon of the manufacturer, which is
precisely what Monsanto is. You might want to read a bit more before
being so sure about "the people doing it". A book called "The Botany of
Desire" would be a good start. Easy reading, very informative.
Read? I've been working in this for over 20 years. With a PhD in a related
field, I just might know what the hell I'm talking about, even more so
than your average poster here. Just maybe.

If you want a good popular writer on the topic, try Peter Raven instead.

I propose, then, that you are too close to "the field" to see the simple
logic you missed in this paragraph, written by you earlier:

"All varieties of food crops are genetically modified. Just what the heck
do you think 'plant breeding' is, anyway? At least the people doing it
have a better idea of exactly what happened, unlike pre-recombninant
methods."

Get back to me tomorrow after you've thought about it a bit, and I'll
straighten you out. It involves a factor you cannot deal with in a
scientific fashion.

"John Thomas" wrote in message ...
some ignorant poster wrote:

I saw the thing I posted as a lampoon of the manufacturer, which is
precisely what Monsanto is. You might want to read a bit more before
being so sure about "the people doing it". A book called "The Botany of
Desire" would be a good start. Easy reading, very informative.
Read? I've been working in this for over 20 years. With a PhD in a related
field, I just might know what the hell I'm talking about, even more so
than your average poster here. Just maybe.

If you want a good popular writer on the topic, try Peter Raven instead.

I propose, then, that you are too close to "the field" to see the simple
logic you missed in this paragraph, written by you earlier:

"All varieties of food crops are genetically modified. Just what the heck
do you think 'plant breeding' is, anyway? At least the people doing it
have a better idea of exactly what happened, unlike pre-recombninant
methods."

Get back to me tomorrow after you've thought about it a bit, and I'll
straighten you out. It involves a factor you cannot deal with in a
scientific fashion.