What was confirmed is what we already knew - plant GM crops too close to
related non-GM food crops & wild weeds and they will contaminate them with
pollen.
This report should not stop GM in the UK or anywhere else. What it will do
is make a solid
foundation for going forward by ensuring that regulations leave enough
distance between crops.
It will also encourage scientists to engineer ''safety features'' into
crops. We suggest several at http://www.molecularfarming.com/safety.html
We would see this as especially important for Molecular Farming crops, where
the end products are Non-Food
Most farms can grow such a diversity of crops, many, many of which do not
pose a
pollen risk, that to stop Molecular Farming, or indeed food-related GM, on
the basis of this report and the UK Govt's very poor way of it's release,
would be throwing out the baby with the bath-water.

What it will do is make a solid
foundation for going forward by ensuring that regulations leave enough
distance between crops.

This is nonsense.

How do you prevent storms, birds and bees from carrying pollen beyond
the "normal" distance? The only way to prevent the contamination is to
stop growing the crops in open fields and leave them in the lab where
they belong.

regards
Marcus Williamson
Editor, Genetically Modified Food-News
http://www.gmfoodnews.com/

"Marcus Williamson"
The only way to prevent the contamination is to
stop growing the crops in open fields and leave them in the lab where
they belong.

Have you still not visited the http://www.molecularfarming.com/safety.html
page yet, Marcus ?
There are many ways of not only stopping contamination happening, but
actually guaranteeing it.
We at MolecularFarming.com suggest a minimum 8km distance for pollen
producing crops.
Have you any instance where GM contamination was caused at greater than 3.5
?

Marcus Williamson writes
What it will do is make a solid
foundation for going forward by ensuring that regulations leave enough
distance between crops.

This is nonsense.

How do you prevent storms, birds and bees from carrying pollen beyond
the "normal" distance? The only way to prevent the contamination is to
stop growing the crops in open fields and leave them in the lab where
they belong.

sigh

it depends on which genes are being transferred and whether it confers
any advantage in the wild.

Thus RR genes are irrelevant but insecticidal ones may well not be.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

it depends on which genes are being transferred and whether it confers
any advantage in the wild.

Thus RR genes are irrelevant but insecticidal ones may well not be.

Resistance to Roundup or Liberty is not "irrelevant", as it means that
weedy plants might have to be eliminated using stronger herbicides
such as atrazine. One of the supposed benefits of Chardon LibertyLink
(LL) is to remove the need for atrazine...

regards
Marcus

Marcus Williamson writes

it depends on which genes are being transferred and whether it confers
any advantage in the wild.

Thus RR genes are irrelevant but insecticidal ones may well not be.

Resistance to Roundup or Liberty is not "irrelevant", as it means that
weedy plants might have to be eliminated using stronger herbicides
such as atrazine.

We are talking rape here. In particular the weedy relatives of rape.
These cannot be controlled in rape now. Atrazine will control them, but
unfortunately it will kill the rape as well.

One of the supposed benefits of Chardon LibertyLink
(LL) is to remove the need for atrazine...

If you have RR-resistant weeds then you aren't going to use an RR maize,
but a conventional one and use atrazine. If you have no RR weeds, then
you may well use an RR maize variety.

Either way no damage is done.


--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Maize and rape are almost the only plants which can cause such pollen
problems. Here we definitely need extra care.
{ & that being said, remember that 'canola', a GM crop, is the second
healthiest vegetable oil for human consumption }
Future regulations need to and should recognise the vastly reduced
contamination potential of 'self pollinators', 'non-pollinators' and
non-food plants, and legislate accordingly for them.
Molecular Farming, especially Medical Molecular Farming, with it's potential
to save millions of lives, must not be allowed to be lost to hysteria.

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Marcus Williamson writes

it depends on which genes are being transferred and whether it confers
any advantage in the wild.

Thus RR genes are irrelevant but insecticidal ones may well not be.

Resistance to Roundup or Liberty is not "irrelevant", as it means that
weedy plants might have to be eliminated using stronger herbicides
such as atrazine.

We are talking rape here. In particular the weedy relatives of rape.
These cannot be controlled in rape now. Atrazine will control them, but
unfortunately it will kill the rape as well.

One of the supposed benefits of Chardon LibertyLink
(LL) is to remove the need for atrazine...

If you have RR-resistant weeds then you aren't going to use an RR maize,
but a conventional one and use atrazine. If you have no RR weeds, then
you may well use an RR maize variety.

Either way no damage is done.


--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Plantigens writes

Maize and rape are almost the only plants which can cause such pollen
problems. Here we definitely need extra care.

There are no species x-breeding with maize in europe.

{ & that being said, remember that 'canola', a GM crop, is the second
healthiest vegetable oil for human consumption }

Canola is NOT a GM crop per se. I grow lots and NONE of it is GM.

Future regulations need to and should recognise the vastly reduced
contamination potential of 'self pollinators', 'non-pollinators' and
non-food plants, and legislate accordingly for them.

********. It's the effect on wild relatives that counts.
In the case of RR that's nothing.
In the case of insecticide resistance that may be substantial.

Molecular Farming, especially Medical Molecular Farming, with it's potential
to save millions of lives, must not be allowed to be lost to hysteria.

Maybe, but get real.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Oz"
There are no species x-breeding with maize in europe.
It's the potential of food Maize x-breeding with Molecular Maize that I'm
addressing.

{ & that being said, remember that 'canola', a GM crop, is the second
healthiest vegetable oil for human consumption }

Canola is NOT a GM crop per se. I grow lots and NONE of it is GM.
The original Canola was genetically engineered to enable a poisonous plant
[rape] to produce an edible oil [ CAN adian OIL ] & what a success it was.

Future regulations need to and should recognise the vastly reduced
contamination potential of 'self pollinators', 'non-pollinators' and
non-food plants, and legislate accordingly for them.

********. It's the effect on wild relatives that counts.
Sorry Oz, you haven't grabbed the central contamination issue. When you get
Molecular Maize with a contraceptive in it you won't want any risk of cross
contamination with your corn flakes. The contamination risks are not with
what we already have, but with what we will have, and will need. I really
recommend that you read the http://www.molecularfarming.com site, even if
you don't sign up to the free database.

Molecular Farming, especially Medical Molecular Farming, with it's
potential
to save millions of lives, must not be allowed to be lost to hysteria.

Maybe, but get real.
I'm as real as it gets. I see the future. I see farmers making really good
money producing Molecular crops in areas which can grow them, but which now
don't. There are over 700 transgenic recombinant protein products now in
development [ from the Medicago.com site ]

Plantigens writes

"Oz"
There are no species x-breeding with maize in europe.
It's the potential of food Maize x-breeding with Molecular Maize that I'm
addressing.

Why? Who cares?

{ & that being said, remember that 'canola', a GM crop, is the second
healthiest vegetable oil for human consumption }

Canola is NOT a GM crop per se. I grow lots and NONE of it is GM.
The original Canola was genetically engineered to enable a poisonous plant
[rape] to produce an edible oil [ CAN adian OIL ] & what a success it was.

No it wasn't. It was bred in the conventional way, by selection.
Low glucosinolates came, I believe, from the closely related turnip
rapes.

Future regulations need to and should recognise the vastly reduced
contamination potential of 'self pollinators', 'non-pollinators' and
non-food plants, and legislate accordingly for them.

********. It's the effect on wild relatives that counts.
Sorry Oz, you haven't grabbed the central contamination issue. When you get
Molecular Maize with a contraceptive in it you won't want any risk of cross
contamination with your corn flakes. The contamination risks are not with
what we already have, but with what we will have, and will need. I really
recommend that you read the http://www.molecularfarming.com site, even if
you don't sign up to the free database.

I have said before that growing pharmaceuticals in food species plants
is stupid. Grow them in animals, micro-organisms or a non-food plant
with no local wild relatives (second best).

Molecular Farming, especially Medical Molecular Farming, with it's
potential
to save millions of lives, must not be allowed to be lost to hysteria.

Maybe, but get real.

I'm as real as it gets. I see the future. I see farmers making really good
money producing Molecular crops in areas which can grow them, but which now
don't. There are over 700 transgenic recombinant protein products now in
development [ from the Medicago.com site ]

If you are growing them in food plants you are an idiot.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

The original Canola was genetically engineered to enable a poisonous plant
[rape] to produce an edible oil [ CAN adian OIL ] & what a success it was.

This is nonsense and shows how little you know about "genetic
engineering".

You are into "pharming" for money only and have no interest in whether
or not this process is safe for humans, animals or the environment...

regards
Marcus

I grow lots and NONE of it is GM.

Would you grow GM rape if it were allowed?

Could you find anyone to buy it from you?!

regards
Marcus

Marcus Williamson wrote in message
...

The original Canola was genetically engineered to enable a poisonous
plant
[rape] to produce an edible oil [ CAN adian OIL ] & what a success
it was.

This is nonsense and shows how little you know about "genetic
engineering".

no, the term genetic engineering has very wide definition and if
discussing it on an international newsgroup you ought to define the term
first.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

Marcus Williamson wrote in message
...

I grow lots and NONE of it is GM.

Would you grow GM rape if it were allowed?

Could you find anyone to buy it from you?!

remember you are posting on a newsgroup with a very high US and Canadian
readership, some of whom do grow GM rape and are making a living do it.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'


regards
Marcus

Marcus Williamson writes

I grow lots and NONE of it is GM.

Would you grow GM rape if it were allowed?

Maybe. However weed control in rape is quite cheap anyway, except for
some brassicae weeds in some fields. So I probably would in some
locations.

Could you find anyone to buy it from you?!

Presumably so if it were allowed.

I don't have a hangup about RR gmo's.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.