|
US pulls back from food war with Europe
United States to drop GM complaint against EU February 21 2003 AFP -- Washington is dropping plans to take the European Union to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) over its refusal to accept genetically modified (GM) crops, a US embassy official in London signalled yesterday. The United States has threatened a complaint to the WTO, claiming that "Luddite" Europeans had broken the organisation's free trade rules with a 1998 decision not to allow in new GM seeds or crops. Only US soya, which was approved prior to 1998, is allowed to be sold in the EU. The row threatened to be the latest in a series of fractious trans-Atlantic trade disputes. But the US embassy's minister counsellor for agricultural affairs Peter Kurz told the BBC that a decision had been taken not to proceed with the complaint to the WTO. Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Farming Today program, Kurz said the decision "was made at a high level of government. I suppose the idea was we don't need further trade irritants. "If there is some way of working this one out then so much the better. If not, then maybe the decision will have to be reconsidered." Kurz said the United States still believed Europe should accept its crops, and did not believe food products should be labelled so that consumers can see whether or not they contain GM material. "This does not mean we're still not very concerned about the moratorium on approval of new US GM crops or that we are not very concerned about the position on labelling and traceability," he said. "We believe that foods should not unnecessarily be labelled when there is no substantial difference between two foods according to the way they are produced." Kurz rejected suggestions that the dropping of the case was part of US efforts to build bridges with countries whose support Washington needs in a looming war against Iraq. "I wouldn't dream of speculating about any connection between this issue and any ... broader urgent issue in the world today," he said. "I happen to think that this decision is probably made on the merits of the issue itself." |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
Erm... They're not "forging full speed ahead" anywhere except the US and Canada, where consumers are finally waking up to the fact that their food is contaminated with untested, unlabelling GM ingredients... regards Marcus With GM foods forging full speed ahead in South America and Asia, and starting to make major inroads in Africa, Europe is a minor player in the GM food market. |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
Marcus Williamson wrote in message ... Erm... They're not "forging full speed ahead" anywhere except the US and Canada, where consumers are finally waking up to the fact that their food is contaminated with untested, unlabelling GM ingredients... regards Marcus you obviously missed the posting so I'll repost it for you Genetically modified crops sprout across Asia David Barboza/NYT The New York Times Friday, February 21, 2003 CHIANG RAI, Thailand Worried about falling behind its global competition, much of Asia is rushing forward with the development and cultivation of genetically modified crops. The three most populous countries in Asia - China, India and Indonesia - are already planting millions of acres of genetically modified cotton. Other large Asian countries, including Japan, Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia, are earmarking billions of dollars for private and government-sponsored research on biotech crops. Because there are already 145 million acres (60 million hectares) planted with biotech crops worldwide, mostly in North and South America, these developments in Asia could pave the way for biotech crops to dominate the world's food production. "This is a significant development in the acceptance of genetically modified crops," said Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, a professor of agribusiness at the University of Missouri at Columbia. "This is not only a region where most of the population growth is, it's a region where most of the food growth is." Aware of food safety concerns, especially among Europeans, most governments in Asia plan to move cautiously before approving the use of genetically modified food crops, which are much more controversial than nonfood crops like cotton and flowers. China for now is holding off on sending its biotech food crops, from green peppers to tomatoes, to market. But delegates at a biotech policy conference sponsored here last weekend by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group said that spending on biotech research and development was booming throughout Asia, signaling undeterred confidence in the new technologies. Malaysia is creating a biotech hub outside Kuala Lumpur that it calls Biovalley. Indonesia is setting up its own industrial park, called Bioisland. Even in Japan and South Korea, where some consumers have been unnerved by the prospect of genetically modified foods, there are investors and others spending heavily to develop biotech products. Experts at the conference said most of these countries must embrace biotechnology or risk seeing crops lose value in a fast changing marketplace that promises a new breed of super-crops. "They have no choice, because agriculture is their mainstay," said ChoKyun Rha, a professor of biomaterial sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a conference participant. "If they don't employ biotechnology, they're going to be left behind. They won't compete. They would end up buying the seed from others, and that would be biotech colonization." There are also concerns that China - which after the United States has the most advanced biotechnology programs - could come to dominate agricultural production in the region, because it is so far ahead in its research on genetically modified crops. Already, a majority of the cotton grown in China, the world's leading producer, is genetically engineered to resist pests. Besides peppers and tomatoes, China has developed modified corn, tobacco, petunias and poplar trees. Other Asian countries, meanwhile, are beginning to release their first biotech products. India and Indonesia recently approved the planting of a variety of insect- resistant cotton that drastically reduces the need for pesticides. Indeed, biotech cotton is so popular with farmers that a black market has emerged in several Asian countries that have not yet approved the products. "There's piracy going on," said Clive James, head of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, an industry-sponsored group that tracks global plantings of biotech crops. "These farmers think so much of this technology, they will steal it." The enthusiasm extends beyond cotton. The Philippines has allowed the commercial planting of biotech corn, a first for Asia. The Philippines is also the site of the International Rice Research Institute, which is working to use biotechnology to develop "golden rice," a variety fortified with Vitamin A. Critics of genetically modified crops say these moves in Asia could leave consumers around the world with little choice but to accept them. "It's troublesome, because these countries don't have the regulatory infrastructure to assess the risks," said Dr. Jane Rissler of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group that has been critical of biotech crops. But in the absence of any solid evidence that modified crops are harmful to humans, scientists in Asia are experimenting on everything from genetically modified corn, potatoes and papaya to biotech mustard and chili peppers. Biotechnology advocates in Asia believe that genetically modified crops will increase food production, significantly reduce the use of pesticides and insecticides and even create drought-resistant crops that can grow on land now regarded as nonarable. Poor farmers' incomes will rise, they claim, with the greatest benefits in the poorest regions. China has more than 20,000 people employed in government-led research at about 200 labs. Government spending on biotech research has tripled in recent years and could top $1.5 billion for the five years ending in 2005, making China second only to the United States. The rest of Asia is now playing catch-up. India is conducting biotech research at most of its major universities. Japan and South Korea expect to spend over $300 million a year on biotech research. Malaysia wants to genetically engineer palm oil trees to serve as factories of specialized plastics for medical devices. Vietnam and Singapore, too, are exploring the development of portfolios of biotech crops -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' With GM foods forging full speed ahead in South America and Asia, and starting to make major inroads in Africa, Europe is a minor player in the GM food market. |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:01:23 +0000, Marcus Williamson
wrote: Erm... They're not "forging full speed ahead" anywhere except the US and Canada, where consumers are finally waking up to the fact that their food is contaminated with untested, unlabelling GM ingredients... There are legitimate reasons for skepticism regarding GM crops, but please lose the "untested" contention. That's false, and you know it's false, but you keep saying it anyway. You're doing a disservice to those of us with real concerns about GM by continuing to make statements that are obviously wrong. Such statements unfortunately are used as ammunition by those who would paint all GM skeptics as ignorant luddites. One wonders if you're actually a pro-GM agent provocateur out to make GM skeptics look bad. ___________________________________________ Unit #02582: Endangered Old-Growth Redwood Toothpick Artisans, LLC [TINEOGRTALLC] -- Frivolity is a stern taskmaster. |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
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. regards Marcus |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
Marcus Williamson wrote in message ... 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. well you've been damned slow to provide safety tests for the non-gm soya or maize you are so keen on -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' regards Marcus |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 10:42:26 +0000, Marcus Williamson
wrote: 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. That's not what you said. Your original post simply said "untested", not "tested and proven safe." As you should be aware, the latter is impossible. If you find a scientist who says he or she has proven GM crops (or any other food) to be safe you know you've found a liar. ___________________________________________ Unit #02582: Endangered Old-Growth Redwood Toothpick Artisans, LLC [TINEOGRTALLC] -- Frivolity is a stern taskmaster. |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
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.... regards Marcus |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.25.185.200
X-Trace: newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk 1046893691 8411 62.25.185.200 (5 Mar 2003 19:48:11 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Mar 2003 19:48:11 GMT X-Complaints-To: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Path: text-east!text-west.newsgroups.com!propagator3-maxim!news-in.superfeed.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv. net!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.agricultu60589 wparrott wrote in message ... 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.... the trouble is he cannot do that because he knows that no food has that kind of data so he ends up hoist by his own petard -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' regards Marcus |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
Reply-To:
NNTP-Posting-Host: wparrott.cropsoil.uga.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: cronkite.cc.uga.edu 1046893915 23751 128.192.145.167 (5 Mar 2003 19:51:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Mar 2003 19:51:55 GMT Cc: To: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: Path: text-east!text-west.newsgroups.com!propagator3-maxim!news-in.superfeed.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uwm.edu!rpi !news-ext.gatech.edu!news-int.gatech.edu!cc.gatech.edu!finch!cronkite!not-for-mail Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.agricultu60590 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 |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
The three most populous countries in Asia - China, India and Indonesia - are already planting millions of acres of genetically modified cotton. This is quite simply not true... regards Marcus |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
Keep GM crops out of the rest of the world. I don't want to have to compete with India and Africa if they can bring their yields up to world norms. Improving the cotton yields in India alone to the world average represents more than the entire US cotton crop. GM cotton does not produce any more cotton than the conventional variety. Please stop telling untruths about "higher" yields on GM varieties, thanks. regards Marcus |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
Marcus Williamson wrote in message ... The three most populous countries in Asia - China, India and Indonesia - are already planting millions of acres of genetically modified cotton. This is quite simply not true... simple denial is hardly evidence, you of course have figures of your own that we can verify? -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' regards Marcus |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
Marcus Williamson wrote in message ... Keep GM crops out of the rest of the world. I don't want to have to compete with India and Africa if they can bring their yields up to world norms. Improving the cotton yields in India alone to the world average represents more than the entire US cotton crop. GM cotton does not produce any more cotton than the conventional variety. Please stop telling untruths about "higher" yields on GM varieties, thanks. it does in areas with certain pests, -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' regards Marcus |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
Marcus Williamson wrote:
Keep GM crops out of the rest of the world. I don't want to have to compete with India and Africa if they can bring their yields up to world norms. Improving the cotton yields in India alone to the world average represents more than the entire US cotton crop. GM cotton does not produce any more cotton than the conventional variety. Please stop telling untruths about "higher" yields on GM varieties, thanks. Technically true, if you mean their yield potential. However, yield potential and realized yield are not the same. GM cotton is less likely to suffer yield losses than non-GM cotton when bollworms are the yield-limiting factor. regards Marcus |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
simple denial is hardly evidence, you of course have figures of your own that we can verify? Here's the experience in Indonesia, for example: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/indonesia-pr.php regards Marcus |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
GM cotton is less likely to suffer yield losses than non-GM cotton when bollworms are the yield-limiting factor. Except that it doesn't work... regards Marcus GM crops under fire after cotton venture fails Bangkok Post, 12 November 2002 Farmers now find the augmented plant cannot resist pests after all. As activists demand an inquiry, India is having second thoughts about an ambitious foray into a modified foodstuff, GM mustard. India, which opened its doors to genetically modified (GM) crops in March this year, is in a difficult position now. The opposition to GM crops is mounting in face of reports that the GM cotton variety approved in March has failed to deliver in farmers' fields. And this opposition has forced authorities to go slow on other GM crops in the pipeline. Last week a government panel postponed decision on GM mustard, which if approved would have become the first genetically modified food crop in India. The government's Department of Biotechnology has emerged a strong advocate of GM crops, although the mandate of increasing production through agricultural research lies with other departments. It has drawn up an ambitious plan of promoting GM crops in India. The department was instrumental in getting the genetically modified Bt cotton approved and was keen to have GM mustard cleared last week. Its technical panel on recombinant organisms had already given a go-ahead to GM mustard. But the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee of the ministry of environment - the final authority for approval of GM crops - held back its decision. The approval of Bt cotton - developed by Monsanto and sold by its Indian ally Mahyco - had strong economic justification. India is the world's third largest cotton grower having the largest area under cotton cultivation, but it yields less than half the world average per hectare. One reason for low productivity is the loss due to pest attacks. By inserting genes from a bacteria - bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) - into cotton seeds, Monsanto has developed new varieties that are claimed to be resistant to bollworm attacks. Bt cotton was approved so that it could enhance productivity. But farmers who have grown Bt cotton in central India have found that the crop is not resistant to pests and they have been advised by the seed company to spray insecticides. The department and other government agencies have not offered any explanation for this reported failure of India's first GM crop. But environmental groups have demanded an inquiry into the failure and asked the department to withdraw the approval given to Monsanto. When commercial approval was granted, Monsanto was asked to tell farmers to set aside 20% area as ``refuge'' in a Bt cotton field. The company markets Bt cotton seeds, along with traditional seeds to be planted as refuge. ``But the company is providing the same hybrid cotton variety (which has the Bt gene) as the non-Bt refuge. This means that in case pests feed on Bt cotton, the company can always claim that it is the refuge on which the insect is feeding. Why can't the department ensure that the seeds for the refuge crop belong to another variety whose shape of leaves, for instance, is different from that of the Bt cotton plant?'' said Devinder Sharma of Forum for Biotechnology, an NGO. Despite adverse reports on Bt cotton, the department met last week to consider approval of a genetically modified variety of mustard developed by an Indian company called Pro-Agro Seeds. It is Indian arm of the GM giant Aventis and PGS, a Belgian company. This GM mustard is claimed to be resistant to glufosinate, a broad-spectrum herbicide, and the company claims that the gene modification will help increase mustard productivity by 20-25%. Unlike cotton, mustard is a food crop in India. Rapeseed mustard is one of the most important oilseed crops in India, cultivated on 6.68 million hectares, mainly in the northern plains. It is one of the major sources of edible oil for human consumption and oilseed cakes for animal feed. The projected demand for oilseed in India is around 34 million tonnes by 2020, of which around 14 million tonnes (41%) is expected to be met by rapeseed mustard. The new GM mustard variety with five foreign genes in it, including one from tobacco, might pose risks for human health and the environment. Green activists point out the expression of Brazil nut protein in soybean has confirmed that genetic engineering could lead to the expression of allergenic proteins. In the absence of detailed scientific evaluation in India, GM mustard can be dangerous. In fact, the committee has deferred a decision because of lack of health-related data. Another area of concern relates to its herbicide resistance. It has been engineered to be herbicide-tolerant, so that when a field is sprayed with herbicide, all plants except the GM mustard will die. It is feared that the use of herbicide-tolerant GM mustard will increase the use of herbicides, thus increasing the amount of toxic residues in food products. "Pro-Agro has developed this genetically modified mustard that resists glufosinate, its own brand of herbicide. So, the company will sell its GM seeds as well as the herbicide. If farmers don't use glufosinate, they will not be able to control the weeds. "This herbicide is already approved in India for tea gardens and can easily find its way into mustard fields," says Sharma. GM mustard can also be an emotional issue here, as it contains a tobacco gene. In states like Punjab where mustard is grown and consumed on a large scale, tobacco is banned under the tenets of Sikh religion. This might delay the introduction GM mustard for some time. Pests attack genetically modified cotton National News - June 29, 2001 MAKASSAR, South Sulawesi (JP): Hundreds of hectares of the genetically modified cotton fields at three villages in the regency of Bulukumba, South Sulawesi, have been destroyed by pests identified as Helicoverpa armigera and Spodoptera. However, officials dealing with the genetically modified cotton business said separately that there was "nothing to worry about." Tri Soekirman, Corp. Communications manager of Monsanto, the supplier of the genetically modified cotton from South Africa, said here on Thursday that the pests were not dangerous. "They are just larva which eat the leaves, but will not disrupt cotton production," Tri told The Jakarta Post. He said that based on a survey made by his team, the population of the pests was still tolerable. "Therefore, pesticide is not necessary to eliminate them. The farmers know how to handle them." On Wednesday in Bulukumba, the leader of the genetically modified cotton monitoring team, Ibrahim Manwa, voiced similar optimism that "the pest population is still at tolerable levels." He said 40 trees had been taken as samples from Balleanging village in Bulukumba. "Out of the 40 trees, less than seven were attacked by the pests. This means that the population of the pests is still very low," he said, showing dried cotton leaves which had been destroyed by Spodoptera. Ibrahim was in Bulukumba with the deputy head of the South Sulawesi Agriculture Office, Karya. The controversy over genetically modified cotton started in early May this year when a total of 40 tons of Bollgard cotton seed belonging to U.S.-based Monsanto was imported by Jakarta-based PT Monagro Kimia. A number of activists have said that genetically modified products must be prohibited from directly entering the province, and demanded that such seeds be quarantined for detailed examination before being distributed to the farmers. It was Minister of Agriculture Bungaran Saragih who recommended the importation of the seed and its distribution to seven regencies in South Sulawesi. State Minister for the Environment Sonny Keraf criticized the decision. In Bulukumba regency alone, the genetically modified cotton was planted on a total of 1,571.75 hectares, managed by 80 farmers' groups consisting of 2,003 families. At least 180 hectares of the cotton fields in the village of Balleanging, Ujungloe district, have been invaded by the pests. Local farmers said that the pests started attacking the cotton in mid-June. Many farmers have complained about the pests. They said the supplier had claimed that the cotton variety was resistant to all kinds of pests. (27/sur) |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
Marcus Williamson wrote in message ... GM cotton is less likely to suffer yield losses than non-GM cotton when bollworms are the yield-limiting factor. Except that it doesn't work... lot of talk of pests but no comment as to whether these pests were susceptable to the GM cotton in the first place. If you want I have no doubt monsanto can engineer the cotton to have a wider resistance to even more pests. -- Jim Webster |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
the trouble is he cannot do that because he knows that no food has that kind of data so he ends up hoist by his own petard I think thousands of years of use by human beings is proof enough. GMOs have only been allowed in food since 1995, so their long term safety has not been proven. By the way, the permission to allow GMOs into the food chain was from the FDA, as can be seen he http://www.gmfoodnews.com/index1998.html Note that no independent safety testing was required. Instead, the FDA only asked for data from the manufacturer. The FDA is populated by former members of Monsanto and vice versa so it's highly unlikely that the FDA would turn down approval for these GMOs... regards Marcus |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
the trouble is he cannot do that because he knows that no food has that kind of data so he ends up hoist by his own petard I think thousands of years of use by human beings is proof enough. GMOs have only been allowed in food since 1995, so their long term safety has not been proven. By the way, the permission to allow GMOs into the food chain was from the USDA/FDA, as can be seen he http://www.gmfoodnews.com/index1998.html Note that no independent safety testing was required. Instead, the USDA/FDA only asked for data from the manufacturer. The USDA/FDA are populated by former members of Monsanto and vice versa so it's highly unlikely that the USDA/FDA would turn down approval for these GMOs... regards Marcus |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
Marcus Williamson wrote in message ... the trouble is he cannot do that because he knows that no food has that kind of data so he ends up hoist by his own petard I think thousands of years of use by human beings is proof enough. never heard of food allergies? -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
never heard of food allergies? Absolutely. But GM foods aren't going to do anything to help that... Oh, before you go on about allergen-free peanuts, perhaps you can indicate what will happen when a shipment of 99.99% of allergen-free peanuts get "contaminated" with 0.01% allergic peanuts... Well, you either discard the whole lot, or you end up with ill/dead people... Of the people I know with peanut allergy, none would trust a "non-allergenic" variety... regards Marcus |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
Marcus Williamson wrote:
the trouble is he cannot do that because he knows that no food has that kind of data so he ends up hoist by his own petard I think thousands of years of use by human beings is proof enough. GMOs have only been allowed in food since 1995, so their long term safety has not been proven. Out of curiosity: How many years of safe use is enough? By the way, the permission to allow GMOs into the food chain was from the USDA/FDA, as can be seen he http://www.gmfoodnews.com/index1998.html Note that no independent safety testing was required. Instead, the USDA/FDA only asked for data from the manufacturer. The USDA/FDA are populated by former members of Monsanto and vice versa so it's highly unlikely that the USDA/FDA would turn down approval for these GMOs... regards Marcus |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
Marcus Williamson wrote in message ... never heard of food allergies? Absolutely. But GM foods aren't going to do anything to help that... so what, you are the one who is claiming that food is safe because we have been eating it for a long time Oh, before you go on about allergen-free peanuts, perhaps you can indicate what will happen when a shipment of 99.99% of allergen-free peanuts get "contaminated" with 0.01% allergic peanuts... Well, you either discard the whole lot, or you end up with ill/dead people... no, you do what you always do, you sell them to people who eat peanuts anyway, so you have to discard none of it. Of the people I know with peanut allergy, none would trust a "non-allergenic" variety... well if they share your broad minded attitude it is hardly surprising -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
Out of curiosity: How many years of safe use is enough? BSE shows, for example, that 20 years is not enough: http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/20103102.cfm I would suggest that a number of human generations would be the minimum required to determine whether or not a crop/food was safe. regards Marcus |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
Do you believe that any of these GM spin projects will succeed?: * "Non-allergenic" peanuts * "Golden" rice * "Vaccine" bananas Of course they won't. It's all so obviously hype to try to get wider acceptance for GM in a population which doesn't want it. FYI, here's the position of the UK supermarkets on GM. Would any of them dare to start including GM ingredients in their products again? I think not... regards Marcus UK Supermarkets maintain strict GM-free policy for 2003 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - News from gmfoodnews.com 6 January 2003 gmfoodnews.com has completed its annual survey of UK supermarkets for their position on genetically modified (GM) food and ingredients for 2003. The results show that opposition to GM foods is as strong as it was in 1999, when supermarkets removed GM foods and ingredients from their shelves. Just as in 1999, no UK supermarket includes GM food or ingredients in their own-brand products. Increasingly, supermarkets are also specifying GM-free feed for animals producing their meat, milk and eggs. Supermarkets maintain this position because of the continued rejection by consumers of GM foods. Consumers believe that GM foods are unsafe, untested and may cause environmental damage. When asked specifically about GM cottonseed oil, which has recently been approved by the UK ACNFP [1, 2], supermarkets stated that they will not be allowing this ingredient in their products. For more information about the issues with GM crops and GM food, see http://www.gmfoodnews.com/gmwrong.html The views of each of the supermarkets can be seen in the summary below: Co-op "No Co-op Brand products will be made using any genetically modified ingredient." http://www.co-op.co.uk/ext_1/Develop...gh light=2,gm Iceland "As pioneers in the food retail industry Iceland were the world's first to ban GM ingredients in our own label range in May 1998." http://www.iceland.co.uk/ext_11/web/market.nsf/(websearch)/wugm?OpenDocument Marks and Spencer "All Marks and Spencer food products are made without Genetically Modified ingredients or derivatives, and an increasing range of the animals we use in food production are fed on non-GM diets." http://www2.marksandspencer.com/thec...gm/intro.shtml Safeway "We listen carefully to our customers' comments and concerns and we have removed GM soya and maize ingredients from our own brand products. This was achieved in 1999." http://www.safeway.co.uk/cgi-bin/sea...howitem=000001 Sainsbury's "In response to overwhelming customer concern we have eliminated GM ingredients from all our own brand food, pet food and dietary supplements." http://www.sainsbury.co.uk/gm/ Tesco "Tesco has removed GM ingredients from all own brand products and has increased non-GM options by launching an extensive Organic range." http://www.tesco.com/everyLittleHelp...etail.htm#tagm Waitrose "No Waitrose own label product produced since the end of March 1999 contains GM ingredients as defined by law..." "...With effect from the end of September 1999, all the soya and maize used in the production of the oils and additives for Waitrose products came from "traditional" crops." http://www.waitrose.com/about/policy.../safety_gm.asp Notes for Editors 1. Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/scie...ors/novelfood/ 2. GM cottonseed oil was approved by the EU, via the UK ACNFP, in December 2002, without testing of safety for humans, animals and the environment. 3. A web version of this article, with hyperlinks, can be found he http://www.gmfoodnews.com/gm060103.html Contact Marcus Williamson Editor, Genetically Modified Food-News http://www.gmfoodnews.com/ |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
Marcus Williamson wrote in message ... Do you believe that any of these GM spin projects will succeed?: * "Non-allergenic" peanuts * "Golden" rice * "Vaccine" bananas Of course they won't. define succeed Looks like gm soya is something of a success story one thing you learn in agriculture is that not everything succeeds. When we used to go to the dairy event at Stoneleigh you would find that at every show there would be something hyped as this miracle breakthrough. Looking back you find that perhaps one in ten of these actually are nearly as important as they were made out to be. One in four or five are still there in ten years time, a useful part of the industry. Most of the rest disappear by the wayside. It's all so obviously hype to try to get wider acceptance for GM in a population which doesn't want it. if you are innocent enough to believe hype then that is your problem. FYI, here's the position of the UK supermarkets on GM. Would any of them dare to start including GM ingredients in their products again? I think not... regards Marcus UK Supermarkets maintain strict GM-free policy for 2003 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - News from gmfoodnews.com 6 January 2003 gmfoodnews.com has completed its annual survey of UK supermarkets for their position on genetically modified (GM) food and ingredients for 2003. The results show that opposition to GM foods is as strong as it was in 1999, when supermarkets removed GM foods and ingredients from their shelves. Just as in 1999, no UK supermarket includes GM food or ingredients in their own-brand products. Increasingly, supermarkets are also specifying GM-free feed for animals producing their meat, milk and eggs. please, I stand at markets next to the supermarket buyers. I know what they buy and where the stuff comes from, so don't expect me to belive this rubbish -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
Marcus Williamson wrote:
Out of curiosity: How many years of safe use is enough? BSE shows, for example, that 20 years is not enough: http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/20103102.cfm I would suggest that a number of human generations would be the minimum required to determine whether or not a crop/food was safe. Fair enough. This does raise a couple of questions: 1) How would you select the humans singled out for multi-generational testing? 2) By your definition, could we now declare the strawberry safe to eat? After all, it only came into existence in 1766, so we now have about 9 generations of strawberry eaters. 3) How about something like kiwi? We are not past the first generation yet. Oh, I am sure some natives somewhere ate kiwi, but surely they were not monitoring for negative effects, so we have to start from scratch. 4) How about pharmaceuticals? Must we test those for several generations? 5) or how about novel food mixtures? I mean take something like a soda pop? It has a combination of ingredients never mixed together before. We just don't know what they might do locked up in a can. Please explain-- how do you determine what gets tested multiple generations and what does not? regards Marcus |
US pulls back from food war with Europe
(wparrott) writes:
2) By your definition, could we now declare the strawberry safe to eat? After all, it only came into existence in 1766, so we now have about 9 generations of strawberry eaters. Not to speak of the poor health record of the strawberry. When I was a child, up to 10% of the population had an adverse reaction to consuming large quantities of strawberries, known as 'hives'. Even when warned, children picking strawberries often succumbed to this disease. The strawberry should obviously be banned. 3) How about something like kiwi? We are not past the first generation yet. Oh, I am sure some natives somewhere ate kiwi, but surely they were not monitoring for negative effects, so we have to start from scratch. Now you have me worried about the boysenberries on my morning cereal. Obviously, they are a frankenfruit just waiting to turn my toenails blue. I can't even think about marion berries. -- http://home.teleport.com/~larryc |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter