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

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

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

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)

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

"wparrott" wrote in message
...
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.

Even when worms are not the limiting factor it increases yields and value in
most cases. No matter what limits the yield that boll the worm eats is
cotton lost and the remnants of the larger bolls lower the grade of the
cotton making it worth less. There are always some boll worms.

BT cotton also allows you to spray for insects that you wouldn't risk
spraying for in the past for fear of destroying the beneficial and be stuck
spraying for worms all season long.

Gordon

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

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

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'

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

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

Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.agricultu58069


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'

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

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/

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

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.

A lot of conditions have to be met. The substance must be toxic to the bug,
non toxic to the plant and safe to the environment. Cotton already has
gossypol that is toxic to some insects and conventional breeding had bred
high gossypol cotton but it was not enough advantage to be worth the loss of
value in the seed. There have also been efforts to breed gossypol free
cotton for human consumption.

A new BT cotton is due out this year or next that is more toxic to worms and
should do better in areas with high worm pressure. There are a large number
of BT proteins that are toxic to worms and those proteins can be modified as
well. So that technology has just been scratched. There is also a new RR
cotton due out in 2006 that can be sprayed all through the season.

A toxin that was environmentally safe that killed sucking insects would be
extremely valuable in fighting aphids in many crops. But those are not
simple off the shelf solutions like BT and round up resistance were.

In the future they will probably find some other insecticide traits but in
the case of BT they took a protien that was well know and know to be safe
and went after the number one pest in the world. They took the easy ones
first. Round Up Ready was the same sort of thing. They could test for it by
spraying everything and if it lived is was resistant.

Gordon