Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
US pulls back from food war with Europe
"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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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' |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
US pulls back from food war with Europe
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' |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
US pulls back from food war with Europe
"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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Organic Food Helps Revive Fortunes of Europe?s Farmers | Edible Gardening | |||
GM crops giant Monsanto pulls out of Europe | United Kingdom | |||
U.S. Challenges Europe on Genetically Modified Food | sci.agriculture | |||
US pulls back from food war with Europe | sci.agriculture |