Jerry writes
A patent on life is not legally feasible because life has already been
created. You are using hyperbole. You are really talking about
patents on specific, man made (not naturally occurring)cultivars. And
it would be stupid to use a patent as a trade blocking mechanism. To
be profitable, one would need their patented product traded liberally
so as to reap liscensing revenue.

People have been patenting all sorts of genes all over.

If patenting is to be allowed to do this then it's worth noting that
patents run out, and surprisingly quickly.

So in a way the more that get patented, almost always without any short
term chance of being used commercially, then the more that fall off of
patent in 30 years and counting.

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

On 4 Jun 2003 11:22:45 -0700, (Jerry) wrote:

You used that phrase "In reality..." again. You are correct. In
reality, the grain embargoes have never been about safety from the EU
governing body's point. They have only used that as a smoke screen
for the real issue, which was protecting markets for their producers.

ROFL, and my argument still stands. In reality, the 'EU governing
body' has never used safety concerns as reason for embargoing a single
GMO grain from entering into EU markets. In contrast to this you have
come to the impression that they have used safety concerns as a smoke
screen. Ergo, you have been misinformed.

A generic defense of GM products is like a generic defense of bacteria.
Most bacteria do not kill you. You are doing the equivalent of defending
all bacteria.
Just because you can find example of no damage detected does not mean
that all GM products are safe. Even more, some have already been proved
dangerous and have been removed from the market before they could kill
millions.

Not so fast. There have been NO transgenic crops that have reached the
market place, been found harmful, and had to be removed. Even the
ill-fated Starlink corn has never been found to pose any health risks.

Rather, the approval process is designed to intercept potential problems
long before marketing. So, for any crop approved for marketing, the
statement can be made that it is at least as safe as the non-engineered
version.

Bottom line is that no one makes generic defenses of transgenic crops.
Rather, each gene in each crop in each environment is evaluated on a
case-by-case basis. Only an evaluation specific to each case can answer
the question of "should we do it". In fact, this evaluation is so
extensive that it runs into the tens of millions.

By the way, the issue of allergenic peanut genes in foods was addressed
in FDA guidelines as far back as 1992. One can do it-- but labeling to
the effect is required.



Even traditional plant breeding can have unintended consequences
There are plenty of examples of mistakes being made, including for example
a mistake that could have produce a world wide famine with the failure of
genes used worldwide for hybrid corn production. Traditional plant breeding at
least has the safeguard, in most crop cases, of 10 to 15 years between the
original cross and the final contact with a large number of consumers.

Today one can GM incorporate, for example, allergenic peanut proteins into
potatoes. Would that be safe?
Today one can incorporate genes coding for alkaloids or many other
drugs into bananas or cassava. Should we do it?
Should we deny percentages of pollination by wind and insects even in
cases where the crop species is not open pollinated?
Should we deny crosspolinization between many crops and many of their
wild weedy relatives?
Should we deny the impossibility of gene recall?
And what about the tools of Genetic modification?
Who is going to guarantee their safe use?

You argue that we have not seen the deleterious effects of GM crops.
That is difficult to prove and getting more difficult to prove by the
day.
One can visually detect the first drop of milk in a cup of tea, but
once the cup of tea has that first few drops of milk, one can not easily
detect any additional milk. The background 'noise' does not let us
see any obvious changes. Allergies are in the increase and we do not
why. Asthma is in the increase too. Is it an increase in cat population
or is it the sneak GM of the omnipresent soybean. or is it because
traditional breeding has modified wheat proteins so much that they
do not resemble the old cereal?
Is a world with no safguards, privatized, with laws written by monsanto
and Kraft foods, and with engineers and wallstreet salesmen that often
fool even people that once in a while read a science article or two and
that have totally lobotomized a US population that has less scientific
understanding than the europeans during the middle ages.

wrote:
Indeed. One is forever hopeful.


Here's further confirmation that it would be financial suicide to grow
GM wheat...

For once, I totally agree with Marcus. The limitations are due to
social issues that influence market forces-- not to real safety issues.

Two answers to two questions he
wrote:

wrote:

Personally I would expect a roundup-resistant blackgrass to be found
within a few years of a RR wheat being introduced.

So would you still support the introduction of RR wheat?

Yes, along with the introduction of wheat resistant to other
chemistries. The key to resistance management is the ability to rotate
the chemistries used. And if there is any evidence of resistance
buildup, the herbicides that were used before the age of transgenics can
always be used as needed.


regards
Marcus



one problem: jointed goatgrass

...
Both are primarily self-pollinated, however, a low level of cross pollination can
occur (1 to 2%). Since wheat and jointed goatgrass both share similar genetic ...
wheat.colostate.edu/steward.pdf

wparrott wrote:

wrote:
Indeed. One is forever hopeful.


Here's further confirmation that it would be financial suicide to grow
GM wheat...

For once, I totally agree with Marcus. The limitations are due to
social issues that influence market forces-- not to real safety issues


"Safety issues are not real" That is the attitude of the industry and of
some of the US public that repeats this propaganda like a
lobotomized Parrot.

In November of 2002 the USDA ordered the disposal (destruction or diversion
to non food uses -maybe to put the stuff for sale to an unsuspecting third
world country-) of half a million bushels of potentially contaminated beans.
The company involded? ProdiGene, a texas based company. What does ProdiGene
make to generate such response? well, it makes oral vaccines!
ProdiGene conducted trials of corn that makes vaccines
for transmissible gastroenteritis virus.
The problem is that grain elevators very often mix grains. One day they
move corn, next day beans, next day corn again. The geniuses at
ProdiGene forgot that little detail! Well, they also forgot that plants
have sex. And plants like corn have the most promiscuous sex of all
crop plants! contamination is no problem when the objective is to
contaminate!

I wonder what US university generated such moraly dead imbeciles!

But hey, this is the Bush era. Let's keep things secret:
Neither ProdiGene nor the government will disclose exactly what genetic
modification the errant corn contained, but Anthony Laos, the company's
chief executive officer, says it was a protein for "persistent digestive
health conditions."

only a diareea vaccine? or is it an HIV vaccine?:
Just imagine: HIV antibody positives all around the country!

Here is the quote for my editor.
Corn is currently being used in an attempt to genetically engineer an
HIV vaccine using a protein from the monkey version of HIV. Imagine
people taking an HIV vaccine by eating corn (28). The technology is being
developed by Texas-based Prodigene.
Young, Emma. 2002. How long before HIV vaccine is growing in a field near you?
New Scientist. vol.174. Issue 2339. p13.

Like someone said:
"If the USDA continues to allow biopharm food crops to be planted,
someone is going to get prescription drugs or industrial chemicals
in their cornflakes,"

but, that is exactly the strategy: contaminate, taint, contaminate,
n January 2001, Don Westfall, a food industry consultant formerly with
Promar International, an American company that advises large food
corporations on industry trends and marketing strategies, told the
Toronto Star exactly that: "The hope of the industry is that over time
the market is so flooded that there's nothing you can do about it.
You just sort of surrender."

In conclusion, dear parrot, keep reading!
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6157
....
Biotech supporters claim that GM food is no different than food derived
from conventional breeding techniques and that the technology of genetic
engineering simply enables scientists to improve crops more quickly and
with greater precision. Credible scientists question both claims.

Biotechnologists have no control over where the genes they are inserting
end up in the modified species' genome, leading one geneticist to dub
the technology "genetic randomeering." The location is important, because
where the gene ends up -- actually it's a package of several genes,
because several different genes are needed to make the technology work
-- will determine whether toxic byproducts or allergens are created, or
whether the nutritional value of the modified food is altered.
The placement of foreign genes can also disrupt the normal functioning
of the modified organism.

David Schubert, a cell biologist at The Salk Institute for Biological
Studies in San Diego, says there is no way to predict these outcomes in
advance. He points to one particularly tragic incident to illustrate
what can go wrong with genetic engineering. In the late 1980s, Showa
Denko, a Japanese chemical company, began producing the amino acid
L-tryptophan with genetically engineered bacteria. Unfortunately the
modified bacteria also produced a novel amino acid that turned out to
be highly toxic, killing 37 people, permanently disabling 1,500 and
making more than 5,000 sick.
---

Here we are debating again the same stupid technology, migh as
well restart puting lead in the gas and paint, or as the Bush administration
did, to hell with pesky regulations about arsenic in the water (we might
even get UNICEF to advise us in how to poison a nation and how to ignore
such pesky problem)

wparrott wrote:

A generic defense of GM products is like a generic defense of bacteria.
Most bacteria do not kill you. You are doing the equivalent of defending
all bacteria.
Just because you can find example of no damage detected does not mean
that all GM products are safe. Even more, some have already been proved
dangerous and have been removed from the market before they could kill
millions.

Not so fast. There have been NO transgenic crops that have reached the
market place, been found harmful, and had to be removed. Even the
ill-fated Starlink corn has never been found to pose any health risks.


What is your definition of "market place" mister Clinton?


Rather, the approval process is designed to intercept potential problems
long before marketing. So, for any crop approved for marketing, the
statement can be made that it is at least as safe as the non-engineered
version.

The approval process has allowed for grain elevator contamination,
allowed for wind cross pollination contamination. The approval
process does not even look at interspecific contamination.

The non-engineered versions do not allow for certain genetic
combinations. The non-engineered versions have a development and
testing time (in many crops) of around 15 years! In many cases
"engineered" versions can be obtained in less than a year.


Bottom line is that no one makes generic defenses of transgenic crops.
Rather, each gene in each crop in each environment is evaluated on a
case-by-case basis. Only an evaluation specific to each case can answer
the question of "should we do it". In fact, this evaluation is so
extensive that it runs into the tens of millions.

By the way, the issue of allergenic peanut genes in foods was addressed
in FDA guidelines as far back as 1992. One can do it-- but labeling to
the effect is required.


labeling required? When?, in what country?
Does your canola oil bottle say RoundUp Ready Genetically modified Canola?
Last year Oregon USA tried labelling but the labelling campaign was outgunned
and defeated by the biotech industry.


Even traditional plant breeding can have unintended consequences
There are plenty of examples of mistakes being made, including for example
a mistake that could have produce a world wide famine with the failure of
genes used worldwide for hybrid corn production. Traditional plant breeding at
least has the safeguard, in most crop cases, of 10 to 15 years between the
original cross and the final contact with a large number of consumers.

Today one can GM incorporate, for example, allergenic peanut proteins into
potatoes. Would that be safe?
Today one can incorporate genes coding for alkaloids or many other
drugs into bananas or cassava. Should we do it?
Should we deny percentages of pollination by wind and insects even in
cases where the crop species is not open pollinated?
Should we deny crosspolinization between many crops and many of their
wild weedy relatives?
Should we deny the impossibility of gene recall?
And what about the tools of Genetic modification?
Who is going to guarantee their safe use?

You argue that we have not seen the deleterious effects of GM crops.
That is difficult to prove and getting more difficult to prove by the
day.
One can visually detect the first drop of milk in a cup of tea, but
once the cup of tea has that first few drops of milk, one can not easily
detect any additional milk. The background 'noise' does not let us
see any obvious changes. Allergies are in the increase and we do not
why. Asthma is in the increase too. Is it an increase in cat population
or is it the sneak GM of the omnipresent soybean. or is it because
traditional breeding has modified wheat proteins so much that they
do not resemble the old cereal?
Is a world with no safguards, privatized, with laws written by monsanto
and Kraft foods, and with engineers and wallstreet salesmen that often
fool even people that once in a while read a science article or two and
that have totally lobotomized a US population that has less scientific
understanding than the europeans during the middle ages.

jointed goatgrass is a close relative of wheat.
In between crop rotations you can kill goatgrass with round up.
What do you propose the farmers should use to kill
RoundupReady Jointed Goat Grass?
Should we use paraquat instead?
Show us some health or economical analysis please.


wparrott wrote:

Two answers to two questions he
wrote:

wrote:

Personally I would expect a roundup-resistant blackgrass to be found
within a few years of a RR wheat being introduced.

So would you still support the introduction of RR wheat?

Yes, along with the introduction of wheat resistant to other
chemistries. The key to resistance management is the ability to rotate
the chemistries used. And if there is any evidence of resistance
buildup, the herbicides that were used before the age of transgenics can
always be used as needed.


regards
Marcus



one problem: jointed goatgrass

...
Both are primarily self-pollinated, however, a low level of cross pollination can
occur (1 to 2%). Since wheat and jointed goatgrass both share similar genetic ...
wheat.colostate.edu/steward.pdf

Runed out patents are the future?
The patent for the drug in Viagra expired long time ago but somehow
multinationals have the ability to keep exploiting those patents
that are still profitable or that later return to being profitable.
US congressmen get bribed all the time to maintain this mafia.
You have to remember that a patent is not a wall, is just a legal
artifact that allows the extraction of ransom by technical and
legal pirates. They can still sue you, even if not violating any
patent.

Oz wrote:

Jerry writes
A patent on life is not legally feasible because life has already been
created. You are using hyperbole. You are really talking about
patents on specific, man made (not naturally occurring)cultivars. And
it would be stupid to use a patent as a trade blocking mechanism. To
be profitable, one would need their patented product traded liberally
so as to reap liscensing revenue.

People have been patenting all sorts of genes all over.

If patenting is to be allowed to do this then it's worth noting that
patents run out, and surprisingly quickly.

So in a way the more that get patented, almost always without any short
term chance of being used commercially, then the more that fall off of
patent in 30 years and counting.

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

Jerry wrote:

wrote in message ...
Oz wrote:

Jerry writes

I hear and read that the European Union has safety concerns about
growing genetically modified crops and the food produced from them.
But I never hear details. So here is the question. What are the
SPECIFIC fears of the European Union in regard to genetically modified
crops?

1) A paranoid population. (really)

a population that got bitten by the mad cow and the blood supply
tainted with aids while the "scientist" assure the paranoid population
that it was all in their minds.

Neither was created by genetic engineering, but both might by cured by
it.

engineering is what got the UK in the mad cow trouble.
engineering food protein efficiencies that looked great in paper!
engineering is what happens to the space shuttle.
engineering is based on trial, error, redisign, trial, error, ....
Some aspects of our lifes are not suitable to engineering.




2) A useful trade blocking mechanism.

Patents on life and artificially low government guaranteed farm loans
are also useful US trade mechanisms. The other side is not going
to sit and say ok hit me.

Somebody help me out here. But I don't think patents are a U.S.
invention. Hence, it isn't fair to fling that mud on the U.S. Most
every country uses them.

somebody help you.


A patent on life is not legally feasible because life has already been
created.

somebody help you!

You are using hyperbole. You are really talking about
patents on specific, man made (not naturally occurring)cultivars. And
it would be stupid to use a patent as a trade blocking mechanism. To
be profitable, one would need their patented product traded liberally
so as to reap liscensing revenue.

I'm guessing you think patenting living organisms is evil. Can
patenting medicines be much different. Yet it is an acceptable
practice in most of the world. There would be few new drugs developed
if patents weren't available to enable a reasonable return on
investment.


two words deflate your argument: generic drugs.

on top of that most of drug development is done by state funded univiersities,
and what the pharmaceutical industry waves as 'research' is "market research"
(advertisement!)
Please, please, someone, help him!


How about patenting words or music. Is that any less evil than
patenting a crop? Yet nearly every nation has copy right laws to
protect their authors,journalists and musicians.

Someone help him with the difference between copyright and patent.



Low interest loans? Can't argue that one. That has been used to
manipulate supplys and keep prices at the break even level for years.
It is probably more of a producer control issue than marketing
strategy on our government's part.

Jim Webster wrote:

wrote in message
...

So you dismiss the current and predictable problems?
This might have been a little problem in a world with millions
of little farmers. Now the world is turning into one mega farmer
that uses the seed of one mega seed company and the pesticides
of one mega biochemical company all using the same technological
base.

you seem to forget that conventional seed varieties have a short life,
conventional seed production is a treatmill and new varieties are always
needed. This differs from the GM scenario exactly how?

Jim Webster

a treadmill of new varieties implies variability, variability implies
security: if one variety fails, another one might not. The Irish
potato famine should have tought us that lesson.

Here are some differences that I could think in 5 minutes
the GM scenario would have a large number of crop varieties or even a large
number of crops with several genes in common. In conventional seed production
there is variety. Genes that dictate the use of one chemical (a chemical that
by the way is not friendly to certain organisms of the soil, and a chemical
that stays for very long in the soil clay structure and a chemical that is
difficult to analyze and detect). Conventional crops require different
practices (chemical or mechanical) to maintain a reduced pest and weed
populations.
The use of that one chemical implies a series of cultural practices that
affect the soil fauna and flora. Multiple pesticides implies that at least
some area is not affected by unintended chemical effects.
On top of that the use of the GM technology makes farmers financially
dependent on one or two companies. The Enron story should teach us not
to depend on one company.

wrote in message
...


Jim Webster wrote:

wrote in message
...

So you dismiss the current and predictable problems?
This might have been a little problem in a world with millions
of little farmers. Now the world is turning into one mega farmer
that uses the seed of one mega seed company and the pesticides
of one mega biochemical company all using the same technological
base.

you seem to forget that conventional seed varieties have a short life,
conventional seed production is a treatmill and new varieties are always
needed. This differs from the GM scenario exactly how?

Jim Webster

a treadmill of new varieties implies variability, variability implies
security: if one variety fails, another one might not. The Irish
potato famine should have tought us that lesson.

Here are some differences that I could think in 5 minutes
the GM scenario would have a large number of crop varieties or even a
large
number of crops with several genes in common.

so what, all varieties of the same species have over 99% of the same genes
in common. They have to have virtually all of their genes in common or they
will not crossbreed which is a good rule of thumb definition of a species.

In conventional seed production
there is variety. Genes that dictate the use of one chemical (a chemical
that
by the way is not friendly to certain organisms of the soil, and a
chemical
that stays for very long in the soil clay structure and a chemical that is
difficult to analyze and detect). Conventional crops require different
practices (chemical or mechanical) to maintain a reduced pest and weed
populations.
The use of that one chemical implies a series of cultural practices that
affect the soil fauna and flora. Multiple pesticides implies that at least
some area is not affected by unintended chemical effects.

total gibberish. Multiple pesticide use will hit a far wider variety of
pests

On top of that the use of the GM technology makes farmers financially
dependent on one or two companies. The Enron story should teach us not
to depend on one company.

total rubbish.
anyone can seed from any seedhouse. Seed is bought and sold around the
world, we have used rye seed from Poland. It is not unreasonable to use a GM
crop one year as part of a weed control programme then use a convention
variety next year to get the higher yield

Jim Webster

Jim Webster wrote:

....
Here are some differences that I could think in 5 minutes
the GM scenario would have a large number of crop varieties or even a
large
number of crops with several genes in common.

so what, all varieties of the same species have over 99% of the same genes
in common. They have to have virtually all of their genes in common or they
will not crossbreed which is a good rule of thumb definition of a species.
...

99.999999% similarity might mean the differencen between a disesase resistant
wheat and one that is a total failure.
I think you should go back and study your genetics and pland breeding.

Jim Webster wrote:

wrote in message
....
In conventional seed production
there is variety. Genes that dictate the use of one chemical (a chemical
that by the way is not friendly to certain organisms of the soil, and a
chemical that stays for very long in the soil clay structure and a
chemical that is difficult to analyze and detect). Conventional crops
require different practices (chemical or mechanical) to maintain a reduced
pest and weed populations.
The use of that one chemical implies a series of cultural practices that
affect the soil fauna and flora. Multiple pesticides implies that at least
some area is not affected by unintended chemical effects.

total gibberish. Multiple pesticide use will hit a far wider variety of
pests

Maybe. But pesticide residue and decomposition, metabolite life and their
toxicity for living organisms other than mammals is scarce or non existent.
And even mamalian studies do not cover endocrine disruptor effects, or
many of the metabolites produced under different soil environments.

I rather have a little of a bunch of chemicals than a lot of one (as a
general rule). Of course some chemicals are worse at some low level than
some other chemical at a higher level.


I know, it all sounds gibberish. But try.

Atrazine for example has trouble being degrated:
http://www.engg.ksu.edu/HSRC/formation.html

Similar studies for Roundup are rare, non
existant or only for the eyes of company executives.

I also suggest you read more gibberish:
http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache...t-science.org/
pwq_ip.htm+atrazine+accumulation+%22ground+water%2 2&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
(cut and paste in one line for URL)

....
Fourteen pesticides and metabolites were found and the percentage of
contaminated wells, when extrapolated to the country as a whole,
indicated that between 0 and 750 community systems (0-0.8%) and
between 9,000 and 200,000 rural household wells (0.1-1.9%) will
have at least one pesticide above a human-health-based drinking
water standard, such as the maximum contaminant level (MCL) set
by the EPA. As many as 14% of all wells may have detectable
residues, generally in the range 0.1 to 0.2 part per billion
(one millionth of a gram per liter of water; ppb for short)
of some pesticide
....

Many pesticides accumulate in the soil. Specially roundup that needs light
for degradation. The repeated application of many other herbicides has
resulted in ground water contamination. Some midwestern states have for example
such elevated concentrations of atrazine and its metabolites that you have
to be carefull using ground water to drink or even to irrigate other crops.
....
The EPA also has data from numerous other ground water studies conducted from
1971-1991. In this database, of a total of 65,865 wells sampled, 14.4% or
9,509 had concentrations of one or more pesticides in excess of health
standards. This high percentage is a reflection of sampling bias--many of
the wells sampled were selected because they were located in areas where
pesticide leaching was known to be occurring.

More recently, the U.S. Geological Survey used the same analytical techniques
to demonstrate that surface waters, including major rivers and lakes in the
Corn Belt, also contain some of the most used pesticides in the United States:
herbicides used in corn and soybean production, including atrazine, alachlor,
and cyanazine. During the 2 to 3 months in spring and early summer immediately
after these herbicides are applied on farms, pesticide concentrations in surface
waters can be much higher than in ground water. In some instances, human health
standards are exceeded and concentrations of 1 to 10 ppb are common;
occasionally, concentrations exceeding 100 ppb are observed. Concentrations
in rivers and streams decrease to 1 ppb by mid-fall, but elevated
concentrations may persist in lakes. (2) This seasonal peak concentration of
pesticides in rivers and lakes in the period following their use on fields
indicates that runoff, the drainage of excess rainfall from the surface of
fields, is responsible for much of the pollution.
....
________

Now imagine all farmers using the same herbicide.



On top of that the use of the GM technology makes farmers financially
dependent on one or two companies. The Enron story should teach us not
to depend on one company.

total rubbish.

Read about the Indian Cotton debacle.


anyone can seed from any seedhouse. Seed is bought and sold around the
world, we have used rye seed from Poland. It is not unreasonable to use a GM
crop one year as part of a weed control programme then use a convention
variety next year to get the higher yield

and then get your crop analized for GM contamination and get sued for
some leftover seeds surviving the winter.


Jim Webster

wrote in message
...


Jim Webster wrote:

...
Here are some differences that I could think in 5 minutes
the GM scenario would have a large number of crop varieties or even a
large
number of crops with several genes in common.

so what, all varieties of the same species have over 99% of the same
genes
in common. They have to have virtually all of their genes in common or
they
will not crossbreed which is a good rule of thumb definition of a
species.
...

99.999999% similarity might mean the differencen between a disesase
resistant
wheat and one that is a total failure.
I think you should go back and study your genetics and pland breeding.

you were the one who appeared surprised to find "the GM scenario would have
a large number of crop varieties or even a large number of crops with
several genes in common. "

Jim Webster