wrote in message
...


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.

so you are better off with only one chemical rather than a lot, that way the
studies would get done faster


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.

so stick with round-up which is a lot safer than the old stuff


Now imagine all farmers using the same herbicide.

yes, you would only have one to worry about

but not all farmers would all use the same herbicide, some will not use GM
every year



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.

yes, they had a drought

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.

please show me anyone who has been sued in Argentina or India

Jim Webster


Jim Webster

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

Where seed is for sale to farmers and crops for sale to consumers.
Also, if you want to have a professional discourse, kindly refrain from
name-calling.

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.

Current regulations allow for "contamination" for weed seed, seed from
other crops, seed from other varieties, pesticide residues, rodent
feces, insects, rodent hairs, etc. Why should transgenes be treated any
differently? Afterall, the trasngenes have undergone safety testing;
the insect parts have not.

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?

The FDA guidelines for labeling in the USA make good reading. It turns
out that labels are required in many cases, including whenever there may
be a health concern associated with the gene, or when the gene changes
the nature or character of the food.

Does your canola oil bottle say RoundUp Ready Genetically modified Canola?

For the record, oil from RR canola is indistinguisable from oil from non
transgenic canola. All the analytical equipment in the world cannot
tell them apart. Hence, this is an example where labeling is not
required in the US.


Last year Oregon USA tried labelling but the labelling campaign was outgunned
and defeated by the biotech industry.

wrote:
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.

Jointed goat grass is a tetraploid species-- that is, a hybrid between
two species.

Wheat is a hexaploid, ie, a hybrid between 3 species. Jointed goat
grass and wheat share a common parent.

When and if wheat and jointed goatgrass hybridize, their chromosomes
from their common ancestor can pair and exchange genes. Chromosomes
from the other parents are disimilar, so they can't pair and exchange genes.

The RR gene of wheat was not placed in a chromosome that can pair with
the ones from jointed goatgrass. In effect, it is biological containment.

Finally for the record, if roundup resistant jointed goatgrass were ever
to evolve, it could be controlled by whatever farmers were using to
control it prior to the invention of Roundup.

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.

By mechanical, you mean plowing? That is the worst thing one can do to
soil. Not only does it promote erosion, it destroys organic matter, and
disrupts all soil organisms.

Also, if you have real information on glyphosate being harmful to soil
organisms, please share it.

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.

While it guarantees that the other areas are affected by unintended effects.

wrote in message
...


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.
---
The L-Tryptphane was from change in processing that left protein from both
non genetically engineer and generically engineered bugs toxic.

Gordon

wparrott wrote:

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

Where seed is for sale to farmers and crops for sale to consumers.
Also, if you want to have a professional discourse, kindly refrain from
name-calling.

Market place is when the stuff reaches the market. As in
when it gets out of the farm and is exchanged for money.
No definition of 'market place' that I know limits it to
the products arriving to the shelves of your local store.



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.

Current regulations allow for "contamination" for weed seed, seed from
other crops, seed from other varieties, pesticide residues, rodent
feces, insects, rodent hairs, etc. Why should transgenes be treated any
differently? Afterall, the trasngenes have undergone safety testing;
the insect parts have not.

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?

The FDA guidelines for labeling in the USA make good reading. It turns
out that labels are required in many cases, including whenever there may
be a health concern associated with the gene, or when the gene changes
the nature or character of the food.

Does your canola oil bottle say RoundUp Ready Genetically modified Canola?

For the record, oil from RR canola is indistinguisable from oil from non
transgenic canola. All the analytical equipment in the world cannot
tell them apart. Hence, this is an example where labeling is not
required in the US.

Last year Oregon USA tried labelling but the labelling campaign was outgunned
and defeated by the biotech industry.

wparrott wrote:

wrote:
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.

Jointed goat grass is a tetraploid species-- that is, a hybrid between
two species.

Wheat is a hexaploid, ie, a hybrid between 3 species. Jointed goat
grass and wheat share a common parent.

When and if wheat and jointed goatgrass hybridize, their chromosomes
from their common ancestor can pair and exchange genes. Chromosomes
from the other parents are disimilar, so they can't pair and exchange genes.


Tell that to the plant breeders that currently are using jointed goat grass
to incorporate disease resistance genes into wheat.



The RR gene of wheat was not placed in a chromosome that can pair with
the ones from jointed goatgrass. In effect, it is biological containment.

Finally for the record, if roundup resistant jointed goatgrass were ever
to evolve, it could be controlled by whatever farmers were using to
control it prior to the invention of Roundup.

They used exclusion.

I suggest you read more info in http://www.jointedgoatgrass.org/
there are even NON transgenig wheat that is resistant to some
specific herbicides.

wparrott 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. 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.

By mechanical, you mean plowing? That is the worst thing one can do to
soil. Not only does it promote erosion, it destroys organic matter, and
disrupts all soil organisms.


mechanical weed control is sometimes even required in some crops!
not only kills weeds but it put soil where the roots need it!


Also, if you have real information on glyphosate being harmful to soil
organisms, please share it.

read the fine print in your Roundup container.


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.

While it guarantees that the other areas are affected by unintended effects.

Jim Webster wrote:

wrote in message
.....

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

yes but these are new genes, recent introductions. No test of time you see.

Jim Webster wrote:

wrote in message
....
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.

yes, they had a drought
...

Is funny how the GMO cotton had a drought and non GMO did not.
India is big. Only part of india is having a drought.

Hmm, caught on, eh?
-=-
Jim Cluny


wrote in message
...


Jim Webster wrote:

wrote in message
...
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.

yes, they had a drought
..

Is funny how the GMO cotton had a drought and non GMO did not.
India is big. Only part of india is having a drought.

wrote in message
...


Jim Webster wrote:

wrote in message
....

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

yes but these are new genes, recent introductions. No test of time you
see.

no, these are old genes, purely in a different place, I have heard of no
case where a new gene has been manufactured, they are just moved from one
species to another

Jim Webster

wrote in message
...


Jim Webster wrote:

wrote in message
...
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.

yes, they had a drought
..

Is funny how the GMO cotton had a drought and non GMO did not.
India is big. Only part of india is having a drought.

I think you better wait for next planting time. If Indian farmers think that
GM cotton is rubbish, they will not plant it. If, on the other hand, they
reckon it did pretty well and and the problems are purely hyped up by a lot
of antis, then they will plant it.

Jim Webster

Jim Webster wrote:
....

no, these are old genes, purely in a different place, I have heard of no
case where a new gene has been manufactured, they are just moved from one
species to another

Jim Webster

How long has humanity been eating BT or HIV vaccines?

Jim Webster wrote:
....
I think you better wait for next planting time. If Indian farmers think that
GM cotton is rubbish, they will not plant it. If, on the other hand, they
reckon it did pretty well and and the problems are purely hyped up by a lot
of antis, then they will plant it.

Jim Webster

Once the farmer is broke is it easy to go back and plant again?