"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Moosh:]" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:10:50 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

Good one! Thing that staggers me is how little of a pint of milk or a
pound of beef you producers actually get. You lot seem to supply a
cheap raw material for every other bugger to cop a markup on.
I know you've tried to take action on this, but I suppose there is
always a farmer in the next village who is hungrier and will cave in.
You need something like a builders' union or a miners' union. Big and
powerful that can fund you for a three month strike.

in the UK supermarket chains make party donations, farmers don't.

Also a three month strike at the right time of year, even if possible
would
lead to a collapse of western society because people would starve.Even if
they imported the food, there isn't all that much food on the market (see
what UK fmd outbreak did to beef prices in the first couple of weeks of
the
outbreak and UK is not a big beef producer in world terms)
In the UK with a lorry drivers strike there was a panic and the
supermarkets
were nearly emptied overnight. I doubt there are the stocks of food in the
country to stand a two week break in supply.

Even when we were a odds with the USSR we sold them wheat. My
daughter-in-law, who is from mainland China, says as long as there is food
and shelter the people will put up with almost anything.

Look at the unrest in Africa where there is a food shortage. And the
potential for war with India and Pakistan over who is the dominate power
controlling agriculture in the area as the population outstrips the areas
ability to produce food. Not to mention the religious problems involved.

Empty stomachs make desperate people. We have a country primarily built on
emigrants that were willing to walk in to a totaly unknown situation rather
than stay where they were for one reason or another. Hunger was on strong
motivator.

Gordon

Gordon

"Moosh:]" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:35:15 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Just the opposite. There are many more beneficial insets since you don't
have to spray for worms. Try reading something besides green propaganda.

But Gordon, everything else is Monsanto propaganda produced by
scientists worldwide who are in Monsanto's clutches

The USDA experiment stations are not in Monsanto's clutches nor are the US
farmers. We buy what works. In face most seed breeders at universities are
very bitter about the loss of public funding for crop breeding and if there
is a bias it would be ageist private breeders.

Monsanto's main problem is they didn't have a public relation effort on the
benefits of GM crops for anything but the bottom line of the farmer. They
should have capitalized on the reduction of erosion, insecticide use and use
of less toxic herbicides and their positive effect on the environment.

The whole scientific world was caught off guard by the lies that the green
lobby used to line their pockets at the expense of the environment they
claim to be protecting.

Gordon

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Moosh:]" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:10:50 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

Good one! Thing that staggers me is how little of a pint of milk or a
pound of beef you producers actually get. You lot seem to supply a
cheap raw material for every other bugger to cop a markup on.
I know you've tried to take action on this, but I suppose there is
always a farmer in the next village who is hungrier and will cave in.
You need something like a builders' union or a miners' union. Big and
powerful that can fund you for a three month strike.

in the UK supermarket chains make party donations, farmers don't.

Also a three month strike at the right time of year, even if possible
would
lead to a collapse of western society because people would starve.Even if
they imported the food, there isn't all that much food on the market (see
what UK fmd outbreak did to beef prices in the first couple of weeks of
the
outbreak and UK is not a big beef producer in world terms)
In the UK with a lorry drivers strike there was a panic and the
supermarkets
were nearly emptied overnight. I doubt there are the stocks of food in the
country to stand a two week break in supply.

Even when we were a odds with the USSR we sold them wheat. My
daughter-in-law, who is from mainland China, says as long as there is food
and shelter the people will put up with almost anything.

Look at the unrest in Africa where there is a food shortage. And the
potential for war with India and Pakistan over who is the dominate power
controlling agriculture in the area as the population outstrips the areas
ability to produce food. Not to mention the religious problems involved.

Empty stomachs make desperate people. We have a country primarily built on
emigrants that were willing to walk in to a totaly unknown situation rather
than stay where they were for one reason or another. Hunger was on strong
motivator.

Gordon

Gordon

"Moosh:]" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:35:15 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Just the opposite. There are many more beneficial insets since you don't
have to spray for worms. Try reading something besides green propaganda.

But Gordon, everything else is Monsanto propaganda produced by
scientists worldwide who are in Monsanto's clutches

The USDA experiment stations are not in Monsanto's clutches nor are the US
farmers. We buy what works. In face most seed breeders at universities are
very bitter about the loss of public funding for crop breeding and if there
is a bias it would be ageist private breeders.

Monsanto's main problem is they didn't have a public relation effort on the
benefits of GM crops for anything but the bottom line of the farmer. They
should have capitalized on the reduction of erosion, insecticide use and use
of less toxic herbicides and their positive effect on the environment.

The whole scientific world was caught off guard by the lies that the green
lobby used to line their pockets at the expense of the environment they
claim to be protecting.

Gordon

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:23:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
..GM crops .. reduction of erosion

Myth: Since 1996 GM crops have enabled a huge shift
to conservation tillage in USA.

Fact: During the period from 1996 (before GM crops) to
2002 the percentage of cropland acres in conservation
tillage in USA has remained nearly constant at 36-37 %.

Over the same period the percentage of cropland in
intensive tillage has increased from 38,5 % to 40,5 %.

USA had 2.3 million more acres in intensive tillage
in 2002 than it had in 1996 -- and 700,000 less acres
in conservation tillage.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:23:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
..GM crops .. reduction of erosion

Myth: Since 1996 GM crops have enabled a huge shift
to conservation tillage in USA.

Fact: During the period from 1996 (before GM crops) to
2002 the percentage of cropland acres in conservation
tillage in USA has remained nearly constant at 36-37 %.

Over the same period the percentage of cropland in
intensive tillage has increased from 38,5 % to 40,5 %.

USA had 2.3 million more acres in intensive tillage
in 2002 than it had in 1996 -- and 700,000 less acres
in conservation tillage.


The G.M.O. debate aside, I can't say the same here.

http://www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/sk/seeding_e.pdf


Dean Ronn

Torsten Brinch wrote:
On 28 Jul 2003 16:29:18 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote:
That it doesn't hang about long in significant
snip

I didn't write that, Brian.

Sorry, no you quoted like that.

And here is a bit from the other half of my last ref:


Linkname: Glyphosate Factsheet (part 1 of 2) Caroline Cox / Journal of
Pesticide Reform v.108, n.3 Fall98 rev.Oct00
URL:
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/R...tsheet-Cox.htm
size: 808 lines

Glyphosate Factsheet

Part 1 of 2

[ Part 1 | Part 2 ]

Caroline Cox / Journal of Pesticide Reform v.108, n.3 Fall98 rev.Oct00

Caroline Cox is JPR's editor.
[...]

Reproductive Effects

Glyphosate exposure has been linked to reproductive problems in
humans. A study in Ontario, Canada, found that fathers' use of
glyphosate was associated with an increase in miscarriages and
premature births in farm families.87 (See Figure 5.) In addition, a
case report from the University of California discussed a student
athlete who suffered abnormally frequent menstruation when she
competed at tracks where glyphosate had been used.88

[...]
Toxicology of Glyphosate's Major Metabolite

In general, studies of the breakdown of glyphosate find only one
metabolite, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA).2 Although AMPA has low
acute toxicity (its LD[50] is 8,300 mg/kg of body weight in rats),16
it causes a variety of toxicological problems. In subchronic tests on
rats, AMPA caused an increase in the activity of an enzyme, lactic
dehydrogenase, in both sexes; a decrease in liver weights in males at
all doses tested; and excessive cell division in the lining of the
urinary bladder in both sexes.16 AMPA is more persistent than
glyphosate; studies in eight states found that the half-life in soil
(the time required for half of the original concentration of a
compound to break down or dissipate) was between 119 and 958 days.2
AMPA has been found in lettuce and barley planted a year after
glyphosate treatment.90a

Quality of Laboratory Testing

Tests done on glyphosate to meet registration requirements have been
associated with fraudulent practices.

Laboratory fraud first made headlines in 1983 when EPA publicly
announced that a 1976 audit had discovered "serious deficiencies and
improprieties" in studies conducted by Industrial Biotest Laboratories
(IBT)." Problems included "countless deaths of rats and mice" and
"routine falsification of data."91

IBT was one of the largest laboratories performing tests in support of
pesticide registrations.91 About 30 tests on glyphosate and
glyphosate-containing products were performed by IBT, including 11 of
the 19 chronic toxicology studies.92 A compelling example of the poor
quality of IBT data comes from an EPA toxicologist who wrote, "It is
also somewhat difficult not to doubt the scientific integrity of a
study when the IBT stated that it took specimens from the uteri (of
male rabbits for histopathological examination."93 (Emphasis added.)

In 1991, EPA alleged that Craven Laboratories, a company that
performed studies for 262 pesticide companies including Monsanto, had
falsified tests.94 "Tricks" employed by Craven Labs included
"falsifying laboratory notebook entries" and "manually manipulating
scientific equipment to produce false reports."95 Roundup residue
studies on plums, potatoes, grapes, and sugarbeets were among the
tests in question.96

The following year, the owner of Craven Labs and three employees were
indicted on 20 felony counts.97 The owner was sentenced to five years
in prison and fined $50,000; Craven Labs was fined 15.5 million
dollars, and ordered to pay 3.7 million dollars in restitution.95

Although the tests of glyphosate identified as fraudulent have been
replaced, this fraud casts shadows on the entire pesticide
registration process.

Illegal Advertising

In 1996, Monsanto Co. negotiated an agreement with the New York
attorney general that required Monsanto to stop making certain health
and environmental claims in ads for glyphosate products and pay the
attorney general $50,000 in costs." Claims that glyphosate products
are "safer than table salt,"98 safe for people, pets, and the
environment, and degrade "soon after application " 98 were challenged
by the attorney general because they are in violation of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the national
pesticide law.98 According to the attorney-general, Monsanto had
engaged in "false and misleading" advertising.98

In 1998, Monsanto Co. negotiated a similar agreement with the New York
attorney-general about a different advertisement. The attorney general
found that the advertisement featuring a horticulturist from the San
Diego Zoo also was "false and misleading" because it implied to
consumers that Roundup could be used (contrary to label directions) in
and around water.98a Monsanto paid $75,000 in costs.98a

EPA made a similar determination about Roundup ads in 1998, finding
that they contained "false and misleading"98 claims and were in
violation of FIFRA. However, EPA took no action and did not even
notify Monsanto Co. about the determination because two years had
elapsed between the time that the ads were submitted to EPA and the
time that EPA made the determination99
[...]
Ecological Effects

Glyphosate can impact many organisms not intended as targets of the
herbicide. The next two sections describe both direct mortality and
indirect effects, through destruction of food or shelter.

Figure 7 Impacts or Glyphosate on Nontarget Animals on Maine Clear-cuts

[Roundup-Glyphosate-Factsheet-CoxF7.GIF]

Santillo, D.J., D.M. Leslie, and P.W. Brown. 1989. Responses of small
mammals and habitat to glyphosate application on clearcuts. J. Wildl.
Manage. 53(1):164-172.

Glyphosate treatment reduced invertebrate and small mammal populations
for up to 3 years.

Figure 8 Effect or Glyphosate on the Growth or Earthworms

[Roundup-Glyphosate-Factsheet-CoxF8.GIF]

Springer, J.A. and R.A.J. Gray. 1992. Effect of repeated low doses of
biocides on the earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa in laboratory
culture. Soil Biol. Biochem. 24(12):1739-1744.

Repeated applications of glyphosate reduce the growth of earthworms.

[ Part 1 | Part 2 ]

Moosh:] writes
Good one! Thing that staggers me is how little of a pint of milk or a
pound of beef you producers actually get. You lot seem to supply a
cheap raw material for every other bugger to cop a markup on.
I know you've tried to take action on this, but I suppose there is
always a farmer in the next village who is hungrier and will cave in.
You need something like a builders' union or a miners' union. Big and
powerful that can fund you for a three month strike.

Illegal under uk law.

See cartels.

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

Jim Webster writes

not only that but if I planted broadleaves, my biggest worry was some
environmental group would get tree preservation orders or similar slapped on
them and i would never be able to fell them anyway, which makes their use as
a crop pretty damned suspect

Given your location I suspect that a felling license would never be
given. You would have to fell it before it got to 6" diameter (or
whatever is the max allowed diameter). That's even if it didn't get a
TPO, but I suspect a TPO would be inevitable.

Which is why no UK farmer with a brain cell plants trees any more.

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

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:23:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
..GM crops .. reduction of erosion

Myth: Since 1996 GM crops have enabled a huge shift
to conservation tillage in USA.

Fact: During the period from 1996 (before GM crops) to
2002 the percentage of cropland acres in conservation
tillage in USA has remained nearly constant at 36-37 %.

Over the same period the percentage of cropland in
intensive tillage has increased from 38,5 % to 40,5 %.

USA had 2.3 million more acres in intensive tillage
in 2002 than it had in 1996 -- and 700,000 less acres
in conservation tillage.

I don't know what your calling conservation tillage, Torsten but your
misinterpreting fact you don't understand again.

Gordon

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:02:58 -0600, "Dean Ronn" @home wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:23:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
..GM crops .. reduction of erosion

Myth: Since 1996 GM crops have enabled a huge shift
to conservation tillage in USA.

Fact: During the period from 1996 (before GM crops) to
2002 the percentage of cropland acres in conservation
tillage in USA has remained nearly constant at 36-37 %.

Over the same period the percentage of cropland in
intensive tillage has increased from 38,5 % to 40,5 %.

USA had 2.3 million more acres in intensive tillage
in 2002 than it had in 1996 -- and 700,000 less acres
in conservation tillage.


The G.M.O. debate aside, I can't say the same here.

http://www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/sk/seeding_e.pdf


So, but what -can- you say, there? From looking that
report through briefly, I certainly get the impression
of a sizeable increase in CSS (conservation seeding
systems, see note), most clearly depictured in figure 4
showing an increase from 18% of fields in 1997 to 40 %
of fields in 2002. Now, I am not quite sure, but this
would be numbers for Saskatchewan? I wonder how has the
development in GM crop area been there during the same
period.

Canada total 45 Mha arable, of which GM crops:
1997 1.68
1998 2.75
1999 4.01
2000 3.0
2001 3.5
2002 3.5

(Note: caveat with Canada-US data comparison - conservation
seeding systems in the report you refer to is defined
differently from conservation tillage in the US ag
statistics)

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 08:12:30 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:23:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
..GM crops .. reduction of erosion

Myth: Since 1996 GM crops have enabled a huge shift
to conservation tillage in USA.

Fact: During the period from 1996 (before GM crops) to
2002 the percentage of cropland acres in conservation
tillage in USA has remained nearly constant at 36-37 %.

Over the same period the percentage of cropland in
intensive tillage has increased from 38,5 % to 40,5 %.

USA had 2.3 million more acres in intensive tillage
in 2002 than it had in 1996 -- and 700,000 less acres
in conservation tillage.

I don't know what your calling conservation tillage,

You are interested in tillage system for soil
conservation in USA, and do not know the definition
of 'conservation tillage' in your national tillage
statistics? Gross.

Moosh:] wrote:
On 25 Jul 2003 15:01:43 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

The Organic folk would not accept it if it were
properly labelled as GM.

I suspect they are so desperate for permitted pesticides, that they
don't want to know

Label it and find out.

They would use the non-GM sort.

Then they may be restricted from the various BTs that target different
insects. Not sure which are GM, but there are BT chemicals for
mosquitoes and so on.

An dsupposed usefulness is at the cost of extra risk.

All you have to
be amazed about is the labelling issue.

No, the hypocrisy of Organic growers trying to bend their rather silly
rules to accept what they need. Ferinstance, there are many safe
fungicides, but organic folk only permit the toxic and very persistant
heavy metal, mined, copper salts. Go figure.

Copper is an essential trace element. It is part of the respiratory enzyme
ceruloplasmin.

Desperation? Anyways, Bt has been so overused that it
only has a limited useful life.

Now that it is present perpetually, whether really needed or not, you are
right.

Well it is that by use of the protein powder by agriculture and the
home gardener.

No, because when GE'd into a crop it is present all the time, though
gradually fading in strenght as the crop matures.

But it is present whenever the caterpillars are present in the garden
or crop. When there is no plant predatiojn, there is no resistance
occurring.

As we discussed with DDT, anything used for too long breeds resistant
creatures. When the pesticide is interrupted then resistance to it is no
longer an advantage. So the non-resistant ones grow again and oust the
resistant ones. Then DDT will work again, or Bt. But if it is there all
the time resistance to it remains an advantage for pests.


When home gardners use it, or non-GM soy farmers &c, it is only present as
needed, then disappears.

And why does it matter if it's there or not, if the pests aren't
predating the crop?

There are always a few about, from the mandatory refuges, or other crops
near by.

New specific pesticides will be
developed.

Which we do not know the problems with.

Same problems as with BT. Have you heard of testing?
Happens all the time.

So the Bt crop suppliers, who are ruining it, should be paying for the
research for something new organic.

They are, all the time. They developed BT, so why shouldn't they use
it, and develop further selective pesticides. BTW, who says they are
ruining anything?

They didn't invent the original stuff. They `developed' it. In other words
they are in a marketing mode. As Gordon says all that is wanted is money.
In that respect the farmers are at the mercy of the `developers'. When
resistance develops then there are recommended packages of pesticides to
go with the product. Or when the plants are expending so much energy
producing Bt all throughout them that they have less for fighting the
other pests.


And the produce will probably not
sell as well as when the organic Bt stuff was used occasionally.

Only because the public has been hoodwinked into believing that
Organic is somehow better.

It is.

No evidence that it is.

More per acre, better antioxidants for nutrition, less chemical cost, the
only extra cost is a little more manpower and we needs jobs anyway.

Why buy corn with Bt protein in it?

To get a pest free crop, without having to spray, thus saving much
fossil fuel needed in applying the sprays a number of times.

I am talking about poeple who are looking for someting to eat. Why do they
want to eat Bt protein right throughout the plant, whereas the organic
producers sprayed it on the surface of the plant only if needed and it
dispersed again before eating?

Why buy paste made from tomato which keeps longer, but with no guarantee
about the nutritional qualities lasting in proportion?

Huh? Tomato past is hardly a staple. It's a flavouring or a spice IME.
Does it matter if a bit of any nutrient in it disappears?

It has important nutrients for people eating `hamburgers' &c whatever you
call those meat filled bread buns for a meal. The few vegetable things in
them may the only source of vitamin C.

Moosh:] wrote:
On 22 Jul 2003 12:45:08 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:
To my knowledge they only test people with protein that they expect the GM
plant to make. The actual plant could have the engineered promoters
switching on other genes, causing troubles you would not be looking for.

And do they look for unintended effects from mutations and cross
pollinating?

Possibly not as thoroughly as they ought. But those are not being applied
to such a wide sector of people as RR & Bt stuff, which goes to nearly
everyone in North America.

When the tryptophan from GE sources killed some people it might not have
been discovered if the symptoms were similar to some other lethal
but fairly common disease.

But that tryptophan affair was nothing to do with GE.

If the govt thought that lack of purification could cause such a terrible
thing what have they done about preventing future such things?
Linkname: The Thalidomide of Genetic Engineering
URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/tryptophan.php
size: 199 lines
Linkname: Speech by Jeanette Fitzsimons in Urgent debate on GE
decision - 30OCT2001
URL: http://www.ecoglobe.org.nz/ge-news/rcgm1o30.htm
size: 258 lines

The Royal Commission has been lauded by some as balanced, thorough,
informed, and many other plaudits. This was the same Royal Commission
which told the representative of oneorganisation, before they had even
made their presentation, that the Commission had already made their
decision and it would be the Great NZ compromise.
The same organisation, after handing in their written submission much
earlier, found there was an error and asked to correct it. They were
told it didn't matter as "no-one was going to read it anyway".
In fact the Commission disregarded a great deal of evidence which did
not support its conclusions and made numerous errors of fact - for
example in its reporting and assessment of evidence about the
poisoning of thousands by GE tryptophan

I can
list several cases of food stuffs that case harm bred with conventional
methods an you can't list a single one with GM methods.

They get withdrawn if they cause trouble that is plain obvious.

Just like foods from plant mutations and cross-pollinating, only these
are more likely

Who is doing studies comparing recent health changes in countries with GM
food compared to countries with non-GM? Who is ready for what may show up
in the next generation?

If you are going to use arguments use ones that you don't loose at the onset
with proven facts.

He means the promoters switching on unexpected gene expression in some
conditions.

Just like is happening in the wild every day?

?

In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 24 Jul 2003 05:04:37 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

So you don't read Moosh:]'s articles, I have to economize somehwe
****
From: "Moosh:]"
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,nz.general,sci.agriculture
Subject: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Message-ID:
Lines: 89
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:54:52 GMT
[...]
In the junk DNA there is just about
everything that has been tried, if it hasn't been harmlessly corrupted
over the aeons.
[...]
****

That doesn't mean that it is a "memory bank" Just a repository for
turned off sequences. What turns them on again is a moot point.
Evolution isn't using these if needed, it is being lucky enough to
have a random mutation that confers a survival benefit. And when all
your non-mutated peers are dying from some environmental change
(antibiotics) , you will outcompete them.

But what if a mutation in the past had developed an ability to access the
junk DNA under stress? Would that be as complex as developing eyes
ears and advanced emotions by mutation?

Where is there any evidence of this. I think you are
getting carried away with the classifications again. If you run out of
hosts
you just find more

Jump species? You would have to do that before you killed every last
one of the previous species.

which isn't a problem, those who prey on only one species are very much a
minority

Lots of viruses tend to be specific to certain classes of hosts.

Calici haemorrhagic disease jumped to rabbits in 1970s in China, though I
don't know why.

Using pig organs in humans in concert with GM is a risk that pig viruses
will jump and spread through the human population.

What on earth does GM have to do with this? It happens whether or not,
surely.

Because GM enables more horizontal gene transfer outwitting the past
regulatory mechanisms.