"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
You have your cotton fields, thanks for the photos. Now when the wind
comes it moves the sandy soil. So can you get a crop which like marram
grass will enable dunes to form? Then you have a greater area of land to
some extent. And on the more shaded side of the dunes different plants
could grow. Harvesting technology would need to be developed. We need to
set aside thinking places and not only relating to what the govt
currently enables (Jim's posiiton).


No the position caused by governments elected by urban electorates. If you
don't like the position change the government. Mind you I see very few in
the urban workforce telling each other that they have to give up a fifth or
similar proportion of their income for someone elses environmental good.

Jim Webster

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 09:55:01 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Myth:
GM is the most contorled and studied thing we have ever done in agricluture.

Fact:
It isn't. Take just the dossier of the average pesticide, if you want
to see a more controlled and studied thing.

-----------

Excerpt from " Toxicological and allergological safety evaluation of
GMO - Summary Spoek A., Hofer H., Valenta R., Kienzl-Plochberger K.,
Lehner P., Gaugitsch H.., Monograph 109, Federal Environment Agency,
Austria http://www.ubavie.gv.at

"Out of 28 applications for placing on the market of GMP which are
presently under review or are already approved, eleven applications
were selected: applications for intended use for cultivation and as
feed stuff (RR-fodder beet A5/15, potato EH92-527-1, Bt-cotton 531,
RR-cotton 1445), "twin applications" (first application for import,
second application for cultivation; maize Bt11, RR-maize GA 21), one
application intended for cultivation as well as use as food and feed
stuff (rape Topas 19/2), applications for use as ornamental plants
(carnation 66, carnation 959A etc.). Besides the actual application
dossiers also correspondence, additional information from the
notifiers, opinions of the national competent authorities as well as
the Scientific Committee on Plants, and - if available - decisions of
the European Commission were considered.

TOXICOLOGY:

In general toxicological information is rather a minor part of the
dossiers. Differences in the intended use of the GMP do not affect the
extent of the toxicological evaluations. Most toxicity tests are
displayed as summaries or are just references to the literature and
can therefore not be verified and reviewed. Internal references are
often used improperly. Statements which are closely related to each
other are sometimes scattered over the dossier.

Apparently, toxicological tests were carried out rather sporadically,
most likely in cases of Bt-plants, as Bt-toxins had already been
approved before as an insecticide in some countries. Data on the
toxicity of the whole GMP are not provided in any dossier.

Toxicological acceptance is often justified by three arguments:
- low toxicity of the gene product,
- substantial equivalence of the GMP to their conventional
counterparts, and
- low exposure.

Potentially toxic effects resulting as a secondary effect from the
gene insertion are not considered in any case.

Most of the toxicological testing were not carried out in compliance
with quality assurance programs such as Good Laboratory Practise
(GLP).

GMP are very often declared as being safe just by assumption based
reasoning. Furthermore these assumptions are sometimes not easily or
not at all verifiable.

Risk assessment procedures which are carried out in a systematic way
consisting of a hazard assessment of the GMP on one hand and of an
analysis of exposure on the other hand, are lacking in the dossiers.

ALLERGOLOGY:

No direct testing of potentially allergic properties of GMP and
products derived therefrom was carried out.

The absence of allergenic properties was justified solely in an either
argumentative way and/or by giving rather indirect evidence (e.g.,
digestion studies, sequence homology comparisons).

Some quotations of literature intended to confirm the safety of the
GMP in the dossiers are cited wrongly or are outdated or are even
suspected to be selectively quoted.

The usual way of arguing is as follows:
(i) no homology could be detected between the newly introduced protein
and known allergens,
(ii)the expression level of target protein in the GMP is rather low,
(iii) the protein will rapidly be digested in the intestine,
(iv) the newly introduce protein originates from a non-allergenic
source,
(v) the protein is not glycosylated and will therefore less likely
exhibit allergic properties,
(vi) the protein will less likely exhibit allergenic properties
because it is not new.

Each of these arguments and their underlying assumptions have to be
questioned in the light of recent scientific data. Furthermore,
unintended secondary effects possibly caused by the gene insertion,
such as the possible upregulated expression of other allergens through
insertion and expression of the foreign gene in the GMP, are not
considered at all. A safety evaluation which is based exclusively on
the above described approaches is insufficient.

SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE:

Analysis and comparisons of plant compounds are part of each dossier
with the exception of carnation. However, no connection can be
established between the nature and extent of these analysis and the
intended use of the GMP or GMP products.

Compositional analysis are largely restricted to macro-nutrients and
known plant specific anti-nutrients as well as known toxins. A
detailed characterisation of macrocompounds is however, rarely done.

Substantial equivalence is referred to in each dossier in order to
argue for the safety of the particular GMP. The parameters chosen in
composition analysis are however, not comprehensive enough to justify
substantial equivalence and/or to detect probable unintended secondary
effects.

In each dossier some significant differences between the GMP
and conventional counterparts were either reported or could be found
by reviewing the displayed data. However, these differences did not
lead to a repetition of the analysis including an extension of
parameters investigated. In contrast, these differences were
argumentatively attributed to naturally occurring ranges, effects from
back-crossing, climate conditions etc.

Detailed descriptions of cultivation conditions, single examination
sheets and statistical data interpretation, information on storage and
preparation of samples as well as detailed data on the results of
compound analysis are lacking in most cases.

Detailed explanations on summaries of compound analysis are often
fragmentary or even missing.

On the ground of information given and data shown, substantial
equivalence often cannot be verified.

In case of herbicide resistant GMP it is often not quite clear if the
herbicide was applied during cultivation.

As a matter of comparing average values of different cultivation sites
the variance of analysed compounds is sometimes quite high, and might
be covering any unintended secondary effects e.g. resulting in changes
in plant metabolism.

Nutritional considerations in general and especially with respect to
substantial equivalence (e.g. vitamin profiles, characterisation of
fibre, analyses of different types of proteins) apparently do not play
a role in the dossiers and are just occasionally considered in
comparative composition analysis.

Composition of food products derived from animals fed on GMP was not
considered in any dossier."
[End quote]

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 09:55:01 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Myth:
GM is the most contorled and studied thing we have ever done in
agricluture.

Fact:
It isn't. Take just the dossier of the average pesticide, if you want
to see a more controlled and studied thing.

Can you name any other food product that has been studied more than GE
maize?

Dave

-----------

Excerpt from " Toxicological and allergological safety evaluation of
GMO - Summary Spoek A., Hofer H., Valenta R., Kienzl-Plochberger K.,
Lehner P., Gaugitsch H.., Monograph 109, Federal Environment Agency,
Austria http://www.ubavie.gv.at

"Out of 28 applications for placing on the market of GMP which are
presently under review or are already approved, eleven applications
were selected: applications for intended use for cultivation and as
feed stuff (RR-fodder beet A5/15, potato EH92-527-1, Bt-cotton 531,
RR-cotton 1445), "twin applications" (first application for import,
second application for cultivation; maize Bt11, RR-maize GA 21), one
application intended for cultivation as well as use as food and feed
stuff (rape Topas 19/2), applications for use as ornamental plants
(carnation 66, carnation 959A etc.). Besides the actual application
dossiers also correspondence, additional information from the
notifiers, opinions of the national competent authorities as well as
the Scientific Committee on Plants, and - if available - decisions of
the European Commission were considered.

TOXICOLOGY:

In general toxicological information is rather a minor part of the
dossiers. Differences in the intended use of the GMP do not affect the
extent of the toxicological evaluations. Most toxicity tests are
displayed as summaries or are just references to the literature and
can therefore not be verified and reviewed. Internal references are
often used improperly. Statements which are closely related to each
other are sometimes scattered over the dossier.

Apparently, toxicological tests were carried out rather sporadically,
most likely in cases of Bt-plants, as Bt-toxins had already been
approved before as an insecticide in some countries. Data on the
toxicity of the whole GMP are not provided in any dossier.

Toxicological acceptance is often justified by three arguments:
- low toxicity of the gene product,
- substantial equivalence of the GMP to their conventional
counterparts, and
- low exposure.

Potentially toxic effects resulting as a secondary effect from the
gene insertion are not considered in any case.

Most of the toxicological testing were not carried out in compliance
with quality assurance programs such as Good Laboratory Practise
(GLP).

GMP are very often declared as being safe just by assumption based
reasoning. Furthermore these assumptions are sometimes not easily or
not at all verifiable.

Risk assessment procedures which are carried out in a systematic way
consisting of a hazard assessment of the GMP on one hand and of an
analysis of exposure on the other hand, are lacking in the dossiers.

ALLERGOLOGY:

No direct testing of potentially allergic properties of GMP and
products derived therefrom was carried out.

The absence of allergenic properties was justified solely in an either
argumentative way and/or by giving rather indirect evidence (e.g.,
digestion studies, sequence homology comparisons).

Some quotations of literature intended to confirm the safety of the
GMP in the dossiers are cited wrongly or are outdated or are even
suspected to be selectively quoted.

The usual way of arguing is as follows:
(i) no homology could be detected between the newly introduced protein
and known allergens,
(ii)the expression level of target protein in the GMP is rather low,
(iii) the protein will rapidly be digested in the intestine,
(iv) the newly introduce protein originates from a non-allergenic
source,
(v) the protein is not glycosylated and will therefore less likely
exhibit allergic properties,
(vi) the protein will less likely exhibit allergenic properties
because it is not new.

Each of these arguments and their underlying assumptions have to be
questioned in the light of recent scientific data. Furthermore,
unintended secondary effects possibly caused by the gene insertion,
such as the possible upregulated expression of other allergens through
insertion and expression of the foreign gene in the GMP, are not
considered at all. A safety evaluation which is based exclusively on
the above described approaches is insufficient.

SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE:

Analysis and comparisons of plant compounds are part of each dossier
with the exception of carnation. However, no connection can be
established between the nature and extent of these analysis and the
intended use of the GMP or GMP products.

Compositional analysis are largely restricted to macro-nutrients and
known plant specific anti-nutrients as well as known toxins. A
detailed characterisation of macrocompounds is however, rarely done.

Substantial equivalence is referred to in each dossier in order to
argue for the safety of the particular GMP. The parameters chosen in
composition analysis are however, not comprehensive enough to justify
substantial equivalence and/or to detect probable unintended secondary
effects.

In each dossier some significant differences between the GMP
and conventional counterparts were either reported or could be found
by reviewing the displayed data. However, these differences did not
lead to a repetition of the analysis including an extension of
parameters investigated. In contrast, these differences were
argumentatively attributed to naturally occurring ranges, effects from
back-crossing, climate conditions etc.

Detailed descriptions of cultivation conditions, single examination
sheets and statistical data interpretation, information on storage and
preparation of samples as well as detailed data on the results of
compound analysis are lacking in most cases.

Detailed explanations on summaries of compound analysis are often
fragmentary or even missing.

On the ground of information given and data shown, substantial
equivalence often cannot be verified.

In case of herbicide resistant GMP it is often not quite clear if the
herbicide was applied during cultivation.

As a matter of comparing average values of different cultivation sites
the variance of analysed compounds is sometimes quite high, and might
be covering any unintended secondary effects e.g. resulting in changes
in plant metabolism.

Nutritional considerations in general and especially with respect to
substantial equivalence (e.g. vitamin profiles, characterisation of
fibre, analyses of different types of proteins) apparently do not play
a role in the dossiers and are just occasionally considered in
comparative composition analysis.

Composition of food products derived from animals fed on GMP was not
considered in any dossier."
[End quote]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 12:16:35 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 09:55:01 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Myth:
GM is the most contorled and studied thing we have ever done in
agricluture.

Fact:
It isn't. Take just the dossier of the average pesticide, if you want
to see a more controlled and studied thing.

Can you name any other food product that has been studied more than GE
maize?

The FDA has reviewed more than 100 toxicological and clinical studies
with aspartame. How does that compare to the average GM event in
maize?

-----------

Excerpt from " Toxicological and allergological safety evaluation of
GMO - Summary Spoek A., Hofer H., Valenta R., Kienzl-Plochberger K.,
Lehner P., Gaugitsch H.., Monograph 109, Federal Environment Agency,
Austria http://www.ubavie.gv.at

"Out of 28 applications for placing on the market of GMP which are
presently under review or are already approved, eleven applications
were selected: applications for intended use for cultivation and as
feed stuff (RR-fodder beet A5/15, potato EH92-527-1, Bt-cotton 531,
RR-cotton 1445), "twin applications" (first application for import,
second application for cultivation; maize Bt11, RR-maize GA 21), one
application intended for cultivation as well as use as food and feed
stuff (rape Topas 19/2), applications for use as ornamental plants
(carnation 66, carnation 959A etc.). Besides the actual application
dossiers also correspondence, additional information from the
notifiers, opinions of the national competent authorities as well as
the Scientific Committee on Plants, and - if available - decisions of
the European Commission were considered.

TOXICOLOGY:

In general toxicological information is rather a minor part of the
dossiers. Differences in the intended use of the GMP do not affect the
extent of the toxicological evaluations. Most toxicity tests are
displayed as summaries or are just references to the literature and
can therefore not be verified and reviewed. Internal references are
often used improperly. Statements which are closely related to each
other are sometimes scattered over the dossier.

Apparently, toxicological tests were carried out rather sporadically,
most likely in cases of Bt-plants, as Bt-toxins had already been
approved before as an insecticide in some countries. Data on the
toxicity of the whole GMP are not provided in any dossier.

Toxicological acceptance is often justified by three arguments:
- low toxicity of the gene product,
- substantial equivalence of the GMP to their conventional
counterparts, and
- low exposure.

Potentially toxic effects resulting as a secondary effect from the
gene insertion are not considered in any case.

Most of the toxicological testing were not carried out in compliance
with quality assurance programs such as Good Laboratory Practise
(GLP).

GMP are very often declared as being safe just by assumption based
reasoning. Furthermore these assumptions are sometimes not easily or
not at all verifiable.

Risk assessment procedures which are carried out in a systematic way
consisting of a hazard assessment of the GMP on one hand and of an
analysis of exposure on the other hand, are lacking in the dossiers.

ALLERGOLOGY:

No direct testing of potentially allergic properties of GMP and
products derived therefrom was carried out.

The absence of allergenic properties was justified solely in an either
argumentative way and/or by giving rather indirect evidence (e.g.,
digestion studies, sequence homology comparisons).

Some quotations of literature intended to confirm the safety of the
GMP in the dossiers are cited wrongly or are outdated or are even
suspected to be selectively quoted.

The usual way of arguing is as follows:
(i) no homology could be detected between the newly introduced protein
and known allergens,
(ii)the expression level of target protein in the GMP is rather low,
(iii) the protein will rapidly be digested in the intestine,
(iv) the newly introduce protein originates from a non-allergenic
source,
(v) the protein is not glycosylated and will therefore less likely
exhibit allergic properties,
(vi) the protein will less likely exhibit allergenic properties
because it is not new.

Each of these arguments and their underlying assumptions have to be
questioned in the light of recent scientific data. Furthermore,
unintended secondary effects possibly caused by the gene insertion,
such as the possible upregulated expression of other allergens through
insertion and expression of the foreign gene in the GMP, are not
considered at all. A safety evaluation which is based exclusively on
the above described approaches is insufficient.

SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE:

Analysis and comparisons of plant compounds are part of each dossier
with the exception of carnation. However, no connection can be
established between the nature and extent of these analysis and the
intended use of the GMP or GMP products.

Compositional analysis are largely restricted to macro-nutrients and
known plant specific anti-nutrients as well as known toxins. A
detailed characterisation of macrocompounds is however, rarely done.

Substantial equivalence is referred to in each dossier in order to
argue for the safety of the particular GMP. The parameters chosen in
composition analysis are however, not comprehensive enough to justify
substantial equivalence and/or to detect probable unintended secondary
effects.

In each dossier some significant differences between the GMP
and conventional counterparts were either reported or could be found
by reviewing the displayed data. However, these differences did not
lead to a repetition of the analysis including an extension of
parameters investigated. In contrast, these differences were
argumentatively attributed to naturally occurring ranges, effects from
back-crossing, climate conditions etc.

Detailed descriptions of cultivation conditions, single examination
sheets and statistical data interpretation, information on storage and
preparation of samples as well as detailed data on the results of
compound analysis are lacking in most cases.

Detailed explanations on summaries of compound analysis are often
fragmentary or even missing.

On the ground of information given and data shown, substantial
equivalence often cannot be verified.

In case of herbicide resistant GMP it is often not quite clear if the
herbicide was applied during cultivation.

As a matter of comparing average values of different cultivation sites
the variance of analysed compounds is sometimes quite high, and might
be covering any unintended secondary effects e.g. resulting in changes
in plant metabolism.

Nutritional considerations in general and especially with respect to
substantial equivalence (e.g. vitamin profiles, characterisation of
fibre, analyses of different types of proteins) apparently do not play
a role in the dossiers and are just occasionally considered in
comparative composition analysis.

Composition of food products derived from animals fed on GMP was not
considered in any dossier."
[End quote]

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 12:16:35 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 09:55:01 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Myth:
GM is the most contorled and studied thing we have ever done in
agricluture.

Fact:
It isn't. Take just the dossier of the average pesticide, if you want
to see a more controlled and studied thing.

Can you name any other food product that has been studied more than GE
maize?

The FDA has reviewed more than 100 toxicological and clinical studies
with aspartame. How does that compare to the average GM event in
maize?

It does not compare at all with GE maize. It is a man-made substance and is
not made in living organisms. How about information about tomato? What
toxicological data was known about the tomato before human began consuming
it?

Dave

-----------

Excerpt from " Toxicological and allergological safety evaluation of
GMO - Summary Spoek A., Hofer H., Valenta R., Kienzl-Plochberger K.,
Lehner P., Gaugitsch H.., Monograph 109, Federal Environment Agency,
Austria http://www.ubavie.gv.at

"Out of 28 applications for placing on the market of GMP which are
presently under review or are already approved, eleven applications
were selected: applications for intended use for cultivation and as
feed stuff (RR-fodder beet A5/15, potato EH92-527-1, Bt-cotton 531,
RR-cotton 1445), "twin applications" (first application for import,
second application for cultivation; maize Bt11, RR-maize GA 21), one
application intended for cultivation as well as use as food and feed
stuff (rape Topas 19/2), applications for use as ornamental plants
(carnation 66, carnation 959A etc.). Besides the actual application
dossiers also correspondence, additional information from the
notifiers, opinions of the national competent authorities as well as
the Scientific Committee on Plants, and - if available - decisions of
the European Commission were considered.

TOXICOLOGY:

In general toxicological information is rather a minor part of the
dossiers. Differences in the intended use of the GMP do not affect the
extent of the toxicological evaluations. Most toxicity tests are
displayed as summaries or are just references to the literature and
can therefore not be verified and reviewed. Internal references are
often used improperly. Statements which are closely related to each
other are sometimes scattered over the dossier.

Apparently, toxicological tests were carried out rather sporadically,
most likely in cases of Bt-plants, as Bt-toxins had already been
approved before as an insecticide in some countries. Data on the
toxicity of the whole GMP are not provided in any dossier.

Toxicological acceptance is often justified by three arguments:
- low toxicity of the gene product,
- substantial equivalence of the GMP to their conventional
counterparts, and
- low exposure.

Potentially toxic effects resulting as a secondary effect from the
gene insertion are not considered in any case.

Most of the toxicological testing were not carried out in compliance
with quality assurance programs such as Good Laboratory Practise
(GLP).

GMP are very often declared as being safe just by assumption based
reasoning. Furthermore these assumptions are sometimes not easily or
not at all verifiable.

Risk assessment procedures which are carried out in a systematic way
consisting of a hazard assessment of the GMP on one hand and of an
analysis of exposure on the other hand, are lacking in the dossiers.

ALLERGOLOGY:

No direct testing of potentially allergic properties of GMP and
products derived therefrom was carried out.

The absence of allergenic properties was justified solely in an either
argumentative way and/or by giving rather indirect evidence (e.g.,
digestion studies, sequence homology comparisons).

Some quotations of literature intended to confirm the safety of the
GMP in the dossiers are cited wrongly or are outdated or are even
suspected to be selectively quoted.

The usual way of arguing is as follows:
(i) no homology could be detected between the newly introduced protein
and known allergens,
(ii)the expression level of target protein in the GMP is rather low,
(iii) the protein will rapidly be digested in the intestine,
(iv) the newly introduce protein originates from a non-allergenic
source,
(v) the protein is not glycosylated and will therefore less likely
exhibit allergic properties,
(vi) the protein will less likely exhibit allergenic properties
because it is not new.

Each of these arguments and their underlying assumptions have to be
questioned in the light of recent scientific data. Furthermore,
unintended secondary effects possibly caused by the gene insertion,
such as the possible upregulated expression of other allergens through
insertion and expression of the foreign gene in the GMP, are not
considered at all. A safety evaluation which is based exclusively on
the above described approaches is insufficient.

SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE:

Analysis and comparisons of plant compounds are part of each dossier
with the exception of carnation. However, no connection can be
established between the nature and extent of these analysis and the
intended use of the GMP or GMP products.

Compositional analysis are largely restricted to macro-nutrients and
known plant specific anti-nutrients as well as known toxins. A
detailed characterisation of macrocompounds is however, rarely done.

Substantial equivalence is referred to in each dossier in order to
argue for the safety of the particular GMP. The parameters chosen in
composition analysis are however, not comprehensive enough to justify
substantial equivalence and/or to detect probable unintended secondary
effects.

In each dossier some significant differences between the GMP
and conventional counterparts were either reported or could be found
by reviewing the displayed data. However, these differences did not
lead to a repetition of the analysis including an extension of
parameters investigated. In contrast, these differences were
argumentatively attributed to naturally occurring ranges, effects from
back-crossing, climate conditions etc.

Detailed descriptions of cultivation conditions, single examination
sheets and statistical data interpretation, information on storage and
preparation of samples as well as detailed data on the results of
compound analysis are lacking in most cases.

Detailed explanations on summaries of compound analysis are often
fragmentary or even missing.

On the ground of information given and data shown, substantial
equivalence often cannot be verified.

In case of herbicide resistant GMP it is often not quite clear if the
herbicide was applied during cultivation.

As a matter of comparing average values of different cultivation sites
the variance of analysed compounds is sometimes quite high, and might
be covering any unintended secondary effects e.g. resulting in changes
in plant metabolism.

Nutritional considerations in general and especially with respect to
substantial equivalence (e.g. vitamin profiles, characterisation of
fibre, analyses of different types of proteins) apparently do not play
a role in the dossiers and are just occasionally considered in
comparative composition analysis.

Composition of food products derived from animals fed on GMP was not
considered in any dossier."
[End quote]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 13:03:26 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 12:16:35 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:
Can you name any other food product that has been studied more than GE
maize?

The FDA has reviewed more than 100 toxicological and clinical studies
with aspartame. How does that compare to the average GM event in
maize?

It does not compare at all with GE maize.

Why now avoid the question? I mean, you brought it up, and it is
rather straightforward, a simple count. How many toxicological and
clinical studies have been done on the average GM event in maize?

It is a man-made substance and is not made in living organisms.

A GM event is also man-made, so there.

How about information about tomato?
What toxicological data was known about the tomato
before human began consuming it?

It's a very long time ago, I don't think
that will ever be known.

Dave

-----------

Excerpt from " Toxicological and allergological safety evaluation of
GMO - Summary Spoek A., Hofer H., Valenta R., Kienzl-Plochberger K.,
Lehner P., Gaugitsch H.., Monograph 109, Federal Environment Agency,
Austria http://www.ubavie.gv.at

"Out of 28 applications for placing on the market of GMP which are
presently under review or are already approved, eleven applications
were selected: applications for intended use for cultivation and as
feed stuff (RR-fodder beet A5/15, potato EH92-527-1, Bt-cotton 531,
RR-cotton 1445), "twin applications" (first application for import,
second application for cultivation; maize Bt11, RR-maize GA 21), one
application intended for cultivation as well as use as food and feed
stuff (rape Topas 19/2), applications for use as ornamental plants
(carnation 66, carnation 959A etc.). Besides the actual application
dossiers also correspondence, additional information from the
notifiers, opinions of the national competent authorities as well as
the Scientific Committee on Plants, and - if available - decisions of
the European Commission were considered.

TOXICOLOGY:

In general toxicological information is rather a minor part of the
dossiers. Differences in the intended use of the GMP do not affect the
extent of the toxicological evaluations. Most toxicity tests are
displayed as summaries or are just references to the literature and
can therefore not be verified and reviewed. Internal references are
often used improperly. Statements which are closely related to each
other are sometimes scattered over the dossier.

Apparently, toxicological tests were carried out rather sporadically,
most likely in cases of Bt-plants, as Bt-toxins had already been
approved before as an insecticide in some countries. Data on the
toxicity of the whole GMP are not provided in any dossier.

Toxicological acceptance is often justified by three arguments:
- low toxicity of the gene product,
- substantial equivalence of the GMP to their conventional
counterparts, and
- low exposure.

Potentially toxic effects resulting as a secondary effect from the
gene insertion are not considered in any case.

Most of the toxicological testing were not carried out in compliance
with quality assurance programs such as Good Laboratory Practise
(GLP).

GMP are very often declared as being safe just by assumption based
reasoning. Furthermore these assumptions are sometimes not easily or
not at all verifiable.

Risk assessment procedures which are carried out in a systematic way
consisting of a hazard assessment of the GMP on one hand and of an
analysis of exposure on the other hand, are lacking in the dossiers.

ALLERGOLOGY:

No direct testing of potentially allergic properties of GMP and
products derived therefrom was carried out.

The absence of allergenic properties was justified solely in an either
argumentative way and/or by giving rather indirect evidence (e.g.,
digestion studies, sequence homology comparisons).

Some quotations of literature intended to confirm the safety of the
GMP in the dossiers are cited wrongly or are outdated or are even
suspected to be selectively quoted.

The usual way of arguing is as follows:
(i) no homology could be detected between the newly introduced protein
and known allergens,
(ii)the expression level of target protein in the GMP is rather low,
(iii) the protein will rapidly be digested in the intestine,
(iv) the newly introduce protein originates from a non-allergenic
source,
(v) the protein is not glycosylated and will therefore less likely
exhibit allergic properties,
(vi) the protein will less likely exhibit allergenic properties
because it is not new.

Each of these arguments and their underlying assumptions have to be
questioned in the light of recent scientific data. Furthermore,
unintended secondary effects possibly caused by the gene insertion,
such as the possible upregulated expression of other allergens through
insertion and expression of the foreign gene in the GMP, are not
considered at all. A safety evaluation which is based exclusively on
the above described approaches is insufficient.

SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE:

Analysis and comparisons of plant compounds are part of each dossier
with the exception of carnation. However, no connection can be
established between the nature and extent of these analysis and the
intended use of the GMP or GMP products.

Compositional analysis are largely restricted to macro-nutrients and
known plant specific anti-nutrients as well as known toxins. A
detailed characterisation of macrocompounds is however, rarely done.

Substantial equivalence is referred to in each dossier in order to
argue for the safety of the particular GMP. The parameters chosen in
composition analysis are however, not comprehensive enough to justify
substantial equivalence and/or to detect probable unintended secondary
effects.

In each dossier some significant differences between the GMP
and conventional counterparts were either reported or could be found
by reviewing the displayed data. However, these differences did not
lead to a repetition of the analysis including an extension of
parameters investigated. In contrast, these differences were
argumentatively attributed to naturally occurring ranges, effects from
back-crossing, climate conditions etc.

Detailed descriptions of cultivation conditions, single examination
sheets and statistical data interpretation, information on storage and
preparation of samples as well as detailed data on the results of
compound analysis are lacking in most cases.

Detailed explanations on summaries of compound analysis are often
fragmentary or even missing.

On the ground of information given and data shown, substantial
equivalence often cannot be verified.

In case of herbicide resistant GMP it is often not quite clear if the
herbicide was applied during cultivation.

As a matter of comparing average values of different cultivation sites
the variance of analysed compounds is sometimes quite high, and might
be covering any unintended secondary effects e.g. resulting in changes
in plant metabolism.

Nutritional considerations in general and especially with respect to
substantial equivalence (e.g. vitamin profiles, characterisation of
fibre, analyses of different types of proteins) apparently do not play
a role in the dossiers and are just occasionally considered in
comparative composition analysis.

Composition of food products derived from animals fed on GMP was not
considered in any dossier."
[End quote]

Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

Let us find out more about what life has done up to the present before
setting in to change it for financial reasons with GM things we cannot
undo.

GM is the most contorled and studied thing we have ever done in agricluture.

That is the image that the sellers like to give.

Would you eat food that was derived from seed that were irradiated by Cobalt
60 until half wouldn't sprout and then picked over for any thing that looked
good and incorpeted along with who knows what other mutations into crops
with no testing?

That speeds up the process of cosmic rays.

But there has to be testing.

In the early eighties I visited a place which was using colchicine
to break the cell wall of haploid barley and so allow new plants to
be formed speeding up things even more. There were many of the
plants and they had to be watched for time of flowering &c. It would
be same with radiation. Wide crossing would pose some problems, too.
But with those techniques there is no potent force of artificial
gene transfer introduced to allow genes to jump between organisms
between which there are natural barriers.


Rather than put RR or Bt &c genes in several cotton types and say you have
increased diversity, increased profit for the mean time or whatever, find
out about companion planting, closed ecosystems like marvelously diverse
forests, and long duration success.

We call those weeds.

Most mature forest are rather steril monoculutres compared to a monoculure
grassland.

In New Zealand we have a lot of pinus radiata growing. They grow
fast, in about 30 years or less, on the land which native bush has
been cleared from where there is plenty of rain. (I think they run
out of nutrients for a second crop).

Those forests are rather bare. Some fungi grow. Herbicide can be
made from pine oil.

When the trees get into sheep farms they are weeds, also when they
get into native bush. But they are not weeds to the plantation
owners.

The native bush is not regarded as weeds either it is timber. Near
where I live is Banks Peninsula and I have spent much time gazing at
its bald shape:

***********************
From: `Tales of Banks Peninsula,' H.C.Jacobson. 3rd edition facsimile
1991. 1st edition 1883.

"As the bush was cut down fires became frequent, and a great deal of
damage was done at times. The great fire which started in Pigeon Bay
about five and forty years ago spread to O'Kain's. The fire had lasted
for a long time, and for weeks the sky was scarcely seen through the
thick volumes of smoke. There have been several bush fires started in
O'Kain's, but none as bad as this one. The summer had been a dry one,
and the wind was favourable to its spreading. The whole Peninsula was
ablaze, and after it had died out many wild pigs were found burnt to
death. The native birds besides were never so plentiful afterwards as
they were before the fire."

The fire I calculate to have been a bit before 1850, from the first
edition date of that book. But it seems more damage was done by logging
which went on after that with mills being opened, water driven in 1854
and steam driven starting in 1857.

From: `Picturing the Peninsula,' by Gordon Ogilvie, 1992.

"When the first Europeans settled on Banks Peninsula in the 1830s two-
thirds of it was still bush-covered. By the end of the century there was
very little bush left, and one of New Zealand's finest tracts of
primeval podocarp forest, with ancestry dating back millions of years to
Gondwana, was seemingly gone for ever."
[...]
"By then [1903] some forty sawmills, large and small, aided by both
accidental and deliberate burning as well as the urgent endeavours of
hundreds of dairy and cocksfoot dairy farmers trying to pasture the
landscape, had almost completely denuded the Peninsula of its bush
cover. Less than one percent of the forest survived those sixty years. A
dozen native bird species vanished with the bush."

"By the time the first Europeans arrived, about a third of the bush cover
had been burnt and some thirty bird species rendered locally or
completely extinct."

******************

There are still some birds in the forests elsewhere, and quite a few
of various plants. I believe a bit of our bush shows in `The Lord of
the Rings.'



You have your cotton fields, thanks for the photos. Now when the wind
comes it moves the sandy soil. So can you get a crop which like marram
grass will enable dunes to form? Then you have a greater area of land to
some extent. And on the more shaded side of the dunes different plants
could grow. Harvesting technology would need to be developed. We need to
set aside thinking places and not only relating to what the govt
currently enables (Jim's posiiton).

Before we could control the sand it was fairly common practice to plant 66
foot wide strips of cotton, wheat, milo and alfalfa with the rows
perpendicular to the wind and work our rotations off that.

How well did that work? I suppose agriculture was work for a few
more people in those days.

We progressed
beyond that in the 60's when 100 hp tractors came out.

The farming approach has been designed around the machinery with
some compromises made?

No till give use many of the things organic supporters claim such as less
pesticide and it really does increase the organic matter in the soil.

When you say less pesticide you are going for more than no till. Or
did you mean less herbicide?

If you are going to the less pesticide option, then you pay the
extra cost you gave, in terms of lint and dollars. And it only works
for the intended boll worm. There are other pests still possible
which may cost. And you do not know which ones at the time you buy
the seed. Then the question to research is does the Bt gene
insertion silence any useful pest resistance or agronomic traits?
Your adviser will tell you to select seed with proven good
performance also. It is not just a matter of taking what is on
offer.

If you are going just for the Roundup Ready then how will it do
under stress?

Here are some things about how the resulting feed affects beasts so
it must be likely to have other differences:

Comparison of broiler performance when fed diets containing
grain from roundup ready (NK603), YieldGard x roundup ready
(MON810 x NK603), non-transgenic control, or commercial corn
Taylor ML, Hartnell GF, Riordan SG, Nemeth MA, Karunanandaa K,
George B, Astwood JD
POULTRY SCIENCE

82 (3): 443-453 MAR 2003

[...] Differences (P 0.05) were noted for
breast meat and fat pad weights across treatments.[...]



Soybean meal from Roundup Ready or conventional soybeans in
diets for growing-finishing swine
Cromwell GL, Lindemann MD, Randolph JH, Parker GR, Coffey RD,
Laurent KM, Armstrong CL, Mikel WB, Stanisiewski EP, Hartnell GF
JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE

80 (3): 708-715 MAR 2002
[...] Longissimus muscle samples from barrows
fed conventional soybean meal tended (P = 0.06) to have less fat
than those fed Roundup Ready soybean meal, but water, protein,
and ash were similar.[...]


P=0.05 means there is 5% chance the result might be spurious given
the amount of data available.

Who knows if it is the extra Roundup or something else? Will it show
up in agronomic traits of cotton?


Hitler and Geobles would be proud of the why the people that have taken over
the greens have used their methods to sway public opinion to support
practices that 180 degrees opposed to the claimed goals of the
organizations. The greens and others of their kind are responsible for far
more deaths that Hitler and Stalin combined by derailing public health
efforts in the world. Malaria program are almost at a stand still.

Malaria mosquito resistance to DDT was what ceased its use. It may
be used for outbreaks if the resistance has faded.

In the
first world as many as 50% of the children in some areas are not getting
their childhood vaccines all becuse so people with more time than good sense

It is being found that too many vaccines given at the wrong time
increase diabetes. That is more of a problem than the diseases
intended to be resisted. vaccines.net.

have take up the cause of a bunch of archest that have hijacked a once
respectable movement and use it to promote their own ends.

Their imagined dangers that have no basis in science make as much sense and
not having your kids vaccinated for tetanus, whooping cough, and measles

May be too much assault on the immune system all at once.


when we have real dangers of insecticides, persistent herbicides and water
erosion not only destroying our land but clogging our water ways with silt
and nutrients that are killing our estuaries.

Farmers may still be using some organophosphates on Bt cotton.

In the mean time we have a ever-increasing number of hungry people to feed
unless you would have use starvation as a population control measure.

There is plenty of food available, it is distribution that is a
problem - people cannot get work to pay for it.

Agriculture scientist know what their doing and they learn from the past. I
have oral history of family farming back to 1816. My grand father told me
the story his farther told him about the year it frosted every month of the
year in Indiana. Look up 'the year without a summer' on google. Think what
that would do if it happened today. If you look at tree ring evidence it is
not unlikely it will happen in your life time.


Yes, from 1811 to 1817.

I read in New Scientist in about the 80s something about that.

Our weather is affected by volcanoes. In turn volcanoes may be
affected by changes in the earth's rotation. The earth's rotation
may be affected by movement of its atmosphere - same as a skater
rotates slower when they put their arms out. The atmosphere can be
affected by particles coming from the sun. More particles come from
the sun when it has more sunspots or solar flares. Around 1812 I
think the sun was doing something interesting. The sun is not quite
at the centre of the solar system because it is in gravitational
balance with the planets. It moves around the centre. The sun also
rotates on its own axis. Usually both directions of rotation are the
same, but around 1812 they were contrary. So more upset sun, more
flares, disturbed weather on earth, disturbed rotation of earth,
more volcanoes, more shielding of earth from sun's warmth. Or some
sort of mechanism.

New Scientist predicted it would happen again in the 1990s sunspot
maximum and mask global warming. I must check that.

I have direct family history back to 1874 form my great grandmother. Almost
everyone in agriculture has roots like this. We did not hatch in a suburb
with only our peers as guides for our thinking. We started work when we were
8 or 9 and had investment in crops or livestock by the time we were 13. We
were working out for neighbors from the time we do something that the
needed. By the time we were 12 we were expected to keep up with the grown up
chopping cotton until 10 or 11 O'clock in the morning and do just as good a
job as they did.

Interesting history.

For almost every one in the business from the farmer to the boards of the
multinational ag companies have farm roots. It's not a deal like Enron.
These people eat the food they sell and can only stay in business by
providing a product that their customer finds profitable. No farmer will
give all the profit to the seed company and the bank they will take the what
that makes them the most money.

Yes, and it may be a loss leader they are sold for a few years. And
it may not be possible for the seed companies to keep bringing out
new lines as resistance develops. Resistance to Bt showed before GM
was very prevalent from trad farming. Now if several strains of Bt
resistance go into crops then Bt could be lost. There have not been
many generations to test it.

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

SNIP
Before we could control the sand it was fairly common practice to plant
66
foot wide strips of cotton, wheat, milo and alfalfa with the rows
perpendicular to the wind and work our rotations off that.

How well did that work? I suppose agriculture was work for a few
more people in those days.

A lot more. It worked very well.

By the time every one had 50 hp tractors the annual sand storms that turned
the sky black once or twice each spring had stopped by the late 50's or
early 60's. A sand storm in the early 80's was unique enough to make the
national geographic. I don't rember the year but I remember the day very
well. The winds were beteen 50 and 60 mph most of the day and the cotton and
corn land up and down the Great Plains and rolling plains that adjoin that
run north and south throung the US on the west side of the Rocky Mountians
were being worked up smooth incroating preplant heribcide.

Noraml methods of stopping sand from blowing wouldn't work that day. The
soil was too dry to turn up moist soil to stop it from blowing and much of
the soil was worked up too fine for that wind.

Post emegengence hericides let you have a much shorter window with the soil
in condition to blow and wash if you farm conventinaly. You can combine a
disk and planter and make a seed bed and plant in one operation. Corn has
Artazene that can be used post plant but the post plant and post emergence
cotton herbicides have uncretian results in dry conditions of Oklahoma and
Texas.

We progressed
beyond that in the 60's when 100 hp tractors came out.

The farming approach has been designed around the machinery with
some compromises made?

No till give use many of the things organic supporters claim such as
less
pesticide and it really does increase the organic matter in the soil.

When you say less pesticide you are going for more than no till. Or
did you mean less herbicide?

If you are going to the less pesticide option, then you pay the
extra cost you gave, in terms of lint and dollars. And it only works
for the intended boll worm. There are other pests still possible
which may cost. And you do not know which ones at the time you buy
the seed. Then the question to research is does the Bt gene
insertion silence any useful pest resistance or agronomic traits?
Your adviser will tell you to select seed with proven good
performance also. It is not just a matter of taking what is on
offer.

The boll worm or corn ear worm (same worm) is the limiting factor in
spraying cotton for any pest. Once you knock out your beificical insesects
you have to spray for bollworms every 4 to 7 days for the rest of the
season. With BT cotton we can control the other pest such as the boll weevil
that has shut down cotton growning in my area twice. We now have a spray
program that everyone prticaptes in except orgaic groweres that is sprayed
in the fall to kill the weevel befor they can over winter and once in the
spring to get the ones that did. Then we have traps out that are check
periodicly and any infestions sprayed with chemicals that hopefully don't
kill the benificicals or plowed up. The organic farmer has the choice of
spraying or plow under and reciveing a payment equal to the crop insurance
payment the convental famer does not have this payment.

If you are going just for the Roundup Ready then how will it do
under stress?

We can see no differnce under stress from drought. No till RR cotton
general does better in dry weather than conventional non RR cotton. We have
had only one good year of moisture since RR cotton came out. So the mosture
stress deal is crock.

Here are some things about how the resulting feed affects beasts so
it must be likely to have other differences:

Comparison of broiler performance when fed diets containing
grain from roundup ready (NK603), YieldGard x roundup ready
(MON810 x NK603), non-transgenic control, or commercial corn
Taylor ML, Hartnell GF, Riordan SG, Nemeth MA, Karunanandaa K,
George B, Astwood JD
POULTRY SCIENCE

82 (3): 443-453 MAR 2003

[...] Differences (P 0.05) were noted for
breast meat and fat pad weights across treatments.[...]



Soybean meal from Roundup Ready or conventional soybeans in
diets for growing-finishing swine
Cromwell GL, Lindemann MD, Randolph JH, Parker GR, Coffey RD,
Laurent KM, Armstrong CL, Mikel WB, Stanisiewski EP, Hartnell GF
JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE

80 (3): 708-715 MAR 2002
[...] Longissimus muscle samples from barrows
fed conventional soybean meal tended (P = 0.06) to have less fat
than those fed Roundup Ready soybean meal, but water, protein,
and ash were similar.[...]


P=0.05 means there is 5% chance the result might be spurious given
the amount of data available.

Those are intersting studies but many more show no differces so they may be
that 1 in 20 that are invalid or there may be other things in the experment
to account for it like the lack of calcium in the diet of the bird used in
the DDT study to show that DDT caused thinning of egg shells. I am leary of
experments that suddenly show differnt results than experments just like
them done in the past.

Who knows if it is the extra Roundup or something else? Will it show
up in agronomic traits of cotton?


Hitler and Geobles would be proud of the why the people that have taken
over
the greens have used their methods to sway public opinion to support
practices that 180 degrees opposed to the claimed goals of the
organizations. The greens and others of their kind are responsible for
far
more deaths that Hitler and Stalin combined by derailing public health
efforts in the world. Malaria program are almost at a stand still.

Malaria mosquito resistance to DDT was what ceased its use. It may
be used for outbreaks if the resistance has faded.

The replent effect of DDT never failed and there is no inseticed you can use
in house that will last 6 to 8 months. The EU not buying products from
countries that use DDT is reaching way beyond thier bounds in interfering
with other countries public healt for populist reasons. DDT has never been
proved to be any harm to humans.

In the
first world as many as 50% of the children in some areas are not getting
their childhood vaccines all becuse so people with more time than good
sense

It is being found that too many vaccines given at the wrong time
increase diabetes. That is more of a problem than the diseases
intended to be resisted. vaccines.net.

have take up the cause of a bunch of archest that have hijacked a once
respectable movement and use it to promote their own ends.

Their imagined dangers that have no basis in science make as much sense
and
not having your kids vaccinated for tetanus, whooping cough, and measles

May be too much assault on the immune system all at once.

Bull shit.

when we have real dangers of insecticides, persistent herbicides and
water
erosion not only destroying our land but clogging our water ways with
silt
and nutrients that are killing our estuaries.

Farmers may still be using some organophosphates on Bt cotton.

In the mean time we have a ever-increasing number of hungry people to
feed
unless you would have use starvation as a population control measure.

There is plenty of food available, it is distribution that is a
problem - people cannot get work to pay for it.

And what about Africa?
snip
For almost every one in the business from the farmer to the boards of
the
multinational ag companies have farm roots. It's not a deal like Enron.
These people eat the food they sell and can only stay in business by
providing a product that their customer finds profitable. No farmer will
give all the profit to the seed company and the bank they will take the
what
that makes them the most money.

Yes, and it may be a loss leader they are sold for a few years. And
it may not be possible for the seed companies to keep bringing out
new lines as resistance develops. Resistance to Bt showed before GM
was very prevalent from trad farming. Now if several strains of Bt
resistance go into crops then Bt could be lost. There have not been
many generations to test it.

Why test it different than any other pesticide? Monsanto is bringing out the
second generation of RR and BT cotton next year. There are a lot of natural
BT proteins to work with and no one has tried adding man made stuff to them
yet. We have been able to stay ahead of most resistance problems in
agriculture if you deal with them in rotation instead of using all one
method. The refuge method seems to work very well both in theory and
practice.

You assume that farmers can't learn from past mistakes and have a model of
agribusiness as a greedy rapist. They are all in it for profit but not short
term profits. To make a profit every one has to make money on the deal and
it has to preserve the environment so it well still be there to make money
one a hundred years from now. Go try to buy stocks in Delta Pine, Pioneer,
or Dunavant cotton company and see what happens. I think that they are all
privately held companies. Most agri business is because it doesn't work very
well with the corporate model. The profits are too small and the time frame
to long to work that way.

Gordon

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:09:56 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
..
Comparison of broiler performance when fed diets containing
grain from roundup ready (NK603), YieldGard x roundup ready
(MON810 x NK603), non-transgenic control, or commercial corn
Taylor ML, Hartnell GF, Riordan SG, Nemeth MA, Karunanandaa K,
George B, Astwood JD, POULTRY SCIENCE, 82 (3): 443-453 MAR 2003

[...] Differences (P 0.05) were noted for
breast meat and fat pad weights across treatments.[...]

Those are intersting studies but many more show no differces snip

The differences Brian has highlighted were noted in the experiment
with NK603 corn.

So, you are saying that many other studies on broiler performance with
GM event NK603 in corn have been made, finding no differences for
breast meat or fat pad weights. ---- References, please. --------

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:53:24 +0100, "Jim Webster"
posted:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:34:29 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"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.

I understand this, but what always amazes me is that supermarkets
don't vote.


farmers are now an insignificant proportion of the electorate in the UK, in
any constituency. So you can ignore them and just stuff the party coffers
with supermarket funds

Don't you have those bumper stickers "Without farmers we starve and go
naked"? Seems like a little factual "propaganda" should work wonders,
although you don't have compulsory voting there, do you. That's a
bummer. You could convert a dozen villagers, and they will not likely
bother to vote if it's raining.

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.

Yes, I believe London has only a short survival time if food imports
are cut.


I suspect very few major cities actually have meaningful food stocks.How
many public authorities actually do have any food stockpile?

None that I know of, they leave it to the supermarkets. I have a
couple of Woollies and Coles pantech barrelling up the road every day.

On 1 Aug 2003 13:20:53 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 25 Jul 2003 11:48:19 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 24 Jul 2003 22:54:10 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:
I don't think randomity explains what goes on.

Well it can, so why look for fairies at the bottom of the garden?
Think of Ockham's razor.

You are behind, as I explained last article.

No, I'm not behind the fairy stories

Ockham's razor illustrating the simplest explanation given the
evidence.

But in the last few articles I have shown the troubles with Crick's
`simple and elegant' `central dogma', as it has been exposed to
wider light more recently.

So what? How does this change the fact that GM has not caused any harm
ever?

You are several years behind.

Not in the broad picture. You quote far too many "scare propaganda"
quotes.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 21:16:44 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 05:38:18 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:
Perhaps he is an Australian like me?

Perhaps, but on check the similarity between John Riley and you
appears to run deeper than that. Substantial equivalence of mindset
if not identity would seem indicated.

The mindset of a West Australian interested in native plants perhaps?
There are thousands of us.
Probably not too many wasting their time on newsgroups, however

E.g. 'soils with almost no phosphorus' is not particularly an
Australian expression.

Sorry, but as most of our soils are thus, I would regard it as a
*very* Australian expression. We've imported whole islands of guano to
remedy this.

Yet, you and John Riley are the only persons
on Usenet who have used those words in that sequence. Furthermore,
looking at the expression in the contexts, striking semantic
similarities appear:

"I would love to know how you would farm "organically" in the
southwest of Western Australia. It has extremely old soils with
almost no phosphorus. There is often a deficiency in copper and
molybdenum (IIRC)" (John Riley 2001)

And? This could have been written by me, and many others. Many in the
different classes I've attended. I don't remember meeting a John Riley
but there you go.

"Tell me then how an Organic farmer in SW Western Australia on
ancient impoverished soils with almost NO phosphorus, and no copper or
molybdenum and very little potassium should function?" (Moosh 2003)

Seems a very reasonable question, from one who has a reasonable
acquaintance with this huge state.

All very interesting (is this your hobby?) but have you considered
that these may be facts which are commonly known to Western
Australians? How else would you express "soils with almost NO
phosphorus"? It is such a well known fact amongst wild flower growers
and botanists. Many native plants are poisoned by normal amounts of
phosphorus. If you look on bags of fertiliser, as I am wont to do, you
will often notice that Super has added Mo and Cu. Trucks and rail cars
full of it sent all over the state. I've even spread it around from
the back of a tractor in several states.

Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.med.nutrition:169134 nz.general:586107 sci.agricultu63176

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 03:25:31 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 22:58:41 GMT, "James Curts"
wrote:

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

SNIP

perhaps the common link is experience dealing with 'soils with almost no
phosphorus'?

If I were you Torsten, I would recommend you stick to looking for
conspiracy
theories in iraq and leave agriculture to less imaginative people

Jim Webster

what a maroon

Violet, is that you? You are the only one I've seen use that
expression

VBG Right on target.....

James Curts

Careful there, you wouldn't want Moosh and I to get started
on Iraq. Pretty soon you wouldn't know who of us you should
hate the most :-)

The hypercorrect "Moosh and I" seems to ring a bell. Are you sure
you're not.....

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 02:26:43 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
posted:


"Oz" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster writes

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 05:38:18 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:
Perhaps he is an Australian like me?

Perhaps, but on check the similarity between John Riley and you
appears to run deeper than that. Substantial equivalence of mindset
if not identity would seem indicated.

E.g. 'soils with almost no phosphorus' is not particularly an
Australian expression. Yet, you and John Riley are the only persons
on Usenet who have used those words in that sequence. Furthermore,
looking at the expression in the contexts, striking semantic
similarities appear:

perhaps the common link is experience dealing with 'soils with almost no
phosphorus'?

If I were you Torsten, I would recommend you stick to looking for
conspiracy
theories in iraq and leave agriculture to less imaginative people

My brother in law, some 20 years ago, on his farm SW of sydney:

"Our soils have almost no phosphorus, so we just apply superphosphate".

Sounds pretty typical to me.

My soils aren't quit as old as those in Australia. They are some of the
oldest in North America. Diamoium phosphate was the main sauce we used.
Mixing it with ammonium nitrate, Urea or on the high pH soils ammonium
sulfate to get the ratio of N & P we wanted. Any trace elements would be
added to that. We couldn't get a economic response from potasium in most
cases. Intensely irrigated Bermuda grass would show a response. But sandy
soils just becomes a hydroponic media for Bermuda grass if you push it hard
enough.

DAP would not be acceptable to an organic farmer but rock phosphate is.

Even though it is next to useless as it is glacially slow to dissolve.

And
AFIK there is no rule against trace elements if they can use copper in their
fungicide they should be able to use it in their fertilizer or put on a
heavy treatment of fungicide. It doesn't take much copper.

Yep, there's always a convenient rationalisation

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 12:03:48 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 21:16:44 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 05:38:18 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:
Perhaps he is an Australian like me?

Perhaps, but on check the similarity between John Riley and you
appears to run deeper than that. Substantial equivalence of mindset
if not identity would seem indicated.

The mindset of a West Australian interested in native plants perhaps?
There are thousands of us.
Probably not too many wasting their time on newsgroups, however
snip

You misunderstand the situation. I am not trying to prove you are the
John Riley I refer to, I am trying to find evidence to disprove it.
Now, I think I have given it a fair try, and since I can't find any
good evidence of differences, I shall assume you and he are
substantially equivalent.