"Moosh:]" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:53:24 +0100, "Jim Webster"
posted:

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.

The trouble with compulsory voting is that it allows people to vote who
otherwise couldn't find their backside with both hands. If someone only
votes because of the law, should they have a vote in the first place? :-))

Trouble is that food is largely bought on price and any cheap imported stuff
will do. There is a niche organic and nice quality food market but
everything else is lowest price possible.


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.

With 'just in time' and companies unwilling to carry stocks because of the
cost of keeping that capital tied up, it would be interesting to see just
what stocks are available in country

Jim Webster

On 2 Aug 2003 03:25:14 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Torsten Brinch wrote:
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


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 :-)


This thread is on nz.general because in October the moratorium on GM field
releases expires.

So you are busting your boiler to sway WHOM?

I think it is important that we know if a person is speaking with more
than one net name, since they can give more apparent weight to their case.

How can this be done? I've changed my screen name whenever the mood
takes me. Usually when I have to set up another newsreader or ISP. How
can this possibly affect the weight of a case? I've never used two at
once.

Does anybody really take newsgroups seriously? Such a tiny proportion
of the World participate for a start, and how does anyone know the
real name of anyone here? I really don't know (or care) if you are
Brian Sandle, or Fred Nurk. I've heard of some folks who use one name
on one group, and another on another group. I've never seen the point.
I believe anonymity is wise here, as I've seen good folk persecuted
because they used their real identity.

The name Moosh appeared on Feb 11

What about M00$H :] and all the other variants I've used trying to
foils some little troll or other? And then there was Sandie and Jo
and variants, I believe.

with some 8 articles, after John Riley
had been having a gap in posting, following several to the microsoft
groups.

How fascinating. I've been posting to, and reading many different
groups under many different screen names.

Approximately:

John Riley Moosh
Feb 11 8
12 3 1
14 1
15 3
16 6
17 2 8
18 2
19 2
20 1 4
21 5
22 3
23 1 5
24 1
25 3
26 1 1


Wow, can I do a chart of you and some other poster?
It's wet and miserable here

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 07:04:30 +0100, Oz
posted:

Gordon Couger writes
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.

I don't think such complexities were warranted in the relatively
extensively grazed australian outback. A whiff of P&S gave a useful
response, dams gave water (well, more weirs down every valley to catch
stormwater) and that was as intensive as could be warranted. Oh, they
did use mineral blocks.

Quite pretty country, apart from the flies. Within the hour we all just
let them crawl over our arms and faces, one can get used to this
surprisingly easily. The alternative of flailing your arms *constantly*
is too stressful.

That's the famous Australian salute

On 2 Aug 2003 07:19:44 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Gordon Couger wrote:
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. 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.

There is a tremendous amount to learn.

Yes, but is this general comment on life appropriate just here?

Moosh:] has been relating about varied diets being more healthy for
humans. And varied life on earth seems more healthy.

The first sentence, though awkardly put, is roughly accurate.
The second sentence is meaningless to me.

Currently we have powerful technology and can change the earth in a large
region for the current whim.

How can we do that? I think you exaggerate wildly man's abilities.

Well fire has always been a powerful
technology used, but is mused more. The Aboriginal Australians used to use
top fires before the bush got too dense. The resulting fire would not be
so hot. They had learnt over many years and passed on the knowledge. We
need to be doing that now.

Doing what? Our state govt has been doing "cool burn" fires for
decades.

The current GM action seems like a big fire going through a rain forest to
open up new land when the nutrients have been taken from the land cleared
the year or so before.

Not sure what you mean by this exactly, but I see no similarity at all
with GM. GM is just like plant breeding that has been going on for
thousands of years. Just more accurate and quicker.

Yes we need to deal with nutrients. There is knowledge to learn in the
organic approach, too. Watch out for yellowcake in the rock phosphate
maybe one. I don't think plants absorb much lead from dolomite (allowed?).

You seem confused. Do you mean by "deal with nutrient", "replace those
extracted and exported with the crop?
I've never heard of yellow cake in rock phosphate, but if it occurs,
so what. If it's radioactive it is best avoided.

Organics can be more intense farming.

Do you mean "intense" or "intensive"?
Organic growing can only be intensive if it "steals" the nutirients
from other land.

Then land such as New Zealand with
low iodine and selenium and specialised life adapted to that could have
had more areas saved. I do not think it is healthy to have uniform
agriculture and small range of plants and beasts the world over, suiting
only the current financial drives we create.

No, feeding 10 billion humans or more.

We should be taking care of the oceans. The ocean food comes from the
surface algae that can grow, and while the area is larger than the land
area, the volume cannot be great because the layer is quite thin in
contact with light and much oxygen. Seaweeds can anchor near shores and
have more volume per area.

Even less for land plants? The first surface to intercept solar rays
blocks it from anything else. Land or sea.

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.

So feeding the world is not a worthwhile goal?

Rather than put RR or Bt &c genes in several cotton types and say you have
increased diversity,

Who says that?

increased profit for the mean time or whatever,

Without profit, nothing much will be achieved in this area of
endeavour.

find
out about companion planting, closed ecosystems like marvelously diverse
forests, and long duration success.

Interesting, but if you stop all technological advances in the
furthering of agricultural efficiency, you will have ALL wild reserves
planted with old fashioned crops. Your call.

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?

Dunes aren't created my marram grass. Marram grass "stabilises " dunes
so they don't encroach onto productive land.

Then you have a greater area of land to
some extent. And on the more shaded side of the dunes different plants
could grow.

Which food plants would these be?

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).

The govt is the will of the people, for better or worse. You must
change the govt by democratic means.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
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?

Why dont you answer my question first Torsten. Tell me ONE natural food
product that has undergone as much toxicological studies as GE products.

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.

Because there weren't any. How about just giving me one example of a
natural food product having to undergo toxicological studies. I will even
accept an example of a product developed by chemical mutagenesis. All I
want is one. With your fingers on the pulse on the scientific community,
that should be an easy request.

Dave



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 Sun, 03 Aug 2003 12:04:47 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:

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

what a maroon

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

Yeah, right. And I am Bugs Bunny. Listen to this :-)
http://www.ita.suite.dk/weeell-goodbye.wav

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 13:35:40 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
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?

Why dont you answer my question first Torsten.

I think that settles the question. I mean, if there were more
toxicological and clinical studies done on the average GM event in
maize, than those 100s of studies done on aspartame, you wouldn't have
such difficulty coming up with a number for it.

snip David's efforts to move the goal posts

"Moosh:]" wrote in message You seem confused. Do
you mean by "deal with nutrient", "replace those
extracted and exported with the crop?
I've never heard of yellow cake in rock phosphate, but if it occurs,
so what. If it's radioactive it is best avoided.


They had problems with this in Cumbria, not with Yellow cake but with rock
phosphate. A Cumbrian firm used to buy rock phosphate (from Morocco I think)
and make phosphoric acid, which they used in various processes. The waste
rock (crushed to power in the process, was just flushed back into the sea
from which it had initially come umpteen million years previously.
The sea of Cumbria is very closely monitored because of Sellafield Nuclear
Power Station, and it was discovered that actually there was so much
naturally occurring uranium in this ground up rock that they were bigger
polluters than Sellafield was.

Jim Webster

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 13:35:40 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
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?

Why dont you answer my question first Torsten.

I think that settles the question. I mean, if there were more
toxicological and clinical studies done on the average GM event in
maize, than those 100s of studies done on aspartame, you wouldn't have
such difficulty coming up with a number for it.

Nice try Torsten. You proved my point that there is no toxicology data for
any natural food products. I will give you a source GE food for everyone
you can provide for me - a true toxicological study. It is your chance to
put up or shut up.

Dave

snip David's efforts to move the goal posts

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 17:14:39 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:
Nice try Torsten. You proved my point that there is no toxicology data for
any natural food products.

Keep me out of that, I have done no such thing. If you want to make a
silly claim, like that there is no toxicology data for any natural
food products, go ahead. Cheesh, what a silly claim. And you are doing
it on sci.med.nutrition, of all places.

Torsten Brinch writes
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 17:14:39 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:
Nice try Torsten. You proved my point that there is no toxicology data for
any natural food products.

Keep me out of that, I have done no such thing. If you want to make a
silly claim, like that there is no toxicology data for any natural
food products, go ahead. Cheesh, what a silly claim. And you are doing
it on sci.med.nutrition, of all places.

You claim there is? I'm intrigued, name me some.

--
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 Sun, 03 Aug 2003 17:14:39 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:
Nice try Torsten. You proved my point that there is no toxicology data
for
any natural food products.

Keep me out of that, I have done no such thing. If you want to make a
silly claim, like that there is no toxicology data for any natural
food products, go ahead. Cheesh, what a silly claim. And you are doing
it on sci.med.nutrition, of all places.

Well, perhaps one of the other readers can provide this information since
you seem to be unable to do so. Nice try with the old tricks Torsten.
Didn't work before and it wont work now.

Dave

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 23:24:01 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 17:14:39 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:
Nice try Torsten. You proved my point that there is no toxicology data
for any natural food products.

Keep me out of that, I have done no such thing. If you want to make a
silly claim, like that there is no toxicology data for any natural
food products, go ahead. Cheesh, what a silly claim. And you are doing
it on sci.med.nutrition, of all places.

Well, perhaps one of the other readers can provide this information since
you seem to be unable to do so.

Believe me, noone here is able to help provide information to prove
that "there is no toxicology data for any natural food products".
What you are proposing is simply, false. And silly, to wit.

Exhibit:
Carum carvi L., seeds: negative on Drosophila mutagenicity assay (48h)
(Lachavechvanich 1997)

Torsten Brinch wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 23:24:01 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 17:14:39 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:
Nice try Torsten. You proved my point that there is no toxicology data
for any natural food products.

Keep me out of that, I have done no such thing. If you want to make a
silly claim, like that there is no toxicology data for any natural
food products, go ahead. Cheesh, what a silly claim. And you are doing
it on sci.med.nutrition, of all places.

Well, perhaps one of the other readers can provide this information since
you seem to be unable to do so.

Believe me, noone here is able to help provide information to prove
that "there is no toxicology data for any natural food products".
What you are proposing is simply, false. And silly, to wit.

Exhibit:
Carum carvi L., seeds: negative on Drosophila mutagenicity assay (48h)
(Lachavechvanich 1997)

Sorry I am a bit short of time currently, but look up any nutrition text.

Or a more specialist book, `Antinutrients and Natural Toxicants in Foods'
Edited by Robert L.Ory, Southern Regional Research Center USDA -ARS Oil
and Food Laboratory New Orleans, Louisiana.

Food & Nutirtion Press, Inc. 1981

And while I remember, in addition to what I gave about RR produced corn
for feed:

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

and the combined traits, insect-protected corn
event MON 810 (YieldGard corn) x glyphosate-tolerant corn event
NK603 (experiment 2) to their respective non-transgenic controls
and to commercial reference corn, when fed to growing broilers.
[...]
Differences (P 0.05) were noted only for
protein content of breast meat.
[...]


So what experiments should be done on humans eating the stuff, their
brains &c?

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 13:35:40 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


Why dont you answer my question first Torsten. Tell me ONE natural food
product that has undergone as much toxicological studies as GE products.

if you are not WILLING to look it up yourself, you're simply lazy
(google, medline or current content would have given you, what you did
not look for there are essentielly hundreds of journals for "food
science" and toxicology and usda should have the resources. duke's
tox database usually comes up with at loeast 20-30 references of tox
data - and that's just for ethnofood and not for staple food..
i randomly scanned a medline cd (i got 1992) and a combination of food
AND toxicology came up with 850+ hits. now please your turn with GE
and toxicology.

now for the foods: alcohol, fat, citrus fruits, pepper, papaver,
potatoes, meat, raw-milk cheese, milk, fugo, shellfish, cassava, soy,
algae, ginger, eggs, most allergenic foods, honey, rapeseed oil,
almonds, eatable fungi, fish oil, cannabis, amaranth, joghurts,
myco-proteins, apple juice, strawberries, raspberries, most fruits of
cucurbits, solanaceae and liliaceae, most foods with glucosinolates,
the whole bunch of foods in codex alimentarius with recommanded
restricted intakes, a huge number of edible herbs, ape brain. there
are more tox studies on shark cartilage and even more studies on
toxicity of whale penis (yep, also at least 2 in the usa) than studies
on ge-food safety worldwide...(it's just a little difficult to get the
nippon hoigaku-zasshi or the nippon-kyobu-shikkan-gakkai)


in case you're insisting, that some of these are no food products : GE
food is also no "product" as such...it's a variety of different foods
with a special trait just like fluor-enriched toothpaste. simple
toothpaste is something different.


next time please try a LITTLE harder....


klaus