Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 29 Jul 2003 08:52:24 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted: Moosh:] wrote: On 25 Jul 2003 15:01:43 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: The Organic folk would not accept it if it were properly labelled as GM. I suspect they are so desperate for permitted pesticides, that they don't want to know Label it and find out. It's not up to me. Talk to the regulator. I believe that there is so much lies and ignorance about re GM, that labelling one way or the other is a moot point. Perhaps the Organic crew accept this GMO, as it is not food. They are very pragmatic when it suits. Afterall, at base, it is just a commercial venture. They would use the non-GM sort. Then they may be restricted from the various BTs that target different insects. Not sure which are GM, but there are BT chemicals for mosquitoes and so on. An dsupposed usefulness is at the cost of extra risk. What extra risk? All you have to be amazed about is the labelling issue. No, the hypocrisy of Organic growers trying to bend their rather silly rules to accept what they need. Ferinstance, there are many safe fungicides, but organic folk only permit the toxic and very persistant heavy metal, mined, copper salts. Go figure. Copper is an essential trace element. So is manganese which is killing many pine plantations. The toxicity (or nutrient value) is in the dose. It is part of the respiratory enzyme ceruloplasmin. Desperation? Anyways, Bt has been so overused that it only has a limited useful life. Now that it is present perpetually, whether really needed or not, you are right. Well it is that by use of the protein powder by agriculture and the home gardener. No, because when GE'd into a crop it is present all the time, though gradually fading in strenght as the crop matures. But it is present whenever the caterpillars are present in the garden or crop. When there is no plant predatiojn, there is no resistance occurring. As we discussed with DDT, anything used for too long breeds resistant creatures. So? The point is that the use of BT in the plant and on the plant is hardly different. When the insects are not present, they can't be developing resistance. When the pesticide is interrupted then resistance to it is no longer an advantage. And the pest destroys your crop, and you go bankrupt. So the non-resistant ones grow again and oust the resistant ones. Why do they? The resistant ones could just as easily oust the non-resistant ones, if there are any left. Then DDT will work again, or Bt. But if it is there all the time resistance to it remains an advantage for pests. Sorry, "there all the time" means nothing if the pests are not there. It might as well be withdrawn if the pests are absent. No contact, no advantage for the resistant mutations. When home gardners use it, or non-GM soy farmers &c, it is only present as needed, then disappears. And why does it matter if it's there or not, if the pests aren't predating the crop? There are always a few about, from the mandatory refuges, or other crops near by. But how does this matter? The chances of a resistance mutation are so much lower. New specific pesticides will be developed. Which we do not know the problems with. Same problems as with BT. Have you heard of testing? Happens all the time. So the Bt crop suppliers, who are ruining it, should be paying for the research for something new organic. They are, all the time. They developed BT, so why shouldn't they use it, and develop further selective pesticides. BTW, who says they are ruining anything? They didn't invent the original stuff. They `developed' it. Same thing. In other words they are in a marketing mode. How else could it be done? As Gordon says all that is wanted is money. Without it, nothing will be achieved. No crop growth even. In that respect the farmers are at the mercy of the `developers'. Just as the consumers are at the mercy of the farmers. That's commerce. When resistance develops then there are recommended packages of pesticides to go with the product. Which product? When resistance develops to one insecticide, another must be used. With spider mites, three classes of miticide were used in rotation as each one developed reistance, and the one furthest away used has regained its effectiveness. Or when the plants are expending so much energy producing Bt all throughout them that they have less for fighting the other pests. Get real. The plants produce hundreds if not more proteins for no other purpose than to deter pests. One little BT protein is neither here nor there. Didn't seem to worry the bacillus that made it in the first place. And the produce will probably not sell as well as when the organic Bt stuff was used occasionally. Only because the public has been hoodwinked into believing that Organic is somehow better. It is. No evidence that it is. More per acre, Less per acre, because nutrients can't be replaced. better antioxidants for nutrition, Exactly the same for identical strains, grown in identical conditions, and harvested at the same stage of ripeness, according to all properly done comparisons. less chemical cost, That's why the yield is less, and nutrition gets poorer and poorer. The soil nutrients can't be replaced. the only extra cost is a little more manpower and we needs jobs anyway. Sorry, that does not provide for the nutrients needed to replace the ones removed in the harvested crop. Why buy corn with Bt protein in it? To get a pest free crop, without having to spray, thus saving much fossil fuel needed in applying the sprays a number of times. I am talking about poeple who are looking for someting to eat. Get to it before the insects do! Why do they want to eat Bt protein right throughout the plant, It's as good as any other mixture of amino acids. whereas the organic producers sprayed it on the surface of the plant only if needed and it dispersed again before eating? And how is it harmful to humans? What is the witholding time on food crops? Why buy paste made from tomato which keeps longer, but with no guarantee about the nutritional qualities lasting in proportion? Huh? Tomato past is hardly a staple. It's a flavouring or a spice IME. Does it matter if a bit of any nutrient in it disappears? It has important nutrients for people eating `hamburgers' &c whatever you call those meat filled bread buns for a meal. The few vegetable things in them may the only source of vitamin C. Tomatoes on hamburgers here. Nutritionists have labelled hamburgers as quite nutritious, actually. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
[IBC] Non-traditional forms {WAS: [IBC] good quote (non-bonsai, but related)} | Bonsai | |||
NW: Best grass for a non garden/non mowing kind of guy | Gardening | |||
GM crop farms filled with weeds (Was: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?) | sci.agriculture | |||
Comparison photos of GM/non-GM (Was: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?) | sci.agriculture | |||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn? (Was: Soy blocked in NZ) | sci.agriculture |