LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #46   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2003, 09:34 AM
Jim Webster
 
Posts: n/a
Default GMO biz vs consumers


"Moosh:}" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 08:30:07 +0100, "Jim Webster"
posted:


"Moosh:}" wrote in message
.. .

When Richard Burroughs at the FDA held up approval due to

scientifically
inadequate research and challenged company studies that dropped sick

cows
from test trials and manipulated data in other ways to make health and
safety problems disappear, he was fired.

And where did you get this story from?


put Richard Burroughs and fda into google and you discover millions of
websites which all seem to pass the same story among themselves. The guy

has
apparently been canonised and god alone knows what the truth really is


It was really a rhetorical question, Jim, but you confirmed my
suspicions


I just did it for my own interest, I couldn't find him other than through
the hagiographies :-))

Jim Webster


  #47   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2003, 12:34 PM
Torsten Brinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default GMO biz vs consumers

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 04:51:04 GMT, "Moosh:}"
wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:53:38 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:20:24 GMT, "Moosh:}"
wrote:
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:46:36 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:


On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet.


.. if you look at prices in USA of, say,
bread and cereals, or meat, they .. are not the cheapest
on the planet.

But in what currency? US dollars is hardly informative.


I was thinking of World Bank data for international
price comparisons. They do it in PPP terms, with
100 indicating [item] in [country in question] is
priced equal to the price in USA, and less than 100,
that it is cheaper. See:
http://rrojasdatabank.net/wdi2000/tab5_6.pdf

..
Affordability is what we want to compare, when you
think of it.


No, look above. We are talking about how the price of
food in USA compares to the price of food elsewhere
on the planet.

  #48   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2003, 11:03 PM
Gordon Couger
 
Posts: n/a
Default GMO biz vs consumers


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 04:51:04 GMT, "Moosh:}"
wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:53:38 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:20:24 GMT, "Moosh:}"
wrote:
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:46:36 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:


On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet.


.. if you look at prices in USA of, say,
bread and cereals, or meat, they .. are not the cheapest
on the planet.

But in what currency? US dollars is hardly informative.

I was thinking of World Bank data for international
price comparisons. They do it in PPP terms, with
100 indicating [item] in [country in question] is
priced equal to the price in USA, and less than 100,
that it is cheaper. See:
http://rrojasdatabank.net/wdi2000/tab5_6.pdf

..
Affordability is what we want to compare, when you
think of it.


No, look above. We are talking about how the price of
food in USA compares to the price of food elsewhere
on the planet.

I didn't say it was the lowest priced I said it was the cheapest. Cheap to
me mean what it costs me in terms of what I have to spend. The price of a
good radio receiver is about the same as it was in 1940 but it is far
cheaper today than it was then.


Gordon


  #49   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2003, 11:03 PM
Marcio Watanabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default GMO biz vs consumers

Torsten Brinch wrote:

No, look above. We are talking about how the price of
food in USA compares to the price of food elsewhere
on the planet.


No, you are talking about that. The original person who brought this
up is talking about something else. Based on your domain, I assume
you are not a native English speaker, so you might not know that
cheap/cheaper/cheapest can be used in absolute or comparative terms.
You two are just not talking about the same thing.

--
Marcio Watanabe
  #50   Report Post  
Old 09-08-2003, 12:33 AM
Torsten Brinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default GMO biz vs consumers

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:02:37 GMT, Marcio Watanabe
wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote:

No, look above. We are talking about how the price of
food in USA compares to the price of food elsewhere
on the planet.


No, you are talking about that. The original person who brought this
up is talking about something else. Based on your domain, I assume
you are not a native English speaker, so you might not know that
cheap/cheaper/cheapest can be used in absolute or comparative terms.


Based on your domain :-). Thanks.

You two are just not talking about the same thing.


The original person who brought this up wrote (with reference to USA):
"I will agree with you about the cheese in the supermarket. But you
can get good cheese you have to order it or go to a specitly store if
you are in a city. We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on
the planet. Aged cheese and beef are expensive and not avilble in
every grocery store."

I would be interested in knowing how you understand 'cheapest' in this
context, noting that you do not read it as a reference to the relation
between the price of food in USA and the price of food in other
countries on the planet.




  #51   Report Post  
Old 09-08-2003, 03:14 AM
Gordon Couger
 
Posts: n/a
Default GMO biz vs consumers


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:02:37 GMT, Marcio Watanabe
wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote:

No, look above. We are talking about how the price of
food in USA compares to the price of food elsewhere
on the planet.


No, you are talking about that. The original person who brought this
up is talking about something else. Based on your domain, I assume
you are not a native English speaker, so you might not know that
cheap/cheaper/cheapest can be used in absolute or comparative terms.


Based on your domain :-). Thanks.

You two are just not talking about the same thing.


The original person who brought this up wrote (with reference to USA):
"I will agree with you about the cheese in the supermarket. But you
can get good cheese you have to order it or go to a specitly store if
you are in a city. We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on
the planet. Aged cheese and beef are expensive and not avilble in
every grocery store."

I would be interested in knowing how you understand 'cheapest' in this
context, noting that you do not read it as a reference to the relation
between the price of food in USA and the price of food in other
countries on the planet.

To get cheap food an other items we have more or less made uniform
commodities of them. Unless you are in a city where there are shops that
cater to people that know better and are willing to pay for it the
supermarkets have a sameness in food that is sold with advertising and
buying preferential shelf space in the store.

The cost is the choice in cheeses is limited to some that are aged a very
short time and meat that is too lean for my tastes. Everything has been
vertically integrated. There are 3 major produce wholesalers in the state
and they can pretty well dictate what the grocery stores get. Over the last
15 years we have gone from 1 chain grocery store and 5 locally owned ones to
1 locally owned one and 3 chain stores. Two of them big chains. That have
what they stock and tough if you want something else.

The gains are the cost of food is about 7% of disposable income and I can
get it 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I have to go to extra trouble to get
good meat and cheese but that is preferable to spending 15% of my DI on
food. I have to drive 60 miles to the city ever month or two for something
anyway. To see a doctor or shop for shoes. The shoe stores have done the
same thing by stocking the things that sell and nether my nor my wife's foot
is fall in that size range.

It is better than when I farmed and had to drive 30 miles to go to the
picture show or find a decent restaurant and 60 miles to a heavy hardware
store.

In the US most customers buy from the lowest price source and will drive a
30 miles to get there. It makes an environment that builds business like
Wal-Mart that have good prices but no grantee that they will stock the same
thing tomorrow that they have today.

If you really want to eat cheap making your diet of beans, rice, lard cheap
canned meat or really low priced cuts of meat on sale can get the price of
food under 50 cents a day per person and have a diet that is better than
most of the population eats.

Gordon


  #52   Report Post  
Old 09-08-2003, 06:43 AM
Walter Epp
 
Posts: n/a
Default GMO biz vs consumers

"Gordon Couger" wrote:
"Walter Epp" wrote
"Gordon Couger" wrote:
When the FDA and USDA say that there are no differences worth labeling

most
of the people trust them as they trust them for assuring the safety of


Only if we are ignorant of how they are operating.


milk, meat and drugs. Our government does not work like a lot of
parliamentary governments that form a gang and railroad things though


No, we have corporations that form a gang and railroad things through.

Ann Veneman, current U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, formerly worked
for a Monsanto subsidiary.
Tommy Thompson, former Monsanto lobbying partner, became
Secretary of Health & Human Services, which oversees FDA.
Donald Rumsfeld worked for a Monsanto subsidiary and is now
Defense Secretary.
Clarence Thomas was a Monsanto lawyer before becoming a judge on the
Supreme Court.
Carol Tucker Foreman, former Monsanto lobbyist, was appointed as US
representative on the Biotechnology Consultative Forum.
Lidia Watrud, former researcher at Monsanto, moved into the EPA.
I already posted details on Michael Taylor and Margaret Miller (who
worked for Monsanto) and Suzanne Sechen (who did Monsanto-funded work),
and then worked at FDA on regulation of Monsanto's products.
These are ones that have come to light. How many others are there?

Monsanto has thus demonstrated impressive mastery of the technology of
genetically modifying the US government by inserting genotypes of people
selected for faithfulness to its goals, which then express the desired
phenotypes of government regulations and public relations pronouncements.
Indeed, Monsanto has evidently achieved a higher degree of advancement in
perfecting the technology of governmental than agricultural modification,
as the performance of the governmental insertion products has been perfect,
while the performance of the modified agricultural products has been spotty.
The larger number of governmental than agricultural insertion products
suggests a possible explanation: they've had more practice to refine the
technique.

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


"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a
merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini, father of fascism

snip Walter's bull shit

Thank you for adding to the credibility of my post by confirming
there is no evidence to contradict any of the facts presented.

--
delete N0SPAAM to reply by email
  #53   Report Post  
Old 09-08-2003, 06:44 AM
Walter Epp
 
Posts: n/a
Default GMO biz vs consumers

"Moosh:}" wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:16:43 -0700, Walter Epp
posted:

"Gordon Couger" wrote:
When the FDA and USDA say that there are no differences worth labeling most
of the people trust them as they trust them for assuring the safety of their
milk, meat and drugs. Our government does not work like a lot of
parliamentary governments that form a gang and railroad things though until
they can no longer agree and break up and make a new gang. Every issue
stands on its own.

Since we have reguatutory agencies with a long history and proven expertise
we trust them more than people in Europe seem to trust theirs.


Only if we are ignorant of how they are operating.
Michael Taylor worked for Monsanto, then went to work for the FDA where he
wrote the rules for labels regarding Monsanto's genetically engineered product
saying there's no difference, then he went back to work for Monsanto.


And you have evidence of any fraud or other wrongdoing?


Fraud is not needed when your own people are writing the rules.
Do you know what conflict of interest is?

When Richard Burroughs at the FDA held up approval due to scientifically
inadequate research and challenged company studies that dropped sick cows
from test trials and manipulated data in other ways to make health and
safety problems disappear, he was fired.


And where did you get this story from?


You commented elsewhere on http://www.psrast.org/bghsalmonella.htm but
now your question indicates you didn't bother to actually read it.
See also http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9904b/monsantofda.html

--
delete N0SPAAM to reply by email
  #54   Report Post  
Old 09-08-2003, 09:24 AM
Torsten Brinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default GMO biz vs consumers

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 00:09:15 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote:
Gordon Couger: "I will agree with you about the cheese in the supermarket.
But you can get good cheese you have to order it or go to a specitly store
if you are in a city. We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on
the planet. Aged cheese and beef are expensive and not avilble in
every grocery store."

I would be interested in knowing how you understand 'cheapest' in this
context, noting that you do not read it as a reference to the relation
between the price of food in USA and the price of food in other
countries on the planet.

To get cheap food an other items we have more or less made uniform
commodities of them. Unless you are in a city where there are shops that
cater to people that know better and are willing to pay for it the
supermarkets have a sameness in food that is sold with advertising and
buying preferential shelf space in the store.

The cost is the choice in cheeses is limited to some that are aged a very
short time and meat that is too lean for my tastes. Everything has been
vertically integrated. There are 3 major produce wholesalers in the state
and they can pretty well dictate what the grocery stores get. Over the last
15 years we have gone from 1 chain grocery store and 5 locally owned ones to
1 locally owned one and 3 chain stores. Two of them big chains. That have
what they stock and tough if you want something else.

The gains are the cost of food is about 7% of disposable income snip


OK, since you keep returning to this statistic, food cost as
percentage of disposable income, I must assume that is the basis
for you saying, that USA has the cheapest food on the planet.

Firstly, to use this statistic measure to indicate that food is
'cheap' is _misuse of statistics_. If anything, that measure
can be used - with some caution - as an indicator of affluence.

Secondly, the number you present [food costs ~7% of disposable income]
is itself not correct. E.g. for the year 2000, total disposable income
in USA was 7,120 billion US$, and total food expenditure was 825
billion US$. That is: ~12% of total disposable income.

  #55   Report Post  
Old 09-08-2003, 08:02 PM
Javi
 
Posts: n/a
Default GMO biz vs consumers

NNTP-Posting-Host: 36.red-80-32-35.pooles.rima-tde.net (80.32.35.36)
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1060451264 31670432 80.32.35.36 (16 [177688])
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Path: text-east!propagator-sterling!news-in-sterling.nuthinbutnews.com!newsfeed.tiscali.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!36.red-80-32-35.pooles.rima-tde.NET!not-for-mail
Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.med.nutrition:169784 nz.general:588121 sci.agricultu63311

The carbon unit using the name Torsten Brinch in
gave utterance as follows:

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 00:09:15 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote:
Gordon Couger: "I will agree with you about the cheese in the
supermarket. But you can get good cheese you have to order it or go
to a specitly store if you are in a city. We do pay a price for
having the cheapest food on the planet. Aged cheese and beef are
expensive and not avilble in every grocery store."

I would be interested in knowing how you understand 'cheapest' in
this context, noting that you do not read it as a reference to the
relation between the price of food in USA and the price of food
in other countries on the planet.

To get cheap food an other items we have more or less made uniform
commodities of them. Unless you are in a city where there are shops
that cater to people that know better and are willing to pay for it
the supermarkets have a sameness in food that is sold with
advertising and buying preferential shelf space in the store.

The cost is the choice in cheeses is limited to some that are aged a
very short time and meat that is too lean for my tastes. Everything
has been vertically integrated. There are 3 major produce
wholesalers in the state and they can pretty well dictate what the
grocery stores get. Over the last 15 years we have gone from 1 chain
grocery store and 5 locally owned ones to 1 locally owned one and 3
chain stores. Two of them big chains. That have what they stock and
tough if you want something else.

The gains are the cost of food is about 7% of disposable income
snip


OK, since you keep returning to this statistic, food cost as
percentage of disposable income, I must assume that is the basis
for you saying, that USA has the cheapest food on the planet.

Firstly, to use this statistic measure to indicate that food is
'cheap' is _misuse of statistics_. If anything, that measure
can be used - with some caution - as an indicator of affluence.


If people is affluent, food is cheap for them.

Secondly, the number you present [food costs ~7% of disposable income]
is itself not correct. E.g. for the year 2000, total disposable income
in USA was 7,120 billion US$, and total food expenditure was 825
billion US$. That is: ~12% of total disposable income.


I understand it is cheap, be it 7% or 12%. Half the human beings' income is
less than two dollars a day, and most of these two dollars is spent in food.

--
Saludos cordiales

Javi

Conjunction of an irregular verb:

I am firm.
You are obstinate.
He is a pig-headed fool.





  #56   Report Post  
Old 10-08-2003, 01:03 AM
Torsten Brinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default GMO biz vs consumers

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 19:53:11 +0200, "Javi"
wrote:

The carbon unit using the name Torsten Brinch in
gave utterance as follows:

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 00:09:15 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


Torsten Brinch wrote:
Gordon Couger: "I will agree with you about the cheese in the
supermarket. But you can get good cheese you have to order it or go
to a specitly store if you are in a city. We do pay a price for
having the cheapest food on the planet. Aged cheese and beef are
expensive and not avilble in every grocery store."

I would be interested in knowing how you understand 'cheapest' in
this context, noting that you do not read it as a reference to the
relation between the price of food in USA and the price of food
in other countries on the planet.

To get cheap food an other items we have more or less made uniform
commodities of them. Unless you are in a city where there are shops
that cater to people that know better and are willing to pay for it
the supermarkets have a sameness in food that is sold with
advertising and buying preferential shelf space in the store.

The cost is the choice in cheeses is limited to some that are aged a
very short time and meat that is too lean for my tastes. Everything
has been vertically integrated. There are 3 major produce
wholesalers in the state and they can pretty well dictate what the
grocery stores get. Over the last 15 years we have gone from 1 chain
grocery store and 5 locally owned ones to 1 locally owned one and 3
chain stores. Two of them big chains. That have what they stock and
tough if you want something else.

The gains are the cost of food is about 7% of disposable income
snip


OK, since you keep returning to this statistic, food cost as
percentage of disposable income, I must assume that is the basis
for you saying, that USA has the cheapest food on the planet.

Firstly, to use this statistic measure to indicate that food is
'cheap' is _misuse of statistics_. If anything, that measure
can be used - with some caution - as an indicator of affluence.


If people is affluent, food is cheap for them.

Secondly, the number you present [food costs ~7% of disposable income]
is itself not correct. E.g. for the year 2000, total disposable income
in USA was 7,120 billion US$, and total food expenditure was 825
billion US$. That is: ~12% of total disposable income.


I understand it is cheap, be it 7% or 12%. Half the human beings' income is
less than two dollars a day, and most of these two dollars is spent in food.


But, the question is: from the observation that country A spends a
smaller proportion of its total disposable income on food than country
B -- do we conclude that, of these two countries, country A has the
cheapest food?

  #57   Report Post  
Old 10-08-2003, 11:02 AM
Javi
 
Posts: n/a
Default GMO biz vs consumers

The carbon unit using the name Torsten Brinch in
gave utterance as follows:

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 19:53:11 +0200, "Javi"
wrote:

I understand it is cheap, be it 7% or 12%. Half the human beings'
income is less than two dollars a day, and most of these two dollars
is spent in food.


But, the question is: from the observation that country A spends a
smaller proportion of its total disposable income on food than country
B -- do we conclude that, of these two countries, country A has the
cheapest food?


I'd say that food in country A is cheaper than in country B *for its
inhabitants*. If we only compare A and B, or if in A the food is cheaper
*for its inhabitanrs* than in every country compared, I'd say that, *for its
inhabitants*, country A have the cheapest food. Of course, as I understand
it, it's essential that the words "for its inhabitants" be added explicit or
implicitly. Anyway, I had no problem in understanding the original post, as
I added "for its inhabitants", because I think that affluence, when speaking
about people, not about countries, is a relative term: the rich man in one
country is the poor man in another.

I admit that if we only read what was written in the original post and not
add "for its inhabitants", you are right.

--
Saludos cordiales

Javi

Conjunction of an irregular verb:

I am firm.
You are obstinate.
He is a pig-headed fool.



  #58   Report Post  
Old 10-08-2003, 01:42 PM
Torsten Brinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default GMO biz vs consumers

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 11:03:07 +0200, "Javi"
wrote:

The carbon unit using the name Torsten Brinch in
gave utterance as follows:

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 19:53:11 +0200, "Javi"
wrote:

I understand it is cheap, be it 7% or 12%. Half the human beings'
income is less than two dollars a day, and most of these two dollars
is spent in food.


But, the question is: from the observation that country A spends a
smaller proportion of its total disposable income on food than country
B -- do we conclude that, of these two countries, country A has the
cheapest food?


I'd say that food in country A is cheaper than in country B *for its
inhabitants*. If we only compare A and B, or if in A the food is cheaper
*for its inhabitanrs* than in every country compared, I'd say that, *for its
inhabitants*, country A have the cheapest food. Of course, as I understand
it, it's essential that the words "for its inhabitants" be added explicit or
implicitly. Anyway, I had no problem in understanding the original post, as
I added "for its inhabitants", because I think that affluence, when speaking
about people, not about countries, is a relative term: the rich man in one
country is the poor man in another.


But, if we accept that, we'd have to say that food becomes cheaper in
country A *for its inhabitants* on, e.g., a policy to privatize
public health care and education, balanced by a reduction of taxes.

We would have to say that food becomes cheaper for the inhabitants,
even if this tax reduction were progressively to benefit only the most
affluent of them -- or indeed, if there were no significant tax
reduction at all, and the vacant tax revenue were instead channeled
into building palaces for the ruler of country A, or to buy weapons
to attack country B.

  #59   Report Post  
Old 12-08-2003, 11:47 AM
Mooshie peas
 
Posts: n/a
Default GMO biz vs consumers

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:07:10 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 04:51:04 GMT, "Moosh:}"
wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:53:38 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 07:20:24 GMT, "Moosh:}"
wrote:
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:46:36 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:


On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:43:18 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
We do pay a price for having the cheapest food on the planet.


.. if you look at prices in USA of, say,
bread and cereals, or meat, they .. are not the cheapest
on the planet.

But in what currency? US dollars is hardly informative.

I was thinking of World Bank data for international
price comparisons. They do it in PPP terms, with
100 indicating [item] in [country in question] is
priced equal to the price in USA, and less than 100,
that it is cheaper. See:
http://rrojasdatabank.net/wdi2000/tab5_6.pdf

..
Affordability is what we want to compare, when you
think of it.


No, look above. We are talking about how the price of
food in USA compares to the price of food elsewhere
on the planet.


Well, Gordon's original comment, in response to which you provided the
price list in US$, was "We do pay a price for having the cheapest food
on the planet"

To me, cheapest means most affordable. Comparing prices using
arbitrary exchange rates is far less relevant than comparing them as
minutes of average workers' wages. YMMV.
  #60   Report Post  
Old 12-08-2003, 01:25 PM
Torsten Brinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default GMO biz vs consumers

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:38:42 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

Well, Gordon's original comment, in response to which you provided the
price list in US$, was "We do pay a price for having the cheapest food
on the planet"

To me, cheapest means most affordable. Comparing prices using
arbitrary exchange rates is far less relevant than comparing them as
minutes of average workers' wages. YMMV.


Bill Gates goes into a bar where nine unemployed workers are nursing
their beers. "Whoopee!" shouts one of them. "This room now has the
cheapest beer on the planet."
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Robomower Sale at robomower.biz ! Robomower Lawns 0 19-03-2006 03:46 AM
RESEARCH CONFIRMS CONSUMERS ARE USING FOOD LABELS TO MAKE HEALTHY CHOICES David Kendra sci.agriculture 0 16-09-2003 03:59 AM
New Internet name for your business. .biz .sh0p .med Tabatha Neuberger Plant Biology 0 02-09-2003 03:12 PM
Is Monsanto Poisoning Consumers with Pesticide Residues Just another fan Gardening 0 27-08-2003 02:02 AM
GM Potato = Malnutrition (Was: GMO biz vs consumers) Brian Sandle sci.agriculture 1 19-08-2003 05:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017