On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:10:37 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

but how do we know you aren't an employee of greenpeace or similar?

Because I'm a self-employed computer consultant and don't have time to
work full-time for another organisation... :-)

regards
Marcus

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 14:06:47 +0100, Oz wrote:

Factually wrong. Both jim and I would probably be in that category and I
certainly don't, and I am confident jim doesn't, get any funding for
saying anything on usenet.

Then why do both of you remain so invariably enthusiastic about GM
crops?

regards
Marcus

writes

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 14:06:47 +0100, Oz wrote:

Factually wrong. Both jim and I would probably be in that category and I
certainly don't, and I am confident jim doesn't, get any funding for
saying anything on usenet.

Then why do both of you remain so invariably enthusiastic about GM
crops?

Well, I'm not: see my comments on BT OSR, for example.

I follow the evidence, not your religion.

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

wrote in message
news

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:10:37 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

but how do we know you aren't an employee of greenpeace or similar?

Because I'm a self-employed computer consultant and don't have time to
work full-time for another organisation... :-)

you expect us to take your word on this, but claim that that "Those who
speak in favour of biotech invariably receive money for doing so."
Why should we believe you and not them, after all with just as much evidence
someone could claim that you are taking money from one of the chemical
companies who worry about their market share being eroded.

Jim Webster

regards
Marcus

wrote in message
...

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 14:06:47 +0100, Oz wrote:

Factually wrong. Both jim and I would probably be in that category and I
certainly don't, and I am confident jim doesn't, get any funding for
saying anything on usenet.

Then why do both of you remain so invariably enthusiastic about GM
crops?

no, we are just immensely irritated (an occassionally greatly amused) by the
fact that suddenly a lot of people who three or four years ago didn't give a
toss about agriculture in much of the world have suddenly got on a green
fuzzy bandwagon, spout acres of normally unsubstantiated crap and in two
years time they will be off following some other fuzzy green cause leaving
us in this industry to pick up the pieces

Jim Webster
regards
Marcus

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:46:26 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

taking money from one of the chemical
companies who worry about their market share being eroded.

Now that's really twisted logic...! :-)

Are you trying to tell me that using GM crops *reduces* the use of
chemicals. In fact, the opposite is the case. Otherwise why would the
UK have increased by 200 times the residue of glyphosate allowed on
soya?

regards
Marcus



Publication Date: September 21, 1999

Pesticide safety limit raised by 200 times 'to suit GM industry'
DAILY MAIL CAMPAIGN/GENETIC FOOD WATCH
Daily Mail

THE limits on pesticide residues allowed in soya have been
increased 200-fold to help the GM industry, according to one
of the country's leading food safety experts.

Malcolm Kane, who has just taken early retirement as head of
food safety at Sainsbury's, warned that higher levels of pesticide
residues could appear in a range of foods from breakfast cereals to
biscuits.

He raised concerns that although the toxin levels are low, there may
be dangers associated with long-term consumption.

The claims were rejected by the Government's GM spin unit but are
bound to fuel hostility to the tainted technology.

The fact that the warning comes from such a respected source is
highly embarrassing for the Government and biotech firms.

Previously, UK and European rules stated that residues of the
pesticide glyphosate left on a crop of soya beans should not be
higher than 0.1 parts per million.

But according to Mr Kane, the Government has increased this figure by
200 times to 20 parts per million specifically to smooth the path of
GM soya into the national diet.

The soya has been modified to withstand spraying by glyphosate which
is sold by the giant U.S. biotech firm [ Monsanto ] under the brand
name Roundup.

This means it can be sprayed more heavily without any of the soya
plants being harmed. But one negative result could be that higher
residues of the chemical are left on the plant when it is harvested.

Mr Kane believes that rather than force the industry and farmers to
meet the existing safety levels, officials have instead relaxed the
rules to ensure GM crops remain legal.

While soya is sprayed with glyphosate, other crops, specifically
maize or corn, have been manipulated to contain their own
insecticides. These are designed to kill off pests which attack
the plants so leading to bigger crops, but Mr Kane raises the
possibility that these pesticides will also find their way into
human food. A major loophole in the regulatory system means there is
no way of monitoring or policing levels of pesticide which
are effectively injected into plants through GM technology.

Mr Kane argues that the development of crops which are herbicide-
resistant and pesticide-resistant was a major mistake by the
biotech industry because these do not offer any benefits to consumer.

He believes that a better handling of the technology with an emphasis
on
the production of foods which are higher in important vitamins or
other
chemicals which promote a more healthy lifestyle could have produced
a much
more positive reception.

'One does not need to be an activist or overtly anti-GM to point out
that
herbicide-resistant crops come at the price of containing significant
chemical residues of the active chemical in the commercial
weedkiller,'
said Mr Kane. 'Conventional food crops will have no such residues.'
He
added: 'Consumers are understandably concerned about chemical
residues in
the food supply, and it is the responsibility of food industry
professionals
to protect and defend their requirements.

Undoubtedly, GM offers longer-term benefits in food quality and
nutrition.
However, the two most significant GM food developments currently
being
exploited, herbicide-resistance and insect-resistance, offer no
consumer
benefits.' A spokesman for the Government's GM spin unit said that
the
residue level had been changed in 1997, after GM soya was approved in
Europe.

'The change was made because of a change in farming practice for all
soya,
both conventional and GM, it was not done to suit the GM industry,'
said
the spokesman.

While in the past the crops had been sprayed early in the growing
season,
farmers had now decided to spray them before harvest to speed up the
drying
process, she said.

However, Mr Kane, who now runs his own food safety con-sultancy,
Cambridge
Food Control, described this explanation as a red herring.

'This whole debate has been dogged by misinformation,' he said.

'There is absolutely no good reason for raising the residue limit on
soya
other that to satisfy the GM companies.' Friends of the Earth biotech
expert
Adrian Bebb said glyphosate was a suspected 'gender bender', adding:
'It is
extremely long lasting in the food chain and has been implicated in
changing
hormone levels in humans and reducing sperm counts in men.'

wrote in message
...

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:46:26 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

taking money from one of the chemical
companies who worry about their market share being eroded.

Now that's really twisted logic...! :-)

what is so twisted about the logic?

Not every chemical company makes glyphosate

A lot of companies can see high value markets for their products
disappearing if farmers can use cheap generic glyphosate on RR crops rather
than have to use other, more expensive products

Simple economics and obvious

Jim Webster

writes

Are you trying to tell me that using GM crops *reduces* the use of
chemicals. In fact, the opposite is the case. Otherwise why would the
UK have increased by 200 times the residue of glyphosate allowed on
soya?

Strangely glyposate isn't the only herbicide.

Also strangely, it's not used on non-RR crops.

If you had the faintest idea what you were talking about then this would
be obvious to you.

The introduction of RR crops into the EU will be pretty well entirely
determined by the savings on herbicides. If more herbicides are required
then it won't happen.

Or is this too complex for you?

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

Jim Webster writes
wrote in message
.. .

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:46:26 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

taking money from one of the chemical
companies who worry about their market share being eroded.

Now that's really twisted logic...! :-)

what is so twisted about the logic?

Not every chemical company makes glyphosate

A lot of companies can see high value markets for their products
disappearing if farmers can use cheap generic glyphosate on RR crops rather
than have to use other, more expensive products

Simple economics and obvious

Absolutely, RR crops are a big threat to, say, Bayer.

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

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:35:06 +0100, Oz
wrote:

The introduction of RR crops into the EU will be pretty well entirely
determined by the savings on herbicides. If more herbicides are required
then it won't happen.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. Governments are under pressure
from the GM companies to introduce these crops, so it's likely that
they'll bow to that pressure...

regards
Marcus

wrote in message
...

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:35:06 +0100, Oz
wrote:

The introduction of RR crops into the EU will be pretty well entirely
determined by the savings on herbicides. If more herbicides are required
then it won't happen.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. Governments are under pressure
from the GM companies to introduce these crops, so it's likely that
they'll bow to that pressure...

so what, other than prison farms, governments do not plant a single acre of
commercial crops in the UK (and for all I know the EU.)
Other than for trials purposes governments do not introduce crops, they
merely make the farming of them legal.
If they are uneconomic, they will not be farmed.

Jim Webster

regards
Marcus

writes
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:35:06 +0100, Oz
wrote:

The introduction of RR crops into the EU will be pretty well entirely
determined by the savings on herbicides. If more herbicides are required
then it won't happen.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. Governments are under pressure
from the GM companies to introduce these crops, so it's likely that
they'll bow to that pressure...

Introduction is one thing, getting farmers to use them is another.
We won't use them unless we get some return, particularly as any return
at all is pretty hard to get these days. With RR crops the saving is on
herbicide, no saving (incl extra seed cost) means no use.

This is so obvious I shouldn't have to be explaining it to you.

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

wrote in message
...

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:35:06 +0100, Oz
wrote:

The introduction of RR crops into the EU will be pretty well entirely
determined by the savings on herbicides. If more herbicides are required
then it won't happen.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. Governments are under pressure
from the GM companies to introduce these crops, so it's likely that
they'll bow to that pressure...

They may grant companies permission to market RR crops but if it costs
farmers more to grow them then they will not remain in the market place for
very long. It is simple economics. Farmers are looking for ways to reduce
costs and improve profits.

Dave

regards
Marcus

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:41:13 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:35:06 +0100, Oz
wrote:

The introduction of RR crops into the EU will be pretty well entirely
determined by the savings on herbicides. If more herbicides are required
then it won't happen.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. Governments are under pressure
from the GM companies to introduce these crops, so it's likely that
they'll bow to that pressure...

They may grant companies permission to market RR crops but if it costs
farmers more to grow them then they will not remain in the market place for
very long. It is simple economics. Farmers are looking for ways to reduce
costs and improve profits.

So, the GM companies will seek to sell RR crops at a marginally
competitive price.

Torsten Brinch writes

So, the GM companies will seek to sell RR crops at a marginally
competitive price.

Then they will get a marginal share of the seed market.

For canola, the expensive hybrids are not doing so well, and good
conventional is taking the lions share.

I would bet that RR would be used with little or no premium but with the
target of taking a large market share. Well, if they don't, they won;t
get much market share.

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