GardenBanter.co.uk - reply to Marcus

GardenBanter.co.uk (https://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/)

- sci.agriculture (https://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/sci-agriculture/)

- - reply to Marcus (https://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/sci-agriculture/9662-re-reply-marcus.html)

I know that Marcus does not like to reply to me in public and replies to
my personal box intead, but I really rather keep these exchanges public.

In his last reply, Marcus wrote:

In the UK and US this meant an increase of 200 times in the allowed
residue for RoundUp as can be seen he
http://www.gmfoodnews.com/dm210999.txt

This was done for only one reason...for the benefit of companies
producing RR products.

====
My reply
Yes it is an increase of residues. That much was in the reference from
the Federal Register I provided for you.

Your reason as to why it was done is probably correct. In that case,
companies have been benefitting from residue standards since long before
there were transgenics.

Keep in mind that there have been residue standards for a long time now.
Prior to RR crops, the standards only had to account for glyphosate
residues from drift, rather than from direct applications. These same
crops however, also had residue tolerances for those herbicides actually
being used for their production.

At worst, you have traded one residue for the other. At best, there is
a lot less to worry about glyphosate residues than other type of residues.

wparrott wrote:
wparrott wrote:

Marcus Williamson wrote:

There are legitimate reasons for skepticism regarding GM crops, but
please lose the "untested" contention.

I have been asking scientists and politicians for the last 4 years to
provide me with evidence of safety tests which prove that GM crops are
safe. None have been able to provide the evidence.

Marcus,

Given that you refuse to accept or acknowledge any of tha data out
there, the onus is on you to state what you want to see. Be specific.
Do not say a vague thing like "safety data," because there is already
an abundance of that, and you refuse to accept. Time for you to come
up with the details....

Marcus,

I know you like to reply to my personal email, but I rather reply in
public. Here is your question to my personal email, and my response
follows:

Marcus wrote:
How about toxicological data proving that GM soya (for example) is not
more toxic (with and without RR spraying) than its conventional
equivalent?

For example, contains glyphosate residues which would be harmful to
humans or animals. Or contains toxic novel proteins as a result of the
RR genetic modification...
-------

Parrott answered:

The use of glyphosate on soybean inevitably leads to the presence of
glyphosate residues in the soybean plant and seed. Accordingly, the EPA
(2000) established acceptable glyphosate residue levels of 20 mg kg-1
for the soybean seed itself, 100 mg kg-1 for the soybean hulls, 50 mg
kg-1 for aspirated grain fractions, 100 mg kg-1 for soybean forage, and
200 mg kg-1 for soybean hay.

See: EPA. 2000. 40 CFR part 80. Glyphosate; pesticide residues. Fed.
Reg. 65:52660-52667.

As far as toxic novel proteins, where would they come from? Please
explain, and please be specific.

You cannot be referring to the RR protein itself. The protein made by
the RR (which incidentally, is only slightly different from one already
in soybean, and every other bacterium or green plant) has been
extensively characterized. You should have seen the data, as I have
pointed you in the data's direction in the past.

regards
Marcus

Keep in mind that there have been residue standards for a long time now.
Prior to RR crops, the standards only had to account for glyphosate
residues from drift, rather than from direct applications. These same
crops however, also had residue tolerances for those herbicides actually
being used for their production.

However, there has been no scientific testing to determine the effect
of a 200 times increase in Roundup residue on human health...

regards
Marcus

"Marcus Williamson" wrote in message
...

Keep in mind that there have been residue standards for a long time now.
Prior to RR crops, the standards only had to account for glyphosate
residues from drift, rather than from direct applications. These same
crops however, also had residue tolerances for those herbicides actually
being used for their production.

However, there has been no scientific testing to determine the effect
of a 200 times increase in Roundup residue on human health...

There has been a very great deal of testing on Round Up for toxicity as
there has any pesticide. It the only one I know of that fish can live in a
concentration that will kill plants. They can't live very long because the
lack of plants and algae to clean the water of their waste causes the wastes
to build up to a toxic level.

Gordon

There has been a very great deal of testing on Round Up for toxicity as
there has any pesticide.

Can you point me to any scientific data which shows that RR soya,
after spraying with Roundup, is safe for consumption by humans or
animals?

Look forward to hearing from you.

regards
Marcus

Marcus Williamson wrote in message
...

There has been a very great deal of testing on Round Up for toxicity
as
there has any pesticide.

Can you point me to any scientific data which shows that RR soya,
after spraying with Roundup, is safe for consumption by humans or
animals?

Look forward to hearing from you.

perhaps you would reciprocate with scientific data that shows
conventional soya is safe for human consumption, whether or not it is
sprayed with roundup

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

perhaps you would reciprocate with scientific data that shows
conventional soya is safe for human consumption, whether or not it is
sprayed with roundup

Again, a long period of safe use is sufficient, whereas RR soya has
only been around for about 6-7 years...

regards
Marcus

Marcus Williamson wrote in message
...

perhaps you would reciprocate with scientific data that shows
conventional soya is safe for human consumption, whether or not it is
sprayed with roundup

Again, a long period of safe use is sufficient, whereas RR soya has
only been around for about 6-7 years...

so by your definition peanuts are not safe and should be taken off the
market as we have never had any period of safe use for the population as
a whole.

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

regards
Marcus

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

so by your definition peanuts are not safe and should be taken off the
market as we have never had any period of safe use for the population as
a whole.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

M

so by your definition peanuts are not safe and should be taken off the
market as we have never had any period of safe use for the population as
a whole.

No - peanuts are known to be unsafe for a proportion of the population
who are allergic to them.

Unfortunately the safety/lack of safety of GM crops/GM foods is not
known, because they have never been through any safety testing...

regards
Marcus

On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:01:54 +0000, Marcus Williamson
wrote:

Unfortunately the safety/lack of safety of GM crops/GM foods is not
known, because they have never been through any safety testing...

This is false and you know it is false.

___________________________________________
Unit #02582: Endangered Old-Growth Redwood
Toothpick Artisans, LLC [TINEOGRTALLC]
--
Frivolity is a stern taskmaster.

Marcus Williamson wrote in message
...

so by your definition peanuts are not safe and should be taken off
the
market as we have never had any period of safe use for the population
as
a whole.

No - peanuts are known to be unsafe for a proportion of the population
who are allergic to them.

Unfortunately the safety/lack of safety of GM crops/GM foods is not
known, because they have never been through any safety testing...

yes but there is no population testing to see if you are the allergic
one. Peanuts are far to dangerous

whatever happened to the precautionary principle?

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

regards
Marcus

This is false and you know it is false.

Please show me data from scientific tests which prove that GM soya and
GM maize are safe.

Thanks
Marcus

On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 23:12:25 +0000, Marcus Williamson
wrote:

This is false and you know it is false.

Please show me data from scientific tests which prove that GM soya and
GM maize are safe.

As you have been told repeatedly, but cannot or will not understand,
it is impossible for GM crops (or any other crops) to be proven safe.

You should drop the contention that GM foods are "untested". It makes
you look very foolish and/or dishonest (and unfortunately all of us
who have concerns about GM agriculture are tarred by association).

___________________________________________
Unit #02582: Endangered Old-Growth Redwood
Toothpick Artisans, LLC [TINEOGRTALLC]
--
Frivolity is a stern taskmaster.

As you have been told repeatedly, but cannot or will not understand,
it is impossible for GM crops (or any other crops) to be proven safe.

You should drop the contention that GM foods are "untested". It makes
you look very foolish and/or dishonest (and unfortunately all of us
who have concerns about GM agriculture are tarred by association).

Can you show me references to safety tests (for example, long term
animal feeding tests) which have been carried out on GM soya or GM
maize?

Thanks
Marcus

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:47:12 +0000, Marcus Williamson
wrote:

You should drop the contention that GM foods are "untested". It makes
you look very foolish and/or dishonest (and unfortunately all of us
who have concerns about GM agriculture are tarred by association).

Can you show me references to safety tests (for example, long term
animal feeding tests) which have been carried out on GM soya or GM
maize?

Ah, now these sorts of long-term safety tests are exactly the sort of
thing that many of us are concerned about with respect to GM. There
may well be problems that only show up after long-term exposure
despite the testing of GM crops performed to date.

Please choose your words more carefully. There are indeed specific
concerns about GM crops that need to be addressed through specific
kinds of tests. But in post after post, you simply have been making
bald statements that GM crops have "never been through any safety
testing", which is obviously false and makes you look silly.

___________________________________________
Unit #02582: Endangered Old-Growth Redwood
Toothpick Artisans, LLC [TINEOGRTALLC]
--
Frivolity is a stern taskmaster.