GardenBanter.co.uk - say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade

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

- United Kingdom (https://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/united-kingdom/)

- - say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London (https://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/united-kingdom/44463-say-non-gm-join-tractors-trolley-parade-monday-13th-october-2003-london.html)

say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London

In article ,
Reid? wrote:

Following up to Peter Ashby

Then stay away from conventional crops then, very far away. Because the
uncontrolled genetic changes used in their production must, using your
own logic

"uncontrolled" genetic changes by selective breeding and crosses
with similar plants hardly amounts to components of a fish in a
tomato.

Since DNA is a component of fish that may be strictly true, but it is
also a component of tomatoes. So your usage of the term is potentially
misleading and as such, emotive.

If you think such things are unnatural I suggest you do a web search on
'lateral transmission'. Genome sequencing efforts are turning up a
number of examples of genes swapped between unrelated organisms. In fact
it is the feature of dna that enables lateral transfer in nature that
allows GM to work.

There is nothing magical about DNA, one gene out of tens of thousands
does not make a tomato a fish. I don't know the exact figure but since
we humans aparently share roughly 50% of our dna sequences with bananas
a similar figure is likely true for tomatoes and fish.

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.

say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London

In article ,
Victoria Clare wrote:

bigboard wrote in news:bleq4k$bg3p3$1@ID-
133281.news.uni-berlin.de:

stay away from organge carrots, nature meant carrots
to be green.

I thought carrots were naturally purple?

You might be right, my memory is confused as to the differing original
colours of the skin and the flesh.

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.

say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London

Xref: kermit uk.environment.conservation:51340 uk.rec.birdwatching:74470 uk.rec.gardening:168069 uk.rec.natural-history:17580

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"W K" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"W K" wrote in message
...

"Paul Rooney" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:21:41 +0100, Reid©

wrote:

Following up to Paul Rooney

Hang about - GM is good, isn't it?

that's very much a matter of opinion isn't it Paul?

Efficient crops, disease-resistant veg, etc.

Swallowed the hype then?

In what way are the crops more efficient?

Any evidence that it's
bad?

Well, The rats eating too many potatoes stuff was rubbish.
BUT the real and less exciting aspect is that it allows crops to be
sprayed
with even more herbicides.
There's evidence that thats bad.

You are lying in your teeth. Prove me wrong by pointing to any
scientific
paper which proves that glyphosate has deleterious effects on humans
if
used
correctly.

You seem to be assuming that I am talking about the effect on human
health.
I am not.

Then point me to a scientific paper which proves that glyphosate has any
deleterious effect on the ecological balance of where it is used,
excepting,
of course, for the eradication of plants not wanted by humans.

Well thats pretty much the nature of what the RSPB complains about.

ie. more extreme control and more extreme monoculture.

say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:09:33 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

"W K" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"W K" wrote in message
...

"Paul Rooney" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:21:41 +0100, Reid©

wrote:

Following up to Paul Rooney

Hang about - GM is good, isn't it?

that's very much a matter of opinion isn't it Paul?

Efficient crops, disease-resistant veg, etc.

Swallowed the hype then?

In what way are the crops more efficient?

Any evidence that it's
bad?

Well, The rats eating too many potatoes stuff was rubbish.
BUT the real and less exciting aspect is that it allows crops to be
sprayed
with even more herbicides.
There's evidence that thats bad.

You are lying in your teeth. Prove me wrong by pointing to any
scientific
paper which proves that glyphosate has deleterious effects on humans if
used
correctly.

You seem to be assuming that I am talking about the effect on human
health.
I am not.

Then point me to a scientific paper which proves that glyphosate has any
deleterious effect on the ecological balance of where it is used, excepting,
of course, for the eradication of plants not wanted by humans.

Still, if you insist fritz. Have a go at this lot, that should keep
you busy for ever.

Agriculture Canada. Food Production and Inspection Branch, Pesticides
Directorate. 1991. Discussion document: Pre-harvest use of
glyphosate. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (November 27).
Bidwell, J.R. and Gorrie, J.R. (June 1995), Acute Toxicity of
Herbicide to selected frog species: final report. Technical Series:
79, Western Australian Department of Environmental Protection, Perth.
Brust, G.E. 1990. Direct and indirect effects of four herbicides on
the activity of carabid beetles (Coleoptera:Carabidae). Pestic. Sci.
30:309-320.
Buhl K.J. and Faerber, N.L. 1989. Acute toxicities of selected
herbicides and surfactants to larvae of the midge Chironomus riparius.
Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 18:530-536.
Cornell University, “Glyphosate”, 2001,
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles...osate-ext.html
(Accessed 4 July 2001).
Cox, Caroline. 1995, Glyphosate, Part 1: Toxicology and Glyphosate,
Part 2: Human Exposure and Ecological Effects, Journal of Pesticide
Reform, Vol 15, no. 3 and no. 4.
Folmar, L.C., Sanders, H.O. and Julin A.M. 1979. Toxicity of the
herbicide glyphosate and several of its formulations to fish and
aquatic invertebrates. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 8:269-278.
Franz, J.E., (1997), Glyphosate — A Unique Global Herbicide, American
Chemcial Society, Washington D.C.
Greenpeace. “factsheets — Glyphosate Fact Sheet”, April 1997,
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/media/f...hosatetext.htm
(Accessed 7 July 2001).
Hassan, S.A. et al. 1988. Results of the fourth joint pesticide
testing programme carried out by the IOBC/WPRS - Working group
“Pesticides and Beneficial Organisms”. J. Appl. Ent. 105:321-329.
Holdway, D.A and Dixon, D.G. 1988. Acute toxicity of permethrin or
glyphosate pulse exposure to larral white sucker (Catostomus
commersoni) and juvenile flagfish (Jordanella floridae) as modified by
age and ration level. Eviron. Toxical. Chem, 7:63-68.
Kearney, P.C. 1988. Herbicides. Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York.
Knight, S. “Herbicide Bibliography”, Glyphosate, Roundup and other
herbicides - an annoted bibliography, January 1997,
http://www.powerlink.net/fen/herb.htm (Accessed 7 July 2001).
Levesque, C.A. and Rahe, J.E. (1992), Herbicide interactions with
fungal root pathogens, with special reference to glyphosate. Annual
Review of Phytopathology v.30 (1992) p.579-602.
MacKinnon, D.S. and Freedman, B. 1993. Effects of silvicultural use
of the herbicide glyphosate on breeding birds of regenerating
clearcuts in Nova Scotia, Canada. J. Appl. Ecol. 30(3):395-406.
Pesticides Trust, “Glyphosate”, Pesticides News (issues No.33,
September 1996), http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/glyphosa.htm
(Accessed 4 July 2001).
Piccolo, A. et al (1994), Adsorption and desorption of glyphosate in
some European soils. Journal of Environmental Science and Health,
part B, v.29, pp.1105-1115.
Author not mentioned, “ Round up”, 19 November 1997,
http://csf.colorado.edu/northwest/nw.../msg00923.html
(Accessed 7 July 2001).
Sawada, Y., Nagai, Y., Ueyama, M., and Yamamoto, I. 1988. Probable
toxicity of surface-active agent in commercial herbicide containing
glyphosate. Lancet 1(8580):299.
Servizi, J.A., Gordon, R.W., and Martens, D.W. 1987. Acute toxcity of
Garlon 4 and Roundup herbicides to salmon, Daphnia, and trout. Bull.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39:15-22.
Talbot, A.R. et al. 1991. Acute poisoning with a
glyphosate-surfactant herbicide ('Roundup'): A review of 93 cases.
Human Exp. Toxicol. 10: 1-8.
Temple, W.A. and Smith, N.A. 1992. Glyphosate herbicide poisoning
experience in New Zealand. N.Z. Med. J. 105:173-174.
Tominack, R.L. et al. 1991. Taiwan National Poison Center: Survey of
glyphosate-surfactant herbicide ingestions. Clin. Toxicol. 29(1):
91-109.
U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service.
National Institutes of Health. NTP technical report on toxicity
studies of glyphosate (eas No. 1071-83-6) administered in dosed feed
to F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. (NIH Publication 92-3135). Toxicity
Reports Series No. 16. Research Triangle Park, NC: National
Toxicology Program.
U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticide and Toxic Substances. 1985.
Glyphosate; EPA Reg. #524-308; Mouse Oncogenicity Study. Washington,
D.C. (April 3).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1986. Guidance
for the reregistration of pesticide products containing glyphosate.
Washington D.C (June).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Consumer
Factsheet on: Glyphosate”, Main Line News. 1998,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MainLi...age/13040.html
(Accessed 7 July 2001).
U.S Forest Service Contract, “Glyphosate-Pesticide Fact Sheet”,
Information Ventures, Inc, November 1995,
http://www.infoventures.com/e-hlth/p...e/glyphos.html ( Accessed 4
July 2001).
Wan, M.T., Watts, R.G. and Moul, D.J. 1989. Effects of different
dilution water types on the acute toxicity to juvenile pacific
salmonids and rainbow trout of glyphosate and its formulated products.
Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 43:378-385.
Wan, M.T, Watts, R.G. and Moul, D.J. 1991. Acute toxicity to juvenile
Pacific Northwest Salmonids of Basacid Blue NB755 and its mixture with
formulated products of 2,4-D, glyphosate and triclopyr. Bull.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 47:471-478.
World Health Organisation, United Nations Environment Programme, the
International Labour Organisation. 1994. Glyphosate. Environmental
Health Criteria #159. Geneva , Switzerland.
Yousef, M.I. et al (1995), Toxic effects of carbofuran and glyphosate
on semen characteristics in rabbits. Journal of Environmental Science
and Health, part B. v. 30p.513-534.

say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London

In article m,
"" wrote:

Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland

You taking the **** or what? ha ha ha. what is it you do there,
gardening?

Biomedical research, largely on mice, but I have a background in
molecular genetics

To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.

If you advertise the fact, then you do, otherwise lose the
assosciation. Have they authorised you to talk a load of ******** on
their behalf?

I doubt it but we'll ask.

The above was added as a disclaimer after some idiot failed to make the
obvious conclusion without it. In discussions with our IT people on the
matter my suggestion that I add a disclaimer was accepted. I rather like
my formulation of it. If you choose to conclude that I speak for the
university after reading it then it will apply to you too.

In addition if the university did not wish its staff to access usenet it
would not provide a server with a (limited) range of usenet groups on
it. Neither would it propagate those posts. The server tells me off for
excessive quoting and asks if I'm sure I want to post to all these
groups but that is about it.

BTW picking on me because I am not craven and do not hide my identity
would be more credible from someone who does likewise.

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.

say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London

In article m,
URL:mailto:@.MISSING-HOST-NAME. wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:23:55 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote:
[snip]
Well since you think that then the first sentence indicates the above
was not aimed at you ;-)

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland

You taking the **** or what? ha ha ha. what is it you do there,
gardening?

To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.

If you advertise the fact, then you do, otherwise lose the
assosciation. Have they authorised you to talk a load of ******** on
their behalf?

I interpret this to mean that he is exercising his rights of academic
freedom to express a view not unrelated to his area of expertise as a
member of a university. I would be most concerned if he was only able to
speak when authorised by his university.

I realise that this may be an alien concept to some people employed in
companies, or even employed by some government institutions, but it is a
concept still defended in universities. As a fellow academic I would
defend his right to express his views even though I may not agree with
the opinions he expresses.

Mike URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/
--
M.R. Clark, PhD. Division of Immunology
Cambridge University, Dept. Pathology
Tennis Court Rd., Cambridge CB2 1QP
Tel.+44 1223 333705 Fax.+44 1223 333875

say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:14:51 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote:

In article m,
"" wrote:

Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland

You taking the **** or what? ha ha ha. what is it you do there,
gardening?

Biomedical research, largely on mice, but I have a background in
molecular genetics

A vivisectionist. It figures. You care as little about animals as you
do about humans, money being your goal. Some of us have better
standards.

To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.

If you advertise the fact, then you do, otherwise lose the
assosciation. Have they authorised you to talk a load of ******** on
their behalf?

I doubt it but we'll ask.

The above was added as a disclaimer after some idiot failed to make the
obvious conclusion without it. In discussions with our IT people on the
matter my suggestion that I add a disclaimer was accepted. I rather like
my formulation of it. If you choose to conclude that I speak for the
university after reading it then it will apply to you too.

You do. You post from the university, in university time and publish
the fact that you are.

Thin ice old pal. I have a pet hate for trolls who like flashing their
dicks.

In addition if the university did not wish its staff to access usenet it
would not provide a server with a (limited) range of usenet groups on
it. Neither would it propagate those posts. The server tells me off for
excessive quoting and asks if I'm sure I want to post to all these
groups but that is about it.

BTW picking on me because I am not craven and do not hide my identity
would be more credible from someone who does likewise.

Most of us don't need to brag about how big our dicks are, why do you
feel so insecure that you do? Your name is pete ashby, not peter ashby
look at me I work for cambridge I am brighter than you lot, hope you
don't mind me flashing my dick?

Most of us can sustain an argument without bullshit.

No doubt your ambition includes washing the BMWs and counting money,
certainly doesn't include thinking about the planet or it's contents.

How corny is that! do you get many psychologists visiting you there?

say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London

In article ,
Mike Clark wrote:

However there are other issues behind GM crops that go beyond a simple
consideration of the consequences to health. I consider a major point to
be the way that laws governing intellectual property rights are used to
manipulate commercial interests. Many GM crops are produced by
commercial organisations who are driven by market forces and who wish to
dominate the market place and eliminate their commercial competitors.
The driving force is often a simple consideration of profit for the
company and its shareholders, and doesn't necessarily put a strong
emphasis on what is best for the consumer or the farmer. The fact that
many GM crops contain tolerance to herbicides (and/or pesticides), which
are also protected by patents means that the same company can prevent
the farmer from sourcing products from rival companies by forcing him to
buy the seeds and the herbicide, and the pesticide, on their dictated
commercial terms.

You get no argument from me on those concerns. In fact I am livid with
the likes of Monsanto for jeapardising a potentially very valuable
technology with initial products that generally have no benefit for the
consumer. I mourn the loss of Flavr Savr tomato paste as a crossfire
casualty.

So if you are debating whether GM is good or bad, don't just make it a
discussion centred around the health issues.

Agreed again. This thread yet again exemplifies the problem with the
debate, that it is debating the wrong issues and there is a lot
misrepresentation going on.

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.

say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London

In article ,
"Franz Heymann" wrote:

"Reid©" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Indeed, its a risk, an unquantified one that could have
catastrophic results or might not.

Nonsense. It is quantified: It is less than can be detected by any
experiment so far performed. That makes it compatible with zero to within
present experimental limits.

To be strict that makes it compatible with zero when comparing GM
varieties with equivalent conventional crops, within present
experimental limits. It does not exclude some risk which may be shared
between the GM and conventional varieties.

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.

say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:28:30 +0100, Mike Clark wrote:

In article m,
URL:mailto:@.MISSING-HOST-NAME. wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:23:55 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote:
[snip]
Well since you think that then the first sentence indicates the above
was not aimed at you ;-)

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland

You taking the **** or what? ha ha ha. what is it you do there,
gardening?

To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.

If you advertise the fact, then you do, otherwise lose the
assosciation. Have they authorised you to talk a load of ******** on
their behalf?

I interpret this to mean that he is exercising his rights of academic
freedom to express a view not unrelated to his area of expertise as a
member of a university. I would be most concerned if he was only able to
speak when authorised by his university.

I realise that this may be an alien concept to some people employed in
companies, or even employed by some government institutions, but it is a
concept still defended in universities. As a fellow academic I would
defend his right to express his views even though I may not agree with
the opinions he expresses.

It has nothing to do with free speech. Peter Ashby can say what he
wants, when he wants and where he wants as far as I am concerned, I
would defend that right too.

Bragging how big his dick is, the fact that the university is
sponsoring him and that we are paying for it is completely unnecessary
to promoting free speech. If the comments are not on behalf of the
uni, don't advertise it then.

say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London

In article ,
"W K" wrote:

Then point me to a scientific paper which proves that glyphosate has any
deleterious effect on the ecological balance of where it is used,
excepting,
of course, for the eradication of plants not wanted by humans.

Well thats pretty much the nature of what the RSPB complains about.

ie. more extreme control and more extreme monoculture.

So this is the answer to why herbicides are bad? That people use them to
kill plants where they don't want them? On that basis we should ban hoes.

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.

say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London

wrote in message
s.com...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:23:55 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote:

In article ,
bigboard wrote:

Peter Ashby wrote:
In article ,
bigboard wrote:

Bully for you. What has that got to do with it?

What it means is that if you think eating GM might be bad for you
then
stay away from all conventional crop varieties since we don't know
what
genetic changes happened to yield the required characters, unlike GM.
Also don't eat cauliflower, Brussel sprouts or broccoli, all mutant
cabbages. Who knows what genetic sequences caused these? some may
have
happened because, gasp!, a virus went haywire and disrupted some
vital
genes. Oh and also stay away from organge carrots, nature meant
carrots
to be green.

I don't think that eating GM crops is necessarily bad for you, so the
above paragraph is irrelevant. 1/10 for the patronising attitude, I've
seen it done much better.

Well since you think that then the first sentence indicates the above
was not aimed at you ;-)

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland

You taking the **** or what? ha ha ha. what is it you do there,
gardening?

To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.

If you advertise the fact, then you do, otherwise lose the
assosciation. Have they authorised you to talk a load of ******** on
their behalf?

Would you mind awfully not crossposting to demon.local, please?

Also, I couldn't find your signature and we do like to keep an eye on them,
you know.

Wim

say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London

wrote in message
s.com...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:28:30 +0100, Mike Clark wrote:

In article m,
URL:mailto:@.MISSING-HOST-NAME. wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:23:55 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote:
[snip]
Well since you think that then the first sentence indicates the above
was not aimed at you ;-)

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland

You taking the **** or what? ha ha ha. what is it you do there,
gardening?

To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.

If you advertise the fact, then you do, otherwise lose the
assosciation. Have they authorised you to talk a load of ******** on
their behalf?

I interpret this to mean that he is exercising his rights of academic
freedom to express a view not unrelated to his area of expertise as a
member of a university. I would be most concerned if he was only able to
speak when authorised by his university.

I realise that this may be an alien concept to some people employed in
companies, or even employed by some government institutions, but it is a
concept still defended in universities. As a fellow academic I would
defend his right to express his views even though I may not agree with
the opinions he expresses.

It has nothing to do with free speech. Peter Ashby can say what he
wants, when he wants and where he wants as far as I am concerned, I
would defend that right too.

Bragging how big his dick is, the fact that the university is
sponsoring him and that we are paying for it is completely unnecessary
to promoting free speech. If the comments are not on behalf of the
uni, don't advertise it then.

Oh dear, poor Pete. Once again he's come up against someone who isn't
afraid of the light and doesn't live in an attic posting with either
imaginary names or no ****ing name at all. Perhaps those of us who don't
lie, don't stalk others on usenet, etc. don't actually have a need to hide
their identity. Indeed other than myself the only individual I've ever
encountered on usenet who saw fit to post my address was you Pete. And
that's only because you chose to invent a load of crap about me ****ing
livestock and then trying to encourage others to complain to the Police,
etc. about this and other ficticious crimes.

If it wasn't for morons such as Pete everyone would feel free to post using
their real name and as much other information as they considered
appropriate to introduce themselves to others. With ****wits like Pete
about there's a constant risk of endless crap in your inbox and worse.

Pete. For Christ's sake **** off and leave everyone here alone. You're
not welcome and you're not even doing any good for the AR cause.

Michael Saunby

say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London

Following up to Victoria Clare

stay away from organge carrots, nature meant carrots
to be green.

I thought carrots were naturally purple?

wild carrot roots are not green IIRC and yes, early carrots were
purple.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
UK walking "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain,cuisines and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap