Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"Peter Ashby" wrote in message news In article , "W K" wrote: 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. To whom or what? From an earlier discussion about glyphosate: uh oh another one BTW animals are not plants so the term herbicide might indicate that the toxicity is not directed at animals. Making big assumptions there. This is the kind of "modernist" thinking that should have been thrown out in the 50's. It gave science a bad name back then and still does. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
In article ,
"W K" wrote: "Peter Ashby" wrote in message news In article , "W K" wrote: 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 state the things you think are bad about it or shut up. Hmm. rather a narrow thinker if you can only do this in terms of LD50. Hmm, someone who cannot follow an argument since you imply above that effects on human health were not what you were hinting at. Since you did not specify the nature of what may be 'bad' that I posted the LD50s does not in any way indicate that this is 'only' what I can do either. Read up on what the RSPB thinks about this issue. Its to do with effects similar to those we already see with increased intensification of farming. Links? or maybe some indication of how herbicides are 'bad'? Or maybe you cannot actually substatiate that claim? 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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
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 To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:22:14 +0100, Peter Ashby
wrote: In article , "W K" wrote: "Peter Ashby" wrote in message news In article , "W K" wrote: 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 state the things you think are bad about it or shut up. Hmm. rather a narrow thinker if you can only do this in terms of LD50. Hmm, someone who cannot follow an argument since you imply above that effects on human health were not what you were hinting at. Since you did not specify the nature of what may be 'bad' that I posted the LD50s does not in any way indicate that this is 'only' what I can do either. Read up on what the RSPB thinks about this issue. Its to do with effects similar to those we already see with increased intensification of farming. Links? or maybe some indication of how herbicides are 'bad'? Or maybe you cannot actually substatiate that claim? You may have your head so far up your arse you cannot see reality, luckily every single environmental group in the world hasnt, and they highlight the dangers in triplicate. http://www.google.com/search?q=glyph...&start=10&sa=N Will do for starters. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
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? Victoria -- gardening on a north-facing hill in South-East Cornwall -- |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
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? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
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? I doubt it but we'll ask. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
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. -- 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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
In article m,
"" wrote: Links? or maybe some indication of how herbicides are 'bad'? Or maybe you cannot actually substatiate that claim? You may have your head so far up your arse you cannot see reality, luckily every single environmental group in the world hasnt, and they highlight the dangers in triplicate. http://www.google.com/search?q=glyph...F-8&oe=UTF-8&s tart=10&sa=N Will do for starters. Yes and the second item down nicely illustrates the problem. It is the surfactants in the prep that it is obsessing about, not as the title suggests, the glyphosate. So I ask again, what is bad about glyphosate, a herbicide? Items in the peer reviewed literature would be preferred to the confused scare stories from environmental groups. We still haven't had an answer from WK as to where the problem might lie, apart from a vague disclaimer that he wasn't talking about humans. Since we know its a herbicide we can exclude plants since that is a bit of a no-brainer. So what is harmed then? 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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
In article ,
"W K" wrote: "Peter Ashby" wrote in message news In article , "W K" wrote: 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. To whom or what? From an earlier discussion about glyphosate: uh oh another one so are you actually going to detail or provide evidence for anything 'bad'? or maybe you are just going to cast aspersions and hope in all the noise noone will notice that your rhetoric is empty? 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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
In article , Peter Ashby
URL:mailto In article , 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. Any evidence that it's bad? Or is that just a *possibility*? Indeed, its a risk, an unquantified one that could have catastrophic results or might not. Then there are issues about the way farmers loose the ownership of their seed and the environmental damage of using pesticide resistant crops coupled with the pesticide. To my mind, its not worth it. Then stay away from conventional crops then, very far away. Because the uncontrolled genetic changes used in their production must, using your own logic, carry vastly more unquantified risk than a plant in which one gene has been inserted under controlled conditions and then subjected to rigorous testing and analysis to show it differs from its unmanipulated cousins only by the introduced trait. I agree with you that to have major health concerns because a product is labelled as "GM" and to implicitly trust "organic" is not a sensible position to adopt. After all many people already accept the use of GM products with regard to everyday pharmaceutical products, or even recombinant rennet (chymosin) as used in the production of many "vegetarian" cheeses and dairy products. If vegetarian cheeses made with GM chymosin [in which an enzyme from a cow is put into a yeast] are considered safe, why are GM tomatoes [in which a protein from a fish is put into a plant] considered dangerous? It obviously isn't a logical reaction based on any scientific appreciation of the facts. Many everyday non-GM plants are dangerous, and for example many beans and lentils which we use every day in our food would kill us if we didn't cook them properly to destroy the natural toxins they contain. 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. So if you are debating whether GM is good or bad, don't just make it a discussion centred around the health issues. 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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"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. And don't quote the one referring to fusarium. We both know that's irrelevant. Franz |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"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. Franz |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"bigboard" wrote in message ... Franz Heymann wrote: [Snip] I don't know why you are shy of indicating who you are, but what I do know is that Mother Nature has been modifying the genes of all living objects since the beginning of life, and Homo sapiens has been doing the same at a vastly increased rate for the past three thousand years or so. Franz Bully for you. What has that got to do with it? It appears to have escaped your attention that this thread has to do with the genetic modification of plants. Read before you write. Franz |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th | United Kingdom | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 19 Jul 2003 to 20 Jul 2003 (#2003-202) | Bonsai | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 8 Jun 2003 to 9 Jun 2003 (#2003-161) | Bonsai | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 27 May 2003 to 28 May 2003 (#2003-149) | Bonsai | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 15 May 2003 to 16 May 2003 (#2003-137) | Bonsai |