|
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_...ley/index.html
Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003, Central London Come on the parade - sign up here http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_...y/sign_up.html Sign the message of opposition [online] http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_.../petition.html Spread the word http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_...read_word.html "This autumn will be crucial for the GM campaign as the Government will soon decide whether to grow GM crops commercially. Your right to choose GM-free food could be about to disappear. But the fight isn’t over yet. We need to pile the pressure on Tony Blair to show that farmers, consumers and campaigners say no to GM. The Tractor and Trolley parade, following a summer of local anti-GM activities around the country, will be a fun, peaceful and good humoured event. Consumers and farmers will unite to demonstrate their strong resistance to GM crops and food. Led by tractors and accompanied by samba and ceilidh bands, hundreds of people will push decorated trolleys full of GM-free produce along a route that passes DEFRA, 10 Downing Street and the National Farmers Union. The parade will stop off at each venue to hand in messages of opposition to GM crops." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GM Free Britain, if we dont stop it now we never will. http://www.gmfreebritain.com/ |
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 09:10:21 GMT, "" wrote:
http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_...ley/index.html Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003, Central London Come on the parade - sign up here http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_...y/sign_up.html Sign the message of opposition [online] http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_.../petition.html Spread the word http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_...read_word.html "This autumn will be crucial for the GM campaign as the Government will soon decide whether to grow GM crops commercially. Your right to choose GM-free food could be about to disappear. But the fight isn’t over yet. We need to pile the pressure on Tony Blair to show that farmers, consumers and campaigners say no to GM. The Tractor and Trolley parade, following a summer of local anti-GM activities around the country, will be a fun, peaceful and good humoured event. Consumers and farmers will unite to demonstrate their strong resistance to GM crops and food. Led by tractors and accompanied by samba and ceilidh bands, hundreds of people will push decorated trolleys full of GM-free produce along a route that passes DEFRA, 10 Downing Street and the National Farmers Union. The parade will stop off at each venue to hand in messages of opposition to GM crops." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GM Free Britain, if we dont stop it now we never will. http://www.gmfreebritain.com/ Hang about - GM is good, isn't it? -- Paul My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003): http://paulrooney.netfirms.com Please sponsor me for the London Marathon at: http://www.justgiving.com/london2004 |
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 11:51:25 +0100, Paul Rooney
wrote: On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 09:10:21 GMT, "" wrote: http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_...ley/index.html Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003, Central London Come on the parade - sign up here http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_...y/sign_up.html Sign the message of opposition [online] http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_.../petition.html Spread the word http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_...read_word.html "This autumn will be crucial for the GM campaign as the Government will soon decide whether to grow GM crops commercially. Your right to choose GM-free food could be about to disappear. But the fight isn’t over yet. We need to pile the pressure on Tony Blair to show that farmers, consumers and campaigners say no to GM. The Tractor and Trolley parade, following a summer of local anti-GM activities around the country, will be a fun, peaceful and good humoured event. Consumers and farmers will unite to demonstrate their strong resistance to GM crops and food. Led by tractors and accompanied by samba and ceilidh bands, hundreds of people will push decorated trolleys full of GM-free produce along a route that passes DEFRA, 10 Downing Street and the National Farmers Union. The parade will stop off at each venue to hand in messages of opposition to GM crops." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GM Free Britain, if we dont stop it now we never will. http://www.gmfreebritain.com/ Hang about - GM is good, isn't it? Might make you run faster in the short term, before it kills you. I'm a Ford man myself! |
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
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? -- 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 |
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
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. Any evidence that it's bad? Or is that just a *possibility*? -- Paul My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003): http://paulrooney.netfirms.com Please sponsor me for the London Marathon at: http://www.justgiving.com/london2004 |
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"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. |
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
[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 |
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"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. Franz |
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"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. |
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
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: quote From: Oz Newsgroups: uk.environment.conservation,uk.rec.birdwatching,uk .rec.gardening,uk.rec.n atural-history,uk.business.agriculture Subject: Is Glyphosate weed killer safe?? Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 07:07:22 +0100 Organization: acoohdb Lines: 31 Message-ID: LD50 for rats 4050 mg/kg LC50 for rats (4h) 1.3mg/l air (note greater than, implies they couldn't reach LD50). So a 100kg person would need to ingest about 400g or 1lb of glyphosate to have a 50% chance of killing themselves. I would suggest a more active product would be better. Note that diluted spray in the sprayer tank at 1.5kg active in 200L means that you need to consume some 70L of product straight from the sprayer. The acute lethal dose for water is about 5L, so you get to die from water ingestion well before dying from the glyphosate. OK, that's not the whole picture but you get the drift. Glyphosate is rapidly excreted. /quote Note the point that you would die from water intoxication before the glyphosate could kill you. Now we could have a discussion about the toxicity of various detergents used as wetting agents in commercial glyphosate preps but they aren't herbicides. As best as I am aware they don't persist either. BTW animals are not plants so the term herbicide might indicate that the toxicity is not directed at animals. 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
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. -- 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 |
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
In article ,
bigboard wrote: 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? 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. GM is simply the application of extremely selective, controlled genetic change in place of non selective, uncontrolled genetic change which characterises conventional crop breeding. We could argue about dubious benefits for some particular applications of the technology, but that does not mean all uses of the technology are bad. 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 ,
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. 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 ,
"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. 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
"Peter Ashby" wrote in message ... 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. Peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland Hmm. rather a narrow thinker if you can only do this in terms of LD50. 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. |
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
"Peter Ashby" wrote in message ... 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. |
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
In article ,
"W K" wrote: "Peter Ashby" wrote in message ... 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. |
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. |
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 ... 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. |
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 -- |
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? |
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. |
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 |
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. |
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
In article ,
"W K" wrote: "Peter Ashby" wrote in message ... 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. |
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
|
say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
In article , Peter Ashby
wrote: 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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
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. That's complete tosh fritz, why should he, we all know how to drive without seeing the blueprints. We read the warnings from the likes of greenpeace and take heed. If you have a valid argument against the science I suggest you take it up with the scientists involved & stop boring the pants off us here. |
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter