"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
, .
Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is
it
frogcorn? :-)

Prick. AT least we know whats inside your head anyway.
. . . . . . . .


ridiculously huge SIG snipped

LOL, you're the prick, this person was on your side! Now we know whats in
your head..nothing...


I would never and could never be on Pete's side, according to all that know
me I'm sane :-)

I don't just want all GM banned, full stop, like Pete the AR Troll, even
though it's being done for financial gain for the firms involved not for the
good of the world. Indeed, GM doing any good for the world has yet to be
proved.
I would like a lot more environmental research on the lasting effects of
growing these crops in the way they are intended to be grown (i.e. high use
of Roundup in some cases) and on the long term effects on the wild
population of flora and fauna. If it takes 10, 20, or even 50 more years to
be certain, so what.
For example when they allowed the GM Parsley to flower and then cross with
the wild parsley in France what happened? Have we now got a "super weed"
that herbicides can't kill? Or is the wild plant now resistant to it's usual
caterpillars, so will that specific species of butterfly/moth now die out?
etc, etc.
I've said it before, if they wish to use GM now it must be with plants that
cannot flower, are genetically engineered not to flower, or we could be
heading down a very slippery path where all our crops, indeed, a lot of wild
flora, are contaminated with genes that should not be there and it will be
too late to reverse the process.
--
Regards
Bob

Use a useful Screen Saver...
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here.

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:55:06 +0100, "Bob Hobden"
wrote:


"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
, .
Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is
it
frogcorn? :-)

Prick. AT least we know whats inside your head anyway.
. . . . . . . .


ridiculously huge SIG snipped

LOL, you're the prick, this person was on your side! Now we know whats in
your head..nothing...


I would never and could never be on Pete's side,

pete who?

according to all that know
me I'm sane :-)

Liar, some of us still you're a innane prick!

I don't just want all GM banned, full stop, like Pete the AR Troll, even
though it's being done for financial gain for the firms involved not for the
good of the world. Indeed, GM doing any good for the world has yet to be
proved.
I would like a lot more environmental research on the lasting effects of
growing these crops in the way they are intended to be grown (i.e. high use
of Roundup in some cases) and on the long term effects on the wild
population of flora and fauna. If it takes 10, 20, or even 50 more years to
be certain, so what.
For example when they allowed the GM Parsley to flower and then cross with
the wild parsley in France what happened? Have we now got a "super weed"
that herbicides can't kill? Or is the wild plant now resistant to it's usual
caterpillars, so will that specific species of butterfly/moth now die out?
etc, etc.
I've said it before, if they wish to use GM now it must be with plants that
cannot flower, are genetically engineered not to flower, or we could be
heading down a very slippery path where all our crops, indeed, a lot of wild
flora, are contaminated with genes that should not be there and it will be
too late to reverse the process.

Mind you, a prick that has the ability to learn, you'll do.


. . . . . . . .





The facts expressed here belong to everybody,
the opinions to me.
The distinction is yours to draw...

/( )`
\ \___ / |
/- _ `-/ '
(/\/ \ \ /\
/ / | ` \
O O ) / |
`-^--'` '
(_.) _ ) /
`.___/` /
`-----' /
----. __ / __ \
----|====O)))==) \) /====
----' `--' `.__,' \
| |
\ /
______( (_ / \______
,' ,-----' | \
`--{__________) \/

I'm a horny devil when riled.


pete who?

-=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97

.""--.._
[] `'--.._
||__ `'-,
`)||_ ```'--.. \
_ /|//} ``--._ |
.'` `'. /////} `\/
/ .""".\ //{///
/ /_ _`\\ // `||
| |(_)(_)|| _// ||
| | /\ )| _///\ ||
| |L====J | / |/ | ||
/ /'-..-' / .'` \ | ||
/ | :: | |_.-` | \ ||
/| `\-::.| | \ | ||
/` `| / | | | / ||
|` \ | / / \ | ||
| `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | ||
/ /` `\ || ||
| . / \|| ||
| | |/ ||
/ / | ( ||
/ . / ) ||
| \ | ||
/ | / ||
|\ / | ||
\ `-._ | / ||
\ ,//`\ /` | ||
///\ \ | \ ||
|||| ) |__/ | ||
|||| `.( | ||
`\\` /` / ||
/` / ||
jgs / | ||
| \ ||
/ | ||
/` \ ||
/` | ||
`-.___,-. .-. ___,' ||
`---'` `'----'`
I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic!

"Oz" wrote in message in reply to me

No because all the genes in me are supposed to be there no matter what
else
they are in, whereas, if you insert a gene that is specific to another
species that can then be passed on to it's new hosts progeny is it still
the
same thing or is it something new, a new species?
If it is a "new" species then it cannot be called what the original was
called i.e. GM Soya should not be called Soya at all but needs another
name
both scientifically and generally.

So how about

(naturally evolved) occurring blackgrass that is dimfop resistant?
Would you call that a new or different species or just a different
strain of the same species?

or

(naturally evolved) roundup resistant ryegrass (as found in australia)?

or

(naturally evolved) species of timothy grass that is bright red?

Normally one does is partly by whether it can interbreed (if it can it's
the same species) or sometimes by location where they are effectively
separated and (usually) have a slightly different morphology although
the latter is increasingly NOT considered to be a different species if
it can interbreed.


No, those are results of natural evolution at work (albeit because of mans
work in some cases), the genes of these plants have changed the way they
work naturally, by selection. A new variety they might be. They have not had
the gene of something else added to their genes, something that could never
get there by natural means.
Lots of species can cross, and some do it naturally, so whether they do that
or not is no certain sign of a species.
--
Regards
Bob

Use a useful Screen Saver...
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here.

Bob Hobden writes

No, those are results of natural evolution at work (albeit because of mans
work in some cases), the genes of these plants have changed the way they
work naturally, by selection.

By mutation and selection, actually.
Just how the bacterium that degraded roundup arrived.

A new variety they might be.

I doubt that, they interbreed freely and look completely identical to
their brothers and sisters without the gene (except the red timothy, of
course, cos it's red).

They have not had
the gene of something else added to their genes, something that could never
get there by natural means.

Well even that's not true. I don't know if the resistance to roundup in
the australian ryegrass is the same gene as monsanto's, but it's clearly
very similar, probably just a few bases different. In any case of course
the gene could get there by natural means, the single gene attackpoint
of roundup (and dimfops) makes this quite likely.

Lots of species can cross, and some do it naturally, so whether they do that
or not is no certain sign of a species.

Indeed so (to some extent), because the concept of species is a fuzzy
one. Would you say a pekinese dog is a different species from a great
dane? Certainly a variation in a single gene is never itself considered
to constitute a separate species unless it prevents interbreeding.
Otherwise there would be billions of different species of human.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Bob Hobden writes

I would like a lot more environmental research on the lasting effects of
growing these crops in the way they are intended to be grown (i.e. high use
of Roundup in some cases) and on the long term effects on the wild
population of flora and fauna.

Generally it is not possible to farm a crop where you have
uncontrollable weeds. Ultimately most can be 'controlled' by breaks, but
the demand for the break crops is rather low and they themselves suffer
from weed problems. That's why you typically do not find much in the way
of weeds in farmed fields.

If it takes 10, 20, or even 50 more years to
be certain, so what.

The major reduction in in-field weeds occurred between about 1950 and
1970.

For example when they allowed the GM Parsley to flower and then cross with
the wild parsley in France what happened? Have we now got a "super weed"
that herbicides can't kill?

No, although it might be resistant to one herbicide.
This may be a problem in a field to a farmer, but not to wild parsly
growing wild.

Or is the wild plant now resistant to it's usual
caterpillars, so will that specific species of butterfly/moth now die out?
etc, etc.

No this one IS a concern. I would be highly against introducing
insecticide resistance to any crop that is known to hybridise with wild
relatives for precisely this reason. Now in practice this isn't a
problem for most crops, in fact I can only think of rape and the herbage
grasses (UK) where this might be a problem. However this is so obvious I
have been pointing it out for very many years.

I've said it before, if they wish to use GM now it must be with plants that
cannot flower, are genetically engineered not to flower, or we could be
heading down a very slippery path where all our crops, indeed, a lot of wild
flora, are contaminated with genes that should not be there and it will be
too late to reverse the process.

Multiplication of seed would be impossible, and in any case this isn't
necessary. All that is required is calm and rational assessment of the
risks to take a rational decision. Further, it's worth remembering that
plants are packed with toxins already, which is why each plant typically
has only a small number of pests. Only those resistant to the plant
toxins can survive on them. Chemical warfare between plants and pests
has been going on for hundreds of millions of years, and not a single
plant has outwitted the insects. The reason for the differences (usually
visual) between insect species probably owes as much to preventing the
wrong species breeding as to anything else.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Bob Hobden writes

....

They have not had
the gene of something else added to their genes, something that could
never
get there by natural means.

Well even that's not true. I don't know if the resistance to roundup in
the australian ryegrass is the same gene as monsanto's, but it's clearly
very similar, probably just a few bases different. In any case of course
the gene could get there by natural means, the single gene attackpoint
of roundup (and dimfops) makes this quite likely.

...
And what's particularly fascinating to me about the fear of GM is that
although all sorts of technical/biological arguments are advanced it seems
to have more in common with the relatively recent fear of machine looms,
etc. than of the real danger that has always faced mankind, the dragons and
other mythical (though clearly man-made by implication) beasties. Yet will
those not employed in agriculture really feel any impact on their
lifestyles? Perhaps yes if we ban all imports from countries that do
choose to grow GM, but surely no otherwise.

Just how many people are killed by technology each year compared with the
natural nasties such as bacteria and viruses that are clearly out to get
every single last one of us if we give 'em a chance? I'm sticking with
technology, even deliberately destructive technology is relatively benign
compared with diseases and starvation. It's said that rat borne diseases
alone have killed more people than all wars - who'd have thought those
lovely cuddly rats have it in for us on such a big scale?

Michael Saunby

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 19:34:15 +0100, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Oz" wrote in message
...
Bob Hobden writes

...

They have not had
the gene of something else added to their genes, something that could
never
get there by natural means.

Well even that's not true. I don't know if the resistance to roundup in
the australian ryegrass is the same gene as monsanto's, but it's clearly
very similar, probably just a few bases different. In any case of course
the gene could get there by natural means, the single gene attackpoint
of roundup (and dimfops) makes this quite likely.

..
And what's particularly fascinating to me about the fear of GM is that
although all sorts of technical/biological arguments are advanced it seems
to have more in common with the relatively recent fear of machine looms,
etc. than of the real danger that has always faced mankind, the dragons and
other mythical (though clearly man-made by implication) beasties. Yet will
those not employed in agriculture really feel any impact on their
lifestyles? Perhaps yes if we ban all imports from countries that do
choose to grow GM, but surely no otherwise.

Just how many people are killed by technology each year compared with the
natural nasties such as bacteria and viruses that are clearly out to get
every single last one of us if we give 'em a chance? I'm sticking with
technology, even deliberately destructive technology is relatively benign
compared with diseases and starvation. It's said that rat borne diseases
alone have killed more people than all wars - who'd have thought those
lovely cuddly rats have it in for us on such a big scale?

Yes, a lot of people blame rats because man cannot be bothered to wash
his hands often.

A bigger killer would be the car, do we blame the cars or the driver?



. . . . . . . .





The facts expressed here belong to everybody,
the opinions to me.
The distinction is yours to draw...

/( )`
\ \___ / |
/- _ `-/ '
(/\/ \ \ /\
/ / | ` \
O O ) / |
`-^--'` '
(_.) _ ) /
`.___/` /
`-----' /
----. __ / __ \
----|====O)))==) \) /====
----' `--' `.__,' \
| |
\ /
______( (_ / \______
,' ,-----' | \
`--{__________) \/

I'm a horny devil when riled.


pete who?

-=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97

.""--.._
[] `'--.._
||__ `'-,
`)||_ ```'--.. \
_ /|//} ``--._ |
.'` `'. /////} `\/
/ .""".\ //{///
/ /_ _`\\ // `||
| |(_)(_)|| _// ||
| | /\ )| _///\ ||
| |L====J | / |/ | ||
/ /'-..-' / .'` \ | ||
/ | :: | |_.-` | \ ||
/| `\-::.| | \ | ||
/` `| / | | | / ||
|` \ | / / \ | ||
| `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | ||
/ /` `\ || ||
| . / \|| ||
| | |/ ||
/ / | ( ||
/ . / ) ||
| \ | ||
/ | / ||
|\ / | ||
\ `-._ | / ||
\ ,//`\ /` | ||
///\ \ | \ ||
|||| ) |__/ | ||
|||| `.( | ||
`\\` /` / ||
/` / ||
jgs / | ||
| \ ||
/ | ||
/` \ ||
/` | ||
`-.___,-. .-. ___,' ||
`---'` `'----'`
I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic!

"W K" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

I think that the definition of a species runs along the lines that any
set
of all those living objects which can breed with one another constitute
a
species.

A bit of a primary school definition.

On the contrary, Darwin's definition, as in "The Origin of Species" by the
man himself.
If you knew a better one you would not have refrained from stating it.

(Yes, I know there are occasional cases of interspecific breeding. I
too don't understand that).

I imagine.

As usual, you appear not to have anything to contribute. Or do you
understand how interspecific breeding occurs?

Franz

Franz

Franz

"Oz" wrote in message after me again ((snip))

I've said it before, if they wish to use GM now it must be with plants
that
cannot flower, are genetically engineered not to flower, or we could be
heading down a very slippery path where all our crops, indeed, a lot of
wild
flora, are contaminated with genes that should not be there and it will
be
too late to reverse the process.

Multiplication of seed would be impossible, and in any case this isn't
necessary. All that is required is calm and rational assessment of the
risks to take a rational decision. Further, it's worth remembering that
plants are packed with toxins already, which is why each plant typically
has only a small number of pests. Only those resistant to the plant
toxins can survive on them. Chemical warfare between plants and pests
has been going on for hundreds of millions of years, and not a single
plant has outwitted the insects. The reason for the differences (usually
visual) between insect species probably owes as much to preventing the
wrong species breeding as to anything else.


Assessment of risks can only take place when we have full knowledge of the
possible risks and understand the processes fully. I don't think we do yet.
Still scientists working in this field get unexpected results, especially as
inserted genes turn on latent genes, proof they aren't yet in control of the
process, haven't yet mastered the subject.
It's a bit like when they got soldiers to stand up and watch a nuclear
explosion just to see what happens, this time it's the whole world they are
making stand up.

--
Regards
Bob

Use a useful Screen Saver...
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here.

Bob Hobden writes

Errr? you say it's not true then go on to quote a case study that shows just
that??? The mutated gene you mention was chosen by natural selection. It was
not a completely foreign gene from another species or even genera that got
inserted.

I think you are having trouble following who said what,
in a multi-quoted post.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

"Oz" wrote in message in reply to me
Assessment of risks can only take place when we have full knowledge of
the
possible risks and understand the processes fully.

Factually incorrect.
Assessment can take place at any time.
It's accuracy may depend on our depth of knowledge, and usually does.
Note that we have quite a bit of knowledge of genes and introductions.

Perhaps I should have inserted Worthwhile or Meaningfull at the beginning.


Still scientists working in this field get unexpected results, especially
as
inserted genes turn on latent genes, proof they aren't yet in control of
the
process, haven't yet mastered the subject.

Mutations happen all the time and produce quite unexpected results.
The whole biosphere is in an orgy of reproduction that produces billions
of mutations annually. It's what biological systems have been doing for
a billion years. Nothing new there.

Not talking mutations of genes here, talking about latent genes that are
already there but that don't "do" anything suddenly making things happen
after the GM insertion of another gene triggers them into action.


It's a bit like when they got soldiers to stand up and watch a nuclear
explosion just to see what happens, this time it's the whole world they
are
making stand up.

I think you underestimate the resilience of biological systems,
particularly to point mutations.

I have little doubt that GM will not cause the total destruction of life on
earth, however, it will cause change, possibly some destruction of species,
more use of chemicals in farming, inability of farmers to save their own
seed for the next crop, contamination of other crops/wild flora.........
Will it be change for better or worse? Do we know yet? Other than those
companies involved making lots more money I don't think so.


I suspect we will never agree on this subject. Well not for some years
anyway.

--
Regards
Bob

Use a useful Screen Saver...
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here.

Bob Hobden writes

"Oz" wrote in message in reply to me
Assessment of risks can only take place when we have full knowledge of
the
possible risks and understand the processes fully.

Factually incorrect.
Assessment can take place at any time.
It's accuracy may depend on our depth of knowledge, and usually does.
Note that we have quite a bit of knowledge of genes and introductions.

Perhaps I should have inserted Worthwhile or Meaningfull at the beginning.

WE know quite a lot about agriculture, ecology and genetics.
However no scientist worth their salt will EVER guarantee anything.

Still scientists working in this field get unexpected results, especially
as
inserted genes turn on latent genes, proof they aren't yet in control of
the
process, haven't yet mastered the subject.

Mutations happen all the time and produce quite unexpected results.
The whole biosphere is in an orgy of reproduction that produces billions
of mutations annually. It's what biological systems have been doing for
a billion years. Nothing new there.

Not talking mutations of genes here, talking about latent genes that are
already there but that don't "do" anything suddenly making things happen
after the GM insertion of another gene triggers them into action.

Mutations (natural) do that all the time.
yawn

It's a bit like when they got soldiers to stand up and watch a nuclear
explosion just to see what happens, this time it's the whole world they
are
making stand up.

I think you underestimate the resilience of biological systems,
particularly to point mutations.

I have little doubt that GM will not cause the total destruction of life on
earth,

Clearly so. GM without life is nothing.

however, it will cause change,

Change has been happening for 1000,000,000 years without ceasing.
Big deal.

possibly some destruction of species,

Species have been being lost for 1000,000,000's of years.
Big deal. Best avoided, but it's actually quite hard to take a species
to extinction, particularly insects, unless you remove their ecosystem.
The field is already a species-deficient zone, being essentially a
monoculture of necessity (even organic fields).

more use of chemicals in farming,

Unlikely. Most/all gmo's use fewer chemicals because if they didn't
there would be no point using them at all. The reduction of insecticide
use in BT cotton has by all accounts been huge for example.

inability of farmers to save their own
seed for the next crop,

Been going on for decades (see hybrids), and in any case I very much
doubt this will be the case in the EU, and doesn't appear to be the case
in the 2nd/3rd world.

contamination of other crops/wild flora.........

If genes are transferred from some crop plants to some wild plants then
this has been going on for millennia anyway. The question is whether the
new genes give a significant advantage or disadvantage in the wild (cos
wild plants live in the wild). Whilst I can see a mechanism for GM
insecticides, I cannot see one for herbicide tolerance. It's also worth
remembering that apart from some very closely related species (typically
the brassicae) this is known not to happen (see selective weedkillers
for example).

Will it be change for better or worse?

As a farmer, the ability to use fewer, safer, sprays is highly
beneficial. Remember by far the person most at risk is the sprayer
operator, who is handling bulk quantities of concentrate.

Do we know yet?

The US (and elsewhere) experience is that it's for the better overall.
Otherwise they wouldn't continue to increase their area of gm cropping.

Other than those
companies involved making lots more money I don't think so.

Farmers are most certainly not making lots of money, anywhere in the
world. In any case one might just as well, and with much more
justification, say the same about pharmaceutical companies. You know,
the guys who sell you life-saving drugs at a truly vast margin.

I suspect we will never agree on this subject. Well not for some years
anyway.

Depends if the evidence counts or not.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

"Oz" wrote in message after me after Oz .........(snip)

Not talking mutations of genes here, talking about latent genes that are
already there but that don't "do" anything suddenly making things happen
after the GM insertion of another gene triggers them into action.

Mutations (natural) do that all the time.
yawn

True, they do mutate, and that is natural and part of evolution, they don't
insert themselves from one species (or even genera) to another .
BUT my point is that scientists cannot predict these "mutations" caused when
they start inserting foreign genes into something, they happen unexpectedly
and cause unexpected results in the Lab . I feel that is proof that the
science is not good enough yet to be allowed out of the Lab and into our
world. The scientists don't know whats going on!

however, it will cause change,

Change has been happening for 1000,000,000 years without ceasing.
Big deal.

possibly some destruction of species,

Species have been being lost for 1000,000,000's of years.
Big deal. Best avoided, but it's actually quite hard to take a species
to extinction, particularly insects, unless you remove their ecosystem.
The field is already a species-deficient zone, being essentially a
monoculture of necessity (even organic fields).

From those comments I understand you don't mind if there is significant
change brought about by GM. Here we differ fundamentally.


more use of chemicals in farming,

Unlikely. Most/all gmo's use fewer chemicals because if they didn't
there would be no point using them at all. The reduction of insecticide
use in BT cotton has by all accounts been huge for example.

Not what I've heard. Herbicide resistant crops so they can be sprayed with
more herbicides.


inability of farmers to save their own
seed for the next crop,

Been going on for decades (see hybrids), and in any case I very much
doubt this will be the case in the EU, and doesn't appear to be the case
in the 2nd/3rd world.

Wrong! Only in the case of F1 hybrids is it not wise to save seed as they
are first generation crosses and the second generation follows the normal
rules. Seed CAN still be saved though and you would still get a crop of
sorts.


contamination of other crops/wild flora.........

If genes are transferred from some crop plants to some wild plants then
this has been going on for millennia anyway. The question is whether the
new genes give a significant advantage or disadvantage in the wild (cos
wild plants live in the wild). Whilst I can see a mechanism for GM
insecticides, I cannot see one for herbicide tolerance.

It would be the only plant other than the crop that could survive the
herbicide use.


Will it be change for better or worse?

As a farmer, the ability to use fewer, safer, sprays is highly
beneficial. Remember by far the person most at risk is the sprayer
operator, who is handling bulk quantities of concentrate.

I would agree if I thought it true that there would be less
spraying/herbicide use but as some of the companies involved in GM are also
Agro-Chemical companies I somehow doubt it.


Do we know yet?

The US (and elsewhere) experience is that it's for the better overall.
Otherwise they wouldn't continue to increase their area of gm cropping.

If there was money to be made they would increase it no matter what.


I suspect we will never agree on this subject. Well not for some years
anyway.

Depends if the evidence counts or not.


But we obviously read the same evidence in different ways and reach
different conclusions. We also differ in our thoughts regarding who is
controlling this science and why.

--
Regards
Bob

Use a useful Screen Saver...
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here.

Bob Hobden writes

"Oz" wrote in message after me after Oz .........(snip)

Not talking mutations of genes here, talking about latent genes that are
already there but that don't "do" anything suddenly making things happen
after the GM insertion of another gene triggers them into action.

Mutations (natural) do that all the time.
yawn

True, they do mutate, and that is natural and part of evolution, they don't
insert themselves from one species (or even genera) to another .

Hardly matters because each species has the opportunity to mutate to
resist whatever pressures are brought to bear. RR ryegrass for example.
Further the number of really new molecules that get used by life is
surprisingly small, just compare haemoglobin and chlorophyll, rhodopsin
and vitamin A for example.

BUT my point is that scientists cannot predict these "mutations" caused when
they start inserting foreign genes into something, they happen unexpectedly
and cause unexpected results in the Lab .

Indeed, that's why the plants get screened first. In fact they probably
go through a conventional breeding program as any 'useful gene' does,
with plenty of time to check any aberration. So far I don't think there
is a single example you can point to in the field.

I feel that is proof that the
science is not good enough yet to be allowed out of the Lab and into our
world. The scientists don't know whats going on!

Inability to predict isn't the same as not knowing what is going on.
After all that's far more true of conventional breeding techniques where
they haven't the slightest clue what the (conventional) genes are doing,
whilst at least they do know precisely what the rather simple GM gene is
doing. They identified it, extracted it, implanted it and can track it.

however, it will cause change,

Change has been happening for 1000,000,000 years without ceasing.
Big deal.

possibly some destruction of species,

Species have been being lost for 1000,000,000's of years.
Big deal. Best avoided, but it's actually quite hard to take a species
to extinction, particularly insects, unless you remove their ecosystem.
The field is already a species-deficient zone, being essentially a
monoculture of necessity (even organic fields).

From those comments I understand you don't mind if there is significant
change brought about by GM. Here we differ fundamentally.

You have a short memory. I already made comment about inappropriate use
of insecticidal genes. None the less I know of no insect rendered
extinct by conventional pesticides, which are far more profligate in
their effects than GM insecticides. I suspect you grossly overestimate
man's abilities and underestimate nature's.

more use of chemicals in farming,

Unlikely. Most/all gmo's use fewer chemicals because if they didn't
there would be no point using them at all. The reduction of insecticide
use in BT cotton has by all accounts been huge for example.

Not what I've heard.

Then you heard wrong, and further are not thinking.
Why would a farmer pay to use more expensive chemicals by buying more
expensive seed, when he can just use whats already available?

You seem not to realise that the main aim of a farmer is to spend as
little on sprays as possible, which means using as few as possible. Many
are over $200/can, and are a serious drain on any profitability he might
have.

Herbicide resistant crops so they can be sprayed with
more herbicides.

No.
So they can use one cheap spray of environmentally benign roundup
instead of a cocktail of many expensive ones. Please think.

inability of farmers to save their own
seed for the next crop,

Been going on for decades (see hybrids), and in any case I very much
doubt this will be the case in the EU, and doesn't appear to be the case
in the 2nd/3rd world.

Wrong! Only in the case of F1 hybrids is it not wise to save seed as they
are first generation crosses and the second generation follows the normal
rules. Seed CAN still be saved though and you would still get a crop of
sorts.

sigh You missed the point completely.

Hybrids are used to STOP farmers saving their seeds.

Having a 'crop of sorts' isn't exactly conducive to making a living.

Using hybrids occurs primarily in the US, where there doesn't appear to
be any regulation of seed royalty. In the EU (as an example) saved seed
still carries a royalty and there is much less pressure for hybrids. In
the 2nd/3rd world there are no royalties, and it's saved - but this
doesn't look like changing, and laws don;t look like changing either.

So outside the US, no problem.

If genes are transferred from some crop plants to some wild plants then
this has been going on for millennia anyway. The question is whether the
new genes give a significant advantage or disadvantage in the wild (cos
wild plants live in the wild). Whilst I can see a mechanism for GM
insecticides, I cannot see one for herbicide tolerance.

It would be the only plant other than the crop that could survive the
herbicide use.

sigh

If it's close enough to x-breed with the crop then it's unlikely to be
hit by any conventional selectives either. So the farmer isn't any worse
off. So no bigger problem.

Anyhow it's the farmer's problem.

As a farmer, the ability to use fewer, safer, sprays is highly
beneficial. Remember by far the person most at risk is the sprayer
operator, who is handling bulk quantities of concentrate.

I would agree if I thought it true that there would be less
spraying/herbicide use but as some of the companies involved in GM are also
Agro-Chemical companies I somehow doubt it.

That's because you are ignorant of the reality.

The US (and elsewhere) experience is that it's for the better overall.
Otherwise they wouldn't continue to increase their area of gm cropping.

If there was money to be made they would increase it no matter what.

Precisely, and since most have been working hard to earn nothing for
years any small profit feeds the wife and kids.

I suspect we will never agree on this subject. Well not for some years
anyway.

Depends if the evidence counts or not.


But we obviously read the same evidence in different ways and reach
different conclusions. We also differ in our thoughts regarding who is
controlling this science and why.

No, I think the difference is that you cannot place your knowledge
accurately into the reality of both farming and nature.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...

Not what I've heard. Herbicide resistant crops so they can be sprayed with
more herbicides.

simple thought will tell you that that must be wrong

herbicides cost money

GM seed is slightly more expensive

why would you pay more money for seed on which you have to use more
herbicide, again spending more money?

Jim Webster