A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Jim 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? Bigger yield? So why have they developed herbicide resistant crops then? So they can use "roundup*" to spray the weeds off instead of using mechanical means of weeding which cost lots of money. Perhaps you have another explanation for their development? *Roundup...a Monsanto product, like a lot of the GM crops. -- 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. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... "Oz" wrote in message after me after Oz .........(snip) [snip] 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 . Ever heard of natural interspecific hybrids? 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 . Mother Nature cannot predict these "mutations" caused .......(sic) The scientists *can* predict the primary result of a gene modification. Do you think they waste their time randomly mucking about in the hopes that something useful might turn up? : I feel that is proof that the science is not good enough yet to be allowed out of the Lab and into our world. Your feelings do not constitute a scientific argument. The scientists don't know whats going on! On the contrary. The scientists involved know one hell of a lot about what is going on. That is why they can make controlled genetic changes whereas Mother Nature just does it by sucking and seeing. [snip] 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. May I take it that you eat no domesticated animal meat at all, and that you restrict your vegetable intake to natural species of wild wheat and crab apples? 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. I think you have missed a very important point. The resistance involved is a very specific resistance to glyphosate and glyphosate only. If one sprayed with any herbicide other than glyphosate, one will have no crop. And if one sprayed with more glyphosate than necessary, one is a fool who ought not to attempt farming. [snip] I think you would have made a more valid point if you had not mixed up the science involved in genetic modification, with the interests of the Agrochemical companies involved. But such is the nature of capitalism..... Franz |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Reply-To: "Bob Hobden"
NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-129-83-78.in-addr.btopenworld.com (81.129.83.78) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1065303451 15063547 81.129.83.78 (16 [93475]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!eusc.inter.net! fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!host81-129-83-78.in-addr.btopenworld.COM!not-for-mail Xref: kermit uk.environment.conservation:51916 uk.rec.gardening:168730 uk.rec.natural-history:17714 uk.business.agricultu131034 "Franz wrote in message why would you pay more money for seed on which you have to use more herbicide, again spending more money? Bigger yield? How do you generate a bigger yield by spraying with more glyphosate than the minimum amount necessary to kill the weed growth? Think you have misinterpreted what I said. They will now be able to use Roundup instead of mechanical removal of weeds. Never said they would use more than necessary, but there will be a much greater use of herbicide overall because the farmers can now use it whilst the herbicide resistant GM crop is growing without killing the crop too. There will be no need to control weeds by mechanical means. This will make it cheaper to grow, more certain, give a weed free crop, and will increase yields (no weed competition). The company making the GM seed and providing the herbicide will also increase their income which is why they are doing the research. -- 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. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Franz wrote in message Ever heard of natural interspecific hybrids? Yes, but they are normally within the same genera and if you had been following this discussion you would have seen me mention frog genes added to sweetcorn. So that happens naturally? 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 . Mother Nature cannot predict these "mutations" caused .......(sic) The scientists *can* predict the primary result of a gene modification. Do you think they waste their time randomly mucking about in the hopes that something useful might turn up? Please read what I have written and it's context, my comment was to show why I don't think GM is ready for release from the Lab. The scientists don't know whats going on! On the contrary. The scientists involved know one hell of a lot about what is going on. That is why they can make controlled genetic changes whereas Mother Nature just does it by sucking and seeing. These genetic changes they are making, it is very doubtfull they would happen in nature so what they are doing is un-natural, no harm in that when they are fully aware of what is happening and what will happen (no second chances with this science). But are they? I think you would have made a more valid point if you had not mixed up the science involved in genetic modification, with the interests of the Agrochemical companies involved. But that's the point, they are linked, indeed they are the same companies which is why I don't trust the science too much. Too much pressure. But such is the nature of capitalism..... Too true. Too true. -- 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. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... "Jim 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? Bigger yield? Not necessarily, just lower cost So why have they developed herbicide resistant crops then? So they can use "roundup*" to spray the weeds off instead of using mechanical means of weeding which cost lots of money. Perhaps you would explain to me the mechanical means of weeding either OSR/Canola or Maize, especially late season? These have always been sprayed, unless of course you are volunteering to hand hoe your share? Perhaps you have another explanation for their development? Check no-till agriculture for one thing *Roundup...a Monsanto product, like a lot of the GM crops. Actually the chemical is generic now, produced by scores of firms all over the world and sells for perhaps a third of what it used to Jim Webster |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
" "Oz" wrote in message after me after Oz .........(snip) 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. Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? 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 am sure and indeed hope that there is sufficient study done to ensure nothing seriously wrong gets into the environment, but you obviously agree such things do turn up which rather proves my case. , 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. This has been answered by me elsewhere. .. Hybrids are used to STOP farmers saving their seeds. You mean F1 Hybrids only I assume. Having a 'crop of sorts' isn't exactly conducive to making a living. True, but I was thinking mainly about the 3rd world when I wrote that. 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. Interesting comment! Don't forget big business here too, or have you conveniently forgotten who is controlling most of the GM 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. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? bacteria swap genes about that are completely foreign and bacteria then get into everything Jim Webster |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Bob Hobden writes
" "Oz" wrote in message after me after Oz .........(snip) 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. Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? A gene is a gene. Where it comes from really isn't important. Genes have always been somewhat promiscuous, many parasites and hosts exchange genes. If an identical gene is naturally produced or introduced it doesn't make any odds, the effect is the same. The main reason for organisms blocking gene transfer is the very low likelihood of the result being useful (typically infertile). The result would thus be wasted. 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 am sure and indeed hope that there is sufficient study done to ensure nothing seriously wrong gets into the environment, but you obviously agree such things do turn up which rather proves my case. Lots of mechanical designs go wrong at the design stage. That doesn't mean you scrap the design completely, normally you refine it to overcome the problems. Almost nothing (electrical, mechanical, whatever) brought to market avoids this refining stage. Consequently I cannot see anything novel or worrying in your argument. Hybrids are used to STOP farmers saving their seeds. You mean F1 Hybrids only I assume. Having a 'crop of sorts' isn't exactly conducive to making a living. True, but I was thinking mainly about the 3rd world when I wrote that. Strangely even the 3rd world farmer has to make a living. Or often in this case, feed their family. Bit hazardous with a 'crop of sorts', particularly when they starve. 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. Interesting comment! Don't forget big business here too, or have you conveniently forgotten who is controlling most of the GM science and why. Big deal. The car manufacturers 'control' cars, electronics manufacturers 'control' electronics and drug manufacturers 'control' drugs. The seed manufacturers get their patents and copyrights ripped off by 2nd and 3rd world farmers within 12 months. If that's what you consider 'control' then its an odd use of the word. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. DEMON address no longer in use. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... [snip] I am sure and indeed hope You are just spinning words. If you are sure, as you aver, why do you have to hope? that there is sufficient study done to ensure nothing seriously wrong gets into the environment, but you obviously agree such things do turn up which rather proves my case. I don't understand why you wrote that last clause. It is not at all obvious that Oz agrees with you on anything of substance. [snip] Franz |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Reply-To: "Bob Hobden"
NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-129-95-83.in-addr.btopenworld.com (81.129.95.83) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1065356770 14970810 81.129.95.83 (16 [93475]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!host81-129-95-83.in-addr.btopenworld.COM!not-for-mail Xref: kermit uk.environment.conservation:52022 uk.rec.gardening:168854 uk.rec.natural-history:17739 uk.business.agricultu131108 "Jim wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? bacteria swap genes about that are completely foreign and bacteria then get into everything With what do they swap genes? -- 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. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Reply-To: "Bob Hobden"
NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-129-95-83.in-addr.btopenworld.com (81.129.95.83) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1065357683 15303596 81.129.95.83 (16 [93475]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!host81-129-95-83.in-addr.btopenworld.COM!not-for-mail Xref: kermit uk.environment.conservation:52024 uk.rec.gardening:168861 uk.rec.natural-history:17741 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:137071 alt.animals.rights.promotion:14374 uk.business.agricultu131111 "Oz" wrote in message ... 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 am sure and indeed hope that there is sufficient study done to ensure nothing seriously wrong gets into the environment, but you obviously agree such things do turn up which rather proves my case. Lots of mechanical designs go wrong at the design stage. That doesn't mean you scrap the design completely, normally you refine it to overcome the problems. Almost nothing (electrical, mechanical, whatever) brought to market avoids this refining stage. Consequently I cannot see anything novel or worrying in your argument. We are back to that Parsley that flowered and contaminated the wild parsley growing nearby. Should that have been allowed out of the Lab? I don't think so, not with a wild plant nearby able to cross with the GM plant. It was an accident they said, it shouldn't have been allowed to flower they said, well who the hell was in control of that experiment, GM scientists! Fills me with confidence regarding their abilities. 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. Interesting comment! Don't forget big business here too, or have you conveniently forgotten who is controlling most of the GM science and why. Big deal. The car manufacturers 'control' cars, electronics manufacturers 'control' electronics and drug manufacturers 'control' drugs. The seed manufacturers get their patents and copyrights ripped off by 2nd and 3rd world farmers within 12 months. Interesting that last point, again it confirms my opinion that it's too soon to be in use, this time because legal controls on use obviously aren't working in some countries. -- 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. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... "Jim wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? bacteria swap genes about that are completely foreign and bacteria then get into everything With what do they swap genes? their hosts, each other, viruses, Jim Webster -- 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. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Reply-To: "Bob Hobden"
NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-129-95-83.in-addr.btopenworld.com (81.129.95.83) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1065357919 15572775 81.129.95.83 (16 [93475]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!eusc.inter.net! fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!host81-129-95-83.in-addr.btopenworld.COM!not-for-mail Xref: kermit uk.environment.conservation:52026 uk.rec.gardening:168864 uk.rec.natural-history:17743 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:137072 alt.animals.rights.promotion:14375 uk.business.agricultu131113 "Franz wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? Can't you understand that here is no gene more foreign than one which results from a random natural mutation? The damn thing did not even *exist* before. Are you sure on that? I though a mutated gene was one that simply changed not came into spontaneous existance. And you don't seem to get to grips with the fact that around 999999 out of 1000000 natural mutations are deleterious and most of them are removed by selection in subsequent generations. Will that happen with GM then? No, so why mention it. -- 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. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Jim wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? bacteria swap genes about that are completely foreign and bacteria then get into everything With what do they swap genes? their hosts, each other, viruses, I know viruses do but was not aware bacteria themselves swap genes except during sex as normal, I thought it was a virus that transferred the genes back and forth at other times. But perhaps I'm splitting hairs. -- 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. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
The message
from "Jim Webster" contains these words: "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? So that the huge interests who control the market for your product, get higher profits from selling expensive seed and more herbicide. Janet. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter