Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31   Report Post  
Old 04-10-2003, 06:32 PM
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.



  #32   Report Post  
Old 04-10-2003, 09:02 PM
Franz Heymann
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #33   Report Post  
Old 04-10-2003, 10:44 PM
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.



  #34   Report Post  
Old 04-10-2003, 11:06 PM
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.




  #35   Report Post  
Old 04-10-2003, 11:06 PM
Jim Webster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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




  #36   Report Post  
Old 04-10-2003, 11:23 PM
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #37   Report Post  
Old 05-10-2003, 07:03 AM
Jim Webster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #38   Report Post  
Old 05-10-2003, 08:03 AM
Oz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #39   Report Post  
Old 05-10-2003, 10:32 AM
Franz Heymann
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #40   Report Post  
Old 05-10-2003, 01:32 PM
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.






  #41   Report Post  
Old 05-10-2003, 01:42 PM
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.



  #42   Report Post  
Old 05-10-2003, 02:02 PM
Jim Webster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.







  #43   Report Post  
Old 05-10-2003, 02:02 PM
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #44   Report Post  
Old 05-10-2003, 02:12 PM
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.




  #45   Report Post  
Old 05-10-2003, 03:12 PM
Janet Baraclough
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.





Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
International Science and Engineering Fair-Call for Judges KARL ROBERTS Plant Biology 0 13-12-2008 06:39 PM
Genetic engineering of plants Fred Plant Science 10 20-09-2003 07:02 PM
problems with genetic engineering Walter Epp sci.agriculture 19 13-08-2003 02:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017