Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 01-10-2003, 04:22 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science Indu

For starters


This is the html version of the file
http://www.zef.de/download/biotech/a_then.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we
crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8


Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible
for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: glyphosate danger



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1
1A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the
EconomicInterests of the Life Science IndustryChristoph ThenGreenpeace
– GermanyPaper presented at the Conference “Agricultural Biotechnology
in Developing Countries:Towards Optimizing the Benefits for the Poor”
organized by ZEF and ISAAA incollaboration with AgrEvo and DSE in
Bonn, 15-16 November 1999.IntroductionDiscussion on genetic
engineering’s contribution to securing the world’s food supply
turnsmainly on particular cases and new high-yield varieties. On this
basis it is explained thatgenetic engineering is able to provide
specific technical solutions to the problems of worldfood. But genetic
engineering and the Life Science companies have a much more
far-reaching and systematic influence on the world’s food supply than
can be seen from isola-ted cases.Experts talk of the development of
genetic engineering in the sphere of plant cultivationbeing not
“technology driven” but “market driven”. In other words, what decides
in favourof the use of genetic engineering is in many cases not
special technological demands butgeneral considerations of market
strategy. Under the heading “Industrial strategies andconstraints”, it
says in the OECD’s report on Biotechnology, Agriculture and Food
(1992,overview section 9): “The main focus of attention in this sector
has been the reorganisationof the seed market, leading to greater
integration with the agrochemicals sector ... Amongthe marketing
strategies for new products, the traditional gene technology suppier
optionhas become vulnerable and is giving way to the strategy of
controlling seed markets, or,more importantly, the strategy of moving
further downstream into crop output markets, inorder to capture the
industrial value added.”Genetic engineering is becoming increasingly
detached from its real scientific contextsinto being an instrument for
opening up markets across the whole area of food production.Patent
rights have resulted in biological resources being put in a quite new
context. As soonas genetic engineering is used, patents enable
monopolistic claims – which in many casesstretch all the way from
planting in fields to selling in supermarkets – to be
successfullymade. The manipulated gene implanted becomes built-in
copyright protection reaching farbeyond its actual technical
contribution and covering seeds, crops, agricultural cultivationand
foodstuffs. Genetic engineering serves as a vehicle for implementing
new monopolisticarrangements.Capitalisation and concentration of the
seed marketIn 1998 sixty per cent of the world’s market for seeds was
controlled by just 35 companies(there are a total of some 1,500). The
McKinsey business-consultancy firm in 1997 statedthat, of the more
than thirty seed cultivation companies active in genetic engineering
in1990, only seven big companies still remained.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
2In future the seed market will play a still more important role in
market strategy becauseof patenting. Genetic engineering,
capitalisation and monopolisation go hand in hand.Financially strong
agrochemical and food companies will divide the seed market
betweenthemselves at will and without great effort. The seed sector
will become an integral part ofthe Life Science industry. From the
point of view of agrochemical interests thisdevelopment is a strategic
necessity. The world market volume for agrochemicals amountsto about
28 billion US dollars. The volume for seeds is estimated at 30-50
billion dollars,but only about a third of this is at present actually
traded through markets. When this iscompared to the agrochemicals
branch, there is thus enormous potential for growth here.If forecasts
predicting a worldwide shortage of food in the near future prove
correct,strategies which enable access to the world’s food resources
will acquire a quite newweight.A fierce struggle for shares in the
markets of the future began long ago. One of thecentral means of
gaining large market shares is the patent. It destroys functioning
legal sys-ems and the protection of varieties, and secures access to
agriculture for foreign economicinterests with capital.The great
merger rushThe struggle for the best market positions is already far
advanced. The Monsanto company,in particular, has been buying up all
kinds of firms. Calgene (tomatoes with delayed ripen-ing, sustainable
raw materials, cotton) and the Agracetus company (patents on
soybeans,rice and cotton) were bought up in 1995, and in 1996 a merger
was made with DeKalbSeeds (one of the biggest seed companies).
Holden’s Foundation Seed, a strategicallyimportant company in the seed
market generally on account of its collaboration with one ofthe
world’s biggest crop-seed producers, Pioneer Hi-Bred, was bought up
for a billiondollars in 1997. In 1998 DeKalb was bought up wholesale
for 2.3 billion dollars, and Mon-santo also bought shares in the
multinational seed company, Cargill, for 1.4 billion dollars.In
1997/98 Monsanto spent a total of eight billion dollars – equivalent
to the whole of thecompany’s turnover during these years – on
acquisitions. This made Monsanto the world’ssecond largest seed
company, and it now controls over 80 per cent of the US market
forcotton, 33 per cent of that for soybeans, and 15 per cent of the
corn market (RAFI SeedCompany chart, July/August 1998). To get
acceptance from the US anti-trust authorities forits acquistion of the
Delta & Pine company, Monsanto in 1999 had to sell its own
cottonsubsidiary, Stoneville.Monsanto’s biggest competitor is the
world’s biggest multinational seed corporation,Pioneer Hi-Bred.
Pioneer Hi-Bred controls large parts of the international market,
especi-ally in soybeans and corn. After DuPont had paid 1.7 billion
dollars for a 20 per cent sharein the company in 1997, it was taken
over altogether by DuPont for 7.7 billion dollars in1999.The European
market is also feverishly merging. The AgrEvo company, a merger
be-tween the agricultural sections at Schering and Hoechst, bought the
PGS (Plant GeneticSystems) company for 800 million German marks. The
giant corporations of Ciba Geigyand Sandoz celebrated their marriage
in 1996, when the Novartis company came into being.The dowry included
a comprehensive patent on genetically modified corn. In the
pesticidessector the US company, Merck, was acquired by Novartis for
1.5 billion marks in 1997. In1997/98 Novartis was the third biggest
seed company in the world.The development of Monsanto and Novartis and
the merger between DuPont and Pio-neer Hi-Bread clearly show the
agrochemical companies, in particular, are expanding in theseed
market.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
3Systematic acquisition of agricultural plantsMost of the plants we
use have their origin in the countries of the South. The history of
ouragricultural plants is closely interwoven with the North’s
colonisation and its systematicforays through the centres of
biological diversity.1The application of genetic engineering and
patenting puts this on a new scale. Somecompanies are working
systematically to analyse the genetic make-up of those varietiesmost
frequently used in the world. Pioneer Hi-Bred, one of the biggest
cultivators of plantsin the world, has, for example, concluded a
contract worth over 16 million dollars with theHuman Genome Science
databank for analysis of the genetic material in corn. The resultsof
this collaboration are of course to be protected in patenting law. The
cooperative agreements below, the aim of which is to analyse, evaluate
and patentthe maximum possible genetic material of the plants
involved, were made betweenagrochemical firms and genome-analysis
institutes in 1998 alone (data from NatureBiotechnology, vol. 16,
Sept. 1998).• AgrEvo and Gene Logic (exclusive 3-year contract for 45
million dollars)• DuPont and CuraGen• Novartis and Nadi (600 million
dollars to be invested over ten years)• Zeneca and Alanex• Monsanto
and InCyte PharmaceuticalsAgrEvo, DuPont, Novartis, Zeneca and
Monsanto are among the ten biggest agro-chemical and seed companies in
the world. Their activities and cooperative agreementsaffect the
countries of origin of the varities of plants involved as much as they
do countriesin the northern hemisphere.These companies are at present
striving increasingly to gain direct control of the seedmarket in
developing countries. Having gained the cooperation of the reputable
IndianInstitute of Sciences in Bangalore, Monsanto in 1998 bought the
biggest public seed-growing company in India, Mahyco. One reason
control of this seed market is economi-cally significant is that 80
per cent of sowing in Asia, Africa and South America is done byfarmers
re-using their own harvest. A study made in the Netherlands by the
Rabobank putsthe total world market for seeds at 45 billion dollars.
Only about 15 billion dollars of this isseed that is commercially
traded.2Patent protection can to a very large extent put an end
tore-sowing, i.e. farmers using their own crops. In addition, plants’
natural reproductiveability can be blocked by genetic changes, thus
making it biologically impossible forfarmers to re-sow their own
crops. The US company, Delta & Pine, which was bought upby Monsanto in
1998, has registered a patent to this end in Europe (WO96/04393);
this“Terminator” seed has been heavily attacked internationally from
many sides. Whether it bethe result of licensing contracts, the
“Terminator” technology or the increased use of hybridseeds, the
effect on farmers is the same – every year they have to buy their seed
anew.China, Brazil, Mexico, Morocco, India and Pakistan are regarded
as major markets for theexpansion of trade in commercial seed.1see
Michel Flitner, Sammler, Räuber und Gelehrte, die politischen
Interessen an pflanzengenetischenRessourcen 1895-1995, Campus Verlag,
19952see Saatgut, Buko Agrardossier 20, Schmetterling Verlag, 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
4Biopiracy a new form of colonialismVandana Shiva, an Indian
scientist, author and Alternative Nobel Prize winner ofinternational
repute, is one of the major critics of this development. “Since
colonial times,”she says3, “land, resources and people’s rights in
developing countries have been usurpedby the colonial masters. Today
this process is taking place more subtly. The northernhemisphere’s
multinational corporations are trying to obtain exclusive rights to
the ThirdWorld’s biodiversity and the genetic resources of its plant
life. They are seeking to expand“Intellectual Property Rights” through
institutions like GATT, in what is in effect mono-polising ideas and
debasing the knowledge of people in the Third World. IPR are the key
toabsolute possession and control of the Third World’s resources and
markets.”Unequal weaponsFavouring the industrialised countries of the
North, patent law lays down what innovationis, what intellectual
property rights are recognised, and who will profit in the hunt
for“green gold”. Only what is discovered in a laboratory is protected
under patent law. Know-ledge collectively acquired, and the
innovations connected with it, e.g. the preservation ofadapted
agricultural varieties, on the other hand, remain unprotected.Patent
law can, for financial and legal reasons, also be easily controlled by
companiesoperating internationally. Patents can be registered for a
hundred countries all at once(“world patents”, which are processed at
the European Patent Office). Effectivelyregistering patents is on the
other hand almost impossible for farmers, or those withmedical
training, in developing or newly industrialised countries. About 90
per cent of thepatents issued in the countries of the Third World
belong to companies which have theirhead offices in industrialised
countries.4The extent of genetic engineering corporations’ patents can
be seen, by way ofillustration, from the Monsanto company’s patent (EP
546 090) on herbicide-resistant soy-beans. This applies to genetically
modified plants which have been made resistant to thecompany’s own
weed-killer, Roundup (glyphosate). The following kinds of plant are
listed:“corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton, sugar-beet, oilseed rape,
canola, flax, sunflower,potato, tobacco, tomato, lucerne, poplar,
pine, apple and grape”. The patent also applies toagricultural
cultivation of the plants. “Planting these ... glyphosate-tolerant
plants” is alsopatented, as is “applying an adequate amount of
glyphosate herbicide to agricultural plantsand weeds”.Impacts of
genetic engineeringAn assessment of the impact of genetic engineering
on world food must take a number ofaspects into account:• in its
scientific methodology, plant cultivation is increasingly oriented not
on diversityof varieties or species but on specific genes• the loss of
agrarian diversity, the advancing “genetic erosion” which has been
able to beobserved for decades now• the reduction of the biological
diversity still remaining to economically taxable geneticresources•
the ousting of traditional farming cultures and regionally organised
systems by global-ised markets3translated back from the German in
booklet put out by Kein Patent auf Leben4Süd Magazin 3/1997,
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Swissaid/Fastenopfer/Brot für
alle/Helvetas/Caritas, Bern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
5• the debasement of innovations in cultivation through copyrights
like patents whichreward only what is “discovered” in industrial
laboratories• the increasing monopolisation of the whole sphere of
food production from seeds tosupermarketsSince genetic engineering
means completely transforming and in part destroying
existinginfrastructures and forms of innovation and knowledge, it is
in a special sense a hazardoustechnology. The hazards lie not only in
new risks for consumers and the environment, butin the world’s food
becoming increasingly dependent on the economic goals of a
smallhandful of corporations.

  #2   Report Post  
Old 01-10-2003, 05:02 PM
Peter Ashby
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science

In article m,
"" wrote:

This is the html version of the file
http://www.zef.de/download/biotech/a_then.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we
crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...nload/biotech/
a_then.pdf+glyphosate+danger&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to
control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it.
However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does
it present real risks associated with release of this technology into
the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful.
This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product
on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have.

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.
  #3   Report Post  
Old 01-10-2003, 11:13 PM
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science


"Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is
snipped...
/ This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to
control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it.
However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does
it present real risks associated with release of this technology into
the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful.
This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product
on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have.


But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial
crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go
to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of
those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To
think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to
me.
Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it
frogcorn? :-)

--
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.


  #4   Report Post  
Old 01-10-2003, 11:32 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:07:38 +0100, "Cob Nobden"
wrote:


"Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is
snipped...
/ This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to
control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it.
However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does
it present real risks associated with release of this technology into
the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful.
This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product
on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have.


But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial
crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go
to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of
those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To
think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to
me.
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.
. . . . . . . .





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!
  #5   Report Post  
Old 02-10-2003, 06:44 AM
Derek Moody
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science

In article m,
URL:mailto:@.MISSING-HOST-NAME. wrote:

Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible
for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: glyphosate danger


Pete, You -like- google so why not use it to read our response to the last
time you trolled your trumped up glyphosate scare? You'll find all the
answers there.

Cheerio,

--


http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/




  #6   Report Post  
Old 02-10-2003, 07:56 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
...

"Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is
snipped...
/ This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to
control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it.
However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does
it present real risks associated with release of this technology into
the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful.
This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product
on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have.


But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial
crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to

go
to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of
those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To
think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling

to
me.


but you will already been eating large amounts of stuff which has been
reared using GM soya (all that cheap brazilian chicken in ready meals
(obviously I am not accusing you of being so lacking in taste as to eat a
ready meal, I use the word 'you' in a very casual sense) and gm derived corn
syrup is in large amounts of product.Indeed the cardboard package may well
include gm corn starch.

And with the CAP reforms cutting the level of EU food output and the rest of
the world growing more GM, the population of the EU will eat more GM
Jim Webster


  #7   Report Post  
Old 02-10-2003, 09:41 AM
Tumbleweed
 
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
...

"Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is
snipped...
/ This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to
control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it.
However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does
it present real risks associated with release of this technology into
the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful.
This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product
on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have.


But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial
crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to

go
to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of
those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To
think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling

to
me.
Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it
frogcorn? :-)


Many of the genes in a frog are in you and the non GM sweetcorn anyway.
If there is a gene in you which is also in sweetcorn (there are), does that
make you sweetcorn?

--
Tumbleweed

Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)




  #8   Report Post  
Old 02-10-2003, 09:41 AM
Tumbleweed
 
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
...

"Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is
snipped...
/ This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to
control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it.
However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does
it present real risks associated with release of this technology into
the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful.
This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product
on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have.


But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial
crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to

go
to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of
those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To
think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling

to
me.
Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it
frogcorn? :-)


Many of the genes in a frog are in you and the non GM sweetcorn anyway.
If there is a gene in you which is also in sweetcorn (there are), does that
make you sweetcorn?

--
Tumbleweed

Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)




  #9   Report Post  
Old 02-10-2003, 09:41 AM
Tumbleweed
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science

wrote in message
s.com...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:07:38 +0100, "Cob Nobden"
wrote:


"Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is
snipped...
/ This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to
control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it.
However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does
it present real risks associated with release of this technology into
the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful.
This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each

product
on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have.


But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM

trial
crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to

go
to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of
those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away.

To
think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling

to
me.
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...

--
Tumbleweed

Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)




  #10   Report Post  
Old 02-10-2003, 09:41 AM
Tumbleweed
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science

wrote in message
s.com...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:07:38 +0100, "Cob Nobden"
wrote:


"Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is
snipped...
/ This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to
control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it.
However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does
it present real risks associated with release of this technology into
the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful.
This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each

product
on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have.


But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM

trial
crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to

go
to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of
those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away.

To
think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling

to
me.
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...

--
Tumbleweed

Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)






  #11   Report Post  
Old 02-10-2003, 10:04 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:15:30 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:

wrote in message
ws.com...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:07:38 +0100, "Cob Nobden"
wrote:


"Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is
snipped...
/ This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to
control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it.
However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does
it present real risks associated with release of this technology into
the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful.
This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each

product
on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have.

But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM

trial
crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to

go
to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of
those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away.

To
think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling

to
me.
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...


That post was not mine, it was forged by derek moody aka M saunby aka
T N Nurse the notorious troll.

Apologies if the original author actually thought it was me.



. . . . . . . .





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!
  #12   Report Post  
Old 02-10-2003, 05:32 PM
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science


"Tumbleweed" wrote in message after me...

But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM

trial
crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed

to
go
to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of
those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away.

To
think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is

appalling
to
me.
Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it
frogcorn? :-)


Many of the genes in a frog are in you and the non GM sweetcorn anyway.
If there is a gene in you which is also in sweetcorn (there are), does

that
make you sweetcorn?


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.
--
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.







  #13   Report Post  
Old 02-10-2003, 05:42 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
...

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message after me...

But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM

trial
crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed

to
go
to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control

of
those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles

away.
To
think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is

appalling
to
me.
Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is

it
frogcorn? :-)


Many of the genes in a frog are in you and the non GM sweetcorn anyway.
If there is a gene in you which is also in sweetcorn (there are), does

that
make you sweetcorn?


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.


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

Franz


  #14   Report Post  
Old 02-10-2003, 05:42 PM
Oz
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science

Bob Hobden writes

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.


--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.
  #15   Report Post  
Old 02-10-2003, 05:42 PM
W K
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science


"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.

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


I imagine.




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 11:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017