Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world'

2 views
Skip to first unread message

David Kendra

unread,
Jan 16, 2001, 6:21:53 PM1/16/01
to

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=004169176849937&rtmo=kCoqJLAp&atmo=rrrrrrrq
&pg=/et/01/1/16/nrice16.html

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world'

The Daily Telegraph
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
16 January 2001

THE best hope of feeding the world lies in genetically modified crops
because organic and other "sustainable" farming methods would not be able
to do the job, a conference at St James's Palace was told yesterday.

Professor Jules Pretty, of Essex University, an expert on organic farming
and "sustainable" agricultural methods, said it would be difficult to
tackle the malnutrition facing 800 million people without using
developments such as genetically modified rice with added vitamin A.

Professor Pretty, organiser of the conference on reducing poverty through
sustainable farming, said it was difficult to see how UN targets of
reducing world malnutrition by 2015 could be achieved without embracing
such technology.

He said: "Vitamin A rice will make a hell of a difference because these
people are suffering today and we can make a difference right away. It's
all very well to call for nice diverse diets but it will take us 20 years
to get there."

Dr Per Pinstrup-Andersen, of the International Food Policy Research
Institute in Washington, said a way of dealing most immediately with the
malnutrition facing the world's poor was to breed vitamin A and iron into
the foods they ate anyway.

George Baxter

unread,
Jan 17, 2001, 12:09:14 PM1/17/01
to
David,

Thanks for that one. An extra point that in not mentioned in the article
is that golden rice, the vitamin enriched rice, will be free of patent
and extra charges. A real poke in the eye for the those who put around
the misinformation that gm is expensive and only the corporations will
benefit.
--
George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net

Mr. Snappy

unread,
Jan 17, 2001, 12:40:37 PM1/17/01
to
I heard on the radio yesterday that the average serving of this rice
will meet 1% of their daily Vitamin A needs. I haven't verified that,
so I'm not speaking authoritatively on that (yet). Although the idea
of the golden rice is good, it has problems. Supposedly it will
take years to get this to the people that need it; in the meantime,
the millions that have been spent on developing this rice could
have been spent on supplements. I also firmly believe golden
rice is the trojan horse to gain gm acceptance, in lieu of true
scientific testing and discourse on this issue. Do we like seeing
children starve or have Vitamin A deficiency? It's like asking
who's in favor of breast cancer. The question is, how do we go
about doing it, and do corporations have ulterior motives that
should legitimately be questioned.

"George Baxter" <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>
wrote in message news:3A65D1BA...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...

gcouger

unread,
Jan 17, 2001, 4:57:46 PM1/17/01
to

"Mr. Snappy" <supportthecoup@gwislegitimate___yeahright.com> wrote in
message news:t6bmalj...@corp.supernews.com...
: I heard on the radio yesterday that the average serving of this rice

: will meet 1% of their daily Vitamin A needs. I haven't verified that,
: so I'm not speaking authoritatively on that (yet). Although the idea
: of the golden rice is good, it has problems. Supposedly it will
: take years to get this to the people that need it; in the meantime,
: the millions that have been spent on developing this rice could
: have been spent on supplements. I also firmly believe golden
: rice is the trojan horse to gain gm acceptance, in lieu of true
: scientific testing and discourse on this issue. Do we like seeing
: children starve or have Vitamin A deficiency? It's like asking
: who's in favor of breast cancer. The question is, how do we go
: about doing it, and do corporations have ulterior motives that
: should legitimately be questioned.

It doesn't take the any where near the full recommend daylily allowance to
prevent the worst problems of vitamin A deficiency. I don't know how the
RDA is set now the way is was set in the 60's was to take the amount that
showed no more increase in performance in a pigs ration and double it. I
think we have better data today but not a great deal. There is no way to
measure the intake of vitamins in humans or evaluate the results. When
vitamin deficiencies are found the standard treatment is to give them a
whole bunch in a hurry. A little bit over a long period of time won't be a
total cure but it will be a lot better than being blind.
--
Gordon W5RED
G. C. Couger gco...@provlue.net Stillwater, OK


Mr. Snappy

unread,
Jan 17, 2001, 5:18:59 PM1/17/01
to

"gcouger" <gco...@NoXSPAM.mercury.rfdata.net> wrote in message
news:Pyo96.4087$d25....@newsfeed.slurp.net...

I, along with many others I'm sure, hope that this golden rice
does offer benefits (without unintended allergic or other negative
problems), and can be deployed to help the people that need it.
However, it certainly looks to me like a cynical tactic to shift
the focus of the debate about whether gm foods are safe and
offer true benefits to how can you not want to help these children.


woodpecker

unread,
Jan 17, 2001, 10:46:50 PM1/17/01
to
My understanding why the environmentalists are against golden rice is
because if golden rice becomes widespread in asia a lot of children who
now die of vitamin A deficiency will survive and that will make the
world more crowded and generally the more crowded the world gets the
more the environment degrades.

Woodpecker

dwhe...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 2:54:06 AM1/18/01
to
In article <lI496.553$0u3.1...@news7.onvoy.net>,
Recently The Oregonian ran an article on rice blast in Yunnan Province of
China. Seems the Chinese have gone back to an older method of controlling
disease without GM: they are using two strains, planted in rows across
most of their fields. If the rice blast (anyone know what this actually
is?) hits one strain, the other strain buffers the outbreak. Article
claimed the change in agricultural planting has nearly eradicated the
problem.

That kind of begs the question: which is better, GM rice or a different
planting strategy?

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Soren Dayton

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 3:04:36 AM1/18/01
to
dwhe...@my-deja.com writes:

> Recently The Oregonian ran an article on rice blast in Yunnan Province of
> China. Seems the Chinese have gone back to an older method of controlling
> disease without GM: they are using two strains, planted in rows across
> most of their fields. If the rice blast (anyone know what this actually
> is?) hits one strain, the other strain buffers the outbreak. Article
> claimed the change in agricultural planting has nearly eradicated the
> problem.
>
> That kind of begs the question: which is better, GM rice or a different
> planting strategy?

This was also discussed in the NY Times this summer. The yield was
higher with this planting strategy and WITHOUT any pesticides or
herbicides than with these chemicals but without the strategy.

From the point of view of large industrialization of things like this,
the fields become hard to harvest by machine.

Soren

Oz

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 4:02:08 AM1/18/01
to
wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001

>Seems the Chinese have gone back to an older method of controlling
>disease without GM: they are using two strains, planted in rows across
>most of their fields. If the rice blast (anyone know what this actually
>is?) hits one strain, the other strain buffers the outbreak. Article
>claimed the change in agricultural planting has nearly eradicated the
>problem.
>
>That kind of begs the question: which is better, GM rice or a different
>planting strategy?

Perhaps the fact that the chinese are spending vast amounts on GM
croplines many of which are already in use, gives you your answer?

--
Oz

Oz

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 3:50:20 AM1/18/01
to
Mr. Snappy wrote on Wed, 17 Jan 2001

>
>I, along with many others I'm sure, hope that this golden rice
>does offer benefits (without unintended allergic or other negative
>problems), and can be deployed to help the people that need it.
>However, it certainly looks to me like a cynical tactic to shift
>the focus of the debate about whether gm foods are safe and
>offer true benefits to how can you not want to help these children.

Maybe, however it does introduce a whiff of rationality into the
argument, which is to be applauded.

--
Oz

Chive Mynde

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 4:31:38 AM1/18/01
to
In article <lI496.553$0u3.1...@news7.onvoy.net>,
"David Kendra" <dke...@mr.net> wrote:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?
ac=004169176849937&rtmo=kCoqJLAp&atmo=rrrrrrrq
> &pg=/et/01/1/16/nrice16.html
>
> GM rice 'best hope of feeding world'
>
> The Daily Telegraph
> By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
> 16 January 2001
>
> THE best hope of feeding the world lies in genetically modified crops
> because organic and other "sustainable" farming methods would not be
able
> to do the job, a conference at St James's Palace was told yesterday.

This is PURE corporate propaganda, disinformation, and total and
complete bullshit.

"If anyone tells you that GM is going to feed the world," Steve Smith,
a director of the world's biggest biotechnology company,
Novartis, insisted, "tell them that it is not... To feed the world
takes political and financial will - it's not about
production and distribution."

Studies Show Organic & Sustainable Farms Can Best Feed the World

THE GUARDIAN (U.K.)

Thursday August 24, 2000

Biotech Has Bamboozled Us All:
Studies Suggest That Traditional Farming Methods Are
Still The Best

George Monbiot

The advice could scarcely have come from a more surprising source. "If
anyone tells you that GM is going to feed the world," Steve Smith, a
director of the world's biggest biotechnology company,
Novartis, insisted, "tell them that it is not... To feed the world
takes political and financial will - it's not about
production and distribution."

Mr Smith was voicing a truth which most of his colleagues in
biotechnology companies have gone to great lengths to deny.
On a planet wallowing in surfeit, people starve because they
have neither the land on which to grow food for themselves nor
the money with which to buy it. There is no question that, as the
population increases, the world will have to grow more, but if
this task is left to the rich and powerful - big farmers and big
business - then, irrespective of how much is grown, people will
become progressively hungrier. Only a redistribution of land and wealth
can save the world from mass starvation.

But in one respect Mr Smith is wrong. It is, in part, about
production. A series of remarkable experiments has shown that
the growing techniques which his company and many others have
sought to impose upon the world are, in contradiction to
everything we have been brought up to believe, actually less
productive than some of the methods developed by traditional
farmers over the past 10,000 years.

Last week, Nature magazine reported the results of one of the
biggest agricultural experiments ever conducted. A team of Chinese
scientists had tested the key principle of modern rice-growing
(planting a single, hi-tech variety across hundreds of hectares)
against a much older technique (planting several breeds in one field).

They found, to the astonishment of the farmers who had been drilled for
years in the benefits of "monoculture", that reverting to the old
method resulted in spectacular increases in yield. Rice blast - a
devastating fungus which normally requires repeated applications of
poison to control - decreased by 94%. The farmers planting a
mixture of strains were able to stop applying their poisons
altogether, while producing 18% more rice per acre than they were
growing before.

Another paper, published in Nature two years ago, showed that yields of
organic maize are identical to yields of maize grown with fertilisers
and pesticides, while soil quality in the organic fields dramatically
improves. In trials in Hertfordshire, wheat grown with manure has
produced higher yields for the past 150 years than wheat grown with
artificial nutrients.

Professor Jules Pretty of Essex University has shown how farmers in
India, Kenya, Brazil, Guatemala and Honduras have doubled or tripled
their yields by switching to organic or semi-organic techniques.

A study in the US reveals that small farms growing a wide range of
plants can produce 10 times as much money per acre as big farms
growing single crops. Cuba, forced into organic farming by the
economic blockade, has now adopted this as policy, having discovered
that it improves both the productivity and the quality of its crops.

Hi-tech farming, by contrast, is sowing ever graver problems. This
year, food production in Punjab and Haryana, the Indian states long
celebrated as the great success stories of modern, intensive
cultivation, has all but collapsed.

The new crops the farmers there have been encouraged to grow demand
farmore water and nutrients than the old ones, with the result that, in
many places, both the ground water and the soil have been
exhausted.

We have, in other words, been deceived. Traditional farming has
been stamped out all over the world not because it is less productive
than monoculture, but because it is, in some respects, more productive.
Organic cultivation has been characterised as an enemy of progress for
the simple reason that it cannot be monopolised: it can be adopted by
any farmer anywhere, without the help of multinational companies.
Though it is more productive to grow several species or several
varieties of crops in one field, the biotech companies must
reduce diversity in order to make money, leaving farmers with no choice
but to purchase their most profitable seeds. This is why they have
spent the last 10 years buying up seed breeding institutes and lobbying
governments to do what ours has done: banning the sale of any seed
which has not been officially - and expensively -
registered and approved.

All this requires an unrelenting propaganda war against the tried and
tested techniques of traditional farming, as the big companies and
their scientists dismiss them as unproductive, unsophisticated and
unsafe. The truth, so effectively suppressed that it is now
almost impossible to believe, is that organic farming is the key to
feeding the world.

g.mo...@zetnet.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
When you take away all the "modern" chemical agricultural methods, and
mechanize the organic production process, there
will be more than enough food for everyone on the planet and
the food will be safer, the farm workers will be healthier, the
consumer will be protected from pesticide poisoning, and the
environment will be protected from industiral chemical polluters.

Organic hydroponics offer a better alternative to chemical
nutrient mixes.

1. Chemical fertilizers, especially when heavily applied, tend
to strip soils of beneficial organisms, from earthworms to
bacteria. Organic fertilizers not only feed the plant roots,
but also the community of organisms in which they live. Organic
methods generally improve soil texture, long-term fertility and
water retention characteristics.

2. Water run off from chemically fertilized fields is
increasingly recognized as presenting an environmental danger
(eutrophication) to surface and ground water supplies and to
downstream ecosystems. The buildup of toxic salts in some soils is
another potential drawback to chemical cultivation.

3. The non-availability and increasing cost of inorganic salts
and compounds make organics, at least as a supplemental measure, an
attractive option for some applications. This is especially
true of lesser developed regions where the choice is often made
between expensive chemical fertilizers, and cheap or free
indigenous substitutes. (What was that BS Minatti was spouting
about organics and mass starvation? It's the other way around!)

The closed nature of most hydroponic systems and the ability to
efficiently deliver plant nutrients can drastically reduce the
cost of fertilizer inputs per unit of production, while at the
same time protecting rivers and streams.

Other reasons to go organic include:

a. Flavor and appearance
b. More nutritious
c. Superior produce fetches higher price in season or out
d. The future of organic hydroponics is bright

In a 1985 supplement to his book "Advanced Guide to
Hydroponics," James Sholto Douglas notes that organic
hydroponics systems have been producing successful crops in
several Third World countries for decades.

This evidence directly contradicts Gordon Couger's unsubstantiated
claims.

On the Indian subcontinent where inexpensive labor and cheap
natural fertilizers make the practice profitable, organic
hydroponics approaches an art. Through an advocate of chemical
hydroculture, Douglas admits that the (organic) systems allow
the people of these areas to reap many of the benefits of
hydroponics - the efficient use of resources, especially land
and water - without expending precious capital on imported
chemicals.

Compiled from a longer article by Don Parker.

"The reason 800 million people go hungry today is not that there
isn't enough food in the world, but that they can't afford to buy it.
It is not lack of resources that makes people poor today, Sagoff
argues. It's bad government. He points to Angola, a resource-rich
country too wracked by civil war to exploit its wealth, and Russia,
comparable to the United States in natural resources and intellectual
capital but impoverished by the legacy of communism."

CORPORATE AGRIBUSINESS INDEX

Acoording to USDA figures compiled by Daniel Wood, Christian Science
Monitor:
*Nearly 20% of the world's food now comes from city-based farms,
averaging anywhere from one to 20 acres.
* The average distance between food in the field and the dining room
where it is eaten is 1,500 miles.
* Refrigerating, transporting, and storing this food causes an
expenditure of energy eight times greater than the value of the food
itself.
* In terms of calories, it takes eight calories of energy to produce
and deliver one calorie of food 1,500 miles.
* Spinach and other green leafy vegetables can lose as much as 50% of
their nutrients in five days.

* * *

According to Business Week's annual survey:
* U.S. executive pay in 1999 continued to grow at an out-of-this-world
rate, the average CEO of a major corporation made $12.4 million in
1999, up 17% from the previous year or 475 times more than an average
blue-collar worker and six times the average CEO paycheck in 1990. *
American companies are paying CEOs better than anywhere else in the
world, not 10% or 20% more, but 1,000 percent more and then some. *
According to Towers Perrin's 1999 Worldwide Total Remuneration report,
German CEOs make 13 times what the average manufacturing employee makes
and in Japan, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio is just 11-to-1.

* * *

Preliminary data from Thomson Financial Securities Data reports that: *
Mergers and acquisitions worldwide surpassed $3.4 trillion in 2000
ekeing out a 3.5% increase over 1999's total and producing, the eighth
consecutive record year for the continuing M&A expansion.
* With three (weekend) days to go before 2000 drew to a close, total
volume of M&A deals announced around the world reached $3.409 trillion,
compared with $3.293 trillion in 1999.
* In the U.S., announced mergers managed to rack up a total of $1.766
trillion, up 12.9% over 1999's total of $1.564 trillion. While the
increase reversed a 3% decline in U.S. merger volume the previous year,
the total number of announced U.S. deals fell to 10,658 from 11,042 ---
the second straight year in recent memory the number has dropped.

* * *

USDA figures show that:
* U.S. fruit production fell 10% in 1999, declining for the second
consecutive year.
* Between 1992 and 1997, the number of U.S. farms with land set aside
for orchards and vineyards declined by nearly 10,000, or 13.5%, to
106,069.
* The state with the largest loss was California, where nearly 2,300
farms disappeared as the number of acres devoted to fruit production
increased.

* * *

FARM PRICE SQUEEZE
Farmers get only a fraction of the price consumers pay for produce.

Price spread to farmers.
Item Price paid Retail price
(Los Angeles)
Carrots (1-pound bag) $0.16 $0.49 206%
Potatoes (10-pound bag) $0.64 $1.91 198%
Tomatoes (per pound) $0.57 $2.22 289%
Iceberg lettuce (each) $0.43 $0.99 130%

SOURCE: Western Growers Association. Week ending November 17, 2000

* * *

* USDA has overestimated the amount of farm land that was developed
between 1992 and 1997 by 30% and blamed faulty software for the
mistake. It initially reported that nearly 16 million acres of farm
land were converted to development between 1992 and 1997 --- a rate of
3.2 million per year. The correct figure is 11.2 million acres, a
development rate of 2.2 million acres per year.
* Between 1982 and 1992, the annual conversion rate was 1.4 million
acres a year.
* The U.S. had 98 million acres of developed land in 1997, about 6.6%
of the nation's non-federal land.
* About 25% of the non-federal land is farmed. More than half is in
rangeland or forests.

http://www.ea1.com/CARP
http://www.ea1.com/tiller/
--
"Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu
at the same time. I think I've forgotten
this before. " - Steven Wright

Oz

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 5:25:49 AM1/18/01
to
Soren Dayton wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001

>
>From the point of view of large industrialization of things like this,
>the fields become hard to harvest by machine.

Providing similar maturity varieties are used this is not a problem.
Mixed varietal seed has been used in both trials and on farms in the UK
on and off for years. The problem was that it offered very little
advantage and although disease levels were slighly less this didn't
translate into higher yields and generally gave lower yields because
invariably one of the varieties (usually the disease resistant one) was
significantly lower yielding.

In wheat and barley, certainly in the UK, there are NO immune varieties
for any disease. It' quite common for varieties with a resistance score
of 9 (best) to be more infected than lower resistance varieties due to
the number of fungal strains and competition between fungal pathogens.

Untreated yields are typically 20-30% less than treated yields even if
you take the best of the most resistant varieties vs the best treated
variety. I have seen trials giving over 50% yield DROP for untreated
varieties (fungicides only).

If UK farmers could get comparable yields using untreated crops using no
fungicide and varietal mixes then the whole country would rapidly drop
treatment and go for it. Unfortunately we are very very far from being
able to do this.

--
Oz

gcouger

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 6:52:04 AM1/18/01
to

<dwhe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9467et$id6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
: In article <lI496.553$0u3.1...@news7.onvoy.net>,: > &pg=/et/01/1/16/nrice16.html
:
What about GM rice and a different planting strategy. There is noting
keeping that from happening with most GM varieties just the ones that are
herbicide resistant.

I have intermixed cotton varieties not for any agronomic benefit but for
field scale yield comparison. I fill the palter boxes so the two varieties
could be harvested separately. The result was a little yield advantage for
one and little quality advantage for the other. It was a push on price.\

Now the SOB that planted a few water melons in with the cotton not
thinking about mechanical harvest was another story.

GM crops can fit in any farming plan. If the organic folks would embrace
it might someday make what the dreamers claim and be able to yield close
to convential crops and have effective insect control. A cotton plant that
worms do bother fits any where in the world and cotton is the number 1
user of insecticides in the world for the very worms that BT controls.

A farmer that is going to stay in business does not say I am a organic,
convential or GM farmer he is just a farmer and uses the tools that work.
He takes some from all that fit his operation. When something new comes
out he will try a test plot. If it looks good h may plant 10% for the crop
to it the first year and progress more and more as he gains confidence in
a crop or a practice. At least the do on this side of the pond. The farmer
in the EU seem to have a closed mind. I might if my objective was to
reduce yields at the rate they are and live off the goverment dole. Those
days are fast going in this country and we are going to have to make it on
our own. Competing against cheap land and labor of Asia and high subsides
of he EU. So I don't have a great deal of sympathy for some of you
problems. I do envy the support you get from you goverment.

George Baxter

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 7:08:55 AM1/18/01
to


Mr Snappy, much of the debate about gmo is bogged down with glib
statements like "I heard on the radio yesterday .." with no verification
or substance. There are many people and organisations who make those
sort of statements. I suggest you cite the source of you information.

The golden rice is underdevelopment and will take years to deploy. But
the WHO have already failed globally to resolve the problem. Most of the
solution was in the form of suppliments. That system has failed. That is
why enriching the food will help. Are nutritionalists always saying eat
more food with vitamin ans minerals?

You can question the motives of any company. Ford, Coca Cola Corp, IBM,
etc. All companies try to make money. It is rediculous to question
motive. But do any companies knowingly and deliberately try to harm
their clients? Hardly. So Why shoud the biotech companies try to produce
harmful goods?
--
George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net

David Kendra

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 7:46:10 AM1/18/01
to

<dwhe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9467et$id6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

Rice blast is caused by the fungus Magnaporthe grisea. Please see
http://ascus.cit.cornell.edu/blastdb/ for more information about this
fungus.

I truly doubt that the measure described in the Oregonian article would
eradicate the rice blast disease. What it will do is select for strains of
the fungus that can overcome the resistance gene(s). Similar strategies
were often used in wheat production to control the folia fungal disease,
leaf rust (Puccinia recondita f. sp. tritici) throughout the world. Now
there are numous races of the fungus.

dk

Oz

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 8:47:28 AM1/18/01
to
David Kendra wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001

>
>I truly doubt that the measure described in the Oregonian article would
>eradicate the rice blast disease. What it will do is select for strains of
>the fungus that can overcome the resistance gene(s). Similar strategies
>were often used in wheat production to control the folia fungal disease,
>leaf rust (Puccinia recondita f. sp. tritici) throughout the world. Now
>there are numous races of the fungus.

I cannot speak for rice but natural resistance to cereal (wheat, barley)
diseases certainly exists and has been, and still is, introduced into
new varieties. Indeed it's one of the major selling points of any
variety.

However these are never very durable at the 'high resistance' level and
usually succumb to a strain of disease that completely overcomes them
within a few years. In fact quite often it's the varieties that have
quite moderate resistance to disease that end up being the most durable.

It is unfortunate that even strains with active resistance still show a
response to fungicides when farmed close to optimal. This is partly
because even very resistant varieties still get the disease (generally
later and less severe) and partly because all varieties have some
disease they are in fact susceptible to.

It's also worth noting that resistance costs the plant. So highly
resistant varieties tend to (always?) have lower yields than less
susceptible varieties.

--
Oz

Tracy Aquilla

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 9:22:49 AM1/18/01
to
dwhe...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Recently The Oregonian ran an article on rice blast in Yunnan Province of
> China. Seems the Chinese have gone back to an older method of controlling
> disease without GM: they are using two strains, planted in rows across
> most of their fields. If the rice blast (anyone know what this actually
> is?) hits one strain, the other strain buffers the outbreak. Article
> claimed the change in agricultural planting has nearly eradicated the
> problem.
>
> That kind of begs the question: which is better, GM rice or a different
> planting strategy?

I cannot see what the example you give above has to do with the GM "golden rice,"
so no, it does not beg the question. Perhaps you are confused, as you appear to
imply that the GM rice under discussion might reasonably be used in an effort to
decrease losses from rice blast disease. However, the GM rice to which David
referred was designed merely to have an enhanced nutritional profile, and not
specifically to resist rice blast disease. So of course, the "golden rice" would
almost certainly not be a better way to manage rice blast than using a different
planting strategy, as described above. But that should be quite obvious to those
who realize that there is a clear difference between rice blast disease in rice
and vitamin A deficiency in humans, particularly in regard to the means by which
these two rather different problems can be addressed.
Tracy

ant

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 12:57:37 AM1/18/01
to

Mr. Snappy wrote in message ...

it is a cynical attempt at Trojan horsing a whole product range into the
market IMO.

for another slant on the subject try

Go To:

http://www.anth.org/ifgene/holdrege.htm


Headline:

One of the casualties of technology-dominated life has been the
tradition of conversation around the dinner table. Whatever words we do
exchange at mealtime are more likely aimed at the minimal coordination
of our centrifugally driven lives than at sustaining the richly
patterned textures of meaning conversation can evoke.

But our abandonment of conversation extends far beyond the dinner table.

Our broader social relations, and also our dialogue with the natural
world, have contracted toward mere informational exchange, leaving us
bereft of larger patterns of meaning. When you lose the shifting,
multiply-focused, metaphoric, and life-supporting qualities of
conversation, what you have left is the attempt – useful as far as it
goes -- to formulate well-behaved problems susceptible to well-defined
solutions. To do this you must employ the narrow, precisely formed
language of manipulation and control – a language we have come near to
perfecting. While this language may offer little in the way of
understanding or meaningful engagement with the other, it does bring
the very real satisfaction of more or less effective power.

If the impressive drive toward effective power has taken special hold
in any one scientific discipline, surely it is genetic engineering. And
if this drive can display beneficent potentials, how better to do it
than by placing a daily bowl of genetically engineered "golden rice" on
the dinner tables of millions of Asian children, thereby saving them
from immense suffering? This hope, many researchers believe, is now
nearing fulfillment. But a full conversation around that envisioned
bowl of rice has yet to occur.

And until it does occur, we will have no means to assess the technical
achievements represented by the bowl. In what follows we venture some
preliminary contributions toward such a conversation.

Beyond Frankenfoods

Transgenic golden rice does not yet fill the bowls of hungry Asian
children. But the possibility that it will is the bright hope of
scientists and biotech companies beaten down by the consumer backlash
against the rapid and largely covert introduction of genetically
modified organisms into global food supplies. The advertisement for
golden rice, widely broadcast, is that it avoids all the pitfalls
associated with the ill-fated "Frankenfoods" that so unsettled the
buying public.

What lends this new, experimental rice its golden color is the presence
of beta-carotene within the part of the kernel – the endosperm – that
remains behind (normally as "white rice") after milling and polishing
(Ye et al. 2000). Beta-carotene is a precursor of vitamin A; the human
body can use it to form the vitamin. This is important because millions
of children, especially in Asia, suffer from vitamin A deficiency,
which can lead to blindness.

By most accounts the virtues of golden rice are many:

It is not the product of profit-seeking biotech companies. The
research, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Swiss government,
and the European Union, was performed at Swiss and German universities.
The researchers stressed that, once the rice proves viable in field
plantings, it will be freely distributed. No patents will block access
to the rice by third-world farmers. (Just recently a slightly revised
version of this promise has emerged: the scientists announced that they
had reached a licensing agreement with the giant pharmaceutical company
AstraZeneca and a smaller German company, Greenovation. The companies
will donate seeds to developing countries and sell seeds to developed
countries. Donated seeds will be distributed to government-run centers
that will pass the seeds on to farmers. As long as the farmers do not
earn more than $10,000 annually from the sale of golden rice, they need
not pay any royalties. See Financial Times, May 16, 20000; Associated
Press, May 16, 2000)
Rice naturally makes beta-carotene and other carotenoids, which are
present throughout the plant – except in the endosperm. The genetic
manipulation producing golden rice is simply designed to extend this
natural production of beta-carotene into an additional part of the
plant.
In her commentary on this research in Science, Dartmouth biologist Mary
Lou Guerinot suggests that the fears of most opponents of genetically
modified foods will be allayed by the new rice (Guerinot 2000). After
all, it's a far cry from transferring fish genes into plants.
Unlike with many of the current genetically modified organisms, golden
rice poses no risk of increased pest resistance to herbicides or
insecticides.
And, of course, the primary virtue of golden rice is its announced
potential for solving problems of hunger and malnutrition in developing
nations. Such a purpose hardly seems gratuitous or grasping. Who could
possibly object? So golden rice, as we now hear the story, looks rather
like a "silver bullet" – a one-shot, almost magical solution to a major
problem. It turns out, however, that the situation is much more complex
than the usual story allows.
The immediate challenge for researchers is to develop hardy strains of
the transgenic rice, and then to convince Asian growers to plant the
new strains. But this is barely to touch upon the conversational
complexities the researchers must negotiate if they wish to enter
constructively into the modern contexts of hunger and malnutrition.
Here, briefly, are a few of the themes that need taking up....

Excerpt:

If They Eat the Rice, Will It Do Them Any Good?

If golden rice replaces white rice in the Asian diet, can we be sure
this will solve the vitamin A deficiency problem? That is, leaving the
social issues aside, will the silver bullet at least strike its
immediate, narrow target? Not necessarily. It is a naive understanding
of nutrition – encouraged by a habit of input-output thinking – that
says you can add a substance to food and the body will automatically
use it. Beta-carotene is fat- soluble and its uptake by the intestines
depends upon fat or oil in the diet (Erdman et al. 1993). White rice
itself does not provide the necessary fats and oils, and poor,
malnourished people usually do not have ample supplies of fat-rich or
oil-rich foods. If they were to eat golden rice without fats or oils,
much of the beta-carotene would pass undigested through the intestinal
tract.

Moreover, fats and also enzymes (which are proteins) enable carotene
and vitamin A to move from the intestines to the liver, where they are
stored. Proteins are bound to the vitamin in the liver, and enzymes are
again required for transport to the different body tissues where the
vitamin is utilized. A person who suffers protein-related malnutrition
and lacks dietary fats and oils will have a disturbed vitamin A
metabolism.

In sum, carotene uptake, vitamin A synthesis, and the distribution and
utilization of vitamin A in the body all depend on what else a person
eats, together with his physiological state. You can't just give people
more carotene and expect results. There is no substitute for a
healthily diverse diet.

Who Will Grow the Golden Rice?

Of the many thousands of rice varieties grown in Asia, most are local
land races. Despite the introduction of high-yielding varieties in the
Green Revolution, Indian farmers still use traditional varieties in
over 58 percent of the rice acreage (Kshirsagar and Pandey 1997). These
varieties serve their desire for different types of rice, while also
providing the diversity needed within local ecological settings. The
number of varieties a farmer grows tends to increase with the
variability of conditions on the farm.

For example, when they don't irrigate, farmers in Cambodia plant
varieties with regard to early, medium, and late flowering and
harvesting dates; eating qualities (such as aroma, softness, expansion,
and shape); potential yield; and cultural practices (Jackson 1995). In
India a farmer might have high, medium, and low terraces for planting.
The low terraces are wetter and prone to flooding; they are planted
with local, long- growing varieties. In contrast, the upper terraces
dry out more rapidly after the rains, so farmers plant them with
drought-resistant, rapidly maturing varieties. Altogether a farmer may
plant up to ten different rice varieties – a picture of diversity and
dynamic relations within a local setting (Kshirsagar and Pandey 1997).

This multiformity has evolved locally and regionally over long periods.

Since the Green Revolution, more and more farmers plant, in addition to
land races, high-yielding varieties. The price they pay for this
progress is dependence on irrigation, fertilizers, and herbicides. The
use of insecticides has become widespread, although they have been
shown to be ineffective (Pingali et al. 1997, chapter 11). (Sometimes
the highest, if also most mindless, recommendation for western,
industrial-style agricultural practices in the third world is that
they're "modern".) The locally evolved land varieties, in contrast,
tend to be more drought- and pest-resistant.

Imagine transgenic golden rice in this context. Currently this rice
exists only in a laboratory variety. The next step is to make
transgenic varieties that can do well under field conditions. Then
large-scale seed production could begin and also interbreeding with
other varieties. If bred into high-yielding varieties, golden rice
would be grown primarily on large, export-oriented farms. In this case
the rice would do little to alleviate Asia's food problems – and, who
knows, it might even end up being exported to America and Europe.

If, on the other hand, the golden rice DNA is introduced into varieties
that small farmers use, then these new, transgenic varieties will be
subject to local practices and conditions. What started out as an
isolated laboratory variety would gradually intermix and change,
probably looking very different in different places. Whether the
genetic alteration would prove stable in the midst of this flux is a
real question. Although no one can say what will happen, one can say:
things will change. It is unrealistic to think you can simply introduce
a new plant and that it will then produce carotene on demand.
Genetically engineered plants are not immune to context.

What Will Rice Make of Its Golden Genes?

The fundamental problem with genetic engineering from the very
beginning has been the absence of anything like an ecological approach.
Genes are not the unilateral "controllers" of the cell's "mechanisms".
Rather, genes enter into a vast and as yet scarcely monitored
conversation with each other and with all the other parts of the cell.
Who it is that speaks through the whole of this conversation – what
unity expresses itself through the entire organism – is a question the
genetic engineers have not yet even raised, let alone begun to answer.

But without an awareness of the organism as a whole, we can hardly
guess the consequences of the most "innocent" genetic modification. The
analogy with ecological studies is a close one. Change one element of
the complex balance – in an ecological setting or within an organism –
and you change everything. It is a notorious truth that our initial
expectations of an altered ecological setting often prove horribly off-
target. And the possibility of improving our discernment depends
directly upon our intimate familiarity with the setting as a whole in
all its minutia and unity.

Certain herbicides kill plants by bleaching them – that is, by
disrupting carotene metabolism and blocking photosynthesis. When
scientists genetically altered tobacco plants to give them herbicide
resistance, some of the plants indeed proved resistant to an array of
herbicides (Misawa et al. 1994). Unexpectedly, however, leaves of the
transgenic plants produced greater amounts of one group of carotenes
and smaller amounts of another group, while the overall carotene
production remained about normal. In some unknown way the genetic
manipulation affected the balance of carotene metabolism, but the plant
as a whole asserted its integrity by keeping the overall production of
carotene constant.

Such unexpected effects are typical, expressing the active, adaptive
nature of organisms. An organism is not a passive container we can fill
up with biotech contrivances. Even when scientists try to change the
narrowest trait of an organism, the organism itself responds and adapts
as a whole.

When tomatoes were engineered for increased carotene production, some
plants did make more carotene, but often in places where they wouldn't
normally produce much of the substance – for instance, in the seeds,
the seed leaves, and the area where the tomato breaks off the stem
(Fray et al. 1995). In addition, the plants produced more and different
kinds of carotene than expected. More surprisingly still, the plants
were dwarfed.

The more carotene a plant produced, the smaller it was. Because a
substance that normally stimulates growth in plants (giberillin A) was
reduced thirty-fold, the scientists assume that the carotene increase
interfered with giberillin production.

This is not an isolated example of how genetic manipulations can affect
the vitality of a plant. In the first successful alterations of rice to
produce precursors of vitamin A, half the transgenic plants were
infertile (Burkhardt et al. 1997). Of course, infertile or markedly
dwarfed plants are left by the wayside, while the researchers select
the most desirable specimens for their breeding stock. But unexpected
effects are not always as apparent as dwarfed tomato plants.

The transgenic golden rice plants were reported to be "phenotypically
normal" (Ye et al. 2000). This statement needs to be read: "no visible
modifications were noted". The researchers evidently didn't undertake a
biochemical analysis of the kernels to see how their overall content
might have changed. What doesn't a golden rice kernel produce as a
result of the plant's breaking down excessive amounts of carotene? What
new substances does it produce? And what are the changed balances among
substances normally present? The more one learns about the flexible and
dynamic nature of organisms – demonstrated so clearly by genetic
engineering experiments themselves – the more one comes to expect the
unexpected and to realize that we cannot know what subtle effects a
manipulation may have.

How many genetic engineers have pondered the remarkable fact that rice,
despite the myriad varieties that have arisen over thousands of years,
never produces carotene in the endosperm of the kernel? The rest of the
above-ground plant makes carotene, and the endosperm should (according
to prevailing conceptions) have the genes that would allow it to
produce carotene. But it never does so. Certainly that should give us
pause to consider what we're doing. Might the excess carotene in the
seed affect in some way the nourishment and growth of a germinating
rice plant? What does it mean to force upon the plant a characteristic
it consistently avoids? Can we claim to be acting responsibly when we
overpower the plant, coercing a performance from it before we
understand the reasons for its natural reticence? Organisms are not
mechanisms that can be altered in a clear-cut, determinate manner. The
fact is that we simply don't know what we're doing when we manipulate
them as if they were such mechanisms. The golden kernels of rice almost
certainly herald much more than a novel supply of beta-carotene.

A Disproportionate Interest in Silver Bullets

We often hear that biotechnology is merely doing what high-yield
breeding, industrial agriculture, and nutritional science have done all
along – but now much more efficiently. In one sense that's exactly
right and also exactly the problem: we don't need more of the same.
What we need is to overcome an epidemic of abstract, technological
thought that conceives solutions in the absence of organic contexts. We
need a refined ability to enhance life's variety rather than destroy
it. And we need to realize that the problems of life and society are
not malfunctions to be fixed; they are conversations to be entered into
more or less deeply. The more deeply we participate in the
conversation, the more thickly textured and revelatory it becomes,
reacting upon all the meanings we brought to the exchange.

The engineering mindset that tries to insert individual traits into
rice by manipulating particular genes is closely allied to the long-
standing agricultural mindset that tries to improve crop yields in a
purely quantitative sense by injecting the right amounts of NPK
(nitrogen, phosphate, and potash) into the soil. On this view the soil
offers little more than a structural support for the roots. At the same
time, it is a kind of hydroponic medium into which we place the
various "inputs" that we can identify as requirements for plant growth.

What this approach overlooks is ... well, just about everything.
Fixated upon inputs, outputs, and uptake mechanisms, it loses sight of
the unsurveyed, nearly infinite complexity of life in a healthy,
compost- enriched soil. The truth of the matter is that whatever we can
do to enhance the diverse, living processes of the soil will likely
improve the quality of the crop, and yet an input-output mentality
proceeds to destroy the life of the soil through simple-minded chemical
applications. Our silver bullets, much too narrowly targeted, rip
through the fabric of the life-sustaining context.

Sponsors of the green and genetic revolutions are not inclined to ask
what is lost when input-intensive, high-yield monocultures replace the
kind of local diversity that results in thousands of local rice
varieties throughout Asia. We have never heard a biotechnologist
venture the thought that local varieties may actually – through their
long history of co-evolution with the people who bred them – be
uniquely adapted to the nutritional needs and dietary complexities of
the local population.

The adaptation is not hard to imagine when you consider beta-carotene.

Plants make many different types of carotene; beta-carotene is only one
member of a large family of substances. Each species of green, squash,
or brown rice produces its own unique array of carotenes, with
different types and amounts arising in different tissues depending on
changing conditions. Numerous species-specific carotenes have scarcely
been investigated.

Similarly, human beings need different kinds of carotenes, and, as long
as a reasonably diversity of crops is available, each individual will
draw out of his food what he needs. But what if, in the name of this or
that specific "input" abstracted from the complex, nutritional matrix
of life, we proceed to destroy the matrix? The disproportionate hope
placed in golden rice, together with its salesmen's casual disregard of
biological and social context, suggests the likelihood of precisely
such destructive consequences.

There are no silver bullets in any profound conversation. There is only
a progressive deepening of meaning. Or, if we prefer the satisfaction
of unambiguous bits of information, then – whether we conceive those
bits as genes or NPK or the dietary inputs of Asian children – we
abandon the wholeness and coherence of the conversation altogether. We
can, in this case, certainly proceed with our narrow programs of
manipulation and control, which are what we have left when we give up
on conversation. But the results will be no more satisfying than a diet
of rice alone.

Craig Holdrege, the primary author of this paper, is director and Steve
Talbott is senior researcher at The Nature Institute in Ghent, New
York. The Nature Institute is dedicated to pursuing a science of nature
rather than of mechanisms assumed to lie behind nature....

Mr. Snappy

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 12:35:41 PM1/18/01
to

"George Baxter" <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>
wrote in message news:3A66DCD7...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...

I don't suggest they *knowingly* try to produce harmful goods. My
concern is that they don't seem to have a problem producing gm products
which they don't *know* are safe. And they aren't particularly interested
(IMO) in finding out whether they are or not. Profit motives (also IMO)
are what drives the desire to not know, or at least, safety is not as
important as getting the product to market. So I do not believe it is
ridiculous at all to question motives, as that is what drives how pricipled
they are likely to be when no one is looking or asking questions about
safety.


George Baxter

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 12:35:04 PM1/18/01
to
The existing foods available the people who suffer from vitamin A
deficiency are clearly not adequate. Ther are a lot of them. The WHO
estimate 230 million. About 1 million of whom die or go blind. The WHO
had set themselves a target of 2000 to have eliminated the problem. They
failed.

Clearly the existing methods have failed. So other methods should be
used. If their diet had enough vitamin A then there would not be the
problem. But it does not. So golden rice goes along the path of making
them a better life.

It is really beyond belief that you, who live in an affluent country and
have a vastly better scope for a healthy life, are opposing a method
that can give real improvement to the quality of poor people.
--
George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net

Soren Dayton

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 12:49:14 PM1/18/01
to

An alternative argument runs that there are plenty of high
beta-carotene vegetables produced in the parts of the world that
golden rice are being pushed in. But they are all exported.

Thus, we could argue, alternatively, that the fact that ease with
which we get food from all over the world blinds us to both the
inequity of the socio-economic relationship and the unsound
agricultural practices.

Alternatively stated: if we didn't eat their food for them, they might
have enough to eat it themselves.

Why don't we try that?

Soren

David Kendra

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 12:48:45 PM1/18/01
to
message news:t6eadej...@corp.supernews.com...

I suspect that indeed these companies are concerned about whether the
products they produce are indeed safe for the consumer, irrespective of
whether or not they are GE. If they produce unsafe products then sales will
drop. They rely on producing products that people want. If people do not
want GE foods then these companies will not produce them.

dk

Amos Keppler

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 2:33:27 PM1/18/01
to
ant wrote:

Yep, a trojan horse, yet another attempt at misdirection.

They'll use any method, stop at nothing.

Sickening.

H A


--
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
PageOne
dangerous news and articles collected from around the world
http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100380/page1.html
awareness, forums and discussions about PageOne news and facts
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


Ian Alexander

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 4:17:27 PM1/18/01
to
In article <06hYjzAQ...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
I doubt it. Look how much £ is spent researching biotech in the UK -
25% of MAFFs research budget but none of it grown commercially and
consumers don't want it. I guess China is like most places if you
happen to make your living from developing biotech then you will push
the product. As no corporation stands to make a big buck out of pushing
a mixed planting strategy there will be no advertising budget for it.
--
Ian Alexander

Ian Alexander

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 4:26:53 PM1/18/01
to
In article <w+pZiNAw...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes

>David Kendra wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001
>>
>>I truly doubt that the measure described in the Oregonian article would
>>eradicate the rice blast disease.

Well it reduced it to negligible levels in the trials.

>What it will do is select for strains of
>>the fungus that can overcome the resistance gene(s).

I'm not sure that this has a lot to do with genetic resistance. I think
it has more to do with disease dynamics - the pathogen is unable to
develop large populations so rapidly when different varieties are
present. (perhaps different varieties vary in their susceptibility
according to different environmental conditions?)

>
>It is unfortunate that even strains with active resistance still show a
>response to fungicides when farmed close to optimal.

By optimal you mean highest yielding presumably? Why are you so fixated
on yield? I would not regard a high yield as optimal if I had to
sacrifice every other variable in order to obtain it.

>

--
Ian Alexander

Mr. Snappy

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 4:59:04 PM1/18/01
to
> > I don't suggest they *knowingly* try to produce harmful goods. My
> > concern is that they don't seem to have a problem producing gm products
> > which they don't *know* are safe. And they aren't particularly
interested
> > (IMO) in finding out whether they are or not.
>
> I suspect that indeed these companies are concerned about whether the
> products they produce are indeed safe for the consumer, irrespective of
> whether or not they are GE. If they produce unsafe products then sales
will
> drop. They rely on producing products that people want. If people do not
> want GE foods then these companies will not produce them.
>
> dk

I would have to disagree. I believe they do care about safety insofar as
people don't drop dead immediately upon eating their foods. Long term
risks, however, are costly and time-consuming for them to test. No
matter what anyone says or thinks they know, NOBODY knows what's
going to happen for certain when you splice fish DNA with a food staple.
NOBODY. The testing has to be done, and it isn't being done. And I
disagree about people wanting gm foods; certainly there are a considerable
number of people who do not want them. But I have yet to hear someone,
besides perhaps a farmer who's been bushwhacked with gm propaganda,
say "gee, I wish my corn was infused with bacterial pesticide so for a few
years, until the pests become resistant to it, the farmer might have to use
10 % less pesticide." Not to get too far off the topic of golden rice, but
if you look closely at the promises made by the industry for gm foods,
they really have yet to deliver on them. Meanwhile, the American people
are being used as guineau pigs for untested, potentially unsafe crops that
they really never asked for in the first place.


Oz

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 5:41:46 PM1/18/01
to
Ian Alexander wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001

>
>By optimal you mean highest yielding presumably? Why are you so fixated
>on yield?

1) Because it pays the bills.
2) Because in poor countries land is in effect limiting.

>I would not regard a high yield as optimal if I had to
>sacrifice every other variable in order to obtain it.

Sacrifice what variables?

--
Oz

Oz

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 5:50:06 PM1/18/01
to
Mr. Snappy wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001

>
>I don't suggest they *knowingly* try to produce harmful goods. My
>concern is that they don't seem to have a problem producing gm products
>which they don't *know* are safe. And they aren't particularly interested
>(IMO) in finding out whether they are or not. Profit motives (also IMO)
>are what drives the desire to not know, or at least, safety is not as
>important as getting the product to market. So I do not believe it is
>ridiculous at all to question motives, as that is what drives how pricipled
>they are likely to be when no one is looking or asking questions about
>safety.

The job of setting what is safe or not is down to government regulations
and NOT the view of the firms concerned. If you have an issue about the
safety regs speak to your representative.

--
Oz

Oz

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 5:48:39 PM1/18/01
to
Soren Dayton wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001

>
>Alternatively stated: if we didn't eat their food for them, they might
>have enough to eat it themselves.

I would be highly astonished if the subsistence farmers in the deficient
group sold produce to the first world. So I doubt it has much difference
except to provide work and wages to those working on or growing these
crops so they can afford to by adequate food or maintain their families.

--
Oz

Oz

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 5:54:21 PM1/18/01
to
Ian Alexander wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001

>>Oz


>>Perhaps the fact that the chinese are spending vast amounts on GM
>>croplines many of which are already in use, gives you your answer?
>>
>I doubt it.

It's been said many times, from TV programs (eg Horizon) to The
Economist. The reason why it is highly attractive to the chinese is
abvious.

>Look how much £ is spent researching biotech in the UK -
>25% of MAFFs research budget but none of it grown commercially and
>consumers don't want it.

That may or may not be true (I doubt MAFF spends much if anything on
producing commercial product), in any case it is irrelvent to the
chinese authorities.

>I guess China is like most places if you
>happen to make your living from developing biotech then you will push
>the product.

You may not be aware but china is a communist state and the cash for
development comes from their government.

>As no corporation stands to make a big buck out of pushing
>a mixed planting strategy there will be no advertising budget for it.

But is can stave off food shortages very cheaply and keep the population
happy. This is very important for frightened totalitarian states.

In a bad year it may save tens of thousands from starvation.
This is generally considered A Good Thing.

--
Oz

Jim Webster

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 4:42:08 PM1/18/01
to

Soren Dayton wrote in message <86itncv...@everest.overx.com>...

>
>An alternative argument runs that there are plenty of high
>beta-carotene vegetables produced in the parts of the world that
>golden rice are being pushed in. But they are all exported.
>
>Thus, we could argue, alternatively, that the fact that ease with
>which we get food from all over the world blinds us to both the
>inequity of the socio-economic relationship and the unsound
>agricultural practices.
>
>Alternatively stated: if we didn't eat their food for them, they might
>have enough to eat it themselves.
>
>Why don't we try that?
>
>Soren


There is a lot going for that point of view. We would stop importing soya
into the UK , use our own beans, concentrate on our own fruit and stop
importing exotics such as oranges and kiwi fruit. Financially as a farmer I
think it is a brilliant idea. Our business will have to switch protein
sources but rape/canola is available. Mind you I suspect the general
population is going to be a bit put out by what it does to the variety in
their diet, and as for vegetarians etc they are going to find things even
more boring.
Seriously it might be better to pay them a fair price for what they want to
sell us. Give them the money, let them make their own minds up on what they
want to spend it on.

Jim Webster

We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.


Jim Webster

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 4:37:46 PM1/18/01
to

ant wrote in message ...

>it is a cynical attempt at Trojan horsing a whole product range into the
>market IMO.
>
>for another slant on the subject try
>
>Go To:
>
>http://www.anth.org/ifgene/holdrege.htm
>
>
>Headline:
>
>One of the casualties of technology-dominated life has been the
>tradition of conversation around the dinner table. Whatever words we do
>exchange at mealtime are more likely aimed at the minimal coordination
>of our centrifugally driven lives than at sustaining the richly
>patterned textures of meaning conversation can evoke.


who ever wrote that last paragraph had long since abandoned all hope of
simple direct communication

Soren Dayton

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 7:14:49 PM1/18/01
to
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes:

Actually, in the United States, that is significantly not the case.
(1) There is no uniformly defined safety metric and (2) companies are
not required to state which metric they used to determine that a given
product is safe.

Just today the USDA announced that these might change.

Soren

Dennis G.

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 11:02:53 PM1/18/01
to
George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> wrote:

>It is really beyond belief that you, who live in an affluent country and
>have a vastly better scope for a healthy life, are opposing a method
>that can give real improvement to the quality of poor people.
>--
>George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net


The world is a small place and the GM arument continues even where the need for
"golden rice" is great.

"Vitamin A deficiency is the leading cause of child blindness in India and also
contributes to child mortality from infections. "

"Indian ecologists and farmers' organisations, however, have accused the
government of "blindly promoting genetic engineering on the false grounds that
it will increase food production and improve nutrition." "

See the BMJ for Jan.20/01 at:

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7279/126/b

God(or reasonable facsimile) bless All the children.

Dennis

Torsten Brinch

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 11:32:42 PM1/18/01
to

ant skrev i meddelelsen ...

>http://www.anth.org/ifgene/holdrege.htm

That was a very interesting article, Anthony, many thanks for bringing
this author (Craig Holdrege) to my attention. I did not even know
he existed. Now I think there are a book or two from his hand,
which I will need to read. :-) A kindred spirit, it seems.

>There are no silver bullets in any profound conversation. There is only
>a progressive deepening of meaning. Or, if we prefer the satisfaction
>of unambiguous bits of information, then – whether we conceive those
>bits as genes or NPK or the dietary inputs of Asian children – we
>abandon the wholeness and coherence of the conversation altogether. We
>can, in this case, certainly proceed with our narrow programs of
>manipulation and control, which are what we have left when we give up
>on conversation. But the results will be no more satisfying than a diet
>of rice alone.

Right, this man goes to the core of the problem.
Life, then language, then technology, a friendly
tool at first, then increasingly a necessity -- given
power, then taking power, gaining control over all that
which could not have evolved under any form of
external control. Infinity boxed, tyranny of the worst sort.

Few will dare to follow the thoughts of this author,
Anthony. You know, you have already seen a
few shallow responses to that article you posted.
"For man has closed himself up till he sees
all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern."


Best regards,

Torsten Brinch

gcouger

unread,
Jan 18, 2001, 11:41:05 PM1/18/01
to

"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:p2yfQXAd...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
: Ian Alexander wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001

:
: >>Oz
: >>Perhaps the fact that the chinese are spending vast amounts on GM
: >>croplines many of which are already in use, gives you your answer?
: >>
: >I doubt it.
:
: It's been said many times, from TV programs (eg Horizon) to The
: Economist. The reason why it is highly attractive to the chinese is
: abvious.
:
: >Look how much £ is spent researching biotech in the UK -
: >25% of MAFFs research budget but none of it grown commercially and
: >consumers don't want it.
:
: That may or may not be true (I doubt MAFF spends much if anything on
: producing commercial product), in any case it is irrelvent to the
: chinese authorities.
:
: >I guess China is like most places if you
: >happen to make your living from developing biotech then you will push
: >the product.
:
: You may not be aware but china is a communist state and the cash for
: development comes from their government.
-------------
According to my daughter in law who is from mainland China is a
totalatarian goverment that is privitizing a good deal of the state owned
industries. Once all the old gard died off the new guys knew communism
didn't work and are trying to find a way out wihtout a revolution. Keeping
food on everyones table is a corner stone of their policy. People will put
up with a lot if they are reasonably well fed.

My daughter in law is a republican or will be when she becomes a citizen.
:
: >As no corporation stands to make a big buck out of pushing


: >a mixed planting strategy there will be no advertising budget for it.
:
: But is can stave off food shortages very cheaply and keep the population
: happy. This is very important for frightened totalitarian states.
:
: In a bad year it may save tens of thousands from starvation.
: This is generally considered A Good Thing.

China is not intersted in selling anything to its farmers. It is intersted
in maximizing their production to insure a secure source of food and to
have a cheap source of export goods. What ever works is OK with them.

gcouger

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 2:23:09 AM1/19/01
to

"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote in message
news:ivP96.1$Sj2...@news.get2net.dk...
:
: ant skrev i meddelelsen ...

I have to agree that any effort to help the plight of poverty in any
country is a very difficult one. It takes more than seeds or food it takes
education and integration of what ever help is given in a way that is
acceptable to the culture. This at best is difficult and with the
combative stance of the players it is even more difficult and maybe
impossible.

The worst poverty is in the cities where no crops are grown. So we are all
building straw men when we talk about any agricultural method helping the
poor in the city.

There are some projects that have taken these problems into account. Dr.
Prakash at Tuskegee University has increased the protein level of a sweet
potato from Africa enough to meet the full daily requirement of a person.
I believe it is being tested for safety right now and he hopes to have
ready for free distribution in 2 to 3 years. Since it reproduces
vegatatively there is no seed to worry about.

I doubt that all the proposed GM ideas will work. I doubt that half will
work. But I am convinced that some will work. There is no magic bullet but
there are methods that can have profound results using a combination of GM
and regular crops, good farming practice both conventional and organic, a
large dose of good sense and a great deal of very hard work integrating it
into the local culture.

Oz

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 1:54:19 AM1/19/01
to
Torsten Brinch wrote on Fri, 19 Jan 2001

>this author (Craig Holdrege) to my attention. I did not even know
>he existed. Now I think there are a book or two from his hand,
>which I will need to read. :-) A kindred spirit, it seems.
>
>>There are no silver bullets in any profound conversation. There is only
>>a progressive deepening of meaning. Or, if we prefer the satisfaction
>>of unambiguous bits of information, then – whether we conceive those
>>bits as genes or NPK or the dietary inputs of Asian children – we
>>abandon the wholeness and coherence of the conversation altogether. We
>>can, in this case, certainly proceed with our narrow programs of
>>manipulation and control, which are what we have left when we give up
>>on conversation. But the results will be no more satisfying than a diet
>>of rice alone.
>
>Right, this man goes to the core of the problem.

Torsten, I am appalled at you.

It's pseud drivel.

--
Oz

Oz

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 1:55:40 AM1/19/01
to
Soren Dayton wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001

>>Oz:


>> The job of setting what is safe or not is down to government regulations
>> and NOT the view of the firms concerned. If you have an issue about the
>> safety regs speak to your representative.
>
>Actually, in the United States, that is significantly not the case.
>(1) There is no uniformly defined safety metric and (2) companies are
>not required to state which metric they used to determine that a given
>product is safe.
>
>Just today the USDA announced that these might change.

Tsk tsk.

If true (which I doubt) then time to change your representative?

--
Oz

Jim Webster

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 2:04:16 AM1/19/01
to

Dennis G. wrote in message <3a67badf...@news.paralynx.com>...

>George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>
wrote:
>
>See the BMJ for Jan.20/01 at:
>
>http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7279/126/b
>
>God(or reasonable facsimile) bless All the children.


and god spare them from the attentions of single issue lobby groups, vested
interests, and people doing things, "just for the kids"

Jim Webster

We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.

>Dennis


gcouger

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 7:56:33 AM1/19/01
to

"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nveMWgAs...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
: Soren Dayton wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001
:
The FDA requires safety trials before approving any thing. They rely on
the company doing the application to do the trials but that is true for
all products drugs and food products alike.

There is not enough time between now and the time the sun goes super nova
to satisfy the conditions of the precautionary principal. That is the
whole point of the thing. The red herring of moving a very small number of
genes is some how more dangerous than swapping half the genes in the plant
is ridiculous. It is certainly ridiculous compared to radiation induce
mutation or colcichine induce poloplodidy.

Amos Keppler

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 8:48:39 AM1/19/01
to
Torsten Brinch wrote:

Yes, the current society is indeed a narrowing of thoughts and scope, not
the other way around, as its eager defenders are constantly repeating.
A bit of pause and reflction is always appreciated.

You've already seen a few shallow responses yourself. Don't worry about it.
They're not worth it.

Tracy Aquilla

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 10:05:13 AM1/19/01
to
Soren Dayton wrote:

Can you please provide a bit more information about such change? I am intrigued,
but your reference is far too vague to be of practical use.
Tracy

Tracy Aquilla

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 10:09:50 AM1/19/01
to
gcouger wrote:

> There is not enough time between now and the time the sun goes super nova
> to satisfy the conditions of the precautionary principal.

I disagree. As I have said before, the PP merely states that _some_ action
ought to be taken in the face of uncertainty; however, the PP does not define
which particular course of action is appropriate. Clearly, action is being
taken (e.g., regulatory measures are in place, research is ongoing, etc.), so
it seems that the conditions of the PP have already been satisfied.
Tracy

Tracy Aquilla

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 10:17:22 AM1/19/01
to
Oz wrote:

As usual, Oz, your suspicions are correct. (1) In the US, the uniformly
defined safety "metric" for foods is found in the Federal Food Drug and
Cosmetics Act and enforced by the FDA (although EPA regulates pesticides and
their residues). USDA does not have authority to regulate food safety, other
than in regard to meat and poultry (perhaps this is what Soren referred to).
(2) The FDA determines whether a food product is safe, not companies.
Tracy

Soren Dayton

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 10:15:58 AM1/19/01
to
Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> writes:

I hardly think that the USDA announcing new regulations regarding
biotechnology regulations on a given day is "far too vague" a
reference. I would suggest that you try a news source.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/18/health/18REGS.html

Soren

ant

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 6:12:26 AM1/19/01
to

Torsten Brinch wrote in message ...

>
>ant skrev i meddelelsen ...
>
>>http://www.anth.org/ifgene/holdrege.htm
>
>That was a very interesting article, Anthony, many thanks for bringing
>this author (Craig Holdrege) to my attention. I did not even know
>he existed. Now I think there are a book or two from his hand,
>which I will need to read. :-) A kindred spirit, it seems.
>

yes, some very good and well condensed concepts in there, one of the
reasons i chose it, i have a few others but none cover the issue as well.

>>There are no silver bullets in any profound conversation. There is only
>>a progressive deepening of meaning. Or, if we prefer the satisfaction
>>of unambiguous bits of information, then – whether we conceive those
>>bits as genes or NPK or the dietary inputs of Asian children – we
>>abandon the wholeness and coherence of the conversation altogether. We
>>can, in this case, certainly proceed with our narrow programs of
>>manipulation and control, which are what we have left when we give up
>>on conversation. But the results will be no more satisfying than a diet
>>of rice alone.
>
>Right, this man goes to the core of the problem.
>Life, then language, then technology, a friendly
>tool at first, then increasingly a necessity -- given
>power, then taking power, gaining control over all that
>which could not have evolved under any form of
>external control. Infinity boxed, tyranny of the worst sort.
>
>Few will dare to follow the thoughts of this author,
>Anthony. You know, you have already seen a
>few shallow responses to that article you posted.


yeah, i expected the apologists to play the bait and switch game with that
one, to many real points to address that have no rational or logical
counter. i wont be replying to any of them, as there is no point attempting
to debate with propagandists and fanatics.

>"For man has closed himself up till he sees
>all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern."
>

:-)

ant


Amos Keppler

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 11:47:04 AM1/19/01
to
Tracy Aquilla wrote:

Everything is okay in the world, we know...

George Baxter

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 12:14:13 PM1/19/01
to
Soren Dayton wrote:
>
> An alternative argument runs that there are plenty of high
> beta-carotene vegetables produced in the parts of the world that
> golden rice are being pushed in. But they are all exported.
>
> Thus, we could argue, alternatively, that the fact that ease with
> which we get food from all over the world blinds us to both the
> inequity of the socio-economic relationship and the unsound
> agricultural practices.
>
> Alternatively stated: if we didn't eat their food for them, they might
> have enough to eat it themselves.
>
> Why don't we try that?

The alternative sounds good. So why is it not working?

The reason is the most of the people who suffer from VAD are poor. They
cannot afford the luxury of the imported foods and the governments
cannot get the suppliments programs sufficiently well organised.

But many of these poor people eat rice. The golden rice will not be any
more expensive that the existing rice than they are already eating and
can afford. It is a clean, neat solution to a real problem. It short
cuts the distribution and economic arguments. Or will be if idiots like
Greenpeace do not blindly try to block it because it is gm.


> > --
> > George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net

--
George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net

George Baxter

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 12:27:39 PM1/19/01
to

Do you know with certainty about anything? Can you be sure that
cornflakes do not have a long term problem? Or sitting in front of your
screen as you read this. What are the long term effects?

All forms of safety testing are to apply a finite number of tests. This
is true whether it is gmo, or cars, drugs, machines etc. If it passes
the tests ( or more accurately does not fail ) then it is classed safe
until something else shows up.

You are very wrong when you say testing is not done. All gm foods are
subjected to extra tests over and above those of ordinary foods. They
are tested to allergen and toxic products. Many foods are modified or
fortified with vitamin and minerals. Do you question that?

There is a very good reason why the gmo are safe. One of the criteria
for being passed is that the genes and any byproducts must be easily
destroyed by heat or the stomach acids. The genes in soya are destroyed
in 15 seconds. This is done to ensure that it does not get into the gut
and so potentially into the body. And if it cannot get into the body, it
cannot do you any harm. The anti-gm groups and individuals who post on
this forum know this, but prefer you not to. Because they know it knocks
all of their alarmist speculation out of the water.

--
George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net

Tracy Aquilla

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 2:21:25 PM1/19/01
to
Soren Dayton wrote:

It was indeed too vague, particularly since USDA apparently did not announce any new
regulations regarding biotechnology on January 18, 2001. This is, of course, why I
asked for more information.

> I would suggest that you try a news source.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/18/health/18REGS.html

I did, thank you. However, the resource you cited (directly above) does not state that
USDA announced any new regulations regarding biotechnology yesterday. Indeed, the only
article I found at the above cited web page pertains to a proposed FDA rule making. So
it appears that you may have confused the USDA with the FDA.

NB, as usual, the NY Times is not particularly accurate.

For those who might like to actually read the proposed rule, see:
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00747.html
http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/011801a.htm
Tracy

Soren Dayton

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 3:25:38 PM1/19/01
to
George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> writes:

> Soren Dayton wrote:
> >
> > An alternative argument runs that there are plenty of high
> > beta-carotene vegetables produced in the parts of the world that
> > golden rice are being pushed in. But they are all exported.
> >
> > Thus, we could argue, alternatively, that the fact that ease with
> > which we get food from all over the world blinds us to both the
> > inequity of the socio-economic relationship and the unsound
> > agricultural practices.
> >
> > Alternatively stated: if we didn't eat their food for them, they might
> > have enough to eat it themselves.
> >
> > Why don't we try that?
>
> The alternative sounds good. So why is it not working?
>
> The reason is the most of the people who suffer from VAD are poor. They
> cannot afford the luxury of the imported foods and the governments
> cannot get the suppliments programs sufficiently well organised.

I'm not saying that the poor people in some desolate place should
import their carrots or whatever from California. I'm saying that we
shouldn't take their carrots from them for our baby carrots.

Soren

Ian Alexander

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 1:43:27 PM1/19/01
to
>
>I doubt that all the proposed GM ideas will work. I doubt that half will
>work. But I am convinced that some will work.

Intuitively I tend to agree with you. The bigger problem is will the
benefits of the few that work outweigh the problems caused by the
majority that don't? Jury out. In the meantime the bio-tech industry
will do anything to get one product globally accepted so as to breach
the precautionary approach to developing the technology. Falling for
that tactic would be so short sighted.

>
>
>
>
>

--
Ian Alexander

Ian Alexander

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 2:13:53 PM1/19/01
to
>
>There is a very good reason why the gmo are safe. One of the criteria
>for being passed is that the genes and any byproducts must be easily
>destroyed by heat or the stomach acids. The genes in soya are destroyed
>in 15 seconds. This is done to ensure that it does not get into the gut
>and so potentially into the body. And if it cannot get into the body, it
>cannot do you any harm.

Lot of can nots in there - you seem very sure about this. As sure as
people were a couple of years ago when they said that the engineered
genes could not spread to other plants (before it was demonstrated that
they had).

>The anti-gm groups and individuals who post on
>this forum know this, but prefer you not to. Because they know it knocks
>all of their alarmist speculation out of the water.
>
>

My 'alarmist speculation' is not based on any danger I may encounter
from eating the stuff - so long as it is labelled I will avoid it and as
long as the US resist labelling and segregation I just buy organic; I am
concerned about the damage it might do to the wider environment and the
testing done on that front is negligible in the US and years away from
being able to usefully report in the UK.

>

--
Ian Alexander

Ian Alexander

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 2:26:49 PM1/19/01
to
In article <0GiYcTAe...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz

<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>Mr. Snappy wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001
>>
>>I don't suggest they *knowingly* try to produce harmful goods. My
>>concern is that they don't seem to have a problem producing gm products
>>which they don't *know* are safe. And they aren't particularly interested
>>(IMO) in finding out whether they are or not. Profit motives (also IMO)
>>are what drives the desire to not know, or at least, safety is not as
>>important as getting the product to market. So I do not believe it is
>>ridiculous at all to question motives, as that is what drives how pricipled
>>they are likely to be when no one is looking or asking questions about
>>safety.
>
>The job of setting what is safe or not is down to government regulations
>and NOT the view of the firms concerned.

How naive can you be. The two things react iteratively with the
awareness levels of society as a whole to dictate what actions are
acceptable. Do you feel that problems with nuclear power, asbestos,
cigarettes, therlidomide, early generation pesticides, DU weapons, etc.
were / are unconnected with the commercial needs of corporations to get
products to market and prolong, for as long as possible, their shelf
lives.

--
Ian Alexander

Tracy Aquilla

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 4:44:28 PM1/19/01
to
Ian Alexander wrote:

> >
> >I doubt that all the proposed GM ideas will work. I doubt that half will
> >work. But I am convinced that some will work.
>
> Intuitively I tend to agree with you. The bigger problem is will the
> benefits of the few that work outweigh the problems caused by the
> majority that don't? Jury out. In the meantime the bio-tech industry
> will do anything to get one product globally accepted

Many products of the biotech industry, such as medical products (drugs,
diagnostics) and laboratory products (reagents, assays, etc.), have already
been globally accepted, indeed, for many years now. The only significant
objection appears to be in regard to plants, animals and food products
generally.

> so as to breach the precautionary approach to developing the technology.

I don't imagine anyone in the industry really expects that to happen anytime
soon!
Tracy

Tracy Aquilla

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 4:49:58 PM1/19/01
to
Ian Alexander wrote:

> Lot of can nots in there - you seem very sure about this. As sure as
> people were a couple of years ago when they said that the engineered
> genes could not spread to other plants (before it was demonstrated that
> they had).

I suppose you could find a record somewhere of somebody making such a claim,
but gene flow between closely related plant species was actually rather well
known to occur, _before_ the first GE plant was created. So I cannot imagine
anyone with a firm grasp of elementary genetics expressing confidently that
engineered genes could not spread to other plants. Indeed, that was most
likely a strawman set up by anti-biotech activists.
Tracy

gcouger

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 5:14:54 PM1/19/01
to

"Ian Alexander" <I...@iandshome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:teqIzFAP...@iandshome.demon.co.uk...
: >
: >I doubt that all the proposed GM ideas will work. I doubt that half

The vast majority that don't work won't make it to market. There will be
some that technically work but are beat out by something that was being
developed at the same time, a change in the market or don't catch on.
Conventialy bred varieties are the same way. Not many stay around very
long. Some really good ones failed for reasons that had nothing to do with
their performance. Some won't fit in with the traditional ways of farming.
The poorer the farmer the more likely this is to happen.

It is not a simple market.

Mr. Snappy

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 5:24:29 PM1/19/01
to

"George Baxter" <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>
wrote in message news:3A68790B...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...
I know the human race has been eating a very similar diet for a long, long
time.
And that hasn't included fish genes, or bt insecticide spliced into it.
We know from experience what has been proven safe over millenia.
So...YES, I do know.

> All forms of safety testing are to apply a finite number of tests. This
> is true whether it is gmo, or cars, drugs, machines etc. If it passes
> the tests ( or more accurately does not fail ) then it is classed safe
> until something else shows up.

And that's why every year we see a new pesticide linked to some form
of cancer or other disease, and it is taken off the market. Good way
to find out what's safe. Oh wait, I know. We COULD try eating the
same food that's been eaten for millenia, OR we could risk it to save
the farmer a few bucks and/or more likely, make a corporation's
stockholders happy.

> You are very wrong when you say testing is not done. All gm foods are
> subjected to extra tests over and above those of ordinary foods. They
> are tested to allergen and toxic products. Many foods are modified or
> fortified with vitamin and minerals. Do you question that?

You are very wrong and trusting when you think the extremely minimal
amount of testing that has been done is even close to what needs to be
done to show safety. You are also very wrong if you assume this
testing is being done indepenedent of corporate influence and money.

> There is a very good reason why the gmo are safe. One of the criteria
> for being passed is that the genes and any byproducts must be easily
> destroyed by heat or the stomach acids. The genes in soya are destroyed
> in 15 seconds. This is done to ensure that it does not get into the gut
> and so potentially into the body. And if it cannot get into the body, it
> cannot do you any harm. The anti-gm groups and individuals who post on
> this forum know this, but prefer you not to. Because they know it knocks
> all of their alarmist speculation out of the water.

We don't know shit about genetic manipulation and its consequences.
We didn't anticipate the Monarch butterfly problem. We are the Monarch
butterflies waiting for the wrong combination of genes. Let me reiterate:
we know HOW to splice genes, we do NOT have the slightest idea of
what is *really* going to happen when we do that. Ask any competent genetic
engineer who is not being paid by Monsanto. You have been lulled into
a false sense of security. No ifs/ands/buts - time will show the error of
assuming
we can predict consequences of genetic meddling.

gcouger

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 5:38:34 PM1/19/01
to

"Tracy Aquilla" <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote in message
news:3A6858BE...@bpmlegal.com...

If the PP state we must prove something safe before we use it. You know as
well as I do that it is impossible to prove anything safe. There is a
vanshingly small probability that all the air in the room you are in will
rush to one corner and you will suffocate. So is the air safe?

I will agree that safety defined safety standard should be set. But not
open ended standards like the PP that anyone can use to torpedo anything.
The PP is not for safety it is a barrier that is a moving target.

Set safety standards not some open ended ax that can be used to kill what
ever anyone pleases.

From our experience in the US the safety standards the FDA is using are
doing OK they need more work to quite the fears of the rest of the world.
The EPA is another story. Starlink should not have been released until it
was cleared for human consumption. The EPA did not realize that
contamination was inevitable the way grain is handled.

Mr. Snappy

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 5:45:31 PM1/19/01
to
Problem is, our government is asleep at the wheel
when it comes to regulating gm foods. And I *have*
written both my senators as well as my representative.
Nobody is listening...because money talks louder than
I do. Hell, it got our Presidunce-select into office (that
and 5 votes).

"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:0GiYcTAe...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...


> Mr. Snappy wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001
> >

> >I don't suggest they *knowingly* try to produce harmful goods. My
> >concern is that they don't seem to have a problem producing gm products
> >which they don't *know* are safe. And they aren't particularly interested

> >(IMO) in finding out whether they are or not. Profit motives (also IMO)
> >are what drives the desire to not know, or at least, safety is not as
> >important as getting the product to market. So I do not believe it is
> >ridiculous at all to question motives, as that is what drives how
pricipled
> >they are likely to be when no one is looking or asking questions about
> >safety.
>
> The job of setting what is safe or not is down to government regulations

> and NOT the view of the firms concerned. If you have an issue about the
> safety regs speak to your representative.
>

> --
> Oz


Mr. Snappy

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 5:54:06 PM1/19/01
to
Well said.

"Ian Alexander" <I...@iandshome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:X$HWrOA5T...@iandshome.demon.co.uk...

Jim Webster

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 2:36:04 PM1/19/01
to

Amos Keppler wrote in message <3A686FCA...@theweeklyreport.com>...

>Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>
>> gcouger wrote:
>>
>> > There is not enough time between now and the time the sun goes super
nova
>> > to satisfy the conditions of the precautionary principal.
>>
>> I disagree. As I have said before, the PP merely states that _some_
action
>> ought to be taken in the face of uncertainty; however, the PP does not
define
>> which particular course of action is appropriate. Clearly, action is
being
>> taken (e.g., regulatory measures are in place, research is ongoing,
etc.), so
>> it seems that the conditions of the PP have already been satisfied.
>> Tracy
>
> Everything is okay in the world, we know...


could get worse, some loonie could start putting contraceptives in the water

Tracy Aquilla

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 6:18:26 PM1/19/01
to
gcouger wrote:

> "Tracy Aquilla" <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote in message

> [snip]


> : it seems that the conditions of the PP have already been satisfied.
> : Tracy
>
> If the PP state we must prove something safe before we use it. You know as
> well as I do that it is impossible to prove anything safe.

Recently, I quoted the PP from several sources, all of which were identical,
and none of which state that we must prove something safe before we use it
(although some activists try to paint it that way, for obvious reasons).

See, for example:
http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0398/et0398s4.html
"Precautionary Principle: When an activity raises threats
of harm to human health or the environment,
precautionary measures should be taken even if some
cause and effect relationships are not fully established
scientifically."

Note the lack of any statement regarding proof of safety. Indeed, the PP does
not indicate what constitutes the appropriate course of action, it merely
states that precautionary measures should be taken; it does not define those
measures by any stretch of the imagination.
Tracy

J K Cason

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 6:10:58 PM1/19/01
to
"Soren Dayton" <day...@overx.com> wrote in message
news:86itncv...@everest.overx.com...

> An alternative argument runs that there are plenty of high
> beta-carotene vegetables produced in the parts of the world that
> golden rice are being pushed in. But they are all exported.

That argument has been made before, but what are some of those vegetables?

Foods for export typically have higher quality requirements than foods for
local consumption. They are not produced by subsistence farmers and the
poor can't afford them anyway. Another thing that is often overlooked is
that the poor are generally conservative and want to eat traditional foods
rather than unfamiliar, possibly more nourishing foods. There are also all
sorts of food taboos and customs that limit intake. Just because some foods
are locally grown does not guarantee that the locals want to consume those
foods or have the means.

Tropical Third World countries can produce some items such as bananas all
year, but many crops are produced in Third World countries to hit narrow
seasonal windows when items can't be grown in agricultural areas of
California or Florida or wherever it might be for different parts of the
developed world. Outside of those windows, the prices received don't
justify the effort.

The varieties are often different as well. For instance, dozens of
different varieties of local crops are eaten by the poor, but most do not
have characteristics required for export. Foods for export are usually
grown on farms that are operated for that purpose, using relatively
high-tech methods. Without agricultural exports, the Third World would have
less income and employ fewer poor laborers. The working conditions may not
be the best by First World standards, but that's a different argument.

> Thus, we could argue, alternatively, that the fact that ease with
> which we get food from all over the world blinds us to both the
> inequity of the socio-economic relationship and the unsound
> agricultural practices.

> Alternatively stated: if we didn't eat their food for them, they might
> have enough to eat it themselves.

We don't eat their food. If those crops were not grown for export, they
would not be grown at all. Plus, the social and economic inequities existed
before international trade entered the picture.

John McCarthy

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 6:41:13 PM1/19/01
to
Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> writes:

Application of the precautionary principle, which can shut down
anything, depends on who has the media power to raise the most fuss.
Much of the media babbles about the unknown risks of "frankenfoods"
but doesn't repeat information about the greater risks of organic
foods.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Jim Webster

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 6:18:50 PM1/19/01
to

Ian Alexander wrote in message ...
>>The job of setting what is safe or not is down to government regulations
>>and NOT the view of the firms concerned.
>
>How naive can you be. The two things react iteratively with the
>awareness levels of society as a whole to dictate what actions are
>acceptable. Do you feel that problems with nuclear power, asbestos,
>cigarettes, therlidomide, early generation pesticides, DU weapons, etc.
>were / are unconnected with the commercial needs of corporations to get
>products to market and prolong, for as long as possible, their shelf
>lives.
>

what you forget is that in a European context Nuclear power and DU weapons
are an entirely government issue, entirely under government control. As for
cigarettes, in the UK the level of duty on them is such that the government
is probably the major earner from cigarette sales

Torsten Brinch

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 7:19:02 PM1/19/01
to

John McCarthy skrev i meddelelsen ...

>Application of the precautionary principle, which can shut down
>anything, depends on who has the media power to raise the most fuss.
>Much of the media babbles about the unknown risks of "frankenfoods"
>but doesn't repeat information about the greater risks of organic
>foods.


Hello John, and welcome back.

How can it arithmetically be said that B is greater than A,
if A is unknown?

Best regards,

Torsten Brinch


Chive Mynde

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 7:23:26 PM1/19/01
to
In article <x4hae8n...@Steam.Stanford.EDU>,

Mr. McCarthy, I see you have left your cryogenic chamber to post
another unsubstantiated and unfounded attack upon organic foods.
While you have been asleep, Stossel, Avery et al. have been
debunked. Organic foods have absolutely no greater risk than
conventional food.

Please tell Michael Jackson, Elvis, and Walt Disney that I
said hello.

- Chive
--
"Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu
at the same time. I think I've forgotten
this before. " - Steven Wright


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

gcouger

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 9:19:59 PM1/19/01
to

"Tracy Aquilla" <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote in message
news:3A68CB42...@bpmlegal.com...

Tracy

I have a serious problem with the term harmless. There is nothing
harmless. Every action or inaction has risks and benefits. A great deal of
medicine is involved with risk benefit analysis. That's one of the reasons
I have some degree of confidence in the FDA's approach to GM crops.

As far as posting bond we already have a liability and insurance system
that has functioned for nearly 500 years why is that suddenly inadequate?

If it were you apply the PP I wouldn't have a problem wiht it. But it I
can see how it can be used as tool to forever ban anything. Look what the
EU has done with US beef inspire of 50 years of perfect safety and not one
credible report of problems in humans on a single simple issue by claiming
hormones are not safe. Think what they could do with the PP.

gcouger

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 9:27:07 PM1/19/01
to

"J K Cason" <jkc...@negia.net> wrote in message
news:t6hjf86...@corp.supernews.com...
: "Soren Dayton" <day...@overx.com> wrote in message

: news:86itncv...@everest.overx.com...
:
: > An alternative argument runs that there are plenty of high
: > beta-carotene vegetables produced in the parts of the world that
: > golden rice are being pushed in. But they are all exported.
:
: That argument has been made before, but what are some of those
vegetables?
:
: Foods for export typically have higher quality requirements than foods
for
: local consumption. They are not produced by subsistence farmers and the
: poor can't afford them anyway. Another thing that is often overlooked
is
: that the poor are generally conservative and want to eat traditional
foods
: rather than unfamiliar, possibly more nourishing foods. There are also
all
: sorts of food taboos and customs that limit intake. Just because some
foods
: are locally grown does not guarantee that the locals want to consume
those
: foods or have the means.

Food taboos aren't limited to the third world. Try to find a dog or horse
to eat in the US.

J K Cason

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 10:44:13 PM1/19/01
to
"Mr. Snappy" <supportthecoup@gwislegitimate___yeahright.com>
wrote in message news:t6hfn9f...@corp.supernews.com...

<snip>

> I know the human race has been eating a very similar diet for a
long, long
> time.

Worldwide tofu, soybeans, soy sauce, breadfruit, cassava,
tapioca, yucca, poi, guava?

> And that hasn't included fish genes,

Fish have fish genes. Humans have eaten fish for a long, long
time.

> or bt insecticide spliced into it.

Bt is just about everywhere. Humans have eaten Bt for a long,
long time.

> We know from experience what has been proven safe over


millenia.
> So...YES, I do know.

Any food from the New World has been in European, African, and
Asian diets for at most 400-450 years, less for many items.
That's much less than a millenium for maize, tomatoes, potatoes,
chocolate, blueberries, cranberries, peanuts, wild rice, several
varieties of beans, peppers, squash, etc. Coffee reached Europe
from Africa about 1600.

Which of the listed items do you consume?


J K Cason

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 10:57:46 PM1/19/01
to
"Mr. Snappy" <supportthecoup@gwislegitimate___yeahright.com>
wrote in message news:t6hfn9f...@corp.supernews.com...

<snip>

> I know the human race has been eating a very similar diet for a
> long, long time.

Worldwide tofu, soybeans, soy sauce, breadfruit, cassava,
tapioca, yucca, poi, guava?

> And that hasn't included fish genes,

Fish have fish genes. Humans have eaten fish for a long, long
time.

> or bt insecticide spliced into it.

Bt is just about everywhere. Humans have eaten Bt for a long,
long time.

> We know from experience what has been proven safe over


> millenia.
> So...YES, I do know.

Any food from the New World has been in European, African, and


Asian diets for at most 400-450 years, less for many items.
That's much less than a millenium for maize, tomatoes, potatoes,

chocolate, avocadoes, blueberries, cranberries, peanuts, wild

J K Cason

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 11:01:11 PM1/19/01
to
"Mr. Snappy" <supportthecoup@gwislegitimate___yeahright.com>
wrote in message news:t6hfn9f...@corp.supernews.com...

<snip>

> I know the human race has been eating a very similar diet for a
> long, long time.

Worldwide tofu, soybeans, soy sauce, breadfruit, cassava,
tapioca, yucca, poi, guava?

> And that hasn't included fish genes,

Fish have fish genes. Humans have eaten fish for a long, long
time.

> or bt insecticide spliced into it.

Bt is just about everywhere. Humans have eaten Bt for a long,
long time.

> We know from experience what has been proven safe over


> millenia.
> So...YES, I do know.

Any food from the New World has been in European, African, and

J K Cason

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 11:01:27 PM1/19/01
to
"Mr. Snappy" <supportthecoup@gwislegitimate___yeahright.com>
wrote in message news:t6hfn9f...@corp.supernews.com...

<snip>

> I know the human race has been eating a very similar diet for a
> long, long time.

Worldwide tofu, soybeans, soy sauce, breadfruit, cassava,
tapioca, yucca, poi, guava?

> And that hasn't included fish genes,

Fish have fish genes. Humans have eaten fish for a long, long
time.

> or bt insecticide spliced into it.

Bt is just about everywhere. Humans have eaten Bt for a long,
long time.

> We know from experience what has been proven safe over


> millenia.
> So...YES, I do know.

Any food from the New World has been in European, African, and

J K Cason

unread,
Jan 19, 2001, 11:06:00 PM1/19/01
to
"J K Cason" <jkc...@negia.net> wrote in message ...

Uh, sorry


Oz

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 3:24:33 AM1/20/01
to
Ian Alexander wrote on Fri, 19 Jan 2001

>>Oz:


>>The job of setting what is safe or not is down to government regulations
>>and NOT the view of the firms concerned.
>
>How naive can you be. The two things react iteratively with the
>awareness levels of society as a whole to dictate what actions are
>acceptable. Do you feel that problems with nuclear power, asbestos,
>cigarettes, therlidomide, early generation pesticides, DU weapons, etc.
>were / are unconnected with the commercial needs of corporations to get
>products to market and prolong, for as long as possible, their shelf
>lives.

You may consider that your government regulations are inadequate.
That is for you to alter via your government.

It doesn't mean that they are not the body responsible for safety,
because they are.

The fact that, as some of your examples show, they have in the past
(most of the ones you quote are rather historical or rather arguable)
perhaps been less than perfect does not remove their responsibility.

--
Oz

Oz

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 3:19:48 AM1/20/01
to
Mr. Snappy wrote on Fri, 19 Jan 2001

>>Someone:


>> Do you know with certainty about anything? Can you be sure that
>> cornflakes do not have a long term problem? Or sitting in front of your
>> screen as you read this. What are the long term effects?

>I know the human race has been eating a very similar diet for a long, long
>time.

And we are hardly disease-free, are we?

>And that hasn't included fish genes,

Eh? Fish genes are certainly a common part of the human diet, and has
been for a very, very long time.

>or bt insecticide spliced into it.

No, but is has been approved for organic use so it must be UK.

>We know from experience what has been proven safe over millenia.
>So...YES, I do know.

Unfortunately not. You just think you know. Look up the ames page on
natural plant carcinogens in common foods and you may wish to review
your statement.

>> You are very wrong when you say testing is not done. All gm foods are
>> subjected to extra tests over and above those of ordinary foods. They
>> are tested to allergen and toxic products. Many foods are modified or
>> fortified with vitamin and minerals. Do you question that?

>You are very wrong and trusting when you think the extremely minimal
>amount of testing that has been done is even close to what needs to be
>done to show safety.

What would you suggest? Have you told your representative?

>You are also very wrong if you assume this
>testing is being done indepenedent of corporate influence and money.

Why do you always assume people are crooked?

>> There is a very good reason why the gmo are safe. One of the criteria
>> for being passed is that the genes and any byproducts must be easily
>> destroyed by heat or the stomach acids. The genes in soya are destroyed
>> in 15 seconds. This is done to ensure that it does not get into the gut
>> and so potentially into the body. And if it cannot get into the body, it
>> cannot do you any harm. The anti-gm groups and individuals who post on
>> this forum know this, but prefer you not to. Because they know it knocks
>> all of their alarmist speculation out of the water.
>
>We don't know shit about genetic manipulation and its consequences.

Strange how we can do so much genetic manipulation then.

>We didn't anticipate the Monarch butterfly problem.

Indeed it was anticipated, hence the tests.
Also it did indeed turn out not to be a problem.

>We are the Monarch
>butterflies waiting for the wrong combination of genes. Let me reiterate:
>we know HOW to splice genes, we do NOT have the slightest idea of
>what is *really* going to happen when we do that.

I'll let tracy answer that.
Have you ever tried any conventional plantbreeding?

>Ask any competent genetic
>engineer who is not being paid by Monsanto.

There must be lots of them.

>You have been lulled into
>a false sense of security. No ifs/ands/buts - time will show the error of
>assuming
>we can predict consequences of genetic meddling.

When?

--
Oz

Oz

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 3:25:42 AM1/20/01
to
Mr. Snappy wrote on Fri, 19 Jan 2001

>Problem is, our government is asleep at the wheel


>when it comes to regulating gm foods. And I *have*
>written both my senators as well as my representative.
>Nobody is listening...because money talks louder than
>I do. Hell, it got our Presidunce-select into office (that
>and 5 votes).

Maybe. Would you prefer a different form of government and if so what?

How woulod you get the majority of the population to agree with you?

--
Oz

gcouger

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 4:03:53 AM1/20/01
to
message news:t6hgunn...@corp.supernews.com...
: Problem is, our government is asleep at the wheel

: when it comes to regulating gm foods. And I *have*
: written both my senators as well as my representative.
: Nobody is listening...because money talks louder than
: I do. Hell, it got our Presidunce-select into office (that
: and 5 votes).
:
Maybe you don't like the way that our goverment uses science insted of
public opinion to make decisions. Our politicians rely on the USDA, FDA
and EPA to make those calls. What is the point in having regulatory
agencies if you over rule them with politics.

The USDA has some of the best scientist in the country working for them
and the politicians know that and they listen to what they say. It has
only been a very few years that industry hired many agricultural
scientist. Almost all of them worked for the USDA, land grant universities
or Army Corp of Engineers until the last few years when industry started
hiring a good number insted of just a few.

Gordon W5RED
G. C. Couger gco...@provalue.net Stillwater, OK


ant

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 8:08:28 AM1/20/01
to

Soren Dayton wrote in message <864ryv8...@everest.overx.com>...

>George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>
writes:

>
>> Soren Dayton wrote:
>> >
>> > An alternative argument runs that there are plenty of high
>> > beta-carotene vegetables produced in the parts of the world that
>> > golden rice are being pushed in. But they are all exported.
>> >
>> > Thus, we could argue, alternatively, that the fact that ease with
>> > which we get food from all over the world blinds us to both the
>> > inequity of the socio-economic relationship and the unsound
>> > agricultural practices.
>> >
>> > Alternatively stated: if we didn't eat their food for them, they might
>> > have enough to eat it themselves.
>> >
>> > Why don't we try that?
>>
>> The alternative sounds good. So why is it not working?
>>
>> The reason is the most of the people who suffer from VAD are poor. They
>> cannot afford the luxury of the imported foods and the governments
>> cannot get the suppliments programs sufficiently well organised.
>
>I'm not saying that the poor people in some desolate place should
>import their carrots or whatever from California. I'm saying that we
>shouldn't take their carrots from them for our baby carrots.
>


or force them off of their verbal contract land so that cash crop
plantations can be established, it does provide plenty of fresh factory
fodder in the mega citys of the third world, desperate to earn enough to
feed their family<the ones they used to feed off of the land that had been
in the fmaily for generations, unfortunately as their ownership predated
the introduction of western model legal systems and contracts the ownership
is not recognised by the IMF or WTO so these people have no legal right to
the land they have cared for for generations.


ant


fe...@mscd.edu

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 10:08:59 AM1/20/01
to
In article <tPW96.5986$d25....@newsfeed.slurp.net>,

"gcouger" <gco...@NOXSPAM.mercury.rfdata.net> wrote:
>
> "Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:nveMWgAs...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> : Soren Dayton wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001

> :
> : >>Oz:
> : >> The job of setting what is safe or not is down to government
> regulations
> : >> and NOT the view of the firms concerned. If you have an issue

about
> the
> : >> safety regs speak to your representative.
> : >
> : >Actually, in the United States, that is significantly not the case.
> : >(1) There is no uniformly defined safety metric and (2) companies
are
> : >not required to state which metric they used to determine that a
given
> : >product is safe.
> : >
> : >Just today the USDA announced that these might change.
> :
> : Tsk tsk.
> :
> : If true (which I doubt) then time to change your representative?
> :
> The FDA requires safety trials before approving any thing. They rely
on
> the company doing the application to do the trials but that is true
for
> all products drugs and food products alike.

Thus they have to rely on the company to provide the testing! Geee a
company would not do an inadequate job here would they???

>
> There is not enough time between now and the time the sun goes super
nova

> to satisfy the conditions of the precautionary principal. That is the
> whole point of the thing. The red herring of moving a very small
number of
> genes is some how more dangerous than swapping half the genes in the
plant
> is ridiculous. It is certainly ridiculous compared to radiation induce
> mutation or colcichine induce poloplodidy.

Or the use of Thalidimide in Europe where it was not tested
adequately!!!

Ian Alexander

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 11:58:43 AM1/20/01
to
In article <3A68B53C...@bpmlegal.com>, Tracy Aquilla
<aqu...@bpmlegal.com> writes

>Ian Alexander wrote:
>
>> >
>> >I doubt that all the proposed GM ideas will work. I doubt that half will
>> >work. But I am convinced that some will work.
>>
>> Intuitively I tend to agree with you. The bigger problem is will the
>> benefits of the few that work outweigh the problems caused by the
>> majority that don't? Jury out. In the meantime the bio-tech industry
>> will do anything to get one product globally accepted
>
>Many products of the biotech industry, such as medical products (drugs,
>diagnostics) and laboratory products (reagents, assays, etc.), have already
>been globally accepted, indeed, for many years now. The only significant
>objection appears to be in regard to plants, animals and food products
>generally.
>
>Tracy
>
Accepted, and I have no objection at all to the technology being used
for medicinal purposes, at least so long as the production facilities
are safely contained. I do object to it be irretrievably released into
the wider countryside - e.g. used in agriculture and forestry. Here the
only demonstrable advantage is to the companies selling the product,
definitely not a good enough reason to risk environmental contamination.
--
Ian Alexander

Ian Alexander

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 12:08:47 PM1/20/01
to
In article <t6hjf86...@corp.supernews.com>, J K Cason
<jkc...@negia.net> writes

>"Soren Dayton" <day...@overx.com> wrote in message
>news:86itncv...@everest.overx.com...
>
>> An alternative argument runs that there are plenty of high
>> beta-carotene vegetables produced in the parts of the world that
>> golden rice are being pushed in. But they are all exported.
>
>That argument has been made before, but what are some of those vegetables?
>
>Foods for export typically have higher quality requirements than foods for
>local consumption. They are not produced by subsistence farmers and the
>poor can't afford them anyway. Another thing that is often overlooked is
>that the poor are generally conservative and want to eat traditional foods
>rather than unfamiliar, possibly more nourishing foods. There are also all
>sorts of food taboos and customs that limit intake. Just because some foods
>are locally grown does not guarantee that the locals want to consume those
>foods or have the means.
>
So the Scots eat fried Mars bars, do we genetically engineer the
ingredients to give Mars bars a higher vitamin content or seek to
educate the Scots about the benefits of eating fruit and vegetables?
Are you suggesting we don't seek to make the results of modern
nutritional research available to the third world if it risks offending
a local food custom?
--
Ian Alexander

Ian Alexander

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 12:16:57 PM1/20/01
to
>
>Any food from the New World has been in European, African, and
>Asian diets for at most 400-450 years, less for many items.
>That's much less than a millenium for maize, tomatoes, potatoes,
>chocolate, blueberries, cranberries, peanuts, wild rice, several
>varieties of beans, peppers, squash, etc. Coffee reached Europe
>from Africa about 1600.
>
>Which of the listed items do you consume?
>
>
I'm not sure that this is a very productive line for the proponents of
GM to follow. Even though some humans have been eating agricultural
products for 10,000 years there is still genetically based intolerance
to several basic foodstuffs, wheat, cows milk, alcohol, which can reach
significant proportions in some populations. So even after 10,000 years
some people have still not managed to make the adaptive switch from
hunter gatherer to farmer.
--
Ian Alexander

Ian Alexander

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 12:21:48 PM1/20/01
to
In article <UFvgMAAk...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes

>Mr. Snappy wrote on Fri, 19 Jan 2001
>
>>>Someone:
>>> Do you know with certainty about anything? Can you be sure that
>>> cornflakes do not have a long term problem? Or sitting in front of your
>>> screen as you read this. What are the long term effects?
>
>>I know the human race has been eating a very similar diet for a long, long
>>time.
>
>And we are hardly disease-free, are we?
>
>>And that hasn't included fish genes,
>
>Eh? Fish genes are certainly a common part of the human diet, and has
>been for a very, very long time.
>
>>or bt insecticide spliced into it.
>
>No, but is has been approved for organic use so it must be UK.
>
Do you really think that occasionally spraying the organism onto a
limited range of crops is equivalent to equipping every cell in the
plant to produce the toxin, within the cell, which, in organic
applications, the organism produces outside of the plant?
--
Ian Alexander

Ian Alexander

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 12:29:04 PM1/20/01
to
>>
>Application of the precautionary principle, which can shut down
>anything, depends on who has the media power to raise the most fuss.
>Much of the media babbles about the unknown risks of "frankenfoods"
>but doesn't repeat information about the greater risks of organic
>foods.


OK perhaps you could list a few examples of the greater dangers of
organic foods - please don't go with the Denis Avery crap that really
has been well and truly debunked.
--
Ian Alexander

Amos Keppler

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 12:56:22 PM1/20/01
to
"Mr. Snappy" wrote:

> "George Baxter" <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>

> wrote in message news:3A68790B...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...
> > "Mr. Snappy" wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I don't suggest they *knowingly* try to produce harmful goods. My
> > > > > concern is that they don't seem to have a problem producing gm
> products
> > > > > which they don't *know* are safe. And they aren't particularly
> > > interested
> > > > > (IMO) in finding out whether they are or not.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that indeed these companies are concerned about whether the
> > > > products they produce are indeed safe for the consumer, irrespective
> of
> > > > whether or not they are GE. If they produce unsafe products then
> sales
> > > will
> > > > drop. They rely on producing products that people want. If people do
> not
> > > > want GE foods then these companies will not produce them.
> > > >
> > > > dk
> > >
> > > I would have to disagree. I believe they do care about safety insofar as
> > > people don't drop dead immediately upon eating their foods. Long term
> > > risks, however, are costly and time-consuming for them to test. No
> > > matter what anyone says or thinks they know, NOBODY knows what's
> > > going to happen for certain when you splice fish DNA with a food staple.
> > > NOBODY. The testing has to be done, and it isn't being done. And I
> > > disagree about people wanting gm foods; certainly there are a
> considerable
> > > number of people who do not want them. But I have yet to hear someone,
> > > besides perhaps a farmer who's been bushwhacked with gm propaganda,
> > > say "gee, I wish my corn was infused with bacterial pesticide so for a
> few
> > > years, until the pests become resistant to it, the farmer might have to
> use
> > > 10 % less pesticide." Not to get too far off the topic of golden rice,
> but
> > > if you look closely at the promises made by the industry for gm foods,
> > > they really have yet to deliver on them. Meanwhile, the American people
> > > are being used as guineau pigs for untested, potentially unsafe crops
> that
> > > they really never asked for in the first place.


> >
> > Do you know with certainty about anything? Can you be sure that
> > cornflakes do not have a long term problem? Or sitting in front of your
> > screen as you read this. What are the long term effects?
> I know the human race has been eating a very similar diet for a long, long
> time.

> And that hasn't included fish genes, or bt insecticide spliced into it.


> We know from experience what has been proven safe over millenia.
> So...YES, I do know.
>

> > All forms of safety testing are to apply a finite number of tests. This
> > is true whether it is gmo, or cars, drugs, machines etc. If it passes
> > the tests ( or more accurately does not fail ) then it is classed safe
> > until something else shows up.
> And that's why every year we see a new pesticide linked to some form
> of cancer or other disease, and it is taken off the market. Good way
> to find out what's safe. Oh wait, I know. We COULD try eating the
> same food that's been eaten for millenia, OR we could risk it to save
> the farmer a few bucks and/or more likely, make a corporation's
> stockholders happy.
>

It's this constant desire to "improve" nature that more than anything is the
cause of most the shit going on.

H A


--
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
PageOne
dangerous news and articles collected from around the world
http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100380/page1.html
awareness, forums and discussions about PageOne news and facts
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


Amos Keppler

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 12:56:26 PM1/20/01
to
Tracy Aquilla wrote:

> Ian Alexander wrote:
>
> > Lot of can nots in there - you seem very sure about this. As sure as
> > people were a couple of years ago when they said that the engineered
> > genes could not spread to other plants (before it was demonstrated that
> > they had).
>
> I suppose you could find a record somewhere of somebody making such a claim,
> but gene flow between closely related plant species was actually rather well
> known to occur, _before_ the first GE plant was created. So I cannot imagine
> anyone with a firm grasp of elementary genetics expressing confidently that
> engineered genes could not spread to other plants. Indeed, that was most
> likely a strawman set up by anti-biotech activists.
> Tracy

WEEK 41 (1999)

GENE MODIFIED POLLEN SPREADING

In fields in in Great Britain pollen from gene modified crops has spread from
testing areas to the surroundings, in spite of confines raised by the
authorities. The spread is illegal because one has sought to avoid contact
between gene modified and natural crops. The pollen dust, spread by insects, was
found 4.5 kilometers from the GM field. By now, in all probability, it’s spread
even further.
Researchers and environmentalists have claimed for years that GM crops have
and would spread and contaminate natural environment, but the authorities, in
various countries, allowing GM testing and the various corporations, among them
Monsanto, have denied that it could ever happen.
Now, with contamination a proven fact, neither public or corporate
authorities, are willing to offer any statement.
Specialists who do, however, state that there is really no way to keep the
contamination from spreading further. A fact, they say, that should be well
known among the various authorities, as they’ve been told this countless times.

The Weekly Report - Archives

http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100380/archives.html

H A


J K Cason

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 2:13:08 PM1/20/01
to
"Ian Alexander" <I...@iandshome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eKeE2EAf...@iandshome.demon.co.uk...

As shown above, I responded to the claim that there are plenty of


high beta-carotene vegetables produced in the parts of the world

that golden rice is being pushed in, but they are all exported.

No one has shown that the first part of the claim is true, and it
is generally untrue that foods produced for export would be
consumed by the local population if they were not exported.

Those opposed to golden rice are suggesting that one of the
results of modern nutritional research (GM) not be made available
to the third world because it offends some people in the
developed world.


J K Cason

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 2:26:45 PM1/20/01
to
"Ian Alexander" <I...@iandshome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lqrKuJAJ...@iandshome.demon.co.uk...

>>Any food from the New World has been in European, African, and
>>Asian diets for at most 400-450 years, less for many items.
>>That's much less than a millenium for maize, tomatoes,
potatoes,
>>chocolate, blueberries, cranberries, peanuts, wild rice,
several
>>varieties of beans, peppers, squash, etc. Coffee reached
Europe
>>from Africa about 1600.

>>Which of the listed items do you consume?

> I'm not sure that this is a very productive line for the
proponents of
> GM to follow.

The _opponents_ of GM have suggested that non-GM foods are safe
because they have been in the human diet for millenia. Anyone
who claims "millenia" doesn't know much about the history of
human food.

> Even though some humans have been eating agricultural
> products for 10,000 years there is still genetically based
intolerance
> to several basic foodstuffs, wheat, cows milk, alcohol, which
can reach
> significant proportions in some populations.

So consumption of non-GM foods carries certain risks that are not
recognized by the argument that millenia of consumption have made
traditional, non-GM foods safe to eat.


Jim Webster

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 1:40:28 PM1/20/01
to

Ian Alexander wrote in message ...
>>>

one example from Europe is ergot in grain, as far as I know, difficult to
control organically.

Jim Webster

We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.

>--
>Ian Alexander


gcouger

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 7:23:40 PM1/20/01
to

<fe...@mscd.edu> wrote in message news:94c9m8$jnl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
: In article <tPW96.5986$d25....@newsfeed.slurp.net>,
-------------------
Not one that will get by the FDA review.
:
: >
: > There is not enough time between now and the time the sun goes super

: nova
: > to satisfy the conditions of the precautionary principal. That is the
: > whole point of the thing. The red herring of moving a very small
: number of
: > genes is some how more dangerous than swapping half the genes in the
: plant
: > is ridiculous. It is certainly ridiculous compared to radiation induce
: > mutation or colcichine induce poloplodidy.
:
: Or the use of Thalidimide in Europe where it was not tested
: adequately!!!

And it didn't get approved by the FDA. Although it was used in trials
here.
--

gcouger

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 7:28:10 PM1/20/01
to

"Ian Alexander" <I...@iandshome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IK5BGBAD...@iandshome.demon.co.uk...
: In article <3A68B53C...@bpmlegal.com>, Tracy Aquilla
===============
The medical products are released into the environment just like the ag
products. The ones in farm crops will have the same chance to pollute the
environment as regular crops on a smaller scale but with a lot stranger
genes. The end product will end up in the streams just like the hormones
and antibiotics do now when you pee and they are flushed down the toilet
and into the sewer.

gcouger

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 7:31:34 PM1/20/01
to

"Amos Keppler" <theweek...@theweeklyreport.com> wrote in message
news:3A69D18D...@theweeklyreport.com...

The cat is out of the bag.


:


Chive Mynde

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 10:06:43 PM1/20/01
to
In article <94ctgn$d5l$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,

"Jim Webster" <Jim.W...@new.address.to.avoid.harassment> wrote:
>
> Ian Alexander wrote in message ...
> >>>
> >>Application of the precautionary principle, which can shut down
> >>anything, depends on who has the media power to raise the most fuss.
> >>Much of the media babbles about the unknown risks of "frankenfoods"
> >>but doesn't repeat information about the greater risks of organic
> >>foods.
> >
> >
> >OK perhaps you could list a few examples of the greater dangers of
> >organic foods - please don't go with the Denis Avery crap that really
> >has been well and truly debunked.
>
> one example from Europe is ergot in grain, as far as I know,
difficult to
> control organically.

Bullshit. This point has been brought up before and thoroughly
debunked.

Ergotized grain does not result from organic
agriculture. Gangreous and convulsive ergotism is spread
through the manufacturing process of ergotized grain into
flour. The grain should never have been used in the first
place.

Again, Webster is caught making false claims which have
been repeatedly debunked.

Just like McCarthy.

Just like Cason.

Just like Aquilla.

Just like Couger.

Just like Oz.

Just like Gossman.

Just like Langer.

Just like [insert corporate-financed propagandist here]

- Chive

http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=644064750&fmt=text
--
"Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu
at the same time. I think I've forgotten
this before. " - Steven Wright

ant

unread,
Jan 21, 2001, 1:12:15 AM1/21/01
to

Ian Alexander wrote in message ...
>In article <t6hjf86...@corp.supernews.com>, J K Cason
><jkc...@negia.net> writes
>>"Soren Dayton" <day...@overx.com> wrote in message
>>news:86itncv...@everest.overx.com...
>>
>>> An alternative argument runs that there are plenty of high
>>> beta-carotene vegetables produced in the parts of the world that
>>> golden rice are being pushed in. But they are all exported.
>>
>>That argument has been made before, but what are some of those
vegetables?
>>
>>Foods for export typically have higher quality requirements than foods
for
>>local consumption. They are not produced by subsistence farmers and the
>>poor can't afford them anyway. Another thing that is often overlooked is
>>that the poor are generally conservative and want to eat traditional
foods
>>rather than unfamiliar, possibly more nourishing foods. There are also
all
>>sorts of food taboos and customs that limit intake. Just because some
foods
>>are locally grown does not guarantee that the locals want to consume
those
>>foods or have the means.
>>
>So the Scots eat fried Mars bars,

so do australians, it is argued that the "delicacy" evolved independantly
in both nations, mars bars have been found in fish and chip shops for
years, recently they started migrating to the fridge in summer, knowing how
nice deep fried battered sweet things taste, fried ice cream anyone?, i
guess it was a logical step, the mars bar has to be cold(less then 5^c)
before being battered and deep fried, they really are not all that bad,
especially with icecream.


ant


Jim Webster

unread,
Jan 21, 2001, 1:57:30 AM1/21/01
to

ant wrote in message ...

>>>
>>So the Scots eat fried Mars bars,
>
>so do australians, it is argued that the "delicacy" evolved independantly
>in both nations, mars bars have been found in fish and chip shops for
>years, recently they started migrating to the fridge in summer, knowing how
>nice deep fried battered sweet things taste, fried ice cream anyone?, i
>guess it was a logical step, the mars bar has to be cold(less then 5^c)
>before being battered and deep fried, they really are not all that bad,
>especially with icecream.
>

The deep fried mars bar has migrated into Northern England as well. As you
say, pleasant enough and while they initially sell on novelty they get
repeat sales from people who enjoy them. Must admit that I find them a bit
cloying but that is just personal taste

Jim Webster

We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.


>
>ant
>
>


Jim Webster

unread,
Jan 21, 2001, 2:01:37 AM1/21/01
to

Chive Mynde wrote in message <94djo1$k71$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...

>In article <94ctgn$d5l$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Jim Webster" <Jim.W...@new.address.to.avoid.harassment> wrote:
>>
>> Ian Alexander wrote in message ...
>> >>>
>> >>Application of the precautionary principle, which can shut down
>> >>anything, depends on who has the media power to raise the most fuss.
>> >>Much of the media babbles about the unknown risks of "frankenfoods"
>> >>but doesn't repeat information about the greater risks of organic
>> >>foods.
>> >
>> >
>> >OK perhaps you could list a few examples of the greater dangers of
>> >organic foods - please don't go with the Denis Avery crap that really
>> >has been well and truly debunked.
>>
>> one example from Europe is ergot in grain, as far as I know,
>difficult to
>> control organically.
>
>Bullshit. This point has been brought up before and thoroughly
>debunked.
>
>Ergotized grain does not result from organic
>agriculture. Gangreous and convulsive ergotism is spread
>through the manufacturing process of ergotized grain into
>flour. The grain should never have been used in the first
>place.
>
>Again, Webster is caught making false claims which have
>been repeatedly debunked.
>

Chive Mynde wrote in message <94aeoe$92i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <8s2a6.6218$d25....@newsfeed.slurp.net>,
> "gcouger" <gco...@NOXSPAM.mercury.rfdata.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Chive Mynde" <chyve...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:94a4ec$v4q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> : In article <3A687E44...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>,
>> : George Baxter <"George Baxter
>RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>
>> : wrote:
>> : > Wrong!

>I *challenge* you to find *one* attack in this thread from me.
>
>I have attacked nobody, yet you and others continue to attack me,
>the messenger.
>
>This is a known fallacy called the "ad hominem".
>
>You can't substantiate your claims with evidence so you attack
>me and avoid the substantiated claims I have posted.
>
>This is the kind of typical hypocrisy and ad hominem
>argumentation we can expect from those who have no evidence
>for their empty claims.

Oz

unread,
Jan 20, 2001, 2:01:49 PM1/20/01
to
Ian Alexander wrote on Sat, 20 Jan 2001

>
>Are you suggesting we don't seek to make the results of modern
>nutritional research available to the third world if it risks offending
>a local food custom?

No, but centuries of experience has shown that you are likely to be more
successful working within local customs rather than demanding the do as
you say.

--
Oz

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages