Dawn raid on GM research station, Bracknell
mar...@myrealbox.com
DAWN RAID ON GM RESEARCH STATION, BRACKNELL
Member of the public, 29.06.2003 09:18
During the early hours of Sunday morning, 29 June, sixty members of
the public entered the grounds of Syngenta's Jealott's Hill Research
Centre near Bracknell, Berkshire and decontaminated a Research and
Development trial of Genetically Modified Wheat [1] by pulling up the
35 by 40 meter plot.
Date: Sunday 29 June 2003
Time: 8:30 a.m.
PRESS RELEASE
DAWN RAID ON GM RESEARCH STATION, BRACKNELL
During the early hours of Sunday morning, 29 June, sixty members of
the public entered the grounds of Syngenta's Jealott's Hill Research
Centre near Bracknell, Berkshire and decontaminated a Research and
Development trial of Genetically Modified Wheat [1] by pulling up the
35 by 40 meter plot.
The group of people, from all around the country, had to evade a 6ft
barbed wire fences and constant security to make the site safe. They
were not challenged by security or police. The crop was just about to
pollinate and spread GM material into the surrounding countryside.
This decontamination is the culmination of a series of co-ordinated
actions which have removed all 10 of this year’s National Seed Listing
trials [2].
One of the protesters Liz Snook commented
“It’s like wandering into an episode of the X files out there.
Syngenta [3] are using our land as a laboratory, despite the courts
repeatedly upholding the position that these crops are a very real
threat to property and the environment.”
The action took place against the backdrop of the government’s GM
Public Debate, which has widely been dismissed as meaningless.
“The government claims it wants a debate on whether to grow GM crops
in this country, but by allowing outdoor trials to take place, it is
presenting us with a fait accompli. The public has said a resounding
‘No!’ to GM crops but the government isn’t listening. Taking direct
action to decontaminate trials ourselves is the only way we can stop
GM before it’s too late” said Pippa Gallop, another of the protestors.
Picture Editors Notes
Freelance video footage of the action is available from: Hamish
Campbell 07931 165 452. Freelance photos are available from: Ben Leary
07956 334 831
Editors Notes
[1] The wheat is modified to be resistant to fusarium fungal diseases.
GM wheat is proving to be the most controversial GM crop so far in the
US and Canada, with consumers, farmers’ unions and large processing
companies saying that they will not use it. It would be the first GM
crop to be eaten in large quantities by humans, and any problems with
it would therefore be particularly serious.
[2] National Seed Listing trials must be carried out for every plant
variety which will be supplied commercially in the UK. They test for
Distinctiveness, Uniformity and Stability (DUV) and Value for
Cultivation and Use (VCU) but not safety, and represent a source of
genetic contamination in themselves. These actions have delayed
commercialisation of certain varieties as well as preventing
contamination.
[3] Syngenta is one of the main companies promoting GM crops In
Britain, along with Bayer and Monsanto. It is the world’s largest
agro-chemical company and has produced such toxic pesticides as
paraquat. More information on Syngenta can be found at
www.corporatewatch.org.uk/profiles/syngenta/syngenta1.htm
David Betts
>During the early hours of Sunday morning, 29 June, sixty members of
>the public
I think you mean criminals
> entered the grounds of Syngenta's Jealott's Hill Research
>Centre near Bracknell, Berkshire and decontaminated
I think you mean vandalised.
Morons.
David Betts
dav...@motorsport.org.uk
Eto Demerzel
mar...@myrealbox.com's output was...
"I, for one, bet on science as helping us. I have yet to see how it
fundamentally endangers us, even with the H-Bomb lurking about. Science
has given us more lives than it has taken; we must remember that."
-- Philip K. Dick
"He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils."
-- Francis Bacon
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
-- Salvor Hardin
A Nonny Mouse
> DAWN RAID ON GM RESEARCH STATION, BRACKNELL
> Member of the public, 29.06.2003 09:18
>
> During the early hours of Sunday morning, 29 June, sixty members of
> the public entered the grounds of Syngenta's Jealott's Hill Research
> Centre near Bracknell, Berkshire and decontaminated a Research and
> Development trial of Genetically Modified Wheat [1] by pulling up the
> 35 by 40 meter plot.
>
<snip>
hmm interesting.
Firstly, the report on the radio said you got the wrong field. Mind,
they did mention fusarium and I did wonder what they were doing with it...
However...
GM can be used for vaious purposes. The first major one was Monsanto's
(?) "Roundup Ready" which meant you could put even more of their
weedkiller on the fields, and this I agree is an unmitigated Bad Thing.
However from what they said and what you said this is going to produce a
wheat that requires LESS nasty poisonous fungicides to be sprayed on the
crop - which surely is rather a good thing?
Paraquat BTW is not a pesticide, but a weedkiller.
mar...@myrealbox.com
>I think you mean criminals
No-one was arrested or charged.
>I think you mean vandalised.
Do you think it's right that a company such as Syngenta should be
allowed to contaminate the food supply with GM wheat that no-one
wants?
See here for more info about GM wheat and the worldwide opposition to
it:
http://www.gmfoodnews.com/gmwheat.html
regards
Marcus
mar...@myrealbox.com
>However from what they said and what you said this is going to produce a
>wheat that requires LESS nasty poisonous fungicides to be sprayed on the
>crop - which surely is rather a good thing?
Depends whether or not you want to eat GM-contaminated wheat...
regards
Marcus
David Betts
>
>>I think you mean criminals
>
>No-one was arrested or charged.
....and that makes them any less guilty how? They have admitted to the
crime.
>>I think you mean vandalised.
>
>Do you think it's right that a company such as Syngenta should be
>allowed to contaminate the food supply with GM wheat that no-one
>wants?
Happy to allow that to be decided by the ballot box. Get yourself
elected.
David Betts
dav...@motorsport.org.uk
Fushion Julz
If they are allowed to carry on "trialling" GM production, then a vote is
irrelevant as the contamination of the non-gm stock is a fait-accompli!
If you agree it should be done by vote, then let's have a vote BEFORE the
trials are allowed!
--
Fushion Julz
-----------------------------------------------------
Deep House in Reading.
http://www.musicforphreaks.com
"David Betts" <dav...@motorsport.org.uk> wrote in message
news:suf2gvsdvl4s6gujm...@4ax.com...
A Nonny Mouse
I'd rather have wheat with a couple of odd extra proteins in it than
wheat with a couple of odd extra mycotoxins in it.
What exactly do you think the GM food is going to do to me? Don't just
try and hit my emotions, try some logic.
David Betts
wrote:
>Are you thick?
Ah! A top poster. Who is the thick one here, then?
>If you agree it should be done by vote, then let's have a vote BEFORE the
>trials are allowed!
We did. We elected a government to make these decisions, scrutinised
by parliament. That's how things are done in a democracy. I wonder how
electable you are ;-)>.
David Betts
dav...@motorsport.org.uk
mar...@myrealbox.com
>We did. We elected a government to make these decisions, scrutinised
>by parliament. That's how things are done in a democracy. I wonder how
>electable you are ;-)>.
Except if the decision is made by the EU, as it is in this case...
regards
Marcus
mar...@myrealbox.com
>I'd rather have wheat with a couple of odd extra proteins in it than
>wheat with a couple of odd extra mycotoxins in it.
Would you? Do you know what those "extra proteins" might do? They
might make the wheat produce other toxins...
>What exactly do you think the GM food is going to do to me? Don't just
>try and hit my emotions, try some logic.
It could:
* Create antibiotic resistance
* Poison you - no-one knows because they've never been safety tested
* Cause genetic damage - no-one knows because they've never been
safety tested
* Create superweeds
For more issues, see my page here:
http://www.gmfoodnews.com/gmwrong.html
How about providing your name and company affiliation?
regards
Marcus Williamson
Eto Demerzel
mar...@myrealbox.com's output was...
>
> >wheat with a couple of odd extra mycotoxins in it.
>
> Would you? Do you know what those "extra proteins" might do? They
> might make the wheat produce other toxins...
And it might not. Raids on research facilities deprive us all of the
chance to find out.
> >What exactly do you think the GM food is going to do to me? Don't just
> >try and hit my emotions, try some logic.
>
> It could:
>
> * Create antibiotic resistance
How will it achieve this? And what exactly will be resistant to
antibiotics? The person or the crop?
> * Poison you - no-one knows because they've never been safety tested
> * Cause genetic damage - no-one knows because they've never been
> safety tested
Surely there must be some evidence to support the fact that this *could*
happen, besides the fact that there's no evidence to the contrary. Or is
this along the lines of...
* Turn you into a decerebrate drone, intent only on killing your family
and pouring sugar in your neighbour's petrol tank - no-one knows because
they've never been safety tested.
> * Create superweeds
By "superweed", I take it you mean something which is resistant to normal
weed-killing methods? How will the extra attributes of GM wheat be
transferred to dandelions? Why has this process not meant that (for
example) roses have "learned" to sting people from their neighbouring
nettles?
As for my allegiance/affiliations/alignment - I'm a freelance IT bod, who
has never worked for any of the people listed at
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/profiles/company_profiles.htm - save,
for a saturday job at Sainsbury's when I was 16, where I was not involved
in any evil scheme or conspiracy to splice tomatoes with bananas and
market them to people.
PS: Has Alistair Campbell ever said that GM is harmless? If so, I may
just defect..........
;-)
Fushion Julz
"David Betts" <dav...@motorsport.org.uk> wrote in message
news:c955gv86ko3fho0b9...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:19:20 +0100, "Fushion Julz" <ju...@nme.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Are you thick?
>
> Ah! A top poster. Who is the thick one here, then?
So that's you're arguemnet, then? If I top post I'm thick?
Whereas if I can't see that by planting GM crops *anywhere* will result in
cross-contamination of other (even organic) products I'm not?
Doh!
>
> >If you agree it should be done by vote, then let's have a vote BEFORE the
> >trials are allowed!
>
> We did. We elected a government to make these decisions, scrutinised
> by parliament. That's how things are done in a democracy. I wonder how
> electable you are ;-)>.
Dunno...haven't stood....but *I* didn't vote for chemicals and/or GM in my
food....my $$ are used to buy and support organic producers and fairtrade
organisations wherever possible...Are you saying I can't have that choice
any more because GM crops should be allowed to be planted in the next field?
Grow up!
I'm not alone.....btw......I'm sure, given the *real* facts most would
prefer NOT to see GM crops in this country....
For some places where crop yeilds are very low and there are climactic
reasons to "engineer" a strain of tomatoes with pig genes, then they
possibly, just might, be justified....BUt the UK has the capacity to be
self-sufficient in agriculture ORGANICALLY....we simply have no need of
these mutant plants....
The reason we are getting them is that the multinationals that control the
mainstream farming industry want to sell the seeds here because they can get
"above market value", whereas in the 3rd world they will be lucky to cover
any development costs.
Just for fun read and listen to this
http://www.seizetheday.org/monsanto/main.htm
Not 100% relevant, I admit...but Monsanto ARE one of the major instigators
of GM trials....
Julz
>
> David Betts
> dav...@motorsport.org.uk
Fushion Julz
"Eto Demerzel" <eto.de...@fijivillage.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.196cd0e1e...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In article <5la5gv03n26fhp5mt...@4ax.com>,
> mar...@myrealbox.com's output was...
> >
> > >I'd rather have wheat with a couple of odd extra proteins in it than
> > >wheat with a couple of odd extra mycotoxins in it.
> >
> > Would you? Do you know what those "extra proteins" might do? They
> > might make the wheat produce other toxins...
>
> And it might not. Raids on research facilities deprive us all of the
> chance to find out.
Jesus! Another one! Just how do you propose to ensure that cross
contimination of non-GM or, worse, organic produce will not occur?
By planting in open fields in soil used by mainstream farming we will get GM
crops, whatever the benefits, or not!
Let's have the tests FIRST....then plant the suckers!
Julz
Eto Demerzel
>
> Jesus! Another one! Just how do you propose to ensure that cross
> contimination of non-GM or, worse, organic produce will not occur?
Are GM crops not already kept sufficiently distant from the non-GM crops?
If you believe they are not, how do you know so?
> By planting in open fields in soil used by mainstream farming we will get GM
> crops, whatever the benefits, or not!
>
> Let's have the tests FIRST....then plant the suckers!
Surely part of the testing will mean planting the suckers? What other
testing that hasn't already been done would you like to see?
And - another question for you:
If at some point in the future - GM crops are an established, tested and
safe means of feeding people - would you then purchase and consume their
produce?
And what criteria would need to be met for GM to be considered "safe" in
your eyes?
Fushion Julz
> In article <bdumre$1ba0$1...@news.icl.se>, Fushion Julz's output was...
> >
> > Jesus! Another one! Just how do you propose to ensure that cross
> > contimination of non-GM or, worse, organic produce will not occur?
>
> Are GM crops not already kept sufficiently distant from the non-GM crops?
> If you believe they are not, how do you know so?
I've seen them planted a mere 200m away from normal farmland!!
>
> > By planting in open fields in soil used by mainstream farming we will
get GM
> > crops, whatever the benefits, or not!
> >
> > Let's have the tests FIRST....then plant the suckers!
>
> Surely part of the testing will mean planting the suckers? What other
> testing that hasn't already been done would you like to see?
They could be planted off-shore (scottish island?) or in a sufficiently
remote part of the world...
How about testing to see the long(er) term effects of eating these
products....perhaps on cattle, first, and preferably ones not in the human
food chain!
I'm not a scientist, but I can't see why we need these hybrids in the first
place!
>
> And - another question for you:
> If at some point in the future - GM crops are an established, tested and
> safe means of feeding people - would you then purchase and consume their
> produce?
Depends.....Partly on if I was happy with the testing and partly if the
"modification" was with non-animal genes (I'm veggie).
However, if they developed a means of growing product on a worldwide scale
without the use of pesticides, herbicides, growth hormones, etc, then I
might be persuaded that the "modification" was necessary.
However, let's be clear: Monsanto and other GM exponents also preduce all
the nasty chemicals used in industrial farming. Can't see them allowing
their "bread and butter" products become sidelined!
>
> And what criteria would need to be met for GM to be considered "safe" in
> your eyes?
At present we simply do not know the consequences of the modification of any
product to decide if it is safe, viable or simply toxic!
Julz
Robert Davies
big black hole:
> In article <bdumre$1ba0$1...@news.icl.se>, Fushion Julz's output was...
> Are GM crops not already kept sufficiently distant from the non-GM
> crops?
No. Cross fertilisation can (and does!) take place at incredible distances.
Simplistically, remember those odd occasions when we've had dust from the
Sahara land here. Well... it doesn't take a genius with a BSc to figure out
cross fertilisation/pollination is likely to happen in an unenclosed
environment.
>> By planting in open fields in soil used by mainstream farming we
>> will get GM crops, whatever the benefits, or not!
>>
>> Let's have the tests FIRST....then plant the suckers!
>
> Surely part of the testing will mean planting the suckers? What other
> testing that hasn't already been done would you like to see?
Again, rather logically, within a closed, controlled environment.
> And - another question for you:
> If at some point in the future - GM crops are an established, tested
> and safe means of feeding people - would you then purchase and
> consume their produce?
Personally, possibly... then possibly not.
On a slightly different tangent, I personally try to avoid products with
artificial sweeteners in. In my opinion, forget any health concerns - they
simply taste horrible and synthetic! It's amazing how even a product such as
lemonade is difficult to find without the addition of sweeteners such as
aspartame.
Robert Davies
big black hole:
> DAWN RAID ON GM RESEARCH STATION, BRACKNELL
> Member of the public, 29.06.2003 09:18
A serious issue, and one I have a lot of time for. But alas, somewhat
belittled when it comes from someone with such unbalanced and ill-informed
rantings about airports and air travel.
David Betts
wrote:
>"David Betts" <dav...@motorsport.org.uk> wrote i
>>
>> We elected a government to make these decisions, scrutinised
>> by parliament. That's how things are done in a democracy. I wonder how
>> electable you are ;-)>.
>
>Dunno...haven't stood....
That rather says it all, doesn't it?
<loony rant snipped>
David Betts
dav...@motorsport.org.uk
wanderer
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:11:54 +0100, "Fushion Julz" <ju...@nme.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"David Betts" <dav...@motorsport.org.uk> wrote i
> >>
> >> We elected a government to make these decisions, scrutinised
> >> by parliament. That's how things are done in a democracy.
Whilst the sentiments are commendable, I don't recollect any party
campaigning on this issue, so none of them have a clear mandate to support
GM research.
I'll declare my interest (or lack of it) straight away. I don't have a
strong opinion one way about GM foods, other than to wonder how many who
protest about scientific advances - if such they turn out to be - are still
quite willing to take advantage of those advances that happened in the past
and are now accepted as part of C21 living.
Fushion Julz
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:11:54 +0100, "Fushion Julz" <ju...@nme.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"David Betts" <dav...@motorsport.org.uk> wrote i
> >>
> >> We elected a government to make these decisions, scrutinised
> >> by parliament. That's how things are done in a democracy. I wonder how
> >> electable you are ;-)>.
> >
> >Dunno...haven't stood....
>
> That rather says it all, doesn't it?
Nope....doesn't say anything...and since you don't *know* me I would ask you
not to judge me on my political views/affiliations (or lack of them).
Anyhow, now you bring it up, who and where have you stood and been elected
for?
>
> <loony rant snipped>
Nah, come ON....I'm not a loony and it wasn't a "rant"....Why does my
ethical stance on production/farming provoke such a "right-wing" reaction
from you? Do you have a vested interest?
Eto Demerzel
> "Eto Demerzel" <eto.de...@fijivillage.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.196cf7a38...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > In article <bdumre$1ba0$1...@news.icl.se>, Fushion Julz's output was...
> >
> > If you believe they are not, how do you know so?
>
> I've seen them planted a mere 200m away from normal farmland!!
>
producing unmodified crops for except comparison? What's the problem if
they're not selling them on afterwards?
>
> They could be planted off-shore (scottish island?) or in a sufficiently
> remote part of the world...
> How about testing to see the long(er) term effects of eating these
> products....perhaps on cattle, first, and preferably ones not in the human
> food chain!
to the GM people and if they've looked in to it.
> I'm not a scientist, but I can't see why we need these hybrids in the first
> place!
>
I can't see why I *need* a faster processor in my computer, but it won't
stop me from buying it.
> >
> > And - another question for you:
> > If at some point in the future - GM crops are an established, tested and
> > safe means of feeding people - would you then purchase and consume their
> > produce?
>
> At present we simply do not know the consequences of the modification of any
> product to decide if it is safe, viable or simply toxic!
>
One might argue that nobody knows how safe ecstasy is - but that doesn't
stop you from taking several pills.
Eto../
Dog
> Depends.....Partly on if I was happy with the testing and partly if the
> "modification" was with non-animal genes
>(I'm veggie).
What a suprise.
Leaving the GM hypothosis aside, what's so abhorrent about an animal
gene? After all, you're stuffed full of them yourself.
Eto Demerzel
I know some veggies who'll quite happily barbeque their veggie burgers on
the same spot previously occupied by a piece of steak - and others who
demand that their non-veggie spouses not cook anything containing meat in
the oven. I also know one veggie who will happily order a pizza with
meat on it, and then pick all the bits of meat off before eating it.
I'd always thought the whole "meat is murder, I prefer my food without a
face" argument was based on the fact that you're killing something with
conciousness in order to eat it. Even if wheat does borrow a sequence
from, say, a rooster; the wheat remains unsentient - although, not being
a breakfast cereal person, I'm not sure I personally would buy wheatabix
if it was likely to make cockerel crowing noises each day at dawn in
order to wake me up for breakfast ;-)
Dog
> interesting one, that.
>
> I know some veggies who'll quite happily barbeque their veggie burgers on
> the same spot previously occupied by a piece of steak - and others who
> demand that their non-veggie spouses not cook anything containing meat in
> the oven.
Yeah, and of course they've had their fangs (eye teeth) pulled to
disassociate themselves from the fact that Homo Sapiens is by evolution
an omnivore.
> I'd always thought the whole "meat is murder, I prefer my food without a
> face" argument was based on the fact that you're killing something with
> conciousness in order to eat it. Even if wheat does borrow a sequence
> from, say, a rooster; the wheat remains unsentient - although, not being
> a breakfast cereal person, I'm not sure I personally would buy wheatabix
> if it was likely to make cockerel crowing noises each day at dawn in
> order to wake me up for breakfast ;-)
I've found that the more veggies for dinner contributes to the more
noises at breakfast time. But that's probably enough detail for usenet.
Eto Demerzel
>
> Yeah, and of course they've had their fangs (eye teeth) pulled to
> disassociate themselves from the fact that Homo Sapiens is by evolution
> an omnivore.
Although - being omnivorous means we can happily choose either to eat
meat or not to eat meat.
The only problems I've ever had with vegetarians are those of the
"militant" variety, who absolutely insist that what *you* are doing is
*wrong* and how dare you eat a ham sandwich in the same room as them.
Suggesting that vegetarianism is simply a milder form of anorexia usually
finishes the conversation fairly quickly.
David Betts
wrote:
>
>"David Betts" <dav...@motorsport.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:adl7gv4mop4u8psgt...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:11:54 +0100, "Fushion Julz" <ju...@nme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"David Betts" <dav...@motorsport.org.uk> wrote i
>> >>
>> >> We elected a government to make these decisions, scrutinised
>> >> by parliament. That's how things are done in a democracy. I wonder how
>> >> electable you are ;-)>.
>> >
>> >Dunno...haven't stood....
>>
>> That rather says it all, doesn't it?
>
>Nope....doesn't say anything...and since you don't *know* me I would ask you
>not to judge me on my political views/affiliations (or lack of them).
But I didn't, did I? You really aren't very bright, are you?
>Anyhow, now you bring it up, who and where have you stood and been elected
>for?
I'm not the one supporting criminal vandalism as an altternative to
parliamentary democracy, am I? You really don't seem to understand
this conversation any better than you understand the GM issue. I'll
stop wasting my time.
David Betts
dav...@motorsport.org.uk
David Betts
wrote:
>"David Betts" <dav...@motorsport.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:adl7gv4mop4u8psgt...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:11:54 +0100, "Fushion Julz" <ju...@nme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"David Betts" <dav...@motorsport.org.uk> wrote i
>> >>
>> >> We elected a government to make these decisions, scrutinised
>> >> by parliament. That's how things are done in a democracy.
>
>Whilst the sentiments are commendable, I don't recollect any party
>campaigning on this issue, so none of them have a clear mandate to support
>GM research.
There is no way that every party can include every issue in its
campaign. They pick the ones which they think matter most to the
electorate. I don't doubt there's something in the small print of the
full manifesto, though.
Anyway, circumstances evolve and governments must develop policies
during the course of their term. They can't keep going back to the
electorate for every minor issue. By electing them, we effectively
state that we trust their judgement. If, further down the road, the
electorate no longer trusts their judgement then they throw them out.
David Betts
dav...@motorsport.org.uk
Fushion Julz
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 09:41:56 +0100, "Fushion Julz" <ju...@nme.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"David Betts" <dav...@motorsport.org.uk> wrote in message
> >news:adl7gv4mop4u8psgt...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:11:54 +0100, "Fushion Julz" <ju...@nme.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"David Betts" <dav...@motorsport.org.uk> wrote i
> >> >>
> >> >> We elected a government to make these decisions, scrutinised
> >> >> by parliament. That's how things are done in a democracy. I wonder
how
> >> >> electable you are ;-)>.
> >> >
> >> >Dunno...haven't stood....
> >>
> >> That rather says it all, doesn't it?
> >
> >Nope....doesn't say anything...and since you don't *know* me I would ask
you
> >not to judge me on my political views/affiliations (or lack of them).
>
> But I didn't, did I? You really aren't very bright, are you?
Whereas you, of course, are a veritable Einstein...yeah, right!
No need to be offensive, eh?
Since you are obviously unable to spot subtleties, I'll spell it out: I
distrust politicians as a whole....I don't believe our system of government
provides the voice for minorities or minority views. It is too easy for
Govt. to hoodwink and spin....Accountability is nil (or near it).
Politicians have become "fat cats" with am "I'm allright Jack" attitude.
They pass laws that are virtually unenforceable to try and "tame" the
dissent in the 60% odd of the population who didn't vote for the current
encumbents of Downing St.
I have a dilemma of conscience: By standing for parliment and stand a chance
of election I would have to be either rich or affiliated to (or a member of)
a political party. I am not rich and I cannot align myself with any of the
political parties currently around.
Hence, I have not stood for election....
I suspect I am not the only one in this position (hence the low and
decreasing turnouts at elections) and know many of my friends and
aquentencies who share my views. However, I do not delude myself that this
is a majority view. History is "taught" and skewed to show that our system
is the best without offering alternatives. Hence people make judgements
based on what they "know" not what is fact! In turn, one persons' facts are
anothers' propaganda!!
>
> >Anyhow, now you bring it up, who and where have you stood and been
elected
> >for?
>
> I'm not the one supporting criminal vandalism as an altternative to
> parliamentary democracy, am I? You really don't seem to understand
> this conversation any better than you understand the GM issue. I'll
> stop wasting my time.
Of course you understand the issue perfectly...In fact I'd be willing to bet
you have a degree on the subject!
You seem to take offence at anyone holding different views to yours.
So your political affiliations are plain to see to anyone who has an ounce
of intuition....
I suppose that, since you accept the dubious evidence supplied by the vested
interests, then you also believe, without question, that (for example) MMR
vaccines are 100% safe....Since Mr Blair has *said* they are (even though he
appears unwilling to confirm his child has had it).
Julz
Fushion Julz
> In article <bduujc$1f2f$1...@news.icl.se>, Fushion Julz's output was...
> > "Eto Demerzel" <eto.de...@fijivillage.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.196cf7a38...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > > In article <bdumre$1ba0$1...@news.icl.se>, Fushion Julz's output was...
> > >
> > > Are GM crops not already kept sufficiently distant from the non-GM
crops?
> > > If you believe they are not, how do you know so?
> >
> > I've seen them planted a mere 200m away from normal farmland!!
> >
> Was this the case at Syngenta last weekend? What would such a company be
> producing unmodified crops for except comparison? What's the problem if
> they're not selling them on afterwards?
Contamination of other "non-GM" crops.....
> >
> > They could be planted off-shore (scottish island?) or in a sufficiently
> > remote part of the world...
> > How about testing to see the long(er) term effects of eating these
> > products....perhaps on cattle, first, and preferably ones not in the
human
> > food chain!
> Good idea, about the remote island. I wonder if this has been suggested
> to the GM people and if they've looked in to it.
Probably, but profits are king, remember!
>
> > I'm not a scientist, but I can't see why we need these hybrids in the
first
> > place!
> >
> I can't see why I *need* a faster processor in my computer, but it won't
> stop me from buying it.
Senseless consumerism and the "disposable society"....Prime example!!
>
> > >
> > > And - another question for you:
> > > If at some point in the future - GM crops are an established, tested
and
> > > safe means of feeding people - would you then purchase and consume
their
> > > produce?
> >
>
> > At present we simply do not know the consequences of the modification of
any
> > product to decide if it is safe, viable or simply toxic!
> >
> One might argue that nobody knows how safe ecstasy is - but that doesn't
> stop you from taking several pills.
Sorry?
You *know* that do you? Speak for yourself, but please do not assume that I
take ecstasy or any other chemical without asking first!
Fushion Julz
news:3F047645...@hotmail.com...
So I've got chicken and cow genes, eh?
Phuw! Some people....
Look, eat what you want...just do it with *knowledge* of the consequences of
what you do.
In general Vegetarians are healthier than meat-eaters
In a temperate climate with agricultural technology of a western state,
farming meat is wasteful...If we turned over the land devoted to meat
production to crop production, we could feed another country the size of the
UK!!
Think of the consequences of doing that in a country the size of the USA!
There are places in the world (including in this country) where animal
farming is the most efficient way of using the sparse vegetation growth
available....Here animals should be farmed. Prime arable land, however,
should be used for a more efficient farming process!
Fushion Julz
"Dog" <wo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3F04A41...@hotmail.com...
> Eto Demerzel wrote:
> > interesting one, that.
> >
> > I know some veggies who'll quite happily barbeque their veggie burgers
on
> > the same spot previously occupied by a piece of steak - and others who
> > demand that their non-veggie spouses not cook anything containing meat
in
> > the oven.
>
> Yeah, and of course they've had their fangs (eye teeth) pulled to
> disassociate themselves from the fact that Homo Sapiens is by evolution
> an omnivore.
What have you got against vegetarians? What agenda are you harbouring?
>
>
> > I'd always thought the whole "meat is murder, I prefer my food without a
> > face" argument was based on the fact that you're killing something with
> > conciousness in order to eat it. Even if wheat does borrow a sequence
> > from, say, a rooster; the wheat remains unsentient - although, not
being
> > a breakfast cereal person, I'm not sure I personally would buy wheatabix
> > if it was likely to make cockerel crowing noises each day at dawn in
> > order to wake me up for breakfast ;-)
>
>
> I've found that the more veggies for dinner contributes to the more
> noises at breakfast time. But that's probably enough detail for usenet.
Ah! so you would like to *force* people to eat what *you* choose?
Nice....
Eto Demerzel
>
> > Was this the case at Syngenta last weekend? What would such a company be
> > producing unmodified crops for except comparison? What's the problem if
> > they're not selling them on afterwards?
>
> Contamination of other "non-GM" crops.....
How? The crops were at a private research facility. The only non-GM
crops to be "contaminated" would be those kept for comparison at the
base, and it would be in the best interests of Syngenta to keep them far
enough apart that they didn't pick up any GM material. If the non-GM
crops were to be contaminated, the final report would look something like
"Uh, well.... the non-GM crops showed exactly the same resistance to
weevils as the GM ones, so, ummm - no market for that, then."
>
> > Good idea, about the remote island. I wonder if this has been suggested
> > to the GM people and if they've looked in to it.
>
> Probably, but profits are king, remember!
I'd have thought a small scottish island would've been a cheaper place to
build testing grounds than the Thames Valley, but you're right - profit
is going to be king. Perhaps a nice controlled biosphere would do
the trick? Hopefully, the likes of the Food Standards Agency are staffed
with people who know about things like cross-pollination and GM crops.
If these people are corrupt or incompetent, perhaps we, the electorate
should have elected different leadership.
> > I can't see why I *need* a faster processor in my computer, but it won't
> > stop me from buying it.
>
> Senseless consumerism and the "disposable society"....Prime example!!
Senseless? I *want* a faster CPU. I don't *need* it. We have a market
economy. My work is worth what people will pay for it. If this means I
can afford a faster CPU, and I want to buy one, I can do so.
> >
> > > >
> > > At present we simply do not know the consequences of the modification of
> any
> > > product to decide if it is safe, viable or simply toxic!
> > >
> > One might argue that nobody knows how safe ecstasy is - but that doesn't
> > stop you from taking several pills.
>
> Sorry?
> You *know* that do you? Speak for yourself, but please do not assume that I
> take ecstasy or any other chemical without asking first!
My apologies, Mr A. I shall now ask:
Do you take/have you taken Ecstasy?
If not, you might want to skip over to uk.music.rave where there's
somebody pretending to be you and claiming to have been taking "8 per
night and 4 nights per week!!" at one point.
message ID a38m2v$lj3$1...@news.icl.se.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, but it is an
untested (or where tested - found to be harmful and banned by law) thing,
unlike GM crops which are still being tested. Perhaps they will be found
to be harmful, but as long as people go destroying the research, none of
us will ever know.
--
Regards,
Eto../
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"
Eto Demerzel
> >
> > Leaving the GM hypothosis aside, what's so abhorrent about an animal
> > gene? After all, you're stuffed full of them yourself.
>
> So I've got chicken and cow genes, eh?
>
> Phuw! Some people....
>
"http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/04/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome/"
It's certainly possible. Research on cow and chicken genomes began in
September last year: http://genome.gov/10005835
Not sure when the sequencing will be finished, but I'm sure there'll be
another spat of BBC Radio One News stories, full of interesting
statistics when it happens.
Fushion Julz
> > > Was this the case at Syngenta last weekend? What would such a company
be
> > > producing unmodified crops for except comparison? What's the problem
if
> > > they're not selling them on afterwards?
> >
> > Contamination of other "non-GM" crops.....
>
> How? The crops were at a private research facility. The only non-GM
> crops to be "contaminated" would be those kept for comparison at the
> base, and it would be in the best interests of Syngenta to keep them far
> enough apart that they didn't pick up any GM material. If the non-GM
> crops were to be contaminated, the final report would look something like
> "Uh, well.... the non-GM crops showed exactly the same resistance to
> weevils as the GM ones, so, ummm - no market for that, then."
Plants cross-polinate/fertilize over *huge* distances
>
> >
> > > Good idea, about the remote island. I wonder if this has been
suggested
> > > to the GM people and if they've looked in to it.
> >
> > Probably, but profits are king, remember!
>
> I'd have thought a small scottish island would've been a cheaper place to
> build testing grounds than the Thames Valley, but you're right - profit
> is going to be king. Perhaps a nice controlled biosphere would do
> the trick? Hopefully, the likes of the Food Standards Agency are staffed
> with people who know about things like cross-pollination and GM crops.
> If these people are corrupt or incompetent, perhaps we, the electorate
> should have elected different leadership.
Nail, head, hit-hard!
>
> > > I can't see why I *need* a faster processor in my computer, but it
won't
> > > stop me from buying it.
> >
> > Senseless consumerism and the "disposable society"....Prime example!!
>
> Senseless? I *want* a faster CPU. I don't *need* it. We have a market
> economy. My work is worth what people will pay for it. If this means I
> can afford a faster CPU, and I want to buy one, I can do so.
Oh, indeed...in *monetary* terms you can afford it. But can the earth afford
it in ecological terms?
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > At present we simply do not know the consequences of the
modification of
> > any
> > > > product to decide if it is safe, viable or simply toxic!
> > > >
> > > One might argue that nobody knows how safe ecstasy is - but that
doesn't
> > > stop you from taking several pills.
> >
> > Sorry?
> > You *know* that do you? Speak for yourself, but please do not assume
that I
> > take ecstasy or any other chemical without asking first!
>
> My apologies, Mr A. I shall now ask:
>
> Do you take/have you taken Ecstasy?
>
> If not, you might want to skip over to uk.music.rave where there's
> somebody pretending to be you and claiming to have been taking "8 per
> night and 4 nights per week!!" at one point.
> message ID a38m2v$lj3$1...@news.icl.se.
<titter>
Found out!
In the past, yes...Just as in the past I used to eat meat....
Sure, I'm not "whiter than white", but I, at least, try to find out the
"why" or "why not" about the products (of all sorts) that I buy and consume.
Sure, I used to buy Nestle products and Monsanto products, too...But not
know...Knowledge is power...the power to decide, at least!
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, but it is an
> untested (or where tested - found to be harmful and banned by law) thing,
> unlike GM crops which are still being tested. Perhaps they will be found
> to be harmful, but as long as people go destroying the research, none of
> us will ever know.
But the research must not be tainted! Whilst the agencies/companies that
carry out the research have a vested interest, then that research is not
valid!
--
Fushion Julz
-----------------------------------------------------
Deep House in Reading.
http://www.musicforphreaks.com
>
Eto Demerzel
> "Eto Demerzel" <eto.de...@fijivillage.com> wrote
>
> Plants cross-polinate/fertilize over *huge* distances
>
here. Do you think the relatively open environment testing would fall
under the heading of "calculated risk" or "corporate irresponsibility"?
I'm tempted to email the PR bods at Syngenta and ask them about it. One
would hope they can provide satisfactory explanations. They may turn
around and say "sure, sometimes pollination does happen over huuge
distances, but it's rare and we've modified ours not to do that" or
something along those lines. Personally, my main reason for being in
this thread is neither that I think GM food is necessarily right or wrong
across all contexts, but that I object to scientific research being
stifled by the vandalism of a small group of people pretending to act in
the name of "The Public" to stop something that "nobody" wants.
snip
> > If these people are corrupt or incompetent, perhaps we, the electorate
> > should have elected different leadership.
>
> Nail, head, hit-hard!
Well, I didn't vote for this lot... ;-)
>
> Oh, indeed...in *monetary* terms you can afford it. But can the earth afford
> it in ecological terms?
How does one compute such a thing? How will I know if the silicon used
to make the CPU has just plunged the planet deep into overdraft? I'll
have to dig out my copy of "Eat The Rich", which IIRC attempts to explain
some of these things.
snip
> <titter>
> Found out!
>
> In the past, yes...Just as in the past I used to eat meat....
> Sure, I'm not "whiter than white", but I, at least, try to find out the
> "why" or "why not" about the products (of all sorts) that I buy and consume.
> Sure, I used to buy Nestle products and Monsanto products, too...But not
> know...Knowledge is power...the power to decide, at least!
Have to say I tend to avoid Nestlé stuff, but I am ignorant of any
problems with Monsanto, and I have to say I know little to nothing about
them.
Perhaps you're a person for the following question:
Is it true that Embassy No. 1 are the only cigarettes *not* tested on
animals? I've heard this repeated quite a bit, but I can't find anything
to back it up.
>
> >
>snip
> > Perhaps they will be found
> > to be harmful, but as long as people go destroying the research, none of
> > us will ever know.
>
> But the research must not be tainted! Whilst the agencies/companies that
> carry out the research have a vested interest, then that research is not
> valid!
>
Difficult to find such research. If I had an idea for some new
invention, of course I would have a vested interest in researching it.
I see nothing wrong in profiting from one's endeavours, and I think it
vital that people be rewarded for such things if the sum of human
knowledge and understanding is to grow.
--
Regards,
Eto../
"Revisiting Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantages"
Dog
>>>the same spot previously occupied by a piece of steak - and others who
>>>demand that their non-veggie spouses not cook anything containing meat
>>
> in
>
>>>the oven.
>>
>>Yeah, and of course they've had their fangs (eye teeth) pulled to
>>disassociate themselves from the fact that Homo Sapiens is by evolution
>> an omnivore.
>
>
> What have you got against vegetarians? What agenda are you harbouring?
>
Nothing at all! I was generalising I suppose about vegans as referred to
by Eto. The "Meat is murder" direct-action militants type brigade.
>
>>
>>>I'd always thought the whole "meat is murder, I prefer my food without a
>>>face" argument was based on the fact that you're killing something with
>>>conciousness in order to eat it. Even if wheat does borrow a sequence
>>>from, say, a rooster; the wheat remains unsentient - although, not
>>
> being
>
>>>a breakfast cereal person, I'm not sure I personally would buy wheatabix
>>>if it was likely to make cockerel crowing noises each day at dawn in
>>>order to wake me up for breakfast ;-)
>>
>>
>>I've found that the more veggies for dinner contributes to the more
>>noises at breakfast time. But that's probably enough detail for usenet.
>
>
> Ah! so you would like to *force* people to eat what *you* choose?
>
> Nice....
>
Where the F do you get that from? *I* was merely referring to the
effects of the Brassica family on my digestive system. Or are you
confusing your quotations?
I have no problems with veggies, nor do I have an agenda. I do however
dislike militants, "professional protesters" and those that try to
impose their beliefs on others whether it be something like religion, or
that I'm wrong to eat a poor fluffy bunny or a bun containing GM wheat.
Eto Demerzel
> > What have you got against vegetarians? What agenda are you harbouring?
> >
> Nothing at all! I was generalising I suppose about vegans as referred to
> by Eto. The "Meat is murder" direct-action militants type brigade.
>
many grilled turnips they'd like, veggieism is evolutionary laziness -
not very hard to hunt down a carrot, etc, etc - but I have no problems
with vegetarianism provided it is not enforced upon me.
Worst thing I've ever seen was a vegetarian who insisted that her cat
also be vegetarian, and accordingly she wouldn't feed it anything with
meat in it. The cat would've died much quicker if it wasn't a
skilled mouse-hunter. Poor little carnivore.
> >>
> >>I've found that the more veggies for dinner contributes to the more
> >>noises at breakfast time. But that's probably enough detail for usenet.
> >
> > Ah! so you would like to *force* people to eat what *you* choose?
> >
> > Nice....
> >
>
> Where the F do you get that from? *I* was merely referring to the
> effects of the Brassica family on my digestive system. Or are you
> confusing your quotations?
>
> I have no problems with veggies, nor do I have an agenda. I do however
> dislike militants, "professional protesters" and those that try to
> impose their beliefs on others whether it be something like religion, or
> that I'm wrong to eat a poor fluffy bunny or a bun containing GM wheat.
>
you meant that you were planning to serve them all a full english for
breakfast, or surreptitiously place chicken in their dinner and tell them
about it the next morning or something sinister like that ;-)
Dog
>>Leaving the GM hypothosis aside, what's so abhorrent about an animal
>>gene? After all, you're stuffed full of them yourself.
>
>
> So I've got chicken and cow genes, eh?
>
> Phuw! Some people....
>
No, you have Human genes (I must admit I'm assuming here.) Homo Sapiens
is an animal, by classification.
The original question still stands...why does the mere fact a gene
originated from an animal rather than from a veg make it so undesirable?
> Look, eat what you want...just do it with *knowledge* of the consequences of
> what you do.
>
Thank you, I shall. I *know* that tonight's donor kebab is going to give
me the undesirables in the morning, but I'll enjoy it all the same.....
Stephen Burke
> I've seen them planted a mere 200m away from normal farmland!!
My garden is pretty close to farmland, but it isn't full of wheat.
> They could be planted off-shore (scottish island?) or in a
> sufficiently remote part of the world...
They could be planted and consumed in America, which despite being the most
litigious place on the planet seems to have had remarkably few law suits about
damage of any kind from GM crops.
Incidentally, given that pretty much all farm produce has been genetically
modified by thousands of years of breeding, what do you eat?
> Depends.....Partly on if I was happy with the testing and partly if
> the "modification" was with non-animal genes (I'm veggie).
There isn't really such a thing as an animal gene, we share many genes with
plants. You might as well say you won't drink water because animals contain
it.
--
Stephen Burke
Eto Demerzel
Burke's output was...
> They could be planted and consumed in America, which despite being the most
> litigious place on the planet seems to have had remarkably few law suits about
> damage of any kind from GM crops.
Indeed, and that Reverend of the Church of Latter Day Morons, George
Dubya has criticised Europe as a whole for having problems with GM crops.
> Incidentally, given that pretty much all farm produce has been genetically
> modified by thousands of years of breeding, what do you eat?
>
I suppose that for some people, there's an important difference between
"natural" selection and genetic modification.
> > Depends.....Partly on if I was happy with the testing and partly if
> > the "modification" was with non-animal genes (I'm veggie).
>
> There isn't really such a thing as an animal gene, we share many genes with
> plants. You might as well say you won't drink water because animals contain
> it.
Water can be (and usually is) found outside of living beings. I think
the main problem would be taking things which can only be found in beings
which have a "mind", whatever you perceive that to be. Such discussion
is likely to be better suited to sci.cognitive, alt.psychology or
alt.philosophy.*
Personally, I am quite happy eating meat - and as long as people respect
my opinions on the matter, I'll respond in kind.
Mark Gordon
Eto Demerzel <eto.de...@fijivillage.com> wrote:
> In article <k4nNa.3811$nP....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>, Stephen
>
> Burke's output was...
>
> > They could be planted and consumed in America, which despite being
> > the most litigious place on the planet seems to have had remarkably
> > few law suits about damage of any kind from GM crops.
>
> Indeed, and that Reverend of the Church of Latter Day Morons, George
> Dubya has criticised Europe as a whole for having problems with GM
> crops.
Anyway, there are a lot of things that have gone on for a long time
before people have found the problems and started litigation. Tobacco
and asbestos to name just two.
Personally I don't see a direct risk to human heath in genetically
modifying crops. However I do see the following possible risks.
1) The crop is modified to be more resistant to a weed killer, so more
of the weed killer is used. Later it is found that this leads to
increased amounts of the weed killer being consumed by humans and the
weed killer has a nasty effect.
2) The crop is modified to be more resistant to a parasite and the
chemical/protien it produces to discourage the parasite proves to have a
harmful effect on people.
3) As an unintended side effect of the changes the crop produces
something harmful to people.
> > Incidentally, given that pretty much all farm produce has been
> > genetically
> > modified by thousands of years of breeding, what do you eat?
> >
> I suppose that for some people, there's an important difference
> between "natural" selection and genetic modification.
It is a much slower process and cross fertilisation can only occur
between closely related species whereas genetic engineering can
introduce genes from much more distantly related species.
> > > Depends.....Partly on if I was happy with the testing and partly
> > > if the "modification" was with non-animal genes (I'm veggie).
> >
> > There isn't really such a thing as an animal gene, we share many
> > genes with plants. You might as well say you won't drink water
> > because animals contain it.
>
> Water can be (and usually is) found outside of living beings. I
> think the main problem would be taking things which can only be found
> in beings which have a "mind", whatever you perceive that to be. Such
> discussion is likely to be better suited to sci.cognitive,
> alt.psychology or alt.philosophy.*
It's nothing to do with whether the donor species is an animal or not.
at least, it isn't for me. I'm more concerned with the following
potential problems.
1) Cross pollination to closely related species (not wheat to dandelion,
but wheat to another species of grass) can occur unless the genetically
modified crop is sterile, so genetically modified crops can lead to
super weeds.
2) Poor countries becoming tied to buying seed from the big
multinationals every year rather than being able to save some of the
crop from one year to act as seed for the next.
3) People loosing the option of avoiding genetically modified food
because of contamination of the seed stock that is meant to be
"natural".
4) Possibly other problems as and when I think of them ;-)
I don't think the potential health problems I mentioned earlier are
likely, but they are potentially valid arguments for careful study of
each genetically modified crop as it is developed.
> Personally, I am quite happy eating meat -
I'm also happy to continue eating meat, that is nothing to do with most
of the issues.
> and as long as people
> respect my opinions on the matter, I'll respond in kind.
Given that I can afford to I will probably do my best to by non-GM
products to help to keep the option available, but I'm not so fanatical
as to refuse to eat GM produce.
One of the problems is that cross-contamination means that crops which
are not meant to be genetically modified will include the genetic
modifications, thus denying people the choice.
--
Mark Gordon
Paid to be a Geek & a Senior Software Developer
Although my email address says spamtrap, it is real and I read it.
Stephen Burke
> So I've got chicken and cow genes, eh?
You share a large fraction of your genes with chickens and cows, yes.
--
Stephen Burke
Stephen Burke
> Just read Robert's post about dust from the Sahara making its way over
> here. Do you think the relatively open environment testing would fall
> under the heading of "calculated risk" or "corporate
> irresponsibility"?
What risk is it you're worried about? We aren't talking about seeds which are
going to grow into triffids and start eating people if even one escapes!
--
Stephen Burke
Eto Demerzel
Burke's output was...
> What risk is it you're worried about? We aren't talking about seeds which are
> going to grow into triffids and start eating people if even one escapes!
>
will have an inredibly small impact on anything.
Eto../
"Say it with flowers - buy her a triffid"
Stephen Burke
>> They could be planted and consumed in America, which despite being
>> the most litigious place on the planet seems to have had remarkably
>> few law suits about damage of any kind from GM crops.
>
> Indeed, and that Reverend of the Church of Latter Day Morons, George
> Dubya has criticised Europe as a whole for having problems with GM
> crops.
And your point is?
> I suppose that for some people, there's an important difference
> between "natural" selection and genetic modification.
Probably because few people actually understand the issues. Not that long ago
people were happy to leave decisions to experts. Now they don't trust experts,
by and large, and in many ways that's a good thing. However, if you aren't
willing to put the effort in to understand things for yourself, and you also
don't trust experts or figures of authority, that just leaves you scared of
any kind of change in case it makes things worse - but if there's no change
things will also not get better.
> Water can be (and usually is) found outside of living beings. I
> think the main problem would be taking things which can only be found
> in beings which have a "mind", whatever you perceive that to be.
This is really the problem, the categories in which people instinctively
divide up the world - living/non-living, animal/plant, senitent/non-sentient -
turn out not to match the way the world is really constructed. A gene is just
a moderately complicated chemical compound, there is nothing about it in
itself which is living or sentient. Would people be happy if the genes were
synthesised from scratch out of water, nitrogen and carbon, which is pretty
much what they consist of?
--
Stephen Burke
Stephen Burke
> Anyway, there are a lot of things that have gone on for a long time
> before people have found the problems and started litigation. Tobacco
> and asbestos to name just two.
The risk from tobacco was extremely easy to spot once people tried to look for
it. (Also oddly enough a lot of people still seem happy to smoke even though
there is a huge known risk, even while they worry about tiny unknown risks
from other sources.) Asbestos is a valid example, but a pretty rare one. Also
I don't really see what it proves; it's true that more-or-less anything might
have a risk that we haven't spotted, but what conclusion do you draw? Stop
eating because anything you eat might be damaging? IMO the right answer is to
try to increase our understanding of how things work so we can get a better
idea of what the risks are.
> 1) The crop is modified to be more resistant to a weed killer, so more
> of the weed killer is used. Later it is found that this leads to
> increased amounts of the weed killer being consumed by humans and the
> weed killer has a nasty effect.
In that case the flaw would be in research on the weedkiller, not the GM
crop - and presumably it would still be dangerous anyway. Also some genetic
modifications *reduce* the use of other chemicals, e.g. if a crop is resistant
to a pest you can use less pesticide.
> 2) The crop is modified to be more resistant to a parasite and the
> chemical/protien it produces to discourage the parasite proves to
> have a harmful effect on people.
Usually that kind of resistance is transferred from some other crop, so why
wouldn't it be harmful there too?
In any case, these are rather specific questions which can be addressed by
looking at the actual modification being made (the potential risks will vary
extremely widely depending on what is being done), and are basically the same
as for the introduction of any new product, e.g. a non-GM pesticide.
> It is a much slower process and cross fertilisation can only occur
> between closely related species whereas genetic engineering can
> introduce genes from much more distantly related species.
That's true, but not really relevant, the fact that species are closely
related doesn't mean that specific genes can't do substantially different
things. Closely related species have more genes in common than distantly
related ones, but that says nothing about the effect of any single gene being
different. In the case of a deliberate genetic modification you start with a
pretty good idea of the effect of the gene you're changing, whereas with
cross-breeding, and even more so with random mutations, the effect is much
less predictable. It may be that the peas you eat this year have undergone a
random mutation which makes them different from any other peas in history;
does that worry you?
> 1) Cross pollination to closely related species (not wheat to
> dandelion, but wheat to another species of grass) can occur unless
> the genetically modified crop is sterile, so genetically modified
> crops can lead to super weeds.
So can the use of herbicides. For that matter, if the weeds do become more
resistant through the use of herbicides and spontaneously transfer their
resistance to the crop (presumably just as likely) would that be OK?
> 2) Poor countries becoming tied to buying seed from the big
> multinationals every year rather than being able to save some of the
> crop from one year to act as seed for the next.
There's nothing to prevent the poor countries staying with what they use now
if they want. And this seems to be a no-win argument; people say they
want sterile plants so there's no danger of cross-pollination, and then
complain that if the plants are sterile it gives too much profit to the
companies.
> 3) People loosing the option of avoiding genetically modified food
> because of contamination of the seed stock that is meant to be
> "natural".
I think this is not a valid objection in itself. I have no option to avoid
food grown in Yorkshire, or by farmers called Dave, or all kinds of other
things which aren't on the labels. Unless you can show a reason that something
makes a difference I don't think it makes any sense to say that the lack of a
choice is itself a problem.
> I don't think the potential health problems I mentioned earlier are
> likely, but they are potentially valid arguments for careful study of
> each genetically modified crop as it is developed.
Well, indeed, but it's a bit difficult if the reaserch is vandalised ...
> Given that I can afford to I will probably do my best to by non-GM
> products to help to keep the option available, but I'm not so
> fanatical as to refuse to eat GM produce.
Personally I would like the option to buy GM to keep *that* option available,
but at the moment the supermarkets aren't allowing me the choice!
--
Stephen Burke
Eto Demerzel
Burke's output was...
> >
> > Indeed, and that Reverend of the Church of Latter Day Morons, George
> > Dubya has criticised Europe as a whole for having problems with GM
> > crops.
>
> And your point is?
problems with GM crops. Was there something else you were reading into
it? If anything, it backs up your original statement about America not
having had many public issues with GM foods at all.
>
> > I suppose that for some people, there's an important difference
> > between "natural" selection and genetic modification.
>
> Probably because few people actually understand the issues. Not that long ago
> people were happy to leave decisions to experts. Now they don't trust experts,
> by and large, and in many ways that's a good thing. However, if you aren't
> willing to put the effort in to understand things for yourself, and you also
> don't trust experts or figures of authority, that just leaves you scared of
> any kind of change in case it makes things worse - but if there's no change
> things will also not get better.
The temptation is all too great to decide that the government experts
were wrong about BSE, and therefore they must be wrong about things like
MMR and GM - and to be fair, this current government makes matters worse
with every measure of spin they put on their communications. The other
problem is, that for many of those who do like to understand things, it
is difficult to get information that they do understand. Most "layman"
scientific explanations are rife with deletion, distortion and
questionable analogies.
Regardless of people's level of understanding or education on such
issues, it's still their right to choose.
> I
> > think the main problem would be taking things which can only be found
> > in beings which have a "mind", whatever you perceive that to be.
>
> This is really the problem, the categories in which people instinctively
> divide up the world - living/non-living, animal/plant, senitent/non-sentient -
> turn out not to match the way the world is really constructed. A gene is just
> a moderately complicated chemical compound, there is nothing about it in
> itself which is living or sentient. Would people be happy if the genes were
> synthesised from scratch out of water, nitrogen and carbon, which is pretty
> much what they consist of?
>
I couldn't say, not being a vegetarian. Perhaps this is one for
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.
AFAIK, we don't currently have the technology to build DIY genes out of
carbon.
Mark Gordon
"Stephen Burke" <sbu...@eggspam.net> wrote:
> Mark Gordon <spam...@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
> > Anyway, there are a lot of things that have gone on for a long time
> > before people have found the problems and started litigation.
> > Tobacco and asbestos to name just two.
>
> The risk from tobacco was extremely easy to spot once people tried to
> look for it. (Also oddly enough a lot of people still seem happy to
> smoke even though there is a huge known risk, even while they worry
> about tiny unknown risks from other sources.) Asbestos is a valid
> example, but a pretty rare one. Also I don't really see what it
> proves; it's true that more-or-less anything might have a risk that we
> haven't spotted, but what conclusion do you draw? Stop eating because
> anything you eat might be damaging? IMO the right answer is to try to
> increase our understanding of how things work so we can get a better
> idea of what the risks are.
The two example I gave were just two that came to mind. I'm sure there
are plenty of others. I agree that research needs to be done, however it
also needs to be properly controlled and far enough from crops being
grown for food. I've not studied the situation enough to say if
sufficient precautions are being taken.
> > 1) The crop is modified to be more resistant to a weed killer, so
> > more of the weed killer is used. Later it is found that this leads
> > to increased amounts of the weed killer being consumed by humans and
> > the weed killer has a nasty effect.
>
> In that case the flaw would be in research on the weedkiller, not the
> GM crop - and presumably it would still be dangerous anyway.
The point is that used at higher concentrations weedkiller is more
likely to cause problems.
> Also some
> genetic modifications *reduce* the use of other chemicals, e.g. if a
> crop is resistant to a pest you can use less pesticide.
> > 2) The crop is modified to be more resistant to a parasite and the
> > chemical/protien it produces to discourage the parasite proves to
> > have a harmful effect on people.
>
> Usually that kind of resistance is transferred from some other crop,
> so why wouldn't it be harmful there too?
I never said it was a good argument.
> In any case, these are rather specific questions which can be
> addressed by
> looking at the actual modification being made (the potential risks
> will vary extremely widely depending on what is being done), and are
> basically the same as for the introduction of any new product, e.g. a
> non-GM pesticide.
I agree that it is not a valid argument against GM in general, but it is
a valid argument for each individual instance to undergo proper testing
and the same applies to any other significant change to what is in the
food chain.
> > It is a much slower process and cross fertilisation can only occur
> > between closely related species whereas genetic engineering can
> > introduce genes from much more distantly related species.
>
> That's true, but not really relevant, the fact that species are
> closely related doesn't mean that specific genes can't do
> substantially different things. Closely related species have more
> genes in common than distantly related ones, but that says nothing
> about the effect of any single gene being different. In the case of a
> deliberate genetic modification you start with a pretty good idea of
> the effect of the gene you're changing, whereas with cross-breeding,
> and even more so with random mutations, the effect is much less
> predictable. It may be that the peas you eat this year have undergone
> a random mutation which makes them different from any other peas in
> history; does that worry you?
It does not worry me. As a layman I would expect there to be more risks
of unexpected side effects with genes from more distantly related
species than with closely related species, but sufficient testing can
deal with that.
However, there are those (I am not one) who believe that it is
fundamentally wrong to introduce genetic material from a species where
it they could not naturally interbreed. These arguments are more
religious than scientific, and since I don't believe in them I find them
harder to defend. However, I do think the people who believe these
arguments have a right to non-GM food.
> > 1) Cross pollination to closely related species (not wheat to
> > dandelion, but wheat to another species of grass) can occur unless
> > the genetically modified crop is sterile, so genetically modified
> > crops can lead to super weeds.
>
> So can the use of herbicides. For that matter, if the weeds do become
> more resistant through the use of herbicides and spontaneously
> transfer their resistance to the crop (presumably just as likely)
> would that be OK?
No, it's not OK. I'm sure there are controls on the use of herbicides,
if not there should be.
In all things there is a risk, from my point of view I want the risk
properly considered rather than just being dismissed out of hand. Of
course, to properly consider it requires scientific study...
> > 2) Poor countries becoming tied to buying seed from the big
> > multinationals every year rather than being able to save some of the
> > crop from one year to act as seed for the next.
>
> There's nothing to prevent the poor countries staying with what they
> use now if they want.
Apart from pressure from the west and aid with a sting in the tail...
I agree they have the option of not using GM crops, the governments of
the world just have to make sure they are not pressured or conned in to
using them.
> And this seems to be a no-win argument; people
> say they want sterile plants so there's no danger of
> cross-pollination, and then complain that if the plants are sterile it
> gives too much profit to the companies.
I know, good innit ;-)
You have to remember that those who are adamantly opposed to GM have no
obligation to provide those in favour with a get out. So those in favour
have to decide which method is to be used in each instance and then deal
with the objections to that method.
One way to deal with the cost arguments is sufficient regulation to
ensure that alternatives are always available and that the companies
don't make unreasonable profits.
> > 3) People loosing the option of avoiding genetically modified food
> > because of contamination of the seed stock that is meant to be
> > "natural".
>
> I think this is not a valid objection in itself. I have no option to
> avoid food grown in Yorkshire, or by farmers called Dave, or all kinds
> of other things which aren't on the labels. Unless you can show a
> reason that something makes a difference I don't think it makes any
> sense to say that the lack of a choice is itself a problem.
You can easily avoid food grown in Yorkshire. Only buy food from outside
the UK, or even outside the EU. As to farmers called Dave, that's just
being silly in response to a serious point.
People have moral objections to not eating meat, and the option of not
eating meat or meat based products.
People have moral objections to products from some countries (for
example due to child labour) and the option of using country of origin
labels to avoid such products.
People have moral and safety objections to GM products, therefor they
have a right to the choice.
If you have moral or safety objections to non-GM products, then that
gives you the right to avoid non-GM products, although from a purely
practical perspective that is not practical since there are not GM
alternatives to enough varieties of food.
So there is a much stronger argument IMHO for maintaining the option of
non-GM products than for maintaining the option of GM products.
> > I don't think the potential health problems I mentioned earlier are
> > likely, but they are potentially valid arguments for careful study
> > of each genetically modified crop as it is developed.
>
> Well, indeed, but it's a bit difficult if the reaserch is vandalised
> ...
I agree. Research is needed and should be allowed to proceed without
being vandalised.
> > Given that I can afford to I will probably do my best to by non-GM
> > products to help to keep the option available, but I'm not so
> > fanatical as to refuse to eat GM produce.
>
> Personally I would like the option to buy GM to keep *that* option
> available, but at the moment the supermarkets aren't allowing me the
> choice!
I think that dropping clearly labelled GM products was wrong.
I'm not anti-GM, I just thought someone should present the arguments
against in a rational manner. However, I am against people loosing
the option of non-GM products.
Stephen Burke
> Re-read it. My point is that GWB has criticised Europe for having
> problems with GM crops. Was there something else you were reading
> into it? If anything, it backs up your original statement about
> America not having had many public issues with GM foods at all.
OK, I was reading it as implying that if George Bush agrees with GM then it
must be bad.
> The temptation is all too great to decide that the government experts
> were wrong about BSE, and therefore they must be wrong about things
> like MMR and GM
BSE is an interesting case. The experts weren't really wrong, they said things
like "we don't know of a mechanism by which BSE could be transmitted to
humans" which was true, but politicians turned that into "we are sure there is
no risk", which was clearly not true. OTOH, despite some people predicting a
huge epidemic of CJD it has turned out that the risk is pretty tiny. The
difficulty is that people are very bad at assessing small risks. MMR is
another good example, in all the fuss about whether or not there is an
extremely tiny risk related to autism people seem to have forgotten than MMR
quite definitely does protect against the very real and well-known risks of
measles, mumps and rubella. If you ask of anything "is this abolutely
certainly totally safe" the answer is always going to be no, but that doesn't
get you very far.
> communications. The other problem is, that for many of those who do
> like to understand things, it is difficult to get information that
> they do understand. Most "layman" scientific explanations are rife
> with deletion, distortion and questionable analogies.
It depends what you mean by "most", certainly what you find in a newspaper is
probably like that, but it isn't especially hard to find good explanations of
genetics if you try. OTOH it does involve a certain amount of work,
particularly for the many people who didn't get much of an education in
science (including many politicians and civil servants!)
> Regardless of people's level of understanding or education on such
> issues, it's still their right to choose.
Choose what, though? People are only concerned about GM because the press has
publicised it. If you were really asked to choose about every possible facet
of what you eat you would drown in choice. Indeed, we are constantly bombarded
with all kind of pseudo-statistics about diet, to the point where I suspect
that most people have given up trying to understand what they should and
shouldn't be eating. Realistically, we *have* to trust the government to
assess such things. Indeed, I suspect that a large part of why GM has not been
much of an issue in the US is that trust in the FDA is a great deal higher
than you see here.
> AFAIK, we don't currently have the technology to build DIY genes out
> of carbon.
I think it's not that far off, there was a project a couple of years ago to
try to synthesise a simple bit of DNA from scratch but I don't remember
hearing about any outcome. AFAIR the difficult part is not so much building it
as getting it to fold up in the right way.
--
Stephen Burke
Stephen Burke
> The two example I gave were just two that came to mind. I'm sure there
> are plenty of others.
I don't think there are *any* others, at least on that scale, or the insurance
industry would be bankrupt! Tobacco and asbestos have lead to absolutely
enormous legal claims, the only other things on that scale are natural
disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes. You do have some other examples of
medical treatments which went wrong, notably thalidomide, but not remotely on
the same scale. And the problems with thalidomide were noticed fairly quickly,
just not quickly enough. Usually for something to go un-noticed for a long
period either the risk or the effect must be pretty small, asbestos and
tobacco are unusual in having very long lead times before you see the effects
but still being fatal in a large fraction of cases (although the general bad
effects of tobacco are apparent a long time before it kills you).
>> So can the use of herbicides. For that matter, if the weeds do become
>> more resistant through the use of herbicides and spontaneously
>> transfer their resistance to the crop (presumably just as likely)
>> would that be OK?
>
> No, it's not OK. I'm sure there are controls on the use of herbicides,
> if not there should be.
That isn't really my point. I was pointing out that if you worry about genes
jumping from GM crops to other things (actually pretty unlikely I think) you
should be just as worried about genes jumping *into* the crops from the weeds,
which would be entirely "natural".
> You can easily avoid food grown in Yorkshire. Only buy food from
> outside the UK, or even outside the EU. As to farmers called Dave,
> that's just being silly in response to a serious point.
IMO the blanket objection to eating GM food is just as silly as objecting to
food grown by people called Dave. Most of the objections raised against GM
foods, particularly the sort of people who go in for crop destruction, are not
serious points, just hysteria. Choice of this kind is far from cost-free, it
needs a lot of effort in tracking exactly where each crop comes from, keeping
things segregated, as well as a big cost in enforcement if you actually expect
the labelling to be correct (in practice I doubt that it will be). Many
third-world producers may be just unable to meet the standards, so the EU will
raise yet another barrier against their imports.
--
Stephen Burke
Mark Gordon
"Stephen Burke" <sbu...@eggspam.net> wrote:
> Mark Gordon <spam...@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
> > The two example I gave were just two that came to mind. I'm sure
> > there are plenty of others.
>
> I don't think there are *any* others, at least on that scale, or the
> insurance industry would be bankrupt!
I don't know about the scale, but there is also lead poisoning. As in
lead pipes used for water, lead in paints used to paint houses etc.
> Tobacco and asbestos have lead
> to absolutely enormous legal claims, the only other things on that
> scale are natural disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes. You do
> have some other examples of medical treatments which went wrong,
> notably thalidomide, but not remotely on the same scale. And the
> problems with thalidomide were noticed fairly quickly, just not
> quickly enough. Usually for something to go un-noticed for a long
> period either the risk or the effect must be pretty small, asbestos
> and tobacco are unusual in having very long lead times before you see
> the effects but still being fatal in a large fraction of cases
> (although the general bad effects of tobacco are apparent a long time
> before it kills you).
Just thought of another one, mercury poisoning.
There are a *lot* of slow and/or cumulative poisons that have in the
past been used on a regular basis in sufficient quantities to cause
problems.
> >> So can the use of herbicides. For that matter, if the weeds do
> >> become more resistant through the use of herbicides and
> >> spontaneously transfer their resistance to the crop (presumably
> >> just as likely) would that be OK?
> >
> > No, it's not OK. I'm sure there are controls on the use of
> > herbicides, if not there should be.
>
> That isn't really my point. I was pointing out that if you worry about
> genes jumping from GM crops to other things (actually pretty unlikely
> I think)
Cross pollination between closely related species of plants is *not*
that uncommon. Probably more common than in the animal kingdom since it
does not involve the plants deciding that they are suitable partners.
> you should be just as worried about genes jumping *into* the
> crops from the weeds, which would be entirely "natural".
Seed crops are controlled a lot more carefully that weeds.
> > You can easily avoid food grown in Yorkshire. Only buy food from
> > outside the UK, or even outside the EU. As to farmers called Dave,
> > that's just being silly in response to a serious point.
>
> IMO the blanket objection to eating GM food is just as silly as
> objecting to food grown by people called Dave.
The "it's against Gods plan" and similar reasons are a bit more
reasonable than avoiding food grown by Dave's, unless you are
specifically referring to my eldest brother ;-) It is more like the
religious restrictions against eating certain animals.
> Most of the objections
> raised against GM foods, particularly the sort of people who go in for
> crop destruction, are not serious points, just hysteria.
Agreed. That's why I thought someone should put forward a few more
reasoned objections. After all, we can't have a reasoned debate if
reasonable arguments aren't put forward for *both* sides.
> Choice of
> this kind is far from cost-free, it needs a lot of effort in tracking
> exactly where each crop comes from, keeping things segregated, as well
> as a big cost in enforcement if you actually expect the labelling to
> be correct (in practice I doubt that it will be). Many third-world
> producers may be just unable to meet the standards, so the EU will
> raise yet another barrier against their imports.
We can end up with three classes of products. Definitely contains GM,
definitely does not and may contain GM.
I would probably eat things from all three categories, but as with
additives I might decide to avoid specific GM products where I consider
them to be a bad idea.
mar...@myrealbox.com
>How? The crops were at a private research facility.
But they are *not* enclosed. This means that birds, insects, mammals
etc can move seed and pollen from the GM site to non-GM wheat, which
will cause contamination of the non-GM wheat.
regards
Marcus
mar...@myrealbox.com
>I'm tempted to email the PR bods at Syngenta and ask them about it.
Here's the address for their PR guy:
(Dr Ian Weatherhead)
I look forward to hearing what kind of reply you get...
regards
Marcus
mar...@myrealbox.com
>We aren't talking about seeds which are
>going to grow into triffids and start eating people if even one escapes!
How about seeds which remove your freedom of choice as to whether or
not you wish to eat GM wheat?
regards
Marcus
mar...@myrealbox.com
>I'm not worried. I think that any case of cross-pollination that occurs
>will have an inredibly small impact on anything.
Let's see the scientific proof shall we?
Eto Demerzel
mar...@myrealbox.com's output was...
>
snip>
>
> regards
> Marcus
>
Eto Demerzel
I am writing to you to ask about how Syngenta controls cross-pollination
of GM crops with non-GM crops.
The website mentions keeping crops "appropriate" distances apart. Could
you please explain what exactly is meant by appropriate and how Syngenta
knows that these distances are, in fact appropriate? The worry is that
pollination can occur over incredibly large distances. If this is a
calculated risk, could you let me know exactly how small the risk of
cross-pollination is? And if possible, how you scientifically came to
that conclusion?
Still awaiting a response - will let you know when one turns up.
Stephen Burke
> Just thought of another one, mercury poisoning.
I think the dangers of lead and mercury were known for a long time ("mad as a
hatter" related to mercury being used in the hat industry), what was different
was the attitude to risk, it was taken for granted that many industries were
dangerous.
> There are a *lot* of slow and/or cumulative poisons that have in the
> past been used on a regular basis in sufficient quantities to cause
> problems.
Not since we started to get proper testing, and a much better understanding of
how things work. Indeed, if there are problems it's more likely to be with
"natural", traditional things, e.g. herbal remedies, which have never been
tested properly.
> We can end up with three classes of products. Definitely contains GM,
> definitely does not and may contain GM.
I don't think "definitely does" is all that significant, I doubt that anyone
will insist on a purely GM diet!
--
Stephen Burke
Mark Gordon
"Stephen Burke" <sbu...@eggspam.net> wrote:
> Mark Gordon <spam...@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
> > Just thought of another one, mercury poisoning.
>
> I think the dangers of lead and mercury were known for a long time
> ("mad as a hatter" related to mercury being used in the hat industry),
> what was different was the attitude to risk, it was taken for granted
> that many industries were dangerous.
I agree that the general (or at least widely publicised) reaction to
perceived risk does seem to have changed a lot.
> > There are a *lot* of slow and/or cumulative poisons that have in the
> > past been used on a regular basis in sufficient quantities to cause
> > problems.
>
> Not since we started to get proper testing, and a much better
> understanding of how things work.
There is a lot that we still don't understand. Of course, the only way
to understand is to to more investigation/experimentation/trials etc.
> Indeed, if there are problems it's
> more likely to be with"natural", traditional things, e.g. herbal
> remedies, which have never been tested properly.
So lobby for them to be tested. :-)
> > We can end up with three classes of products. Definitely contains
> > GM, definitely does not and may contain GM.
>
> I don't think "definitely does" is all that significant, I doubt that
> anyone will insist on a purely GM diet!
:-)
Eto Demerzel
You mentioned website with the term appropriate, I'm not sure which site
you are referring to, please advise.
(The page was:
http://www.syngenta.co.uk/en/social_responsibility/biotech.aspx )
Before we can conduct any GM trials at our Jealott's Hill site we
undertake a substantive risk assessment which forms part of the
application to DEFRA.
This takes into account a whole range of factors, including pollen
movement, and I will leave it to my regulatory colleague, Karen Holt
(copied) to explain this more fully to you. As you are aware, we did not
stage any GM trials at Jealott's Hill this year but when we do, each crop
is assessed individually as regards potential pollen movement. For
example with the GM wheat trial we staged at the site last year the
plants were confined to a small area 10m x 15m and surrounded by a 5m
border of non-modified wheat plants. Wheat is predominantly a self-
pollinating crop with heavy pollen, produced in relatively small amounts
- which does not favour long distance pollen flow. A report produced for
the Soil Association states that levels of cross pollination from wheat
are likely to be low
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b0
0298980/80256ad800554549802568660075e5b4!OpenDocument.
As it might be of interest to you I attach a note regarding farmscale
trial separation distances:
The crops involved in the farm-scale evaluations have already undergone a
comprehensive safety assessment by the Advisory Committee on Releases to
the Environment (ACRE). In ACRE's view, these crops can be grown safely
without any separation distances. However, the SCIMAC stewardship
programme aims to safeguard the integrity of GM and neighbouring non-GM
crops. That means reducing the potential for any cross-pollination to an
absolute minimum within a practical farming situation. Zero does not
exist in nature, so no separation distance, however large, could offer a
guarantee of zero cross-pollination.
The distances specified by SCIMAC are based on well-established
scientific knowledge of the characteristics of each crop species in terms
of pollen distribution and cross-pollination. These are reinforced by
practical experience over many years of growing certified seed crops to
specified levels of genetic purity and identity. According to a review of
existing scientific literature commissioned by MAFF in 2000, the SCIMAC
separation distances will ensure that any potential cross-pollination is
reduced to below 1% under worst case conditions. In practice, the actual
level of cross-pollination likely to occur within a normal farming
situation will be significantly lower. The current SCIMAC separation
distances are viewed as extremely precautionary and remain subject to
continuous review. They will apply on a provisional basis in the context
of the current trials, and pending the outcome of gene flow studies being
conducted as part of the FSE process.
The whole issue of cross pollination is one of the topics being
considered in detail by the Government's current GM Science Review which
reports back later this month, http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk
___________
So, were the protestors who vandalised the fields aware that no GM trials
were conducted this year?
Eto../
A Nonny Mouse
>>I'd rather have wheat with a couple of odd extra proteins in it than
>>wheat with a couple of odd extra mycotoxins in it.
>
>
> Would you? Do you know what those "extra proteins" might do? They
> might make the wheat produce other toxins...
Well how about some trials to find out?
>
>
>>What exactly do you think the GM food is going to do to me? Don't just
>>try and hit my emotions, try some logic.
>
>
> It could:
>
> * Create antibiotic resistance
what? in wheat? Surely you're not going to suggest transfer of genes
between prokaryote and eukaryote organisms? and it's prokaryotes where
antibiotic resistance matters.
> * Poison you - no-one knows because they've never been safety tested
Oops the tests seem to have been slightly disrupted
> * Cause genetic damage - no-one knows because they've never been
> safety tested
ditto
> * Create superweeds
evidence? This might posibly (but unlikely) be the case with the
weedkiller resistance, but cannot be true for fungus resistance.
>
> For more issues, see my page here:
>
> http://www.gmfoodnews.com/gmwrong.html
>
> How about providing your name and company affiliation?
>
No relevant company affiliations (I work in software) but a degree in
Biology.
Name? Well let's see. You are representing a group which admits to
committing criminal acts in support of its aims. So if you don't mind,
I'd rather you didn't know who I am.
> regards
> Marcus Williamson
>
micheal...@gmail.com
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-zopiclone-7-5mg-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-zolpidem-ambien-10mg/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-restoril-temazepam-30mg/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-rohypnol-2mg-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-viagra-sildenafil-100mg/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-proviron-mesterolone-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-levitra-vardenafil-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-prazepam-10mg-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-nitrazepam-10mg-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-diazepam-10mg-actavis/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-cialis-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-ciproxin-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-ssd-chemical-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-tebi-magnetic-powder-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-black-cobra-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-pseudoephedrine-powder/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-nembutal-powder-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-cheap-bath-salt-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-cocaine-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-butylone-online-butylone-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-benzylpiperazine-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-hydrocodone-5-325mg-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-adderall-30mg-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-tramadol-150mg-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-methadone-hcl-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-xtampza-36-mg-oxycodone/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-somatropin-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-subutex-2mg-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-tramadol-200mg-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-tramal-tramadol-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-vicodin-es-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-fentanyl-patch-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-dilaudid-8mg-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-soma-500mg-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-roxicodone-30mg-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-roxicet-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-percocet-oxycodone-10mg/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-oxycodone-40mg-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-opana-40mg-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-morphine-sulfate-30mg/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-norco-539-online
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-endocet-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-buprenorphine-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-hysingla-er-100-mg-purdue/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-dilaudid-8mg-online-2/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-amlodipine-5-mg-tablet-ascend/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-hydrocodone-watson-540-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-hydrocodone-10-325mg-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-anabol-5mg-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-ketamine-powder-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-mphp-crystal/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-zopiclone-7-5mg-online-2/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-xanax-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-methylone-crystals-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-valium-diazepam-10mg/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-generic-ambien-10mg/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-dormicum-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-hygetropin-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-ativan-lorazepam-online/.
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-molly-capsules-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-ephedrine-hcl-30mg/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-ecstasy-mdma-100mg-pills/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-dexedrine-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-actavis-cough-syrup/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-corex-cough-syrup-online/
https://www.alphamedsstore.com/product/buy-ritalin-methylphenidate-10mg/