GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' - Google Groups

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world'

Showing 1-541 of 541 messages
GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' David Kendra 1/16/01 3:21 PM

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world'

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

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

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

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

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

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/17/01 9:09 AM
David,

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Mr. Snappy 1/17/01 9:40 AM
I heard on the radio yesterday that the average serving of this rice
will meet 1% of their daily Vitamin A needs. I haven't verified that,
so I'm not speaking authoritatively on that (yet). Although the idea
of the golden rice is good, it has problems. Supposedly it will
take years to get this to the people that need it; in the meantime,
the millions that have been spent on developing this rice could
have been spent on supplements. I also firmly believe golden
rice is the trojan horse to gain gm acceptance, in lieu of true
scientific testing and discourse on this issue. Do we like seeing
children starve or have Vitamin A deficiency? It's like asking
who's in favor of breast cancer. The question is, how do we go
about doing it, and do corporations have ulterior motives that
should legitimately be questioned.

"George Baxter" <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>
wrote in message news:3A65D1BA.1A0ABAFB@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/17/01 1:57 PM

"Mr. Snappy" <support...@gwislegitimate___yeahright.com> wrote in
message news:t6bmaljcemmj45@corp.supernews.com...
: I heard on the radio yesterday that the average serving of this rice

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

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Mr. Snappy 1/17/01 2:18 PM

"gcouger" <gco...@NoXSPAM.mercury.rfdata.net> wrote in message
news:Pyo96.4087$d25.24706@newsfeed.slurp.net...

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' woodpecker 1/17/01 7:46 PM
My understanding why the environmentalists are against golden rice is
because if golden rice becomes widespread in asia a lot of children who
now die of vitamin A deficiency will survive and that will make the
world more crowded and generally the more crowded the world gets the
more the environment degrades.

Woodpecker

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' dwhe...@my-deja.com 1/17/01 11:54 PM
In article <lI496.553$0u3....@news7.onvoy.net>,Recently The Oregonian ran an article on rice blast in Yunnan Province of
China. Seems the Chinese have gone back to an older method of controlling
disease without GM: they are using two strains, planted in rows across
most of their fields. If the rice blast (anyone know what this actually
is?) hits one strain, the other strain buffers the outbreak. Article
claimed the change in agricultural planting has nearly eradicated the
problem.

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

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com


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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Soren Dayton 1/18/01 12:04 AM
dwhe...@my-deja.com writes:

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

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

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

Soren

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/18/01 1:02 AM
wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001

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

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

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/18/01 12:50 AM
Mr. Snappy wrote on Wed, 17 Jan 2001

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

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

--
Oz

GM rice is NOT the 'best hope of feeding world' Chive Mynde 1/18/01 1:31 AM
In article <lI496.553$0u3....@news7.onvoy.net>,
  "David Kendra" <dke...@mr.net> wrote:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?
ac=004169176849937&rtmo=kCoqJLAp&atmo=rrrrrrrq

> &pg=/et/01/1/16/nrice16.html
>
> GM rice 'best hope of feeding world'
>
> The Daily Telegraph
> By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
> 16 January 2001
>
> THE best hope of feeding the world lies in genetically modified crops
> because organic and other "sustainable" farming methods would not be
able
> to do the job, a conference at St James's Palace was told yesterday.

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

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

Studies Show Organic & Sustainable Farms Can Best Feed the World

THE GUARDIAN (U.K.)

Thursday August 24, 2000

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

George Monbiot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organic hydroponics offer a better alternative to chemical
nutrient mixes.

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

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

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

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

Other reasons to go organic include:

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

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

This evidence directly contradicts Gordon Couger's unsubstantiated
claims.

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

Compiled from a longer article by Don Parker.

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

CORPORATE AGRIBUSINESS INDEX

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

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

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

* * *

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

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


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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/18/01 2:25 AM
Soren Dayton wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001

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

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

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

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

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

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/18/01 3:52 AM

<dwhe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9467et$id6$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
: In article <lI496.553$0u3....@news7.onvoy.net>,

:   "David Kendra" <dke...@mr.net> wrote:
: >
: >
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=004169176849937&rtmo=kCoqJLAp&atmo=rrrrrr
rq
: > &pg=/et/01/1/16/nrice16.html:
What about GM rice and a different planting strategy. There is noting
keeping that from happening with most GM varieties just the ones that are
herbicide resistant.

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

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

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

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


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/18/01 4:08 AM


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

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

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' David Kendra 1/18/01 4:46 AM

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

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

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

dk


>
> That kind of begs the question: which is better, GM rice or a different
> planting strategy?
>
> Daniel B. Wheeler
> www.oregonwhitetruffles.com
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/18/01 5:47 AM
David Kendra wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001

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

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

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

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

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

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/18/01 6:22 AM
dwhe...@my-deja.com wrote:

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

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' ant 1/17/01 9:57 PM

Mr. Snappy wrote in message ...

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

for another slant on the subject try

Go To:

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


Headline:

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond Frankenfoods

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

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

By most accounts the virtues of golden rice are many:

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

Excerpt:

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

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

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

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

Who Will Grow the Golden Rice?

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

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

This multiformity has evolved locally and regionally over long periods.

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

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

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

What Will Rice Make of Its Golden Genes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Disproportionate Interest in Silver Bullets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Mr. Snappy 1/18/01 9:35 AM

"George Baxter" <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>
wrote in message news:3A66DCD7.646A36E6@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/18/01 9:35 AM
The existing foods available the people who suffer from vitamin A
deficiency are clearly not adequate. Ther are a lot of them. The WHO
estimate 230 million. About 1 million of whom die or go blind. The WHO
had set themselves a target of 2000 to have eliminated the problem. They
failed.

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

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Soren Dayton 1/18/01 9:49 AM

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

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

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

Why don't we try that?

Soren

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' David Kendra 1/18/01 9:48 AM

"Mr. Snappy" <support...@gwislegitimate___yeahright.com> wrote in
message news:t6eadejgbts038@corp.supernews.com...

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

dk


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/18/01 11:33 AM
ant wrote:

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

 They'll use any method, stop at nothing.

 Sickening.

 H A


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/18/01 1:17 PM
In article <06hYjzAQ...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writesI doubt it.  Look how much £ is spent researching biotech in the UK -
25% of MAFFs research budget but none of it grown commercially and
consumers don't want it.  I guess China is like most places if you
happen to make your living from developing biotech then you will push
the product.  As no corporation stands to make a big buck out of pushing
a mixed planting strategy there will be no advertising budget for it.
--
Ian Alexander
GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/18/01 1:26 PM
In article <w...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes

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

Well it reduced it to negligible levels in the trials.

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

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

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

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

>

--
Ian Alexander

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Mr. Snappy 1/18/01 1:59 PM
> > I don't suggest they *knowingly* try to produce harmful goods. My
> > concern is that they don't seem to have a problem producing gm products
> > which they don't *know* are safe. And they aren't particularly
interested
> > (IMO) in finding out whether they are or not.
>
> I suspect that indeed these companies are concerned about whether the
> products they produce are indeed safe for the consumer, irrespective of
> whether or not they are GE.  If they produce unsafe products then sales
will
> drop.  They rely on producing products that people want.  If people do not
> want GE foods then these companies will not produce them.
>
> dk

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/18/01 2:41 PM
Ian Alexander wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001
>
>By optimal you mean highest yielding presumably?  Why are you so fixated
>on yield?  

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

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

Sacrifice what variables?

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/18/01 2:50 PM
Mr. Snappy wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001

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

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

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/18/01 2:48 PM
Soren Dayton wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001
>
>Alternatively stated: if we didn't eat their food for them, they might
>have enough to eat it themselves.

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

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/18/01 2:54 PM
Ian Alexander wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/18/01 1:42 PM

Soren Dayton wrote in message <86itnc...@everest.overx.com>...
>
>An alternative argument runs that there are plenty of high
>beta-carotene vegetables produced in the parts of the world that
>golden rice are being pushed in.  But they are all exported.
>
>Thus, we could argue, alternatively, that the fact that ease with
>which we get food from all over the world blinds us to both the
>inequity of the socio-economic relationship and the unsound
>agricultural practices.

>
>Alternatively stated: if we didn't eat their food for them, they might
>have enough to eat it themselves.
>
>Why don't we try that?
>
>Soren


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

Jim Webster

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/18/01 1:37 PM

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


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

Jim Webster

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Soren Dayton 1/18/01 4:14 PM
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes:

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

Just today the USDA announced that these might change.

Soren

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Dennis G. 1/18/01 8:02 PM
George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> wrote:

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


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

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

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

See the BMJ for Jan.20/01 at:

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

God(or reasonable facsimile) bless All the children.

Dennis

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/18/01 8:32 PM

ant skrev i meddelelsen ...

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

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

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

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

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


Best regards,

Torsten Brinch

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/18/01 8:41 PM

"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:p2yfQXAdQ3Z6Ewv0@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
: Ian Alexander wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001

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

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


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

China is not intersted in selling anything to its farmers. It is intersted
in maximizing their production to insure a secure source of food and to
have a cheap source of export goods. What ever works is OK with them.
--
Gordon    W5RED
G. C. Couger gco...@provlue.net  Stillwater, OK

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/18/01 11:23 PM

"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote in message
news:ivP96.1$Sj2.473@news.get2net.dk...
:
: ant skrev i meddelelsen ...

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

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

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

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


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/18/01 10:54 PM
Torsten Brinch wrote on Fri, 19 Jan 2001

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

Torsten, I am appalled at you.

It's pseud drivel.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/18/01 10:55 PM
Soren Dayton wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001

>>Oz:


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

Tsk tsk.

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

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/18/01 11:04 PM

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

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


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

Jim Webster

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

>Dennis


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/19/01 4:56 AM

"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nveMWgAsT+Z6Ewea@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
: Soren Dayton wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001:
The FDA requires safety trials before approving any thing. They rely on
the company doing the application to do the trials but that is true for
all products drugs and food products alike.

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


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/19/01 5:48 AM
Torsten Brinch wrote:

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

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

 H A

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/19/01 7:05 AM
Soren Dayton wrote:

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/19/01 7:09 AM
gcouger wrote:

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

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/19/01 7:17 AM
Oz wrote:

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Soren Dayton 1/19/01 7:15 AM
Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> writes:

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

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

Soren

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' ant 1/19/01 3:12 AM

Torsten Brinch wrote in message ...

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

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

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


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

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

ant


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/19/01 8:47 AM
Tracy Aquilla wrote:

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

 H A


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/19/01 9:14 AM
Soren Dayton wrote:
>
> An alternative argument runs that there are plenty of high
> beta-carotene vegetables produced in the parts of the world that
> golden rice are being pushed in.  But they are all exported.
>
> Thus, we could argue, alternatively, that the fact that ease with
> which we get food from all over the world blinds us to both the
> inequity of the socio-economic relationship and the unsound
> agricultural practices.
>
> Alternatively stated: if we didn't eat their food for them, they might
> have enough to eat it themselves.
>
> Why don't we try that?

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

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

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


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

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/19/01 9:27 AM

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

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

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

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

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/19/01 11:21 AM
Soren Dayton wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Soren Dayton 1/19/01 12:25 PM
George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> writes:

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

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

Soren

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/19/01 10:43 AM
>
>I doubt that all the proposed GM ideas will work. I doubt that half will
>work. But I am convinced that some will work.

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

>
>
>
>
>

--
Ian Alexander

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/19/01 11:13 AM
>
>There is a very good reason why the gmo are safe. One of the criteria
>for being passed is that the genes and any byproducts must be easily
>destroyed by heat or the stomach acids. The genes in soya are destroyed
>in 15 seconds.  This is done to ensure that it does not get into the gut
>and so potentially into the body. And if it cannot get into the body, it
>cannot do you any harm.

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

>The anti-gm groups and individuals who post on
>this forum know this, but prefer you not to. Because they know it knocks
>all of their alarmist speculation out of the water.
>
>
My 'alarmist speculation' is not based on any danger I may encounter
from eating the stuff - so long as it is labelled I will avoid it and as
long as the US resist labelling and segregation I just buy organic; I am
concerned about the damage it might do to the wider environment and the
testing done on that front is negligible in the US and years away from
being able to usefully report in the UK.

>

--
Ian Alexander

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/19/01 11:26 AM
In article <0GiYcTAe...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz

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

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

--
Ian Alexander

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/19/01 1:44 PM
Ian Alexander wrote:

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

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

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

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/19/01 1:49 PM
Ian Alexander wrote:

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

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/19/01 2:14 PM

"Ian Alexander" <I...@iandshome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:teqIzFAPrIa6EwlU@iandshome.demon.co.uk...
: >
: >I doubt that all the proposed GM ideas will work. I doubt that half

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

It is not a simple market.


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Mr. Snappy 1/19/01 2:24 PM

"George Baxter" <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>
wrote in message news:3A68790B.972781E8@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...I know the human race has been eating a very similar diet for a long, long
time.
And that hasn't included fish genes, or bt insecticide spliced into it.
We know from experience what has been proven safe over millenia.
So...YES, I do know.

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

> You are very wrong when you say testing is not done. All gm foods are
> subjected to extra tests over and above those of ordinary foods. They
> are tested to allergen and toxic products. Many foods are modified or
> fortified with vitamin and minerals. Do you question that?
You are very wrong and trusting when you think the extremely minimal
amount of testing that has been done is even close to what needs to be
done to show safety. You are also very wrong if you assume this
testing is being done indepenedent of corporate influence and money.

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

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/19/01 2:38 PM

"Tracy Aquilla" <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote in message
news:3A6858BE.685BB74E@bpmlegal.com...

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

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

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

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


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


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Mr. Snappy 1/19/01 2:45 PM
Problem is, our government is asleep at the wheel
when it comes to regulating gm foods. And I *have*
written both my senators as well as my representative.
Nobody is listening...because money talks louder than
I do. Hell, it got our Presidunce-select into office (that
and 5 votes).

"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0GiYcTAeM3Z6Ewv5@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Mr. Snappy 1/19/01 2:54 PM
Well said.

"Ian Alexander" <I...@iandshome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:X$HWrOA5TJa6EwxS@iandshome.demon.co.uk...
GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/19/01 11:36 AM

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

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


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

Jim Webster

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/19/01 3:18 PM
gcouger wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' J K Cason 1/19/01 3:10 PM
"Soren Dayton" <day...@overx.com> wrote in message
news:86itncvjhh.fsf@everest.overx.com...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' John McCarthy 1/19/01 3:41 PM
Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> writes:

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/19/01 3:18 PM

Ian Alexander wrote in message ...

>In article <0GiYcTAe...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
><O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>>The job of setting what is safe or not is down to government regulations
>>and NOT the view of the firms concerned.
>
>How naive can you be.  The two things react iteratively with the
>awareness levels of society as a whole to dictate what actions are
>acceptable.  Do you feel that problems with nuclear power, asbestos,
>cigarettes, therlidomide, early generation pesticides, DU weapons, etc.
>were / are unconnected with the commercial needs of corporations to get
>products to market and prolong, for as long as possible, their shelf
>lives.
>

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

Jim Webster

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/19/01 4:19 PM

John McCarthy skrev i meddelelsen ...

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


Hello John, and welcome back.

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

Best regards,

Torsten Brinch


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Chive Mynde 1/19/01 4:23 PM
In article <x4hae8n...@Steam.Stanford.EDU>,

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

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

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


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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/19/01 6:19 PM

"Tracy Aquilla" <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote in message
news:3A68CB42.2F932458@bpmlegal.com...

Tracy

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

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

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


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/19/01 6:27 PM

"J K Cason" <jkc...@negia.net> wrote in message
news:t6hjf86o5bj79e@corp.supernews.com...
: "Soren Dayton" <day...@overx.com> wrote in message

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

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


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' J K Cason 1/19/01 7:44 PM
"Mr. Snappy" <support...@gwislegitimate___yeahright.com>
wrote in message news:t6hfn9fq1up308@corp.supernews.com...

<snip>

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

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

> And that hasn't included fish genes,

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

> or bt insecticide spliced into it.

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

> We know from experience what has been proven safe over


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

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

Which of the listed items do you consume?


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' J K Cason 1/19/01 7:57 PM
"Mr. Snappy" <support...@gwislegitimate___yeahright.com>
wrote in message news:t6hfn9fq1up308@corp.supernews.com...

<snip>

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

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

> And that hasn't included fish genes,

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

> or bt insecticide spliced into it.

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

> We know from experience what has been proven safe over


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

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


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

rice, several varieties of beans, peppers, squash, etc.  Coffee
reached Europe from Africa about 1600.

Which of the listed items do you consume?

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' J K Cason 1/19/01 8:01 PM
"Mr. Snappy" <support...@gwislegitimate___yeahright.com>
wrote in message news:t6hfn9fq1up308@corp.supernews.com...

<snip>

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

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

> And that hasn't included fish genes,

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

> or bt insecticide spliced into it.

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

> We know from experience what has been proven safe over


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

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


Asian diets for at most 400-450 years, less for many items.
That's much less than a millenium for maize, tomatoes, potatoes,
chocolate, avocadoes, blueberries, cranberries, peanuts, wild
rice, several varieties of beans, peppers, squash, etc.  Coffee
reached Europe from Africa about 1600.

Which of the listed items do you consume?

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' J K Cason 1/19/01 8:01 PM
"Mr. Snappy" <support...@gwislegitimate___yeahright.com>
wrote in message news:t6hfn9fq1up308@corp.supernews.com...

<snip>

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

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

> And that hasn't included fish genes,

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

> or bt insecticide spliced into it.

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

> We know from experience what has been proven safe over


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

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


Asian diets for at most 400-450 years, less for many items.
That's much less than a millenium for maize, tomatoes, potatoes,
chocolate, avocadoes, blueberries, cranberries, peanuts, wild
rice, several varieties of beans, peppers, squash, etc.  Coffee
reached Europe from Africa about 1600.

Which of the listed items do you consume?

Sorry about the repeats J K Cason 1/19/01 8:06 PM
"J K Cason" <jkc...@negia.net> wrote in message ...

Uh, sorry


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/20/01 12:24 AM
Ian Alexander wrote on Fri, 19 Jan 2001

>>Oz:


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

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

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

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

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/20/01 12:19 AM
Mr. Snappy wrote on Fri, 19 Jan 2001

>>Someone:


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

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

And we are hardly disease-free, are we?

>And that hasn't included fish genes,

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

>or bt insecticide spliced into it.

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

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

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

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

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

What would you suggest? Have you told your representative?

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

Why do you always assume people are crooked?

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

Strange how we can do so much genetic manipulation then.

>We didn't anticipate the Monarch butterfly problem.

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

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

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

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

There must be lots of them.

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

When?

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/20/01 12:25 AM
Mr. Snappy wrote on Fri, 19 Jan 2001

>Problem is, our government is asleep at the wheel


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

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

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

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/20/01 1:03 AM

"Mr. Snappy" <support...@gwislegitimate___yeahright.com> wrote in
message news:t6hgunnemq9123@corp.supernews.com...
: Problem is, our government is asleep at the wheel

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

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

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' ant 1/20/01 5:08 AM

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

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

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


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


ant


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' fe...@mscd.edu 1/20/01 7:08 AM
In article <tPW96.5986$d25....@newsfeed.slurp.net>,

  "gcouger" <gco...@NOXSPAM.mercury.rfdata.net> wrote:
>
> "Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:nveMWgAsT+Z6Ewea@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> : Soren Dayton wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2001

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

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

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

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

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


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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/20/01 8:58 AM
In article <3A68B53C...@bpmlegal.com>, Tracy Aquilla
<aqu...@bpmlegal.com> writes

>Ian Alexander wrote:
>
>> >
>> >I doubt that all the proposed GM ideas will work. I doubt that half will
>> >work. But I am convinced that some will work.
>>
>> Intuitively I tend to agree with you.  The bigger problem is will the
>> benefits of the few that work outweigh the problems caused by the
>> majority that don't?  Jury out.  In the meantime the bio-tech industry
>> will do anything to get one product globally accepted
>
>Many products of the biotech industry, such as medical products (drugs,
>diagnostics) and laboratory products (reagents, assays, etc.), have already
>been globally accepted, indeed, for many years now. The only significant
>objection appears to be in regard to plants, animals and food products
>generally.
>
>Tracy
>
Accepted, and I have no objection at all to the technology being used
for medicinal purposes, at least so long as the production facilities
are safely contained.  I do object to it be irretrievably released into
the wider countryside - e.g. used in agriculture and forestry.  Here the
only demonstrable advantage is to the companies selling the product,
definitely not a good enough reason to risk environmental contamination.
--
Ian Alexander
GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/20/01 9:08 AM
In article <t6hjf86...@corp.supernews.com>, J K Cason
<jkc...@negia.net> writes

>"Soren Dayton" <day...@overx.com> wrote in message
>news:86itncvjhh.fsf@everest.overx.com...
>
>> An alternative argument runs that there are plenty of high
>> beta-carotene vegetables produced in the parts of the world that
>> golden rice are being pushed in.  But they are all exported.
>
>That argument has been made before, but what are some of those vegetables?
>
>Foods for export typically have higher quality requirements than foods for
>local consumption.  They are not produced by subsistence farmers and the
>poor can't afford them anyway.  Another thing that is often overlooked is
>that the poor are generally conservative and want to eat traditional foods
>rather than unfamiliar, possibly more nourishing foods.  There are also all
>sorts of food taboos and customs that limit intake.  Just because some foods
>are locally grown does not guarantee that the locals want to consume those
>foods or have the means.
>
So the Scots eat fried Mars bars, do we genetically engineer the
ingredients to give Mars bars a higher vitamin content or seek to
educate the Scots about the benefits of eating fruit and vegetables?
Are you suggesting we don't seek to make the results of modern
nutritional research available to the third world if it risks offending
a local food custom?
--
Ian Alexander
GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/20/01 9:16 AM
>
>Any food from the New World has been in European, African, and
>Asian diets for at most 400-450 years, less for many items.
>That's much less than a millenium for maize, tomatoes, potatoes,
>chocolate, blueberries, cranberries, peanuts, wild rice, several
>varieties of beans, peppers, squash, etc.  Coffee reached Europe
>from Africa about 1600.
>
>Which of the listed items do you consume?
>
>
I'm not sure that this is a very productive line for the proponents of
GM to follow.  Even though some humans have been eating agricultural
products for 10,000 years there is still genetically based intolerance
to several basic foodstuffs, wheat, cows milk, alcohol, which can reach
significant proportions in some populations.  So even after 10,000 years
some people have still not managed to make the adaptive switch from
hunter gatherer to farmer.
--
Ian Alexander
GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/20/01 9:21 AM
In article <UFvgMAAk...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes

>Mr. Snappy wrote on Fri, 19 Jan 2001
>
>>>Someone:
>>> Do you know with certainty about anything? Can you be sure that
>>> cornflakes do not have a long term problem? Or sitting in front of your
>>> screen as you read this. What are the long term effects?
>
>>I know the human race has been eating a very similar diet for a long, long
>>time.
>
>And we are hardly disease-free, are we?
>
>>And that hasn't included fish genes,
>
>Eh? Fish genes are certainly a common part of the human diet, and has
>been for a very, very long time.
>
>>or bt insecticide spliced into it.
>
>No, but is has been approved for organic use so it must be UK.
>
Do you really think that occasionally spraying the organism onto a
limited range of crops is equivalent to equipping every cell in the
plant to produce the toxin, within the cell, which, in organic
applications, the organism produces outside of the plant?
--
Ian Alexander
GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/20/01 9:29 AM
>>
>Application of the precautionary principle, which can shut down
>anything, depends on who has the media power to raise the most fuss.
>Much of the media babbles about the unknown risks of "frankenfoods"
>but doesn't repeat information about the greater risks of organic
>foods.


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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/20/01 9:56 AM
"Mr. Snappy" wrote:

> "George Baxter" <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>
> wrote in message news:3A68790B.972781E8@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...
> > "Mr. Snappy" wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I don't suggest they *knowingly* try to produce harmful goods. My
> > > > > concern is that they don't seem to have a problem producing gm
> products
> > > > > which they don't *know* are safe. And they aren't particularly
> > > interested
> > > > > (IMO) in finding out whether they are or not.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that indeed these companies are concerned about whether the
> > > > products they produce are indeed safe for the consumer, irrespective
> of
> > > > whether or not they are GE.  If they produce unsafe products then
> sales
> > > will
> > > > drop.  They rely on producing products that people want.  If people do
> not
> > > > want GE foods then these companies will not produce them.
> > > >
> > > > dk
> > >
> > > I would have to disagree. I believe they do care about safety insofar as
> > > people don't drop dead immediately upon eating their foods. Long term
> > > risks, however, are costly and time-consuming for them to test. No
> > > matter what anyone says or thinks they know, NOBODY knows what's
> > > going to happen for certain when you splice fish DNA with a food staple.
> > > NOBODY. The testing has to be done, and it isn't being done. And I
> > > disagree about people wanting gm foods; certainly there are a
> considerable
> > > number of people who do not want them. But I have yet to hear someone,
> > > besides perhaps a farmer who's been bushwhacked with gm propaganda,
> > > say "gee, I wish my corn was infused with bacterial pesticide so for a
> few
> > > years, until the pests become resistant to it, the farmer might have to
> use
> > > 10 % less pesticide." Not to get too far off the topic of golden rice,
> but
> > > if you look closely at the promises made by the industry for gm foods,
> > > they really have yet to deliver on them. Meanwhile, the American people
> > > are being used as guineau pigs for untested, potentially unsafe crops
> that
> > > they really never asked for in the first place.

> >
> > Do you know with certainty about anything? Can you be sure that
> > cornflakes do not have a long term problem? Or sitting in front of your
> > screen as you read this. What are the long term effects?
> I know the human race has been eating a very similar diet for a long, long
> time.
> And that hasn't included fish genes, or bt insecticide spliced into it.

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

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

 H A


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/20/01 9:56 AM
Tracy Aquilla wrote:

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

  WEEK 41 (1999)

  GENE MODIFIED POLLEN SPREADING

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

 The Weekly Report - Archives

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

 H A


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' J K Cason 1/20/01 11:13 AM
"Ian Alexander" <I...@iandshome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eKeE2EAfYca6EwD0@iandshome.demon.co.uk...

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


high beta-carotene vegetables produced in the parts of the world
that golden rice is being pushed in, but they are all exported.

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

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' J K Cason 1/20/01 11:26 AM
"Ian Alexander" <I...@iandshome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lqrKuJAJgca6EwHK@iandshome.demon.co.uk...

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

>>Which of the listed items do you consume?

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

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

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

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/20/01 10:40 AM

Ian Alexander wrote in message ...
>>>

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

Jim Webster

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

>--
>Ian Alexander


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/20/01 4:23 PM

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

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

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


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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/20/01 4:28 PM

"Ian Alexander" <I...@iandshome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IK5BGBADPca6EwgH@iandshome.demon.co.uk...
: In article <3A68B53C...@bpmlegal.com>, Tracy Aquilla===============
The medical products are released into the environment just like the ag
products. The ones in farm crops will have the same chance to pollute the
environment as regular crops on a smaller scale but with a lot stranger
genes. The end product will end up in the streams just like the hormones
and antibiotics do now when you pee and they are flushed down the toilet
and into the sewer.
GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/20/01 4:31 PM

"Amos Keppler" <theweek...@theweeklyreport.com> wrote in message
news:3A69D18D.7F87F46C@theweeklyreport.com...

The cat is out of the bag.


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


:


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Chive Mynde 1/20/01 7:06 PM
In article <94ctgn$d5l$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,

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

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

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

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

Just like McCarthy.

Just like Cason.

Just like Aquilla.

Just like Couger.

Just like Oz.

Just like Gossman.

Just like Langer.

Just like [insert corporate-financed propagandist here]

- Chive

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


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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' ant 1/20/01 10:12 PM

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

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


ant


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/20/01 10:57 PM

ant wrote in message ...

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

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

Jim Webster

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


>
>ant
>
>


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/20/01 11:01 PM

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

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

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

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


Jim Webster

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/20/01 11:01 AM
Ian Alexander wrote on Sat, 20 Jan 2001

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

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

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/20/01 11:03 AM
Ian Alexander wrote on Sat, 20 Jan 2001

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


>>
>Do you really think that occasionally spraying the organism onto a
>limited range of crops is equivalent to equipping every cell in the
>plant to produce the toxin, within the cell, which, in organic
>applications, the organism produces outside of the plant?

Tracy has explained this to you numerous times.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/21/01 9:00 AM
In article <+fBKqDAd...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writesI agree, at both the intellectual and practical level.  However the fact
that you find a local custom working against change is not, in itself,
always a good reason for not pressing the change.  It should influence
how you try and bring the change about.
--
Ian Alexander
GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/21/01 9:05 AM
>: >
>: Accepted, and I have no objection at all to the technology being used
>: for medicinal purposes, at least so long as the production facilities
>: are safely contained.  I do object to it be irretrievably released into
>: the wider countryside - e.g. used in agriculture and forestry.  Here the
>: only demonstrable advantage is to the companies selling the product,
>: definitely not a good enough reason to risk environmental contamination.
>===============
>The medical products are released into the environment just like the ag
>products. The ones in farm crops will have the same chance to pollute the
>environment as regular crops on a smaller scale but with a lot stranger
>genes. The end product will end up in the streams just like the hormones
>and antibiotics do now when you pee and they are flushed down the toilet
>and into the sewer.
>--
>Gordon    W5RED
>G. C. Couger gco...@provalue.net  Stillwater, OK
>
>
I accept the point about excreted product but not the rest.  I placed a
proviso on my acceptance of medicinal use of safe containment.  This is
expensive but should be possible when producing high value medicinal
products.  It is most certainly not possible when producing low value
agricultural and forestry produce.
>
>

--
Ian Alexander

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/21/01 2:51 PM
Ian Alexander wrote on Sun, 21 Jan 2001

>I agree, at both the intellectual and practical level.  However the fact
>that you find a local custom working against change is not, in itself,
>always a good reason for not pressing the change.  It should influence
>how you try and bring the change about.

Isn't that *precisely* what vitamin A enhanced rice is doing?

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/21/01 4:25 PM

"Ian Alexander" <I...@iandshome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dXvUhEAYbxa6Ewzh@iandshome.demon.co.uk...
: >: >

How do you contain the pollen. I agree that the crop its self can be
probably be contained until some is stolen and sold to countries that
don't pay any attention to our patent laws or some Eco warrior liberates
some.

I agree that it impossible to segregate Ag products. The problems with
some DDT showing up in organic baby food in the EU shows that. The organic
folks have the best segregation and process management in the world and
it's still not good enough. It is thought to have got in in a processing
plant that wasn't very clean. The system is set up to deal with a
commodity. The only exception is peanuts and rice and they have their own
handling system. I under stand that in this country rice retains it
identify to some degree at some facilities.

If the people objection to GE knew how much more specific it was than any
other method of breeding we have every used you would see it is obviously
safer. To get genes from other species in the past was life time of work
that often ended in failure and carried thousands of unknown genes along
with it. Now they find the gene they want splice it in. Check to see where
it is and if they got any thing else, test the grain and plant to see what
is different from the parent plant test the stuff that is different for
safety test the plant and the grain or what ever for safety.
Unless there is something that has not been in a food crop before and it
passes the safety tests it goes through pretty easily. If there is
something new the new stuff gets a lot more testing.

I have a great deal of trust in the FDA. Their past history and
performance shows that do a very good job of balancing risk are rewards. I
trust science a great deal more than I trust some organization like
Greenpeace that wages war on conventional and GM farming and promotes
organic farming and the director resigns as soon as his farms will pass
organic standards to cash in on the food scare he created. In this country
we put business men in jail for manipulating markets like that.


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Soren Dayton 1/21/01 5:37 PM
"gcouger" <gco...@NoXSPAM.mercury.rfdata.net> writes:

> I have a great deal of trust in the FDA.

I see the difference already!

Which FDA?  The one before Jan 20, 2001 that approved RU-486 as safe?
Or the one after Jan 20, 2001 that, according to its boss-designate,
is going to review the decision because of fears that it wasn't done
well.

Soren

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/21/01 9:55 PM

"Soren Dayton" <day...@overx.com> wrote in message
news:86g0ic5pvn.fsf@everest.overx.com...

RU486 has been used in Europe for years and there is enough data on it to
make better judgments than almost any drug every approved. It has
political problems. I trust science a great deal more than I trust
politics. I have see both work up close a personal.


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Soren Dayton 1/22/01 12:27 AM
"gcouger" <gco...@NoXSPAM.mercury.rfdata.net> writes:

Which has nothing to do with the question.  There is talk about
reversing a decision for reasons that are overtly political.  Why?
Because Tommy Thompson and W are opposed to abortion.  If the FDA is
talking about that, how can you trust it?  Do you really think that
the FDA makes its decisions on narrowly scientific grounds?

Soren

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/22/01 2:19 AM

"Soren Dayton" <day...@overx.com> wrote in message
news:86g0ic3sbf.fsf@everest.overx.com...

I trust them to compromise safety less than anybody else and make a good
risk benefit assessment. I ask you to propose a better group. No goverment
body is above politics. But a few do make a very strong stand on safety
and the FDA is one.

I would really feel better with some of the guys at the USDA doing it
because of their knowledge but I am afraid that they have go fever from
being to active in GE.

The idiotic US duality on birth control and abortion permeates everything.
It potentially the most damaging political issue we have.

We won't get  perfect oversight. But there is no one out there trying to
put unsafe product on the market. Lex Luther didn't go into agriculture
because the pay is lousy. Even scientist with the big companies make less
then my daughter in law with five years experience specing out Cisco
routers for Southwestern Bell and she works at home. So they are there
because they want to do the work. Every one of them take safety seriously
and every variety is checked by dozens of folks before they even discuss
its chances for market.

This is not a bunch of guys that build a plant out of junk parts and try
to get by the regulators. These guys have bred plant all their lives and
know more about that plant than you know about the back of you hand. When
he adds something to it he sees the changes in the field and the lab
grinds it up and compares it gene for gene and protein for protein with
its parent and then is grows for at least three generation to get enough
seed to even think about making an introduction. All thought this stage
there has been very rigid peer review of the plants them selves. The
papers are written for the regulatory agencies and are internally
reviewed. The externally reviewed then to the regulatory agency that may
ask for more information.

The people doing this work are honest dedicated people that have dedicated
their lives to this work. The wont screw up doing sloppy work or
falsifying work because that puts you out in the street and you can't ever
get a job a janitor at a college or industry doing the work you are
trained for.

I know it difficult for some people to grasp but the people in the system
are honest, hard working and doing he best they can to make safer
agriculture for all of us.


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/22/01 4:27 AM

>
> As shown above, I responded to the claim that there are plenty of
> high beta-carotene vegetables produced in the parts of the world
> that golden rice is being pushed in, but they are all exported.
>
> No one has shown that the first part of the claim is true, and it
> is generally untrue that foods produced for export would be
> consumed by the local population if they were not exported.
>
> Those opposed to golden rice are suggesting that one of the
> results of modern nutritional research (GM) not be made available
> to the third world because it offends some people in the
> developed world.


That is the plan of Greenpeace. To make golden rice sound unattactive,
and imply there are nutritional, ethical and environments problems with
it. That is the gist of their report on golden rice. And by making
people suspicious of it, to slow down or even halt its acceptance.
--
George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/22/01 4:54 AM
>> You are very wrong when you say testing is not done. All gm foods are
>> subjected to extra tests over and above those of ordinary foods. They
>> are tested to allergen and toxic products. Many foods are modified or
>> fortified with vitamin and minerals. Do you question that?
>You are very wrong and trusting when you think the extremely minimal
>amount of testing that has been done is even close to what needs to be
>done to show safety. You are also very wrong if you assume this
>testing is being done indepenedent of corporate influence and money.

Your comment about minimal testing is glib and inaccurate. Some of the
gmo have been researched for up to nine years. There are extra and
independent teams of experts who assess the merits of all aspects the
product. No other food items get that amount of scrutiny.

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

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

You will not face the truth will you. If it cannot get into your body,
it cannot harm you.
No gmo gets into the inner parts of your body.

By the way, the Monarch butterfly is not significantly affected by Bt
corn. That is alarmist speculation by people like Greenpeace. The truth
is that more than a year ago, there was a flurry of reasearch papers
showing they were not really harmed. Last autumn, the EPA published the
most comprehensive review of Monarchs and Bt Corn. They found that not
only were the monarch not harmed, but the general reduction in
pesticides was helping to improve the environment. Also the farmers (
not the corporations ) saved 100 million dollars.

Ask a competent person? Try Professor Watson, the co-discoverer of dna.
He fully supports gmo.

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/22/01 5:01 AM
Torsten Brinch wrote:
>
> John McCarthy skrev i meddelelsen ...

>
> >Application of the precautionary principle, which can shut down
> >anything, depends on who has the media power to raise the most fuss.
> >Much of the media babbles about the unknown risks of "frankenfoods"
> >but doesn't repeat information about the greater risks of organic
> >foods.
>
> Hello John, and welcome back.
>
> How can it arithmetically be said that B is greater than A,
> if A is unknown?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Torsten Brinch

No effect can be detemined in absolute terms, be it the weather,
environment, or how an electron moves. The fact that you do not have
complete information cannot be an impediment to making decisions. You
can put bounds on problems. Look at the probable consequences.

There is only a finite amount of information, and a short amount of time
to make any assessment. But decisions have to be made in the real world.
Even if the decision is to do nothing.

John is right, the anti-gm groups are trying to hijack the PP, to extend
to mean unless you have total information, you must not do it.
--
George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/22/01 4:41 AM
Ian Alexander wrote:
>
> >
> >There is a very good reason why the gmo are safe. One of the criteria
> >for being passed is that the genes and any byproducts must be easily
> >destroyed by heat or the stomach acids. The genes in soya are destroyed
> >in 15 seconds.  This is done to ensure that it does not get into the gut
> >and so potentially into the body. And if it cannot get into the body, it
> >cannot do you any harm.
>
> Lot of can nots in there - you seem very sure about this.  As sure as
> people were a couple of years ago when they said that the engineered
> genes could not spread to other plants (before it was demonstrated that
> they had).


>

> >The anti-gm groups and individuals who post on
> >this forum know this, but prefer you not to. Because they know it knocks
> >all of their alarmist speculation out of the water.
> >
> >
> My 'alarmist speculation' is not based on any danger I may encounter
> from eating the stuff - so long as it is labelled I will avoid it and as
> long as the US resist labelling and segregation I just buy organic; I am
> concerned about the damage it might do to the wider environment and the
> testing done on that front is negligible in the US and years away from
> being able to usefully report in the UK.
>
> >


When you are making any form of risk assessment, you must assess the
consequences. A gene which confers a pest resistance and does
accidentally get tranfered, then all it is going to do is confer that
resistance. Most plants have naturally occuring pest resistance anyway.
So giving them another confers no real advantage. And if there is no
advantage, there is no change of any consequence. So the net consequence
is that the dangers are minimal. Therefore the environmental impact is
minimal.

The word is a seething mass of genetic material. If gene transfer were
easy then there would be no stability in species. The very fact that
species are stable, and something unchanging for millions of years is
proof of the inherent stability. If you want to know the biggest source
of envirommentaly damage, it is farming. Even organic farming ploughs
the fields, and that devastates all other forms of life, and entire
ecosystems.

>
> --
> Ian Alexander

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/22/01 4:21 AM
Soren Dayton wrote:
>
> George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> writes:
>
> > Soren Dayton wrote:
> > >
> > > An alternative argument runs that there are plenty of high

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

They eat rice. They are deficient in vitamin-A because thier available
food supply is deficenient in vit-A. If there were carrots available,
they could eat them. The golden rice will provide a zero additional cost
solution.

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/22/01 5:53 AM
George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> >
skrev i meddelelsen <3A6C2F22...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>...

>Torsten Brinch wrote:
>> John McCarthy skrev i meddelelsen ...

>> >Much of the media babbles about the unknown risks of "frankenfoods"


>> >but doesn't repeat information about the greater risks of organic
>> >foods.

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

>No effect can be detemined in absolute terms, be it the weather,


>environment, or how an electron moves. The fact that you do not have
>complete information cannot be an impediment to making decisions.

Exactly. That is the precautionary principle. However
this was really  about a much  simpler question, George,
one you forgot to adress:

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

(Note:  John's sig has instructed for years,
that if you  refuse to do the arithmetic,
then you are doomed to speak nonsense)

Best regards

Torsten Brinch


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/22/01 8:00 AM
Ian Alexander wrote:

> Accepted, and I have no objection at all to the technology being used
> for medicinal purposes, at least so long as the production facilities
> are safely contained.  I do object to it be irretrievably released into
> the wider countryside - e.g. used in agriculture and forestry.  Here the
> only demonstrable advantage is to the companies selling the product,

Well then, it seems you have forgotten entirely what this thread was all about.
This is an ongoing debate precisely as to whether there is any benefit other
than profits for the companies selling the products. It seems to me that
improving the nutrient content of crops is a rather obvious advantage,
particular in the context under discussion. Do you honestly disagree? If so, on
what basis?

> definitely not a good enough reason to risk environmental contamination.

The question is, is it worth the environmental risk to take this particular
approach to helping millions afflicted with vit. A deficiency and night
blindness? Unless and until someone identifies a real and significant risk to
the environment, the appropriate choice in this case seems quite clear to me.
Tracy

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/22/01 8:11 AM
gcouger wrote:

> I have a serious problem with the term harmless.

But the term harmless is not a part of the PP, which I quoted directly.

> There is nothing harmless. Every action or inaction has risks and benefits.

Yes, of course, that is a given.

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

Who says it is suddenly inadequate?

> If it were you apply the PP I wouldn't have a problem wiht it.

There should not be a problem with anyone applying the PP. The problem is that
some people seem unable (or unwilling) to recognize that the PP itself does
not and cannot define which particular actions are appropriate (e.g., bans and
moratoria).

> But it I can see how it can be used as tool to forever ban anything.

Only if one accepts that the PP dictates permanently banning things whose
effects are not entirely known. But one cannot reasonably make that
conclusion.

> Look what the
> EU has done with US beef inspire of 50 years of perfect safety and not one
> credible report of problems in humans on a single simple issue by claiming
> hormones are not safe. Think what they could do with the PP.

More than one tribunal has now held that the EU acted illegally in the beef
trade wars, and the EU suffered rather stiff sanctions for it. I do agree that
if the EU were to continue to act in such a manner, that could present some
problems, but I am an optimist and I believe that, in the end, reason will
prevail, even in Europe.  ;-)
Tracy

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/22/01 9:32 AM
Ian Alexander wrote:

> Accepted, and I have no objection at all to the technology being used
> for medicinal purposes, at least so long as the production facilities
> are safely contained.  I do object to it be irretrievably released into
> the wider countryside - e.g. used in agriculture and forestry.  Here the
> only demonstrable advantage is to the companies selling the product,
> definitely not a good enough reason to risk environmental contamination.


You are not correct about the only advantage is to the companies. Last
autumn, the EPA reviewed the data concerning the Monarch Butterfly and
Bt corn. They found the truth is the opposite of the claims. Firstly
there in no real impact on the population. Secondly that there were
environmental gains from the reduction in the pesticides being used.
Lastly, the farmers themselves saved an estimate 100 millions dollars (
not the companies selling the products ).

Environmental contamination is a term used provocatively by those who
oppose gm. In the UK, there are normally 100 or so new plants officially
approve for import and use. These are not native and so are bringing in
many thousands of new genes into the environment. I do not hear you
calling for those to be stopped, or specially monitored, or complaining
about the cross pollenation and spreading of genes.

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/22/01 9:42 AM

I was addressing the point of the question, not the literal one.

Ok, if A is truely unknown then you cannot make a comparison. But as I
say, in many cases in mathematics, and science, you can often put bounds
or limits to it, if you have some information.

Is A positive or negative, real or complex? If we cannot get A directly,
is the there a sequence that we do know, that gets closer and closer to
it?

So if you have some information you can make a comparison, even if the
number itself in not known exactly. Do you know Pi exactly? Know one
knows it exactly as it is an infinite, non-recurring sequence. But it
does not stop people using it.

The same with gm. Total information is not possible, but in reality a
lot of information in known. So judgements can be made. Now there is
direct evidence as gm is now grown in large quantities. There is no
major or even minor environmental impact. Nor is there any impact on
people or animal.

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/22/01 11:19 AM
George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> >
skrev i meddelelsen <3A6C711...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>...

>Torsten Brinch wrote:
>>
>> George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>
>
>> skrev i meddelelsen <3A6C2F22...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>...
>> >Torsten Brinch wrote:
>> >> John McCarthy skrev i meddelelsen ...
>>
>> >> >Much of the media babbles about the unknown risks of
>> >> >"frankenfoods" but doesn't repeat information about the
>> >> >greater risks of organic foods.

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

>Ok, if A is truely unknown then you cannot make a comparison.

Right.

>But as I
>say, in many cases in mathematics, and science, you can often put
>bounds or limits to it, if you have some information.

>Is A positive or negative, real or complex?

If A is supposed to be a risk, I'd say it must be either zero or
positive. But that is not very helpful, since it does not follow
from the premise that A is zero or positive, that it is
smaller than B.

>If we cannot get A directly, is the there a sequence that we
>do know, that gets closer and closer to it?

None that I can see in this case. If you can, please share it.

>So if you have some information you can make a comparison, even if the
>number itself in not known exactly. Do you know Pi exactly? Know one
>knows it exactly as it is an infinite, non-recurring sequence. But it
>does not stop people using it.

Good try, George, but it is too bright.
The question is not whether we can express A accurately with
a finite number of significant digits. It is whether we can put
boundaries or limits to it.

>The same with gm. Total information is not possible, but in reality a
>lot of information in known. So judgements can be made. Now there is
>direct evidence as gm is now grown in large quantities. There is no
>major or even minor environmental impact. Nor is there any impact on
>people or animal.

You seem to have forgotten that you set out
to show that you can put  bounds or limits to A.


Best regards,

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name.

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/22/01 12:59 PM

"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote in message
news:%M%a6.240$LN5.9837@news.get2net.dk...
: George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> >

We can however put bounds and limits on NOT B. If we can make reasonable
estimates on the benefits of B. We have growing data on the risks of A. So
we can make ever more reasonable estimates of the risk of doing nothing
against the increasingly small risk of doing something.

If we were the only player in the game it would be one thing. But
countries like Cuba and China are gearing up to go full blast in GE. I
trust the western system of overset a great deal more than China's.


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/22/01 11:42 AM
In article <d33CAGAF...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writesOK! Not going to argue with that, yet.  But, others are proposing a
broader socio-economic solution which, if it works, will bring
additional benefits to the third world but not the economic advantage to
western based multi-nationals.  The original post was suggesting that
these more complex proposals were not going to work because of local
custom, a view which I reject.  I am not suggesting that local custom
should be a reason for rejecting GM rice IF it could be shown to be the
best solution to the problem.
--
Ian Alexander
GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/22/01 11:36 AM
In article <3A6C25CF...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>, George BaxterYou can not be sure, or even anywhere near sure, that it is a zero
additional cost solution.  We have not begun to test this for unexpected
side effects on human or environmental health and nor can we predict the
socio-economic consequences of introducing this technology.
--
Ian Alexander
GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/22/01 11:59 AM
>
>Environmental contamination is a term used provocatively by those who
>oppose gm. In the UK, there are normally 100 or so new plants officially
>approve for import and use. These are not native and so are bringing in
>many thousands of new genes into the environment. I do not hear you
>calling for those to be stopped, or specially monitored, or complaining
>about the cross pollenation and spreading of genes.
>
It is an aside but briefly you are incorrect about this.  The UK
environment movement has expressed serious reservations about some plant
imports and asked for them to be banned / restricted.  This stems from
experience of having to deal with the fallout from past imports
(Rhododendron, Gaultheria, Himalayan balsam, Japanese knotweed and
several pond weeds as examples).  

The difference is that these problems have not captured the public
imagination.
--
Ian Alexander

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/22/01 12:03 PM
In article <3A6C593B...@bpmlegal.com>, Tracy Aquilla
<aqu...@bpmlegal.com> writes

>Ian Alexander wrote:
>
>> Accepted, and I have no objection at all to the technology being used
>> for medicinal purposes, at least so long as the production facilities
>> are safely contained.  I do object to it be irretrievably released into
>> the wider countryside - e.g. used in agriculture and forestry.  Here the
>> only demonstrable advantage is to the companies selling the product,
>
>Well then, it seems you have forgotten entirely what this thread was all about.

Not quite, but comments focused more on the products which companies are
attempting to introduce to Europe - so guilty in part.

>This is an ongoing debate precisely as to whether there is any benefit other
>than profits for the companies selling the products. It seems to me that
>improving the nutrient content of crops is a rather obvious advantage,
>particular in the context under discussion. Do you honestly disagree? If so, on
>what basis?
>

No, I would probably agree if a. we had demonstrated safety and b. it
was the best way to get the result (better nutrition) we are looking
for.  As we have done neither the comment below still stands.

>> definitely not a good enough reason to risk environmental contamination.
>
>The question is, is it worth the environmental risk to take this particular
>approach to helping millions afflicted with vit. A deficiency and night
>blindness? Unless and until someone identifies a real and significant risk to
>the environment, the appropriate choice in this case seems quite clear to me.
>Tracy
>

--
Ian Alexander

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/22/01 12:12 PM
>> >
>
>
>When you are making any form of risk assessment, you must assess the
>consequences. A gene which confers a pest resistance and does
>accidentally get tranfered, then all it is going to do is confer that
>resistance. Most plants have naturally occuring pest resistance anyway.
>So giving them another confers no real advantage.

Total bollocks!  There is usually a delicate, and evolving, balance
between attack and defence mechanisms.  To suggest that because both
sides have guns giving one side a better gun will have no effect on the
outcome is just obviously wrong.  

Third principle of ecology - all things are inter-related.  From which
it follows that you can not change one part of the system with out the
possibility of affecting, ultimately, all other parts.
--
Ian Alexander

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/22/01 1:42 PM
Ian Alexander wrote on Mon, 22 Jan 2001

>In article <d33CAGAF...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
><O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Ian Alexander wrote on Sun, 21 Jan 2001
>>
>>>I agree, at both the intellectual and practical level.  However the fact
>>>that you find a local custom working against change is not, in itself,
>>>always a good reason for not pressing the change.  It should influence
>>>how you try and bring the change about.
>>
>>Isn't that *precisely* what vitamin A enhanced rice is doing?
>>
>OK! Not going to argue with that, yet.  But, others are proposing a
>broader socio-economic solution which, if it works, will bring
>additional benefits to the third world but not the economic advantage to
>western based multi-nationals.  

So why have they waited 20 years (if not more) to come up with this
amazingly effective solution that nobody else has managed to find?

Frankly they haven't, but they just want to put a spoke into GM that
would help poor people.

Politics used for first world concerns that damages and hurts those in
the third world is deplorable.

Puke.

>The original post was suggesting that
>these more complex proposals were not going to work because of local
>custom, a view which I reject.  I am not suggesting that local custom
>should be a reason for rejecting GM rice IF it could be shown to be the
>best solution to the problem.

Oh come off it. Lots of very smart people have been trying to find ways
to avoid the expensive and often poor penetration of supplements. They
both know the countries well and have been trying for a long time. To
suggest that immediately GM comes up as a real solution that some
others, who seem to have only a fragmentary grasp of the situation, can
immediately produce a working solution is a delusion.

Believe it if you will, but be glad you don't have any conscience.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/22/01 1:44 PM
Ian Alexander wrote on Mon, 22 Jan 2001

>You can not be sure, or even anywhere near sure, that it is a zero


>additional cost solution.  We have not begun to test this for unexpected
>side effects on human or environmental health and nor can we predict the
>socio-economic consequences of introducing this technology.

Well, really it's not for you to say, but for those people and THEIR
governments. They are responsible for the plight of their family and
citizens and I suggest you bow to their judgement, as I will.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Mr. Snappy 1/22/01 2:54 PM

"gcouger" <gco...@NoXSPAM.mercury.rfdata.net> wrote in message
news:Jfea6.6582$d25.42622@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "Mr. Snappy" <support...@gwislegitimate___yeahright.com> wrote in
> message news:t6hgunnemq9123@corp.supernews.com...
> : Problem is, our government is asleep at the wheel
> : when it comes to regulating gm foods. And I *have*
> : written both my senators as well as my representative.
> : Nobody is listening...because money talks louder than
> : I do. Hell, it got our Presidunce-select into office (that
> : and 5 votes).
> :
> Maybe you don't like the way that our goverment uses science insted of
> public opinion to make decisions. Our politicians rely on the USDA, FDA
> and EPA to make those calls. What is the point in having regulatory
> agencies if you over rule them with politics.

Knock knock! Our government is ASLEEP! They aren't using science or
anything else. They let Starlink out, they will let let anything out if the
biotech
companies say it's ok. There's no regulation. Starlink proved that.


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/22/01 2:54 PM
gcouger skrev i meddelelsen ...

>: >Torsten Brinch wrote:
>: >> >> John McCarthy skrev i meddelelsen ...
>: >>
>: >> >> >Much of the media babbles about the unknown risks of
>: >> >> >"frankenfoods" but doesn't repeat information about the
>: >> >> >greater risks of organic foods.

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


>We can however put bounds and limits on NOT B.

You must have misunderstood something here.
B is not a boolean. It is a measure of the risk of organic foods.
A is the risk of GM foods. Believe it or not, John asserts
that B is greater than A, and that A is unknown.

>If we can make reasonable estimates on the benefits of B.

Maybe you mean the benefits of organic food? But sorry,
that is not helpful for our problem. Quite generally you cannot
calculate the risk of something from the benefit of it. Also,
note that John has not asserted that B is unknown. Maybe
he has  already done the arithmetic on that number.

>We have growing data on the risks of A.

Good, then enumerate it ,please or
at the very least put some bounds or limits to it
(and  with proper units,  remember ;^)

>So we can make ever more reasonable estimates
>of the risk of doing nothing against the increasingly
>small risk of doing something.


But that is just introducing two further terms
C: the risk of doing nothing, and D: the risk of doing something.
(these risks seems to me to be quite irrelevant to our present
arithmetic problem with the relation between A and B.
I mean, A and B can hardly be calculated from C and D)

I do think it would  be fair to characterize risks C and D as unknown
and probably by definition indeterminate. But if you can argue for
any reasonable  numeric estimate of risks C and D, by all means
post it. Otherwise, I suggest we evoke the precautionary principle
which would say, in the case of C, that the fact that we cannot
enumerate the risk of doing nothing should not preclude us from
deciding to do something. And in the case of C, that the fact that
we cannot enumerate the risk of doing something should not
preclude us from doing something else (including nothing).

Best regards,

Torsten Brinch


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Mr. Snappy 1/22/01 2:59 PM

"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QlnhEKAGuUa6EwBs@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> Mr. Snappy wrote on Fri, 19 Jan 2001

>
> >Problem is, our government is asleep at the wheel
> >when it comes to regulating gm foods. And I *have*
> >written both my senators as well as my representative.
> >Nobody is listening...because money talks louder than
> >I do. Hell, it got our Presidunce-select into office (that
> >and 5 votes).
>
> Maybe. Would you prefer a different form of government and if so what?

Yes, I would. I would prefer America become a Democracy. In case
you aren't aware, it is now a Corporatocracy.

> How woulod you get the majority of the population to agree with you?
Good question. It is very, VERY hard to fight big money. Because they
have, well, all the money. Grassroots organizations, health food stores,
writing Congressmen. It is so hard to get the truth out when vested
interests
cozy up to our government and have so much propaganda money.

A good (paraphrased) quote from Thomas Frank (author of "One market under
God"):

"Democracies prefer free markets, but free markets do not prefer
democracies."


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Mr. Snappy 1/22/01 3:23 PM
> Any food from the New World has been in European, African, and
> Asian diets for at most 400-450 years, less for many items.
> That's much less than a millenium for maize, tomatoes, potatoes,
> chocolate, avocadoes, blueberries, cranberries, peanuts, wild
> rice, several varieties of beans, peppers, squash, etc.  Coffee
> reached Europe from Africa about 1600.

Ummm, ok. 400 years. Millenium. We're talking decades, not months
or even a few years.

Gee...the uhh, native Americans...check my history on this, ok? They were
uhh, alive and healthy when we first visited them, were they not? So I'm
thinking their history goes a lot longer than 400 years, though, like I say,
400 years is still a lot more time than months or a few years for gm foods.


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Mr. Snappy 1/22/01 3:35 PM
> So consumption of non-GM foods carries certain risks that are not
> recognized by the argument that millenia of consumption have made
> traditional, non-GM foods safe to eat.

The flaw in your logic is that we DO have a good handle on what the
risks are, having eaten these foods for even (just!) 400 years. Are
all foods perfectly safe or free of allergens? No. But when you mess
with DNA, you do NOT know what is going to happen. You can
predict, but that is just that. This is NOT the same as what has EVER
been done in the past with hybrid-type crops. We are splicing DNA!
You cannot compare it with anything in the history of the world.

There is more than one way we can kill ourselves, and incautious use
of genetics forever changing our established food staples may prove
just as deadly as nuclear weapons. We are moving at a rapid pace on
this because of greed, not good science.

I also take extreme exception to the fact that I can't even know whether
a food is gm or not. If I, along with a great number of scientists and
concerned consumers, do not believe enough testing is being done to
show safety, then I should have the right to know on a label. But of
course even that knowledge is being stifled in the Corporatocracy
that is America, 2001.


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Mr. Snappy 1/22/01 4:07 PM
"We're in a crisis position where we know the weaknesses of the genetic
concept, but we don't know how to incorporate it into a more complete
understanding. Monsanto knows this. DuPont knows this. Novartis knows this.
They all know what I know.  But they don't want to look at it because it's
too complicated and it's going to cost too much to figure it out."
Richard Strohman, Professor Emeritus, Department of Molecular and Cell
Biology, University of California, Berkeley

"An ecosystem, you can always intervene and change something in it, but
there's no way of  knowing what all the downstream effects will be or how it
might affect  the environment. We have such a miserably poor understanding
of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we
don't get one rude shock after another."

Professor Richard Lewontin, Professor of Genetics, Harvard University

  "The industry people (Monsanto, Novartis, Global Industry Coalition) are
saying that everything is OK, that there is absolutely nothing to worry
about. They claim their products are government approved and thereby, safe.
They do not tell you that several industry board-members are tied to
government officials, including Mickey Kantor, Monsanto board-member AND
personal attorney to US President Bill Clinton. "
http://web.iquest.net/ofma/gmoy2k.htm

"Only 4% of Americans would actually be more likely to buy foods because
they are genetically modified. By contrast, 57% would be less likely to buy
them. "
The Economist January 15, 2000 , U.S.

(Who's ASKING for these foods anyway?)

"It might still be argued that only the hi-tech approach of genetic
engineering can have any hope of offering the necessary agronomic robustness
required for crops to function productively in some of the world's more
extreme growing conditions.

A couple of recent research studies raise some interesting questions about
the validity of such assumptions. 'New Scientist' reported in November 1999
[15] that far from increasing output Monsanto's genetically modified soya
beans were prone to stunted growth and excessive stem splitting in high
temperature field conditions. This was apparently due to unintended changes
in plant physiology caused by the addition of genes making the beans
resistant to glyphosate, the herbicide marketed as 'Roundup' by Monsanto. It
resulted in up to 40% yield losses compared to traditional soya beans grown
in the same conditions. "
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/geneticsmyth.htm

Wait a second - did they say "unintended?" So Monsanto makes Roundup and the
beans, and
there were still unintended consequences? Huh.

Write a proper retort tonight...

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' J K Cason 1/22/01 6:33 PM
"Ian Alexander" <I...@iandshome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yOXPnGA+0Ib6EwOW@iandshome.demon.co.uk...

> In article <d33CAGAF...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
><O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Ian Alexander wrote on Sun, 21 Jan 2001

>>>I agree, at both the intellectual and practical level.  However the
>>>fact that you find a local custom working against change is not,
>>>in itself, always a good reason for not pressing the change.  It
>>>should influence how you try and bring the change about.

>>Isn't that *precisely* what vitamin A enhanced rice is doing?

>OK! Not going to argue with that, yet.  But, others are proposing a
>broader socio-economic solution which, if it works, will bring
>additional benefits to the third world but not the economic advantage
>to western based multi-nationals.  The original post was suggesting
>that these more complex proposals were not going to work because
>of local custom,

Local custom was one of several reasons, not the only one, that I
listed against the argument that the poor in other countries would
have food to eat if we stopped importing food from their countries.

> a view which I reject.  I am not suggesting that local custom
> should be a reason for rejecting GM rice IF it could be shown to be
> the best solution to the problem.

Ian, one of the points against golden rice is that its color will be
unfamiliar.  If a familiar food meets resistance just because of the
color, it should be easy to imagine that an unfamilar food would
have similar if not greater problems.

The main point, however, is that food imports are not just acquired in
distant local markets and shipped off to wealthy consumers in the
developed world.  It is a totally different system of production.

John

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/22/01 7:00 PM

"Mr. Snappy" <support...@gwislegitimate___yeahright.com> wrote in
message news:t6pisiml7p4r00@corp.supernews.com...
: "We're in a crisis position where we know the weaknesses of the genetic

We have some very good examples of extreemly large envormental mistakes
made all over the world by accdental and intentional introduction of
plants and animals. Some have been expensive but none have threatened
civilzation as we know it. The risk of genetic engineering are a great
deal less than the accidental introduction of sea life in the balast tanks
of ships.

The unintended concquences and all the objections are brough up be people
that don't understand the technolodgy or plant breeding in general. Find a
reputable working plant breeder working at a reconized agricultral
university that will take that stand.


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


:
:
:
: Write a proper retort tonight...
:
:
:
:
:


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/22/01 8:49 PM

"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote in message
news:zX2b6.388$LN5.13662@news.get2net.dk...
: gcouger skrev i meddelelsen ...

: >: >Torsten Brinch wrote:
: >: >> >> John McCarthy skrev i meddelelsen ...
: >: >>
: >: >> >> >Much of the media babbles about the unknown risks of
: >: >> >> >"frankenfoods" but doesn't repeat information about the
: >: >> >> >greater risks of organic foods.
:
: >: >> How can it arithmetically be said that B  is greater than A,
: >: >> if A is unknown?
:
:
: >We can however put bounds and limits on NOT B.
:
: You must have misunderstood something here.
: B is not a boolean. It is a measure of the risk of organic foods.
: A is the risk of GM foods. Believe it or not, John asserts
: that B is greater than A, and that A is unknown.

Yes I misunderstood I asumed B as the advantages of GM foods. Try the
logic in that light on the previous post.

Here is the logic of B bing the risk of organic foods and A being the risk
of GM foods. Looking at both the risk of following a organic path and GM
path. I realize that taking them to either all organic or all GM is
probably unrealistic. I am bringing up for the folks that believe that
organic farming is the only future of the world.

If B is the immidate healt risk of organic foods I agree that that they
are well known and they are as safe as any food if the milk, juice and
cheese are pasturized and proper storage and preperaton are followed.

The future risk of organic agriculture is also well know if it is applied
on a world wide scale. I simply won't provide enough food for the current
population let alone the incresing population for the next fifty years
when it will hopefully level out.

So if we try to feed the world with organic agricultue we doom a great
number of people to starvation.

While we don't know the limits of risk to B (gM) they grow smaller each
day. The ability of GM crops to produce more food than organic crops on
less land is obvious to me. Is it not to you? Also the chanch that GM
crops will increase their yield in the future is much greater than the
chanch that organic crops will increase their yeild in the future.

On the subject of sustainablity I would be glad to debate it is a managemt
practice not a method of farming. That most farming methods short of slash
and burn and irrigation with salty water can be sustainable with proper
managment.

If a the world is going to be fed in 2050 GM will have to be implement
soon. It takes time to develop, test, get bred in the right varities and
get it in a crop that is acceptable to the folks that raise it. The poorer
the farmer the more difficult it is. To the young folks out there 50 years
seems like a long time. To do what needs to be done to feed the world in
2050 time is very very short. Even with GE getting a plant in the hands of
a grower in 10 years is almost impossible. Getting started in sub Saharia
Africa in 25 years would be quick.

Torsten, is that more along the lines of what you hand in mind.

I came across some more information on the report on the organic letuce
causing the e. coli:157. The fact that it was organic was incidintal to
the e coli. It turned out to be a hygine problem in the wash water. If you
want it in bolder type or in message by it's self appened to the thread on
organic an e coli 157 I will be glad to do so.

With the exception of Walkerton a large number of the e coli157 cases seem
to be hygine related. Not to say they didn't come in on meat but it was
spread to other foods by improper hand washing. The meat being properly
cooked did not spread the disease. It is also a problem in nursing homes
and day care centers.


:
: Maybe you mean the benefits of organic food? But sorry,

Sounds like a case for Baysian statiticts. These are the problems faced
every day in many lines of work. By the time all the data it is in it is
generaly too late to make the decision. The fact that this is a multi
player game also compicates it. Do we take a chance on the more
responsible players developing the technolodgy or do the more responsibil
players wait for better information while the less responsible player
blindly forge ahead with no regard for the concequencies.
 :
Gordon Couger.

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/22/01 10:19 PM

"Mr. Snappy" <support...@gwislegitimate___yeahright.com> wrote in
message news:t6ph0fo70pc19e@corp.supernews.com...
: > So consumption of non-GM foods carries certain risks that are not

This is the most cautious use of genetics we have ever used. In the third
grade we to seeds to the dentist and had him irradiate them and let kids
grow them. There are a hell of a lot more unknowns in that than there are
in genetic engineering. Just because you can't understand it and the tree
huggers have taken up the cause it must be bad. Look at the credentials
and reputation of the people that do support it and ask your self why
would a half dozen Nobel prize winners support it if it was dangerous. To
these people their reputation is the most important thing they have. Look
at the scientist that are against it see how many agronomist, geneticist
or bio engineers are against it. Those are the ones that understand it. I
don't know if you understand how the academic world work. But they are the
meanest back stabbingest bunch you ever saw when it comes to agreeing on
things. If they agree you can go to the bank with it. The cooperations are
just 10 or 15% of the players. These people can't agree on what's for
lunch let alone form a conspiracy.


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/23/01 12:22 AM
Mr. Snappy wrote on Mon, 22 Jan 2001

>The flaw in your logic is that we DO have a good handle on what the
>risks are, having eaten these foods for even (just!) 400 years. Are
>all foods perfectly safe or free of allergens? No.

Thank you. This is a point people have been trying to make.
There is a risk with all foods.

>But when you mess
>with DNA, you do NOT know what is going to happen.

Sigh.

But you do know precisely what genes you have transferred.
You can also check to see how the plant differs chemically.

Unfortunately in conventional plant breeding you don't and furthermore
you do look for useful mutants whose other properties you may be
completely unaware of.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/23/01 12:24 AM
Mr. Snappy wrote on Mon, 22 Jan 2001

>They were


>uhh, alive and healthy when we first visited them, were they not?

Not that healthy, given the area they had and the time they had been
there. I don't think anyone denies that their population had been static
for a very long time and they had no birth control. Go figure the
mortality and average lifespan.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/23/01 6:32 AM
Ian Alexander wrote:

> In article <3A6C593B...@bpmlegal.com>, Tracy Aquilla
> <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> writes
> >Ian Alexander wrote:
> >
> >> Accepted, and I have no objection at all to the technology being used
> >> for medicinal purposes, at least so long as the production facilities
> >> are safely contained.  I do object to it be irretrievably released into
> >> the wider countryside - e.g. used in agriculture and forestry.  Here the
> >> only demonstrable advantage is to the companies selling the product,
> >
> >Well then, it seems you have forgotten entirely what this thread was all about.
>
> Not quite, but comments focused more on the products which companies are
> attempting to introduce to Europe - so guilty in part.
>
> >This is an ongoing debate precisely as to whether there is any benefit other
> >than profits for the companies selling the products. It seems to me that
> >improving the nutrient content of crops is a rather obvious advantage,
> >particular in the context under discussion. Do you honestly disagree? If so, on
> >what basis?
> >
>
> No, I would probably agree if a. we had demonstrated safety

Note that the product is not yet available for commercial use or public sale,
precisely because it is currently being evaluated for safety, etc.

> and b. it was the best way to get the result (better nutrition) we are looking
> for.

To whom do you refer here as "we"? It seems to me that it is up to those who would
use the golden rice to determine whether it is the best way to get the result
(better nutrition) _they_ are looking for.

>  As we have done neither the comment below still stands.
>
> >> definitely not a good enough reason to risk environmental contamination.

It may not be worth it, in your opinion, but it might be well worth the risk to
those who have a dietary deficiency of vit. A. Anyway, there does not appear to be
any significant risk of "environmental contamination." What risk exactly did you
have in mind? Not another science-fiction-inspired doomsday scenario, I hope?

> >The question is, is it worth the environmental risk to take this particular
> >approach to helping millions afflicted with vit. A deficiency and night
> >blindness? Unless and until someone identifies a real and significant risk to
> >the environment, the appropriate choice in this case seems quite clear to me.
> >Tracy

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/23/01 7:39 AM
"Mr. Snappy" wrote:

> > So consumption of non-GM foods carries certain risks that are not
> > recognized by the argument that millenia of consumption have made
> > traditional, non-GM foods safe to eat.
>
> The flaw in your logic is that we DO have a good handle on what the
> risks are, having eaten these foods for even (just!) 400 years.

Mr. Snappy appears to make the assumption that the genomes of those
relatively few food plants that humans have been eating for 400 years have
remained static over that time. In other words, he appears to assume that
there has been no mutation of those plant genomes for the last 400 years.
But that assumption is quite absurd.

> when you mess with DNA, you do NOT know what is going to happen.

Actually, one can predict rather accurately what is going to happen.

> You can predict, but that is just that.

Well yes, that is the way the world works.

> This is NOT the same as what has EVER
> been done in the past with hybrid-type crops.

Technically correct, since in the past and with "hybrid-type" crops, we have
had far less ability to predict accurately what will happen. Clearly, this
is an improvement.

> We are splicing DNA!
> You cannot compare it with anything in the history of the world.

Of course you can - it is done all the time.

> I also take extreme exception to the fact that I can't even know whether
> a food is gm or not.

Of course you can, by simply growing your own or buying organic. Anything
else you can reasonably assume contains GMOs. Quite simple, really.
Tracy

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/23/01 7:46 AM
"Mr. Snappy" wrote:

> "Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> > Maybe. Would you prefer a different form of government and if so what?
>
> Yes, I would. I would prefer America become a Democracy. In case
> you aren't aware, it is now a Corporatocracy.

Actually, since apparently you aren't aware, the US is a Republic (my
personal preference also). It is not a democracy and was not intended by the
founders to be a democracy. Indeed, it was set up as a republic expressly
because the founders were wary of the potential evils of democracy (i.e.,
majority rule was not considered a good thing). If you are not familiar with
this fact, I suggest reading the writings of James Madison (who also drafted
the US Constitution).
Tracy

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/23/01 7:53 AM
"Mr. Snappy" wrote:

> "gcouger" <gco...@NoXSPAM.mercury.rfdata.net> wrote in message
> news:Jfea6.6582$d25.42622@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> > :
> > Maybe you don't like the way that our goverment uses science insted of
> > public opinion to make decisions. Our politicians rely on the USDA, FDA
> > and EPA to make those calls. What is the point in having regulatory
> > agencies if you over rule them with politics.
>
> Knock knock! Our government is ASLEEP!

Actually, it is most of the citizens who seem to be asleep.

> They aren't using science

Clearly they are using science. See e.g., the recent FDA proposed rule
regarding GMOs. The problem the activists seem to have is that they would
prefer the government to ignore the science and adopt their adversary position
on GMOs.

> There's no regulation. Starlink proved that.

Certainly there is government regulation, and it is pervasive and rather
effective - StarLink proved that (as did many products that came before it).
Tracy

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/23/01 9:14 AM
Ian Alexander wrote:

> You can not be sure, or even anywhere near sure, that it is a zero
> additional cost solution.  We have not begun to test this for unexpected
> side effects on human or environmental health and nor can we predict the
> socio-economic consequences of introducing this technology.

Yes I can. They buy rice now. The modified rice is not subject any levy.
There will be no extra cost distribution as the system is already in
place to do it.

You can be sure that there will be no side effects on humans because no
edible gmo is every released until it has been shown that the inserted
genes are easily destroyed either by heat or the acid in the stomach. I
do not think anyone eats raw rice anyway.

The environment effects are usually scare stories, put about by people
strongly opposed to gmo. Look at the actual environmental effects in the
USA and Argentina. None. If there were, Greenpeace and Friends of the
Earth would be trumpeting it. Perhaps you would care to say what effects
could happen ( and please do not just regurgitate the old chestnuts of
superweeds and pollen spread ).

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/23/01 9:23 AM

Gmo involves the introduction of small number of genes. Plants are
entire genomes with huge numbers of genes. If the argument about
"genetic pollution" is valid then it is even more valid for them. Yes
there may be a small amount of complaint about, but it just highlights
the hypocracy of GP and FoE that they are not consistent.


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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/23/01 9:29 AM

You are losing the argument when you start to swear. Just because a
plant gains another set of genes it does not mean that plant will gain
any benefit at all. And that is only on the off change it gains the
genes. In most cases they will not. There is a potato that is resistant
to the colorado beetle - a major pest. But there are few related plants
around to take the gene so it is reasonably contained.

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/23/01 9:46 AM
>You seem to have forgotten that you set out
>to show that you can put  bounds or limits to A.

Not at all. Allow me to illustrate it by the analogy of my tropical
fruit ( remember that one - it comes from a remote place, no-one has
really eaten it but initial tests show it is ok ).

Now if the "natural" fruit were to be considered for commercial/large
scale growing it would be subject to certain tests. Damage to the
environment would be the main one, and does it cause harm to people.
There would not be large scale opposition to it as there is to gmo, nor
would it be subjected to the microscopic scrutiny. Let us call it A- .
And since this would be acceptable, then what evidence is there are a
modified version of the fruit A is significantly different from A-?


Also cross bred fruit and plants have many more genes. Call them A+ yet
they are not subject to the tedious controls. So our gmo plant A is
bounded by A- and A++ neither of which are a problem.

So we can set limits to the so called unknown.


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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/23/01 10:20 AM
Oz skrev i meddelelsen ...

>Mr. Snappy wrote on Mon, 22 Jan 2001

>>But when you mess


>>with DNA, you do NOT know what is going to happen.

>But you do know precisely what genes you have transferred.

But that knowledge is of little utility, Oz.

Cf. that it is quite generally not possible to predict which change
of meaning it will cause to a statement to put an extra word into it
-- and in that it really doesn't  matter that you know precisely
which word you are adding.

"We gain a knowledge of genes--as opposed to a mere assertion
of their material existence--only through knowledge of the organism
as a whole. The more knowledge we have of the organism as a whole,
the more information we have. THIS INFORMATION IS NOT IN THE
GENES; IT IS IN THE CONCEPTUAL THREAD THAT WEAVE
TOGETHER THE VARIOUS DETAILS INTO A MEANINGFUL
WHOLE."

(From "Genetics and the Manipulation of Life:
The Forgotten Factor of Context", by Craig Holdrege.)


Best regards,

Torsten Brinch
--
Science, finally unravelling the secrets of Shakespeare:
"The longest word in  King Lear is  flibbertigibbet."


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/23/01 8:40 AM
In article <ZryDXDAX...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz

<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>Ian Alexander wrote on Mon, 22 Jan 2001
>>In article <d33CAGAF...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
>><O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>Ian Alexander wrote on Sun, 21 Jan 2001
>>>
>>>>I agree, at both the intellectual and practical level.  However the fact
>>>>that you find a local custom working against change is not, in itself,
>>>>always a good reason for not pressing the change.  It should influence
>>>>how you try and bring the change about.
>>>
>>>Isn't that *precisely* what vitamin A enhanced rice is doing?
>>>
>>OK! Not going to argue with that, yet.  But, others are proposing a
>>broader socio-economic solution which, if it works, will bring
>>additional benefits to the third world but not the economic advantage to
>>western based multi-nationals.  
>
>So why have they waited 20 years (if not more) to come up with this
>amazingly effective solution that nobody else has managed to find?

The main parts of an alternative solution have been around for that
long.  What has been lacking is the political will, in the West to back
fair trade rather than free trade and in the less developed world to
back the economic and political reforms needed to promote self
sufficiency.


>
>Frankly they haven't, but they just want to put a spoke into GM that
>would help poor people.
>
>Politics used for first world concerns that damages and hurts those in
>the third world is deplorable.
>
>Puke.


You mean like the US using it's aid programme to dump undeclared its
otherwise unsaleable GM produce on third world countries?
>

--
Ian Alexander

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/23/01 8:34 AM
In article <bbbDLFAw...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writesYou will?  Even if they say no to GM?  The trouble with that, from an
objective point of view, is that the amount spent by agri-business
pushing the GM 'solution' is unlikely to be any where near matched by
the amount available to push the non-GM alternative.  If there were
anything like a level playing field I would be very confident of the non
GM argument winning.
--
Ian Alexander
GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/23/01 8:52 AM
>
>We have some very good examples of extreemly large envormental mistakes
>made all over the world by accdental and intentional introduction of
>plants and animals. Some have been expensive but none have threatened
>civilzation as we know it. The risk of genetic engineering are a great
>deal less than the accidental introduction of sea life in the balast tanks
>of ships.

I know of no valid basis on which this sort of comparison can be made.
It is just your opinion and mine, for what it's worth, is different.


>
>The unintended concquences and all the objections are brough up be people
>that don't understand the technolodgy or plant breeding in general. Find a
>reputable working plant breeder working at a reconized agricultral
>university that will take that stand.

I think that gun was well and truly spiked by the last post in this
thread.  I also recall a recent and well publicised comment by the head?
of Monsanto that GM was not the solution to third world hunger.


>--
>Gordon    W5RED
>G. C. Couger gco...@provalue.net  Stillwater, OK
>
>
>:
>:
>:
>: Write a proper retort tonight...
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>
>

--
Ian Alexander

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/23/01 1:38 PM
Torsten Brinch wrote:

> Oz skrev i meddelelsen ...
> >Mr. Snappy wrote on Mon, 22 Jan 2001
>
> >>But when you mess
> >>with DNA, you do NOT know what is going to happen.
>
> >But you do know precisely what genes you have transferred.
>
> But that knowledge is of little utility, Oz.

Actually, it is of significant practical utility, of course, as it
facilitates the process of predicting the novel traits of the resulting
genotype and testing the effects of the added genetic material.

> Cf. that it is quite generally not possible to predict which change
> of meaning it will cause to a statement to put an extra word into it
> -- and in that it really doesn't  matter that you know precisely
> which word you are adding.

So what? It simply does not matter, in this context, that it is quite


generally not possible to predict which change of meaning it will cause
to a statement to put an extra word into it -- and in that it really
doesn't  matter that you know precisely which word you are adding,
precisely because genetic transformation does not amount to adding a
word to a statement.

> "We gain a knowledge of genes--as opposed to a mere assertion
> of their material existence--only through knowledge of the organism
> as a whole.

Clearly one can indeed gain knowledge of genes by studying genes
isolated from the whole organism. So the statement above is quite
obviously false.

> The more knowledge we have of the organism as a whole,
> the more information we have.

And the more knowledge we have of the parts that make up a whole
organism, the more information we have.

> THIS INFORMATION IS NOT IN THE GENES;

Some of the knowledge we have of the organism as a whole is in the
genes, but not all of it, of course.
Tracy

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/23/01 1:41 PM
Ian Alexander wrote:

> Gordon wrote:
> >The unintended concquences and all the objections are brough up be people
> >that don't understand the technolodgy or plant breeding in general. Find a
> >reputable working plant breeder working at a reconized agricultral
> >university that will take that stand.
>
> I think that gun was well and truly spiked by the last post in this
> thread.

How so?

>  I also recall a recent and well publicised comment by the head?
> of Monsanto that GM was not the solution to third world hunger.

Doesn't make it true. In fact, most GE opponents would probably say that you
cannot believe anything that comes from the mouth of a Monsanto executive
(except, of course, on those very rare occasions where the activist agrees with
the executive - then they quote him!).
Tracy

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/23/01 1:43 PM
Ian Alexander wrote:

> In article <ZryDXDAX...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
> <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
> [snip]

> >Politics used for first world concerns that damages and hurts those in
> >the third world is deplorable.
> >
> >Puke.
>
> You mean like the US using it's aid programme to dump undeclared its
> otherwise unsaleable GM produce on third world countries?

When has that ever happened? Or is this just something that you imagine might
happen?
Tracy

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/23/01 12:39 PM
Ian Alexander wrote on Tue, 23 Jan 2001

>In article <bbbDLFAw...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
><O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes

>>Well, really it's not for you to say, but for those people and THEIR


>>governments. They are responsible for the plight of their family and
>>citizens and I suggest you bow to their judgement, as I will.
>>
>You will?  Even if they say no to GM?  

Of course, you have no right for force other countries to do what you
wish them to do.

>The trouble with that, from an
>objective point of view, is that the amount spent by agri-business
>pushing the GM 'solution' is unlikely to be any where near matched by
>the amount available to push the non-GM alternative.  

You underestimate their intelligence.

>If there were
>anything like a level playing field I would be very confident of the non
>GM argument winning.

Really.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/23/01 12:42 PM
Ian Alexander wrote on Tue, 23 Jan 2001
>In article <ZryDXDAX...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
><O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Ian Alexander wrote on Mon, 22 Jan 2001

>>>OK! Not going to argue with that, yet.  But, others are proposing a


>>>broader socio-economic solution which, if it works, will bring
>>>additional benefits to the third world but not the economic advantage to
>>>western based multi-nationals.  
>>
>>So why have they waited 20 years (if not more) to come up with this
>>amazingly effective solution that nobody else has managed to find?
>
>The main parts of an alternative solution have been around for that
>long.  What has been lacking is the political will, in the West to back
>fair trade rather than free trade and in the less developed world to
>back the economic and political reforms needed to promote self
>sufficiency.

The vitamin A deficiency has nothing to do with free trade. It has to do
with isolated peasants.

>>Frankly they haven't, but they just want to put a spoke into GM that
>>would help poor people.
>>
>>Politics used for first world concerns that damages and hurts those in
>>the third world is deplorable.
>>
>>Puke.
>
>You mean like the US using it's aid programme to dump undeclared its
>otherwise unsaleable GM produce on third world countries?

Eh? They buy it because they need it. If it wasn't subsidised the would
buy argentinian and brazilian GMO instead (actually they are doing this
as we speak).

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/23/01 12:45 PM
George Baxter wrote on Tue, 23 Jan 2001

>Now if the "natural" fruit were to be considered for commercial/large
>scale growing it would be subject to certain tests. Damage to the
>environment would be the main one, and does it cause harm to people.

But you can import what you like without testing. Just look at the range
of imported tropical fruits available. Now if you go and ask locals they
will often warn you to be moderate in your consumption with some of
them. No warnings in our shops.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' ant 1/22/01 9:15 PM

Ian Alexander wrote in message ...
>In article <3A6C25CF...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>, George Baxter
><"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> writes
>>Soren Dayton wrote:
>>>
>>> George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>
writes:
>>>
>>> > Soren Dayton wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > An alternative argument runs that there are plenty of high
>>> > > beta-carotene vegetables produced in the parts of the world that
>>> > > golden rice are being pushed in.  But they are all exported.
>>> > >
>>> > > Thus, we could argue, alternatively, that the fact that ease with
>>> > > which we get food from all over the world blinds us to both the
>>> > > inequity of the socio-economic relationship and the unsound
>>> > > agricultural practices.
>>> > >
>>> > > Alternatively stated: if we didn't eat their food for them, they
might
>>> > > have enough to eat it themselves.
>>> > >
>>> > > Why don't we try that?
>>> >
>>> > The alternative sounds good. So why is it not working?
>>> >
>>> > The reason is the most of the people who suffer from VAD are poor.
They
>>> > cannot afford the luxury of the imported foods and the governments
>>> > cannot get the suppliments programs sufficiently well organised.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying that the poor people in some desolate place should
>>> import their carrots or whatever from California.  I'm saying that we
>>> shouldn't take their carrots from them for our baby carrots.
>>>
>>> Soren
>>
>>They eat rice. They are deficient in vitamin-A because thier available
>>food supply is deficenient in vit-A. If there were carrots available,
>>they could eat them. The golden rice will provide a zero additional cost

>>solution.
>>
>>
>>
>You can not be sure, or even anywhere near sure, that it is a zero
>additional cost solution.  We have not begun to test this for unexpected
>side effects on human or environmental health and nor can we predict the
>socio-economic consequences of introducing this technology.


IIRC a study into feeding smokers additional beta carotene as a supplement
caused more harm then it prevented and the trial was discontinued part way
through due to adverse health effects. how are we to prevent vit A
poisoning from people consuming this rice all the time or in larger then
normal amounts, or products derived from it or its waste. if there is a
rush to force the uptake of "golden rice" in the third world driven by
commercial and political pressure without proper and through testing would
be a public relations disaster in the event of it failing to perform as
advertised.

ant


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' ant 1/22/01 9:17 PM

Mr. Snappy wrote in message ...

>> So consumption of non-GM foods carries certain risks that are not
>> recognized by the argument that millenia of consumption have made
>> traditional, non-GM foods safe to eat.
>
>The flaw in your logic is that we DO have a good handle on what the
>risks are, having eaten these foods for even (just!) 400 years. Are
>all foods perfectly safe or free of allergens? No. But when you mess
>with DNA, you do NOT know what is going to happen. You can
>predict, but that is just that. This is NOT the same as what has EVER
>been done in the past with hybrid-type crops. We are splicing DNA!

>You cannot compare it with anything in the history of the world.
>
>There is more than one way we can kill ourselves, and incautious use
>of genetics forever changing our established food staples may prove
>just as deadly as nuclear weapons. We are moving at a rapid pace on
>this because of greed, not good science.
>
>I also take extreme exception to the fact that I can't even know whether
>a food is gm or not. If I, along with a great number of scientists and
>concerned consumers, do not believe enough testing is being done to
>show safety, then I should have the right to know on a label. But of
>course even that knowledge is being stifled in the Corporatocracy
>that is America, 2001.
>
>

well America does champion the free market, where the market is free to do
and charge as it wants with no oversight or restraint on its greed.


ant


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' ant 1/22/01 9:32 PM

Ian Alexander wrote in message ...
>>> >
>>
>>
>>When you are making any form of risk assessment, you must assess the
>>consequences. A gene which confers a pest resistance and does
>>accidentally get tranfered, then all it is going to do is confer that
>>resistance. Most plants have naturally occuring pest resistance anyway.
>>So giving them another confers no real advantage.
>
>Total bollocks!  There is usually a delicate, and evolving, balance
>between attack and defence mechanisms.  To suggest that because both
>sides have guns giving one side a better gun will have no effect on the
>outcome is just obviously wrong.
>
>Third principle of ecology - all things are inter-related.  From which
>it follows that you can not change one part of the system with out the
>possibility of affecting, ultimately, all other parts.


just shows what happens when a specialist comments outside of their
specialty, george may be an expert on recombinant modification of plants
but he is by no means an expert on their effects on the environment, funny
how almost all of the environmental specialists are opposed to the wide
scale commercialization of transgenic organisms due to their potential to
disrupt delicate ecological balances, knowing some of the results of
unbalanced biomes they tend to urge caution and through independent
evaluation.


ant


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' J K Cason 1/23/01 4:33 PM
"Mr. Snappy" <support...@gwislegitimate___yeahright.com> wrote in
message news:t6pgacnvptt39d@corp.supernews.com...

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

>Ummm, ok. 400 years. Millenium. We're talking decades, not
>months or even a few years.

>Gee...the uhh, native Americans...check my history on this, ok?


>They were uhh, alive and healthy when we first visited them,
>were they not?

How would you rate the native Americans and the Europeans at the time
of the first contact?  How advanced was their pathology, microscopy,
histology, bacteriology, epidemiology, and medicine?  How would you
rate their ability to diagnose disease, determine the cause of death,
do autopsies, keep detailed records, and communicate disease reports
across wide distances?  What was their ability to preserve tissue
samples for later study?  Were they able to conduct long term health
studies?  What about their basic understanding of cause and effect?

Do you know anything about the health of people 450 years ago?

> So I'm thinking their history goes a lot longer than 400 years,
> though, like I say, 400 years is still a lot more time than
> months or a few years for gm foods.

Do you think that today's conventional foods are the same genetically
as they were 400 years ago?  They're not.  They've undergone extensive
breeding, including crosses with ancestral species and obscure strains
collected from the parts of the world where they were originally
domesticated.  Lots of desirable traits resulted from mutations.
Thousands of new gene combinations were involved.  Some plants and
animals have been combined across species barriers.  That's
conventional food.


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' J K Cason 1/23/01 4:34 PM
"Mr. Snappy" <support...@gwislegitimate___yeahright.com> wrote in
message news:t6ph0fo70pc19e@corp.supernews.com...

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

>The flaw in your logic is that we DO have a good handle on what
>the risks are, having eaten these foods for even (just!) 400
>years.

Nuts.  Many risks have been the subject of recent debate or were
totally unknown until recently.  Cholesterol, dietary fiber, dietary
fat, trans versus cis fatty acids, saturated fat, hydrogenated fats,
antioxidants, carcinogens, natural versus synthetic chemicals, organic
versus conventional, dietary supplements, phytoestrogens, etc.

>Are all foods perfectly safe or free of allergens? No. But when
>you mess with DNA, you do NOT know what is going to happen. You
>can predict, but that is just that. This is NOT the same as what
>has EVER been done in the past with hybrid-type crops. We are
>splicing DNA! You cannot compare it with anything in the history
>of the world.

Bacteria swap genetic material.  Viruses swap genetic material.  Even
worse, viruses splice DNA and RNA into us and into most plants and
animals, and lots of animal genomes have sequences that look like they
originally came from viruses.  All of this figures prominently in the
history of the world.

>There is more than one way we can kill ourselves, and incautious
>use of genetics forever changing our established food staples
>may prove just as deadly as nuclear weapons.

Our established food staples have always been changing.

>We are moving at a rapid pace on this because of greed, not
>good science.

Perhaps you could make an argument on this point, but it seems to me
that a much stronger argument could be made, based on the content of
the current debate, that opposition to GM is not based on good
science.

>I also take extreme exception to the fact that I can't even
>know whether a food is gm or not. If I, along with a great
>number of scientists and concerned consumers, do not believe
>enough testing is being done to show safety, then I should have
>the right to know on a label. But of course even that knowledge
>is being stifled in the Corporatocracy that is America, 2001.

In another message, you were satisfied with what Native Americans knew
450 years ago about the effects of foods on health.  Far more is known
now, and we have a problem recognition capability that hadn't even
begun to exist back then.  By any objective measurement, there is no
comparison between the risks of today and in the time of Columbus.

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/23/01 7:49 PM

"ant" <dont-look@evil.spam> wrote in message
news:5wpb6.131$4l1.4336@ozemail.com.au...
:
: Ian Alexander wrote in message ...

An environmentalist is only looking at a fraction of the whole. The need
of the people and society count in the equation as well.


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/23/01 8:23 PM
gcouger wrote:

 You're a complete idiot. It's exactly the opposite. It's the environmentalist
who's looking at the whole. And all the major special interests that are never
looking beyond their own short-sighted interests and/or Greed.
 And this is very obvious to most people.

 You, however, do need a crystal ball to realize the obvious.

 H A

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/23/01 10:16 PM

"Amos Keppler" <theweek...@theweeklyreport.com> wrote in message
news:3A6E591C.6C201C9C@theweeklyreport.com...:
I think their actions prove otherwise.
GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/23/01 10:54 PM
ant wrote on Tue, 23 Jan 2001

>IIRC a study into feeding smokers additional beta carotene as a supplement
>caused more harm then it prevented and the trial was discontinued part way
>through due to adverse health effects. how are we to prevent vit A
>poisoning from people consuming this rice all the time or in larger then
>normal amounts, or products derived from it or its waste. if there is a
>rush to force the uptake of "golden rice" in the third world driven by
>commercial and political pressure without proper and through testing would
>be a public relations disaster in the event of it failing to perform as
>advertised.

Frankly you should be disgusted with yourself for considering this as a
reason for preventing blindness in impoverished peasants in the thirsd
world.

You don't actually care about people's suffering so long and you can
promulgate your political message.

Puke.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/24/01 12:45 AM

George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> wrote
in message news:3A6DBBDA.8905EBA5@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...

> Ian Alexander wrote:
>
> > You can not be sure, or even anywhere near sure, that it is a zero
> > additional cost solution.  We have not begun to test this for unexpected
> > side effects on human or environmental health and nor can we predict the
> > socio-economic consequences of introducing this technology.
>
> Yes I can. They buy rice now. The modified rice is not subject any levy.
> There will be no extra cost distribution as the system is already in
> place to do it.
>
> You can be sure that there will be no side effects on humans because no
> edible gmo is every released until it has been shown that the inserted
> genes are easily destroyed either by heat or the acid in the stomach. I
> do not think anyone eats raw rice anyway.

Actually they do.  My wife is from the Phillipines and although she has
lived in Europe for nearly twenty years, she still has a hankering after a
handful of uncooked rice once in a while.  They treat it like snack food,
kind of like a bag of crisps (potato chips) would be to us.

> The environment effects are usually scare stories, put about by people
> strongly opposed to gmo. Look at the actual environmental effects in the
> USA and Argentina. None. If there were, Greenpeace and Friends of the
> Earth would be trumpeting it. Perhaps you would care to say what effects
> could happen (and please do not just regurgitate the old chestnuts of

> superweeds and pollen spread ).

I can't believe anyone is so stupid as to still be promoting GM stuff after
all the negative press (and that goes for all the others on this list
endlessly debating the 'benefits' of the technology.  GM crops are being
pulled up by the roots all over Europe because no-one wants to buy it, major
stores all over Europe no longer stock produce that contains *any* GM
ingredients.  Its a white-elephant, nobody wants it.  GM is bugger all to do
with feeding the starving it is purely and simply about increasing profits -
get a grip.  Unless you are working for a GM company then there is no
possible reason why you would be supporting it, scientifically it's a dud,
politically it's a dud, morally it's a dud, socially it's a dud,
environmentally it's a dud, economically it's a dud ...... The possible
long-term effects of ingesting GM products are well documented and have been
publicised at length ... restating them would be a waste of our time (but
then maybe that is your intention).  Why are you still supporting it?  Are
you vitamin A deficient?  Buy some carrots.

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/24/01 12:48 AM

Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:PvZGmFA6yeb6EwrA@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...

> Ian Alexander wrote on Tue, 23 Jan 2001
> >In article <ZryDXDAX...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
> ><O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
> >>Ian Alexander wrote on Mon, 22 Jan 2001
>
> >>>OK! Not going to argue with that, yet.  But, others are proposing a
> >>>broader socio-economic solution which, if it works, will bring
> >>>additional benefits to the third world but not the economic advantage
to
> >>>western based multi-nationals.
> >>
> >>So why have they waited 20 years (if not more) to come up with this
> >>amazingly effective solution that nobody else has managed to find?
> >
> >The main parts of an alternative solution have been around for that
> >long.  What has been lacking is the political will, in the West to back
> >fair trade rather than free trade and in the less developed world to
> >back the economic and political reforms needed to promote self
> >sufficiency.
>
> The vitamin A deficiency has nothing to do with free trade. It has to do
> with isolated peasants.
>
[Ryan] Those peasants have always been isolated ... it's only since they
started growing cash crops that they became vitamin a deficient.... also
there are lots of things that grow, fly or swim that could fix their diet
but that would require nutritional education (which is far less profitable
for the multinationals).


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/24/01 12:56 AM

gcouger <gco...@NoXSPAM.mercury.rfdata.net> wrote in message
news:xgsb6.9687$d25.62372@newsfeed.slurp.net...


[Ryan] And a 'specialist' is looking at an even tinier fraction of the
whole.  On a more personal note I should add that most of the specialists
that I have known are only vaguely aware that 'people and society' even
exist.

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/24/01 12:54 AM

George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> wrote
in message news:3A6DBE24.F69AA749@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...

>
> Gmo involves the introduction of small number of genes. Plants are
> entire genomes with huge numbers of genes. If the argument about
> "genetic pollution" is valid then it is even more valid for them. Yes
> there may be a small amount of complaint about, but it just highlights
> the hypocracy of GP and FoE that they are not consistent.
>
So if you are consistently (and knowingly) in the wrong then its ok, but if
you are occassionaly (and usually financially) unable to voice the
appropriate complaint then you are a hyprocrit?

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/24/01 1:10 AM

J K Cason <jkc...@negia.net> wrote in message
news:t6s9hl3sjqt99f@corp.supernews.com...

[Ryan] Only by an idiot.

> > I also take extreme exception to the fact that I can't even
> > know whether a food is gm or not. If I, along with a great
> > number of scientists and concerned consumers, do not believe
> > enough testing is being done to show safety, then I should have
> > the right to know on a label. But of course even that knowledge
> > is being stifled in the Corporatocracy that is America, 2001.
>
> In another message, you were satisfied with what Native Americans knew
> 450 years ago about the effects of foods on health.  Far more is known
> now, and we have a problem recognition capability that hadn't even
> begun to exist back then.  By any objective measurement, there is no
> comparison between the risks of today and in the time of Columbus.
>
[Ryan] In Columbus' time, if a food made you ill you could simply stop
eating it.  The world was a much bigger place, a mistake in one place was
unlikely to have much effect on the population of another place.  A
generation from now how much food will be non-GM?  If, a generation from
now, we discover some very nasty side-effects that were not in the
prediction models (not unheard of you must agree) then how do you go about
feeding the world population on the minute amount of food available from the
allotments and back gardens that have avoided the use of GM material?


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/24/01 1:07 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001

>[Ryan] Those peasants have always been isolated ... it's only since they
>started growing cash crops that they became vitamin a deficient....

Peasants have always grown cash crops. How else to buy clothes and
implements?

However the cash crops they grow are not those exported to the west,
they are too isolated for that, there are even problems getting the vit
A supplement to them which is hardly a heavy or bulky item.

Oh, and they have always had the vitamin A deficiency problem.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/24/01 2:59 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001

>[Ryan] In Columbus' time, if a food made you ill you could simply stop
>eating it.

Eh? Many had no choice about what food they could eat. If the rye/wheat
had ergots, then you got ergotism. If the potatoes were blighted, then
you ate blighted potatoes.

It was either that or starve.

Now I remember why I killfiled you.
Ignorance that couldn't see knowledge.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/24/01 3:22 AM

"George Baxter" <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>
wrote in message news:3A6C25CF.EBF63E40@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...
: Soren Dayton wrote:
: >
: > George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>

writes:
: >
: > > Soren Dayton wrote:
: > > >
: > > > An alternative argument runs that there are plenty of high
: > > > beta-carotene vegetables produced in the parts of the world that

: > > > golden rice are being pushed in.  But they are all exported.
: > > >
: > > > Thus, we could argue, alternatively, that the fact that ease with
: > > > which we get food from all over the world blinds us to both the
: > > > inequity of the socio-economic relationship and the unsound
: > > > agricultural practices.
: > > >
: > > > Alternatively stated: if we didn't eat their food for them, they
might
: > > > have enough to eat it themselves.
: > > >
: > > > Why don't we try that?
: > >
: > > The alternative sounds good. So why is it not working?
: > >
: > > The reason is the most of the people who suffer from VAD are poor.
They
: > > cannot afford the luxury of the imported foods and the governments
: > > cannot get the suppliments programs sufficiently well organised.
: >
: > I'm not saying that the poor people in some desolate place should
: > import their carrots or whatever from California.  I'm saying that we
: > shouldn't take their carrots from them for our baby carrots.
: >
: > Soren
:
: They eat rice. They are deficient in vitamin-A because thier available
: food supply is deficenient in vit-A. If there were carrots available,
: they could eat them. The golden rice will provide a zero additional cost
: solution.

At my house we eat patotos. We may change for some reason but pretty soon
we are eating potatos again. In Asia they eat rice with every thing. If
the carotene is add to the regular food it is most likely to be accepted
and continued to be used.

We could take them green beans and furnish all their vitamin A needs but
they would try them and eat rice.


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/24/01 3:40 AM
> :
> : They eat rice. They are deficient in vitamin-A because thier available
> : food supply is deficenient in vit-A. If there were carrots available,
> : they could eat them. The golden rice will provide a zero additional cost
> : solution.
>
> At my house we eat patotos. We may change for some reason but pretty soon
> we are eating potatos again. In Asia they eat rice with every thing. If
> the carotene is add to the regular food it is most likely to be accepted
> and continued to be used.
>
> We could take them green beans and furnish all their vitamin A needs but
> they would try them and eat rice.
>
[Ryan] Learn to think outside the box.  Why not convince them of the
benefits of eating rice AND beans?  It'll make the bean farmers really
happy, and still no need for franken-foods.  It's a simple problem - use a
simple solution!


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/24/01 3:42 AM

Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a4DzDvAQtpb6Ew44@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...

> Ryan Curtis wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001
>
> >[Ryan] Those peasants have always been isolated ... it's only since they
> >started growing cash crops that they became vitamin a deficient....
>
> Peasants have always grown cash crops. How else to buy clothes and
> implements?

[Ryan] Well that's you kicked out of History 101 :-)

> However the cash crops they grow are not those exported to the west,
> they are too isolated for that, there are even problems getting the vit
> A supplement to them which is hardly a heavy or bulky item.
>
> Oh, and they have always had the vitamin A deficiency problem.

[Ryan] Well presumably if they always had the Vit A deficiency and it was
never a problem ... but now it is a problem because we have a product we
want to sell them<?>


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/24/01 3:46 AM

Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qaBfrDAaWrb6Ew8f@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...[Ryan] Coming from you Oz, I'll take that as a compliment ;-)  Besides which
ergot poisoning and blighted potatoes cannot be compared to the scenarios
that are being advanced. As an aside did you see that really interesting
program a couple of months ago that showed the correlation between
incidences of ergot poisoning and the witch-hunts etc... interesting stuff.


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/24/01 5:00 AM

Ryan Curtis wrote in message ...

ergot poisoning is put forward as the cause of the classic stereotype of the
stupid peasant, especially in Germany and central Europe. Tax collectors and
grain buyers would not take grain contaminated with ergot if there was any
other, so the rural population got to eat grain with a higher proportion of
contamination than the urban population

Jim Webster

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

>
>


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/24/01 6:22 AM
ant wrote:

> funny
> how almost all of the environmental specialists are opposed to the wide
> scale commercialization of transgenic organisms

It might be funny, if it were true. But, of course, it is not true that
"almost all of the environmental specialists" are opposed. So I wonder how Ant
defines "environmental specialists"? Apparently what he means by that term is
"environmental activists," as opposed to scientists.
Tracy


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/24/01 6:23 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

> [snip] most of the specialists that I have known are only vaguely aware that


> 'people and society' even exist.

That proves nothing, except perhaps that you know very few specialists.

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/24/01 6:27 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

> J K Cason wrote:


> > "Mr. Snappy" wrote:
>
> > >We are moving at a rapid pace on this because of greed, not
> > >good science.
> >
> > Perhaps you could make an argument on this point, but it seems to me
> > that a much stronger argument could be made, based on the content of
> > the current debate, that opposition to GM is not based on good
> > science.
>
> [Ryan] Only by an idiot.

If that is the extent of Ryan's argument, then it is apparent who is the real
idiot.

> [snip]


> [Ryan] In Columbus' time, if a food made you ill you could simply stop
> eating it.

Not necessarily - one would, of course, first require the means to identify the
particular food that is the cause of the problem. In Columbus' time, that would
have been significantly more difficult than it is today.
Tracy

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/24/01 6:12 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001
>
>Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:a4DzDvAQtpb6Ew44@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
>> Ryan Curtis wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001
>>
>> >[Ryan] Those peasants have always been isolated ... it's only since they
>> >started growing cash crops that they became vitamin a deficient....
>>
>> Peasants have always grown cash crops. How else to buy clothes and
>> implements?
>
>[Ryan] Well that's you kicked out of History 101 :-)

YOu really are a plonker, aren't you?

>
>> However the cash crops they grow are not those exported to the west,
>> they are too isolated for that, there are even problems getting the vit
>> A supplement to them which is hardly a heavy or bulky item.
>>
>> Oh, and they have always had the vitamin A deficiency problem.
>
>[Ryan] Well presumably if they always had the Vit A deficiency and it was
>never a problem ...

If you call being blind 'never a problem'.

>but now it is a problem because we have a product we
>want to sell them<?>

I rather think the third world countries could make it themselves, and
probably do.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/24/01 6:10 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001

>[Ryan] Learn to think outside the box.  Why not convince them of the


>benefits of eating rice AND beans?  It'll make the bean farmers really
>happy, and still no need for franken-foods.  It's a simple problem - use a
>simple solution!

Do you really think this sort of thing hasn't been tried?

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/24/01 6:14 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001

>[Ryan] Coming from you Oz, I'll take that as a compliment ;-)  Besides which


>ergot poisoning and blighted potatoes cannot be compared to the scenarios
>that are being advanced.

On the contrary, they are direct parallels.

>As an aside did you see that really interesting
>program a couple of months ago that showed the correlation between
>incidences of ergot poisoning and the witch-hunts etc... interesting stuff.

Well it was when my mother first told me in my youth.
It's hardly new.

Just because some american journalist had never heard about it before
that doesn't mean it hasn't been common knowledge for at least several
decades and probably several centuries.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/24/01 6:28 AM

Jim Webster skrev i meddelelsen <94ml2i$s22$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...

>ergot poisoning is put forward as the cause of the classic
>stereotype of the stupid peasant, especially in Germany and
>central Europe. Tax collectors and grain buyers would not
>take grain contaminated with ergot if there was any
>other, so the rural population got to eat grain with a higher
>proportion of contamination than the urban population

There is a thread over on sci agriculture about Ergot, Jim,
thought you might like to join?

It is a fascinating subject, a fascinating toxin.
One of my favorites, really..... Too bad that noone
seems to want to talk more about it, unless it can be
used as an argument against organic farming. Grin.

"a Great plague of swollen blisters consumed the people
by a loathsome rot, so that their  limbs were loosened,
and fell off before they died..."
(Annales Xantenses, AD 857).

How's  that for a toxin!

If you are more than commonly interested in the subject,
you should try to get your  hands on George Barger's book:
"Ergot and Ergotism: A Monograph"

Best regards,

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/24/01 6:59 AM

Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1$xIiDAYJub6EwMr@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...[Ryan] "If at first you don't succeed ....try, try again".  I personally
don't know of any societies that eat *just* rice and nothing else, in the
area of the Philippines where we have relatives, meat is very expensive so
it is only used for special occasions or if there are guests.  But we always
ate lots of vegetables and fish, fruit, etc ....

ergot outbreaks [was: some twaddle about GM food feeding the poor] Ryan Curtis 1/24/01 7:56 AM

Jim Webster <Jim.Webster@new.address.to.avoid.harassment> wrote in message
news:94ml2i$s22$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...An interesting idea.  This program had lots of neat maps and overlays
showing where the outbreaks of ergot poisoning were in relation to the
outbreaks of various types of mass hysteria.  Even dear old Joan of Arc
appears to have been a victim ... not only was she a miller's daughter but
they showed conclusively that grain that came from her father's store *was*
contaminated during the period she started having visions and stuff.

They tracked the outbreaks both in Europe and in North America .... really
cool - but sad to think that so many people were killed due to what was
basically some sort of fungal infection in their food.


Ergot Outbreaks [was- Re: Some twaddle about GM rice being'best hope of feeding world'] Ryan Curtis 1/24/01 8:00 AM

Torsten Brinch <ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote in message
news:1JBb6.198$LG.3264@news.get2net.dk...

>
> Jim Webster skrev i meddelelsen <94ml2i$s22$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
> >ergot poisoning is put forward as the cause of the classic
> >stereotype of the stupid peasant, especially in Germany and
> >central Europe. Tax collectors and grain buyers would not
> >take grain contaminated with ergot if there was any
> >other, so the rural population got to eat grain with a higher
> >proportion of contamination than the urban population
>
> There is a thread over on sci agriculture about Ergot, Jim,
> thought you might like to join?
>
> It is a fascinating subject, a fascinating toxin.
> One of my favorites, really..... Too bad that noone
> seems to want to talk more about it, unless it can be
> used as an argument against organic farming. Grin.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is dependent upon 'where' the
crop is grown rather than how.  I don't remember the specifics, but I
gathered it appeared in cycles too ... so if you sewed the seeds in the
wrong field on that particular year then you were just asking for it.


Ergot outbreaks was [Re: some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world'] Ryan Curtis 1/24/01 8:02 AM

Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zvTJGLARNub6EwMw@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...I don't want to burst your bubble over what was gonna be a friendly chat but
it was actually some woman from one of the English universities working with
the British Museum.

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/24/01 8:05 AM
> > > >We are moving at a rapid pace on this because of greed, not
> > > >good science.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you could make an argument on this point, but it seems to me
> > > that a much stronger argument could be made, based on the content of
> > > the current debate, that opposition to GM is not based on good
> > > science.
> >
> > [Ryan] Only by an idiot.
>
> If that is the extent of Ryan's argument, then it is apparent who is the
real
> idiot.

[Ryan] Ouch, I'm hurt.  That sure showed me huh?

> > [snip]
> > [Ryan] In Columbus' time, if a food made you ill you could simply stop
> > eating it.
>
> Not necessarily - one would, of course, first require the means to
identify the
> particular food that is the cause of the problem. In Columbus' time, that
would
> have been significantly more difficult than it is today.

[Ryan] Personally I don't think they were quite as stupid as you would like
to think.

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/24/01 8:36 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

> > > [snip]
> > > [Ryan] In Columbus' time, if a food made you ill you could simply stop
> > > eating it.
> >
> > Not necessarily - one would, of course, first require the means to
> > identify the particular food that is the cause of the problem. In Columbus'
> time, that
> > would have been significantly more difficult than it is today.
>
> [Ryan] Personally I don't think they were quite as stupid as you would like
> to think.

Well then, you missed the point entirely. I did not state or imply that they
were stupid. It is a rather well known fact, however, that they did not have
the level of scientific knowledge and the tools and laboratory facilities that
are available today. They may have been the smartest people that ever lived,
but without the basic knowledge and analytical tools, it would have been
significantly more difficult for them to identify the cause of any food-borne
illness. They did not even know about bacteria and viruses, let alone that
their presence in food can be a problem.
Tracy


--
Thomas T. Aquilla, Ph.D.
Registered Patent Attorney No. 43,473
http://www.bpmlegal.com/


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/24/01 8:37 AM
Tracy Aquilla wrote:

 That proves nothing, except that you know very few specialists...

 H A

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/24/01 8:38 AM
gcouger wrote:

> "Amos Keppler" <theweek...@theweeklyreport.com> wrote in message
> news:3A6E591C.6C201C9C@theweeklyreport.com...
> : gcouger wrote:
> :
> : > "ant" <dont-look@evil.spam> wrote in message> : > funny


> : > : how almost all of the environmental specialists are opposed to the
> wide
> : > : scale commercialization of transgenic organisms due to their

> potential
> : > to
> : > : disrupt delicate ecological balances, knowing some of the results of
> : > : unbalanced biomes they tend to urge caution and through independent
> : > : evaluation.
> : >
> : > An environmentalist is only looking at a fraction of the whole. The
> need
> : > of the people and society count in the equation as well.
> :
> :  You're a complete idiot. It's exactly the opposite. It's the
> environmentalist
> : who's looking at the whole. And all the major special interests that are
> never
> : looking beyond their own short-sighted interests and/or Greed.
> :  And this is very obvious to most people.
> :
> :  You, however, do need a crystal ball to realize the obvious.
> :
> I think their actions prove otherwise.

 Give up.


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/24/01 8:38 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

 Exactly. They're a pretty life-distant bunch. And a person specializing in the
"right foot of the fly", refusing to see the whole, isn't really a specialist in
the "right foot of the fly" either.
 It's a pox on present day humans that these people have such influence over
current affairs.

 H A


--


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/24/01 8:38 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

> Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:a4DzDvAQtpb6Ew44@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> > Ryan Curtis wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001
> >
> > >[Ryan] Those peasants have always been isolated ... it's only since they
> > >started growing cash crops that they became vitamin a deficient....
> >
> > Peasants have always grown cash crops. How else to buy clothes and
> > implements?
>
> [Ryan] Well that's you kicked out of History 101 :-)

 Indeed. And it hasn't always been peasents either. It's more of a modern,
civilized problem...


>
>
> > However the cash crops they grow are not those exported to the west,
> > they are too isolated for that, there are even problems getting the vit
> > A supplement to them which is hardly a heavy or bulky item.
> >
> > Oh, and they have always had the vitamin A deficiency problem.
>
> [Ryan] Well presumably if they always had the Vit A deficiency and it was
> never a problem ... but now it is a problem because we have a product we
> want to sell them<?>

 Yes...

 H A


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/24/01 8:38 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

> Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:PvZGmFA6yeb6EwrA@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> > Ian Alexander wrote on Tue, 23 Jan 2001
> > >In article <ZryDXDAX...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
> > ><O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
> > >>Ian Alexander wrote on Mon, 22 Jan 2001
> >
> > >>>OK! Not going to argue with that, yet.  But, others are proposing a
> > >>>broader socio-economic solution which, if it works, will bring
> > >>>additional benefits to the third world but not the economic advantage
> to
> > >>>western based multi-nationals.
> > >>
> > >>So why have they waited 20 years (if not more) to come up with this
> > >>amazingly effective solution that nobody else has managed to find?
> > >
> > >The main parts of an alternative solution have been around for that
> > >long.  What has been lacking is the political will, in the West to back
> > >fair trade rather than free trade and in the less developed world to
> > >back the economic and political reforms needed to promote self
> > >sufficiency.
> >
> > The vitamin A deficiency has nothing to do with free trade. It has to do
> > with isolated peasants.

> >
> [Ryan] Those peasants have always been isolated ... it's only since they
> started growing cash crops that they became vitamin a deficient.... also
> there are lots of things that grow, fly or swim that could fix their diet
> but that would require nutritional education (which is far less profitable
> for the multinationals).

Yes, that's really what it's about today: Is it profitable? If not, abandon
it. If it is, promote it in every possible clandestine way. Terrorize former
employees wanting to tell the truth and everybody else wanting to expose the
horror of modern "food-production".
 Grow richer and even more powerful, while the victims are left on heaps of
garbage all over the planet, on hospitals and cemetaries.

 H A


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/24/01 8:38 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

> George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> wrote
> in message news:3A6DBBDA.8905EBA5@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...
> > Ian Alexander wrote:
> >
> > > You can not be sure, or even anywhere near sure, that it is a zero
> > > additional cost solution.  We have not begun to test this for unexpected
> > > side effects on human or environmental health and nor can we predict the
> > > socio-economic consequences of introducing this technology.
> >
> > Yes I can. They buy rice now. The modified rice is not subject any levy.
> > There will be no extra cost distribution as the system is already in
> > place to do it.
> >
> > You can be sure that there will be no side effects on humans because no
> > edible gmo is every released until it has been shown that the inserted
> > genes are easily destroyed either by heat or the acid in the stomach. I
> > do not think anyone eats raw rice anyway.
>
> Actually they do.  My wife is from the Phillipines and although she has
> lived in Europe for nearly twenty years, she still has a hankering after a
> handful of uncooked rice once in a while.  They treat it like snack food,
> kind of like a bag of crisps (potato chips) would be to us.
>
> > The environment effects are usually scare stories, put about by people
> > strongly opposed to gmo. Look at the actual environmental effects in the
> > USA and Argentina. None. If there were, Greenpeace and Friends of the
> > Earth would be trumpeting it. Perhaps you would care to say what effects
> > could happen (and please do not just regurgitate the old chestnuts of
> > superweeds and pollen spread ).
>
> I can't believe anyone is so stupid as to still be promoting GM stuff after
> all the negative press (and that goes for all the others on this list
> endlessly debating the 'benefits' of the technology.  GM crops are being
> pulled up by the roots all over Europe because no-one wants to buy it, major
> stores all over Europe no longer stock produce that contains *any* GM
> ingredients.  Its a white-elephant, nobody wants it.  GM is bugger all to do
> with feeding the starving it is purely and simply about increasing profits -
> get a grip.  Unless you are working for a GM company then there is no
> possible reason why you would be supporting it, scientifically it's a dud,
> politically it's a dud, morally it's a dud, socially it's a dud,
> environmentally it's a dud, economically it's a dud ...... The possible
> long-term effects of ingesting GM products are well documented and have been
> publicised at length ... restating them would be a waste of our time (but
> then maybe that is your intention).  Why are you still supporting it?  Are
> you vitamin A deficient?  Buy some carrots.

 Yep, there isn't really any remaining doubt of the inherent dangers. So asking
why someone keep promoting it, is a very valid and important question indeed.

 http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100380/archive8.html


 H A


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/24/01 9:07 AM
ant wrote:

>
> IIRC a study into feeding smokers additional beta carotene as a supplement
> caused more harm then it prevented and the trial was discontinued part way
> through due to adverse health effects. how are we to prevent vit A
> poisoning from people consuming this rice all the time or in larger then
> normal amounts, or products derived from it or its waste. if there is a
> rush to force the uptake of "golden rice" in the third world driven by
> commercial and political pressure without proper and through testing would
> be a public relations disaster in the event of it failing to perform as
> advertised.
>


The same thing that stops people overdosing on carrots - you have to eat
an unnaturally high amount of them.

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/24/01 9:16 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

>
> Actually they do.  My wife is from the Phillipines and although she has
> lived in Europe for nearly twenty years, she still has a hankering after a
> handful of uncooked rice once in a while.  They treat it like snack food,
> kind of like a bag of crisps (potato chips) would be to us.
>

That does not detract from the fact that the stomach acid will destroy
the genes. I did say heat and / or the acid in the stomach.

 
> > The environment effects are usually scare stories, put about by people
> > strongly opposed to gmo. Look at the actual environmental effects in the
> > USA and Argentina. None. If there were, Greenpeace and Friends of the
> > Earth would be trumpeting it. Perhaps you would care to say what effects
> > could happen (and please do not just regurgitate the old chestnuts of
> > superweeds and pollen spread ).
>
> I can't believe anyone is so stupid as to still be promoting GM stuff after
> all the negative press (and that goes for all the others on this list
> endlessly debating the 'benefits' of the technology.  GM crops are being
> pulled up by the roots all over Europe because no-one wants to buy it, major
> stores all over Europe no longer stock produce that contains *any* GM
> ingredients.  Its a white-elephant, nobody wants it.  GM is bugger all to do
> with feeding the starving it is purely and simply about increasing profits -
> get a grip.  Unless you are working for a GM company then there is no
> possible reason why you would be supporting it, scientifically it's a dud,
> politically it's a dud, morally it's a dud, socially it's a dud,
> environmentally it's a dud, economically it's a dud ...... The possible
> long-term effects of ingesting GM products are well documented and have been
> publicised at length ... restating them would be a waste of our time (but
> then maybe that is your intention).  Why are you still supporting it?  Are
> you vitamin A deficient?  Buy some carrots.

The truth is that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth use their
propoganda machine so give it a bad name. You have fallen for it. You
might be interested to know that GP have been searching for hard
evidence for the past 10 years of actual harm. But they have not found
any, so they are using the fear factor, and their media machine, to use
speculation dressed as fact.

By the way, I can buy carrots, and so can you. But the poor people (
there are 230 million of then by the way ) cannot. Their normal diet is
deficient in the vitamins. They cannot buy carrots. They can and do buy
rice. You should hang your head in shame, trying to prevent poor people
getting a better life.

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/24/01 9:26 AM
George Baxter wrote:

 That's not comparable at all and you know it.

 You just need a "normal" intake of GM food (every day or so) and you're fucked.


 The Weekly Report

  WEEK 34

  GENE MODIFIED FOOD MAY BE DANGEROUS

  A new study by Scottish scientists, shows that gene modified food may be
dangerous to humans. The study shows that rats fed by gene modified food, grow
less than other rats and got lower resistance to disease. The study has led to
demands to prohibit gene modified food in Britain.

  Week 9 1999

  ISSUED WARNING AGAINST GENE MODIFIED FOOD

  Scientists are warning people about gene modified food because of results
shown in a British research project, showing the food to be damaging to the
immune defense system and also shrinking the brain of lab rats. The man in
charge of the project was fired when he went public with the  results, and since
then the reports have disappeared.

  DEMANDING BAN

  The newspaper Mail on Sunday reports that the major American biotechnology
corporation Monsanto, are supporting the a Scottish institute that recently
fired a head researcher disobedient to institute policy.
  According to the British newspaper Monsanto has given approximately 200 000
USD to the Bowan institute in Aberdeen. Professor Arpad Pusztai was fired from
the institute after his revelation of what happened to lab rats eating gene
modified potatoes. 23 researchers from 12 nations support Pusztai. They’re
demanding an immediate ban on gene modified food in Great Britain.


  WEEK 27

  SCIENTISTS WILL BAN GENE MODIFICATION

  British scientists are discovering ever more faults on and damages caused by
gene modified plants, and wants a ban. New reports shows that the very use of
plants resistant towards pesticides may cause consequences far beyond the actual
use, on plants, animals and of course, humans.


 Just a small collection of countless available.

 H A

--


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/24/01 9:24 AM


The methods that have been tried are improved existing agriculture, and
handing out vitamin suppliments. The WHO has originally set a target of
2000 for complete eradication. There was some slight success when
governments put a lot of resources, but generally it has failed. If you
have access to all those in the Philipines, then may not be a problem
there. Who said that only eat rice?
--
George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/24/01 9:19 AM
> Yep, there isn't really any remaining doubt of the inherent dangers. So asking
>why someone keep promoting it, is a very valid and important questio

There is plenty of reason to doubt the dangers. 500 million people world
wide eat gmo every day. No sign of problems. More then 50% of corn and
soya in the US is gm. So sign of actual harm to the environment.

Surely if the dangers were real, or as serious as you would have us
believe, there would actually be some signs of it? A dangerous product
that does not exhibit signs of danger! You are must be joking!!
--
George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/24/01 9:30 AM
George Baxter wrote:

> Ryan Curtis wrote:
>
> >
> > Actually they do.  My wife is from the Phillipines and although she has
> > lived in Europe for nearly twenty years, she still has a hankering after a
> > handful of uncooked rice once in a while.  They treat it like snack food,
> > kind of like a bag of crisps (potato chips) would be to us.
> >
>
> That does not detract from the fact that the stomach acid will destroy
> the genes. I did say heat and / or the acid in the stomach.
>

 You would bet on that when human experience and a growing number of independent
scientists say quite the contrary? (See my other reply to you).

 One can't even call it a gamble. The resultant damage is a sure thing.

 H A

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/24/01 9:28 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

>
> [Ryan] Well presumably if they always had the Vit A deficiency and it was
> never a problem ... but now it is a problem because we have a product we
> want to sell them<?>

Never a problem? Do you know how serious the problem is? You clearly do
not. 230 million people have VAD. Of those about 1 million will die, or
go blind.
--
George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/24/01 9:31 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:
>
> George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> wrote
> in message news:3A6DBE24.F69AA749@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...
> >
> > Gmo involves the introduction of small number of genes. Plants are
> > entire genomes with huge numbers of genes. If the argument about
> > "genetic pollution" is valid then it is even more valid for them. Yes
> > there may be a small amount of complaint about, but it just highlights
> > the hypocracy of GP and FoE that they are not consistent.
> >
> So if you are consistently (and knowingly) in the wrong then its ok, but if
> you are occassionaly (and usually financially) unable to voice the
> appropriate complaint then you are a hyprocrit?


If they were really concerned about genetic pollution, then they should
attack the biggest source of pollution - the imported plants. But they
are not. The put all the effort into pretending gm is something it is
not, purely for political purposes  not for environmental ones. So yes
they are hypocrits.

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/24/01 9:42 AM
George Baxter wrote:

 As shown, there are a lot of signs of it. Additionally there are a LOT of
scientific results more than suggesting (proving) the inherent dangers. That you
keep promoting it, in spite of the obvious dangers, isn't any surprise.

 The producers are doing quite an effort, fortunately in vain, to keep more of the
truth from surfacing.

 http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100380/archive8.html

 H A


???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/24/01 9:31 AM

George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> wrote
in message news:3A6F0DD7.987ECC34@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...

> Ryan Curtis wrote:
>
> >
> > Actually they do.  My wife is from the Phillipines and although she has
> > lived in Europe for nearly twenty years, she still has a hankering after
a
> > handful of uncooked rice once in a while.  They treat it like snack
food,
> > kind of like a bag of crisps (potato chips) would be to us.
> >
>
> That does not detract from the fact that the stomach acid will destroy
> the genes. I did say heat and / or the acid in the stomach.

I didn't mean my post as a detraction.  I just thought I would point out
that people 'do' eat raw rice ... I tried it once and nearly broke a tooth
it's about a much fun as chewing linseeds - never again.

Well, apart from the fact that I am not a member of either GP or FOE - I
formed my thoughts completely independently.  I would have to state that if
the British government is sufficiently worried to take action then the
problem must be *really* bad.  Our government doesn't usually  give a toss
about harmful ingredients and/or licencing issues.

> By the way, I can buy carrots, and so can you. But the poor people
> (there are 230 million of them by the way) cannot. Their normal diet

> is deficient in the vitamins. They cannot buy carrots. They can and
> do buy rice. You should hang your head in shame, trying to prevent
> poor people getting a better life.

... and you should hang your head in shame for using such tired dogmatic
tripe as a means to make me come over to your side of the argument.  The
starvation problems in Africa (for example) are entirely due to political
problems which affect the distribution of food (which is already plentiful).
The fact that the starvation is caused by over-population of marginalised
areas is the largest factor to be addressed.  Move the people OUT - don't
bring food IN!

Specialisation [was - Re: some crap about GM rice] Ryan Curtis 1/24/01 9:38 AM
> > > : >
> > > : >Third principle of ecology - all things are inter-related.  From
which
> > > : >it follows that you can not change one part of the system with out
the
> > > : >possibility of affecting, ultimately, all other parts.
> > > :
> > > :
> > > : just shows what happens when a specialist comments outside of their
> > > : specialty, george may be an expert on recombinant modification of
plants
> > > : but he is by no means an expert on their effects on the environment,
> > > : funny how almost all of the environmental specialists are opposed to
> > > : the wide scale commercialization of transgenic organisms due to
their
> > > : potential to disrupt delicate ecological balances, knowing some of
the
> > > : results of unbalanced biomes they tend to urge caution and through
> > > : independent evaluation.
> > >
> > > An environmentalist is only looking at a fraction of the whole. The
> > > needs of the people and society count in the equation as well.

> >
> > [Ryan] And a 'specialist' is looking at an even tinier fraction of the
> > whole.  On a more personal note I should add that most of the
specialists
> > that I have known are only vaguely aware that 'people and society' even
> > exist.
>
>  Exactly. They're a pretty life-distant bunch. And a person specializing
in the
> "right foot of the fly", refusing to see the whole, isn't really a
specialist in
> the "right foot of the fly" either.
>
>  It's a pox on present day humans that these people have such influence
over
> current affairs.
>
[Ryan] I prefer the multi-disciplinary approach myself, specialisation might
be good for insects but it turns people into lousy humans.


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/24/01 9:42 AM
ant wrote:

> just shows what happens when a specialist comments outside of their
> specialty, george may be an expert on recombinant modification of plants
> but he is by no means an expert on their effects on the environment, funny
> how almost all of the environmental specialists are opposed to the wide
> scale commercialization of transgenic organisms due to their potential to
> disrupt delicate ecological balances, knowing some of the results of
> unbalanced biomes they tend to urge caution and through independent
> evaluation.
>

Environmentalists seem to be opposed to any form of change. But the
biggest form of environment impact is farming. It is very destructive.
Even if you think of organic, that to is destructive. Just ploughing a
field devastates whatever fauna and flora were there. It is razed to the
ground.

The environment impact is so far purely speculative. Yet more than 50%
of all corn and soya now grown is the USA is gm. If there is a real
danger, then there should be signs by now. But there are not. Can you
cite any ant?


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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/24/01 9:49 AM
George Baxter wrote:

 Nope, they're few, but doing all they can to expose the new "miracle drug"
greedy and powerful people and their eager servants will let loose on us all.

 H A


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/24/01 9:49 AM
George Baxter wrote:

 Do you know the problem with GM? People will suffer from malnutrition even if
they seemingly have enough to eat. They'll steadily, "voluntarily" poison
themselves. And so on and so on.

 And this you and other madmen will continue to expose people to.

 You're bent.

 H A

--


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


Specialisation [was - Re: some crap about GM rice] Amos Keppler 1/24/01 9:55 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

 Robots. Puppets. Blindly repeating the words and actions of others. Autoamtons
singing while walking off the cliff.

 Of course, that's how the tyrants want us all.

 Management. That's the trick of modern tyranny.

 H A


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/24/01 9:47 AM
Oz wrote:
>
> George Baxter wrote on Tue, 23 Jan 2001
>
> >Now if the "natural" fruit were to be considered for commercial/large
> >scale growing it would be subject to certain tests. Damage to the
> >environment would be the main one, and does it cause harm to people.
>
> But you can import what you like without testing. Just look at the range
> of imported tropical fruits available. Now if you go and ask locals they
> will often warn you to be moderate in your consumption with some of
> them. No warnings in our shops.

True, very few things have warning labels. But the point about this
example of the fruit is that it could be introduced, and there would not
be a clamour or furure regarding the genes, even though the genes would
be a large unknown. But if the fruit had the label of gmo, there would
be a huge requirement by those opposed to gmo.

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

Specialisation [was - Re: some crap about GM rice] Tracy Aquilla 1/24/01 10:25 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

> [Ryan] I prefer the multi-disciplinary approach myself,

Me too. But that does not preclude one from becoming a specialist as well.

> specialisation might
> be good for insects but it turns people into lousy humans.

It does, however, provide competent auto mechanics, neurosurgeons and tax
lawyers (etc.). And I probably would not want a non-specialist handling those
problems for me.
Tracy

Invisible Dangers Ryan Curtis 1/24/01 10:00 AM

George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> wrote
in message news:3A6F0EB0.3EAC0AC@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...[Ryan] I daresay Marie Curie thought the same ... and until we found the
hole in the ozone layer (by accident) we thought that CFC's were harmless
too.  Not all dangers are immediate or obvious - in past generations there
has often been a sustantial time period between the 'discovery', 'testing'
and then marketing of products.  Due to the rate at which technological
advances are occuring there is no longer any safety margin for error.


GM rice Ryan Curtis 1/24/01 10:06 AM

George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> wrote
in message news:3A6F0FCA.FA41FE83@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...[Ryan] The impression being given by supporters of Golden Rice is that *it*
is the only alternative, and that there are no other suitable sources of
Vitamin A available in the relevant countries - which is untrue.  Personally
I think that the main problem is still political - the countries where
people are starving, or have vitamin deficiences (which I do not dispute)
are all places where they have inefficient (or nonexistent) taxation
systems.  When a government is required to bear the cost of treating
illnesses - it tends to take more effective steps to prevent illness.  Where
governments derive an income from economic activity - it tends to ensure
that economic activity is supported.

Specialisation [was - Re: some crap about GM rice] Ryan Curtis 1/24/01 10:09 AM
> > > > >
> > > > > An environmentalist is only looking at a fraction of the whole.
The
> > > > > needs of the people and society count in the equation as well.
> > > >
> > > > [Ryan] And a 'specialist' is looking at an even tinier fraction of
the
> > > > whole.  On a more personal note I should add that most of the
> > > > specialists that I have known are only vaguely aware that 'people
> > > > and society' even exist.
> > >
> > >  Exactly. They're a pretty life-distant bunch. And a person
specializing
> > > in the "right foot of the fly", refusing to see the whole, isn't
really a
> > > specialist in the "right foot of the fly" either.
> > >
> > >  It's a pox on present day humans that these people have such
influence
> > > over current affairs.
> > >
> > [Ryan] I prefer the multi-disciplinary approach myself, specialisation
might
> > be good for insects but it turns people into lousy humans.
>
>  Robots. Puppets. Blindly repeating the words and actions of others.
Autoamtons
> singing while walking off the cliff.
>
>  Of course, that's how the tyrants want us all.
>
>  Management. That's the trick of modern tyranny.
>
[Ryan] Hey!  I'm in management ;-)

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/24/01 8:02 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001

>[Ryan] "If at first you don't succeed ....try, try again".

Pretty insulting to those who have spent a lifetime trying to deal with
this, particularly from someone who knows almost nothing about it and
have only just come across it.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/24/01 8:02 AM
Torsten Brinch wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001
>
>It is a fascinating subject, a fascinating toxin.
>One of my favorites, really..... Too bad that noone
>seems to want to talk more about it, unless it can be
>used as an argument against organic farming. Grin.

Do you want some?

--
Oz

GM rice Oz 1/24/01 10:46 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001

>[Ryan] The impression being given by supporters of Golden Rice is that *it*
>is the only alternative,

I've never heard them say that, particularly as there are other partial
alternatives except they aren't being as effective as they should be and
they are costly to run.

>and that there are no other suitable sources of
>Vitamin A available in the relevant countries - which is untrue.  

If it was easy to fix, it would have been fixed years ago. Try to
understand this.

>Personally
>I think that the main problem is still political - the countries where
>people are starving, or have vitamin deficiences (which I do not dispute)
>are all places where they have inefficient (or nonexistent) taxation
>systems.  

Possibly. However that isn't going to be fixed overnight, more likel
decades. In the mean time a solution that works is required.

>When a government is required to bear the cost of treating
>illnesses - it tends to take more effective steps to prevent illness.  

Spot on. That's why they are so keen on golden rice.

>Where
>governments derive an income from economic activity - it tends to ensure
>that economic activity is supported.

Spot on, that's why they are keen on golden rice.

--
Oz

Ergot outbreaks was [Re: some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world'] Oz 1/24/01 10:52 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001
>>
>I don't want to burst your bubble over what was gonna be a friendly chat but
>it was actually some woman from one of the English universities working with
>the British Museum.

Well she said she was an american journalist and certainly sounded very
american on the program. Maybe she lied or maybe she studied and worked
as above which is where she came across it.

I don;t dispute that the work she did put it on a firmer footing, merely
that it's not new. I must have first heard it nearly 40 years ago.

--
Oz

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/24/01 10:54 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001
>
>[Ryan] Personally I don't think they were quite as stupid as you would like
>to think.

hey. They ate off lead/tin/antimon alloy plates with lead/tin/antimony
cutlery and sweetened (and preserved) their beer and wine with lead
acetate, took mercury and arsenic as a medicine and had a whole raft of
common practices that would be considered very highly dangerous today.

And it went on for centuries.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/24/01 12:06 PM

Amos Keppler wrote in message <3A6F15F5...@theweeklyreport.com>...

>George Baxter wrote:
>
>> Ryan Curtis wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > [Ryan] Well presumably if they always had the Vit A deficiency and it
was
>> > never a problem ... but now it is a problem because we have a product
we
>> > want to sell them<?>
>>
>> Never a problem? Do you know how serious the problem is? You clearly do
>> not. 230 million people have VAD. Of those about 1 million will die, or
>> go blind.
>> --
>> George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net
>
> Do you know the problem with GM? People will suffer from malnutrition even
if
>they seemingly have enough to eat. They'll steadily, "voluntarily" poison
>themselves. And so on and so on.
>
> And this you and other madmen will continue to expose people to.
>
> You're bent.

and you are hysterical. where is the evidence for the statement

People will suffer from malnutrition even if
>they seemingly have enough to eat

Jim Webster

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

>
> H A
>
>--
>???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>       THE WEEKLY REPORT
> dangerous news and articles collected from around the world
> http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100380/theweeklyreport.html
> awareness, forums and discussions about PageOne news and facts
>???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>
>


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/24/01 12:07 PM

Amos Keppler wrote in message <3A6F15F0...@theweeklyreport.com>...

you mean they would do something like advocate the addition of
contraceptives to the water supply?

Jim Webster

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

>
>


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' J K Cason 1/24/01 2:43 PM
"Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:efxb6.266$I5.1493@stones...
>J K Cason <jkc...@negia.net> wrote in message
>news:t6s9hl3sjqt99f@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Mr. Snappy" <support...@gwislegitimate___yeahright.com>
>> wrote in message news:t6ph0fo70pc19e@corp.supernews.com...

<snip>

>> >We are moving at a rapid pace on this because of greed, not
>> >good science.

>> Perhaps you could make an argument on this point, but it seems
>> to me that a much stronger argument could be made, based on
>> the content of the current debate, that opposition to GM is
>> not based on good science.

>[Ryan] Only by an idiot.

Consider the arguments that have been advanced against GM rice
just in recent messages in this thread:

1. In vitamin-A-deficient, rice-consuming parts of the world,
vegetables containing vitamin A are produced.

  [No evidence for this claim was offered and not one of these
   mystery vegetables was named.]

2. The mystery vegetables would be available to the poor and
would have some impact on the deficiency if wealthy countries
were not buying them.

  [No evidence was offered that such vegetables are produced in
   quantities sufficient to impact the deficiency, or that the
   poor want to consume the mystery vegetables.  No evidence was
   offered that any agricultural exports are made up of crops
   purchased in local markets from poor farmers.]

3. Vitamin A deficiency didn't exist before poor farmers started
selling their produce.

  [No evidence was offered to support this absurd claim.]

4. The risks of consuming familiar agricultural crops are known
because these crops have been consumed for millenia.

  [Not only are many staple food items relatively new (several
   hundred years old) for most human populations, but the old
   foods have undergone extensive breeding and selection and
   crossing with wild relatives.  They differ by thousands of
   genes from early human foods.]

<snip>

>> In another message, you were satisfied with what Native
>> Americans knew 450 years ago about the effects of foods on
>> health.  Far more is known now, and we have a problem
>> recognition capability that hadn't even begun to exist back
>> then.  By any objective measurement, there is no comparison
>> between the risks of today and in the time of Columbus.

>[Ryan] In Columbus' time, if a food made you ill you could
>simply stop eating it.

5.  Hundreds of years ago, people could just stop eating food
that made them sick.

  [People today do that, but only if they have alternatives
   available and notice the illness and its apparent cause.  In
   human populations where mortality is high because of
   contagious disease, nutritional deficiencies, parasites,and
   lack of health care, mortality from other sources has to be
   high and on a short time scale to be noticed. The
   sophistication of modern public health systems gives developed
   countries the ability to detect tiny health effects that occur
   long after consumption.  Any preference for the old days is a
   fantasy.]

>  The world was a much bigger place, a mistake in one place
> was unlikely to have much effect on the population of
> another place.

6.  Isolation is an advantage.  What happened in one place was
unlikely to affect another place.

  [Guam has an incidence of Parkinson's Disease, Lou Gehrig's
   Disease, and Alzheimer's Disease that is about 50 times higher
   than the rates of PD, ALS, and AD in Europe.  There is recent,
   circumstantial evidence that this is caused by consumption of
   cycad seeds.  In the time of Columbus, if this relationship
   could have been discovered at all, it would have had to be
   rediscovered independently on dozens of isolated tropical
   islands.  Today doctors watch for such conditions anywhere
   cycads can be found.]

>      A generation from now how much food will be
>non-GM?  If, a generation from now, we discover some very nasty
>side-effects that were not in the prediction models (not unheard
>of you must agree) then how do you go about feeding the world
>population on the minute amount of food available from the
>allotments and back gardens that have avoided the use of GM
>material?

7. GM breeding is monolithic.

  [GM techniques are not identical and the target species are not
   identical.  Conventional breeding has had its failures in
   specific crops, but no one calls for a moratorium on
   conventional breeding in all crops as a result.  Even if
   golden rice doesn't work out, for whatever reason, that will
   not mean that all attempts to insert carotene genes into rice
   will fail and should be abandoned in advance as a matter of
   principle.  GM opponents think that one failure condemns all
   GM in all species.]


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/24/01 2:59 PM
Jim Webster wrote:

> Amos Keppler wrote in message <3A6F15F5...@theweeklyreport.com>...
> >George Baxter wrote:
> >
> >> Ryan Curtis wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > [Ryan] Well presumably if they always had the Vit A deficiency and it
> was
> >> > never a problem ... but now it is a problem because we have a product
> we
> >> > want to sell them<?>
> >>
> >> Never a problem? Do you know how serious the problem is? You clearly do
> >> not. 230 million people have VAD. Of those about 1 million will die, or
> >> go blind.
> >> --
> >> George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net
> >
> > Do you know the problem with GM? People will suffer from malnutrition even
> if
> >they seemingly have enough to eat. They'll steadily, "voluntarily" poison
> >themselves. And so on and so on.
> >
> > And this you and other madmen will continue to expose people to.
> >
> > You're bent.
>
> and you are hysterical. where is the evidence for the statement
>
> People will suffer from malnutrition even if
> >they seemingly have enough to eat
>

  Hysterical? For pointing out the obvious? Well, I guess that isn't very
surprising coming from you, which contribution consists of snide comments.

 There are tons and tons of material. This is a minor selection.

  WEEK 34

  GENE MODIFIED FOOD MAY BE DANGEROUS

  A new study by Scottish scientists, shows that gene modified food may be
dangerous to humans. The study shows that rats fed by gene modified food, grow
less than other rats and got lower resistance to disease. The study has led to
demands to prohibit gene modified food in Britain.


  Week 9 1999

  ISSUED WARNING AGAINST GENE MODIFIED FOOD

  Scientists are warning people about gene modified food because of results
shown in a British research project, showing the food to be damaging to the
immune defense system and also shrinking the brain of lab rats. The man in
charge of the project was fired when he went public with the  results, and since
then the reports have disappeared.


  WEEK 27

  SCIENTISTS WILL BAN GENE MODIFICATION

  British scientists are discovering ever more faults on and damages caused by
gene modified plants, and wants a ban. New reports shows that the very use of
plants resistant towards pesticides may cause consequences far beyond the actual
use, on plants, animals and of course, humans.

 And an example of how producers are treating dissent:


  DEMANDING BAN

  The newspaper Mail on Sunday reports that the major American biotechnology
corporation Monsanto, are supporting the Scottish institute that recently fired
a head researcher disobedient to institute policy.
  According to the British newspaper Monsanto has given approximately 200 000
USD to the Bowan institute in Aberdeen. Professor Arpad Pusztai was fired from
the institute after his revelation of what happened to lab rats eating gene
modified potatoes. 23 researchers from 12 nations support Pusztai. They’re
demanding an immediate ban on gene modified food in Great Britain.

 H A

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/24/01 3:46 PM

Amos Keppler wrote in message <3A6F5EAF...@theweeklyreport.com>...

says it all, May be dangerous

>
>  A new study by Scottish scientists, shows that gene modified food may be
>dangerous to humans. The study shows that rats fed by gene modified food,
grow
>less than other rats and got lower resistance to disease. The study has led
to
>demands to prohibit gene modified food in Britain.

source of the study, web page, scientific paper?
>

rest snipped because they were merely second or third hand reports of
reports, no references no details. Several could well refer to the same
initial scientific work.

Jim Webster

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/24/01 3:52 PM
George Baxter wrote:
><..> 500 million people world

>wide eat gmo every day.

Let us look at this, with more statistics.

Estimates for year 2000:
-The four crops maize, canola, cotton and soybean
comprised  virtually 100% of the area grown with GM crops.

GM maize      10 million hectares
GM canola       3 million hectares
GM cotton        5 million hectares
GM soybean  24 million hectares
**************************************
Total global crop area 273 million hectares
GM crop area in 2000: 42 million hectares (16 %)

**************************************
% total contribution of food energy to the global human
diet from food commodities : maize 5 %, soyabeans  1%,
canola oil  1% cotton seed oil 0,5 %, soyabean oil  3 %

******************************************************
GM penetration (% of global per crop area with GM)
Soyabean 34 %, Cotton 16 %, Canola 11%, Maize 7 %

******************************************************
Now, assuming equal distribution of food energy,
(some assumption indeed!) the global human diet could
therefore potentially currently receive  a contribution from
GM at 1,8 %. -- of which 0,7 % would be eaten directly as
GM plant  material,  and 1,1 % as vegetable oil  from GM
crops.(maize 0,35 %, soyabeans 0,34 %, canola oil 0,01 %,
cotton seed oil  0.1 %, and soyabean oil 1 %).

****************************************************

However, George, as you correctly estimate,
of the global population of ~6 billion people, it may
actually be only 500 million (8 %) who are currently
really feasting on all this GM food.

One might think that we could just  'concentrate' the
current potential  global 1,8 % GM contribution to
the diet from GM to those  8 % of the population,
who actually have access to the GM crops.
However, that calculation does not fly at all.

The  500 million people, who you say 'eat GMO each day'
are from the -developed- countries and they  feed their
soyabean and maize disproportionately to animals.
They  eat only 50 % the soyabean and only 65 % of
the maize global average. Otoh, they eat rather more
food energy as vegetable oil (160 % of the global average).

This would seem to me to indicate, that the 500 million
'GM gifted' people might currently be eating a diet with
an avg. of about  3 % of the food  energy coming directly
from GM maize,  2 % from soyabean, and  9 % from GM
vegetable oil.

Hell, and can you imagine! They have eaten comparable
amounts of GM food for -years- (um, well, for the last
2-3 years to be precise).. this field experiment,
started about with the 1997-1998 crop (1996 saw only
0,6 % of the global crop area grown with GM crops)

>No sign of problems. <..>


>Surely if the dangers were real, or as serious as you
>would have us believe, there would actually be some
>signs of it? A dangerous product that does not exhibit
>signs of danger! You are must be joking!!

Rather,  your argument is the joke. :-)

You are sitting  with just 3 years experience from adding
a few % genetically modified plant material and about 5-10 %
GM derived vegetable fatty energy to the diet of 500 million
people. An entirely uncontrolled experiment, passive
surveillance, and with 'no sign of problems'.

And from this you shamelessly try to suggest
that everyone now ought to be convinced finally
that GM food must be safe. LOL!


Best regards,

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name.

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' ant 1/24/01 3:01 AM

Ryan Curtis wrote in message ...

>
>George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>
wrote
>in message news:3A6DBBDA.8905EBA5@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...
>> Ian Alexander wrote:
>>
>> > You can not be sure, or even anywhere near sure, that it is a zero
>> > additional cost solution.  We have not begun to test this for
unexpected
>> > side effects on human or environmental health and nor can we predict
the
>> > socio-economic consequences of introducing this technology.
>>
>> Yes I can. They buy rice now. The modified rice is not subject any levy.
>> There will be no extra cost distribution as the system is already in
>> place to do it.
>>
>> You can be sure that there will be no side effects on humans because no
>> edible gmo is every released until it has been shown that the inserted
>> genes are easily destroyed either by heat or the acid in the stomach. I
>> do not think anyone eats raw rice anyway.

>
>Actually they do.  My wife is from the Phillipines and although she has
>lived in Europe for nearly twenty years, she still has a hankering after a
>handful of uncooked rice once in a while.  They treat it like snack food,
>kind of like a bag of crisps (potato chips) would be to us.
>

and we have seen data that shows that genes can persis and be talken up by
both bacterial and mamilian cells in the gut, i see no reason why the
unstable constructs used by the biotehc industry should be excempt for some
reason.

grow some green leafy vegetable, eat some beetroot or whatever, golden rice
is going to the the final nail in the coffin of global acceptance of
transgenic foods, especially in Asia where public hostility to transgenic
crops is high, partially as a result of being burned so badly be the green
revolution.


ant


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/24/01 5:08 PM
Jim Webster wrote:

 They don't. Attempting to get off by a technicality again?

 http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100380/archive8.html

 This is a bit more than you asked for, since they're covering more than food
and more than the previous provided scientific news.

http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/001015a.html
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000903.html
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000813.html
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1999/990312.htm
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1999/990311a.htm
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1998/981204c.htm
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1998/980904.htm
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1998/980314.htm
http://www.netlink.de/gen/fagan.html#dangers
http://www.netlink.de/gen/fagan.html#glob
http://www.cqs.com/50harm.htm
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000913a.html

 As stated, these are only a few samples. I can provide thousands of links. I've
told you before. Every time you escape into technicalities and general claptrap.

 H A

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/24/01 5:24 PM
ant wrote:

 Let's strongly hope that at least in this instance people will shout ENOUGH IS
ENOUGH so loud that the tyrants will have to listen, and put at least this
fucked up genie (GM) back in the bottle.
 All the countless exposures must do something to awaken the countless puppets.

 H A


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' John McCarthy 1/24/01 9:54 PM
Blindness from lack of vitamin A has been a problem since before cash
crops.  The diseases of rickets, pellagra, beri-beri, and goiter
are also long standing deficiency diseases, all relieved by small
additions to the diet.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/24/01 10:31 PM

"John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:x4h8zo0xjkk.fsf@Steam.Stanford.EDU...
: Blindness from lack of vitamin A has been a problem since before cash

: crops.  The diseases of rickets, pellagra, beri-beri, and goiter
: are also long standing deficiency diseases, all relieved by small
: additions to the diet.

I beleive Pellagra is not a true deficiency disease. It is caused by a
diet of corn tying up one of the B vitamins and making unavailable causing
a deficiency of that vitamin. That is being rather picky but additions to
the diet aren't necessary only eating anything besides corn all the time.
--
Gordon    W5RED
G. C. Couger gco...@provalue.net  Stillwater, OK


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' ant 1/24/01 7:58 PM

Torsten Brinch wrote in message ...

does this man not know any history, or the pathology of cancer and many
auto immune diseases.

i dont think many smokers drop dead from heart atacks, lung cancer and
strokes in their first 3 years of smokeing. how can george hope to maintain
any credability with arguments like that, but i guess that is the best the
spin doctors could come up with.

>You are sitting  with just 3 years experience from adding
>a few % genetically modified plant material and about 5-10 %
>GM derived vegetable fatty energy to the diet of 500 million
>people. An entirely uncontrolled experiment, passive
>surveillance, and with 'no sign of problems'.
>

wel its the best he PRopagandists and spin doctors could come up with as
tnhey dont have any sound data to support their claims of safety.

>And from this you shamelessly try to suggest
>that everyone now ought to be convinced finally
>that GM food must be safe. LOL!
>
>

i guess tobacco must also be totally safe, as looking at people who have
only smoked for 3 or less years shows no sign of gross changes in health.

his arguments are getting weaker, perhaps i should kilfile him, certainly
cant engage him in logical debate.


ant


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' ant 1/24/01 8:01 PM

George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> >
wrote in message <3A6F0BCB...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>...
>ant wrote:
>
>>
>> IIRC a study into feeding smokers additional beta carotene as a
supplement
>> caused more harm then it prevented and the trial was discontinued part
way
>> through due to adverse health effects. how are we to prevent vit A
>> poisoning from people consuming this rice all the time or in larger then
>> normal amounts, or products derived from it or its waste. if there is a
>> rush to force the uptake of "golden rice" in the third world driven by
>> commercial and political pressure without proper and through testing
would
>> be a public relations disaster in the event of it failing to perform as
>> advertised.
>>
>
>
>The same thing that stops people overdosing on carrots - you have to eat
>an unnaturally high amount of them.
>


carrots are not being promoted as a staple food source....

define "unnaturally high" please, that is a subjective term, your argument
is not relevant as i pointed out above.

the whole point of golden rice is to feed it to people every day, if we
cant educate the locals about how to avoid Vit. A deficinacys how can we
expect them to know how to prevent an overdose.

ant


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/25/01 12:31 AM
ant wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001

>>
>grow some green leafy vegetable, eat some beetroot or whatever, golden rice
>is going to the the final nail in the coffin of global acceptance of
>transgenic foods, especially in Asia where public hostility to transgenic
>crops is high, partially as a result of being burned so badly be the green
>revolution.

I am afraid to tell you the green revolution is alive and well and
thriving. How else do you think places like India have become net grain
exporters?

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/25/01 12:30 AM
ant wrote on Thu, 25 Jan 2001

>
>carrots are not being promoted as a staple food source....
>
>define "unnaturally high" please, that is a subjective term, your argument
>is not relevant as i pointed out above.
>
>the whole point of golden rice is to feed it to people every day, if we
>cant educate the locals about how to avoid Vit. A deficinacys how can we
>expect them to know how to prevent an overdose.

I have the horrible feeling you aren't joking.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/25/01 2:22 AM

Amos Keppler wrote in message <3A6F7CEC...@theweeklyreport.com>...

>Jim Webster wrote:
>
>> >  Hysterical? For pointing out the obvious? Well, I guess that isn't
very
>> >surprising coming from you, which contribution consists of snide
comments.
>> >
>> > There are tons and tons of material. This is a minor selection.
>> >
>> >  WEEK 34
>> >
>> >  GENE MODIFIED FOOD MAY BE DANGEROUS
>>
>> says it all, May be dangerous
>>
>> >
>> >  A new study by Scottish scientists, shows that gene modified food may
be
>> >dangerous to humans. The study shows that rats fed by gene modified
food,
>> grow
>> >less than other rats and got lower resistance to disease. The study has
led
>> to
>> >demands to prohibit gene modified food in Britain.
>>
>> source of the study, web page, scientific paper?
>> >
>>
>> rest snipped because they were merely second or third hand reports of
>> reports, no references no details. Several could well refer to the same
>> initial scientific work.
>>
>
> They don't. Attempting to get off by a technicality again?
>
> http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100380/archive8.html

I went there and found


   THE WEEKLY REPORT WEEK 43 1997
   SCIENTISTS CLAIM: Can clone headless people

   British scientists has developed a way that over time can lead to cloning
of human beings without heads, claim scientists in a documentary yet to be
shown. The headless human is supposed to be grown in an artificial womb and
work as a organ donor. That the head is not growing is caused by gene
manipulation


>
> This is a bit more than you asked for, since they're covering more than
food
>and more than the previous provided scientific news.
>
>http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/001015a.html

I went to this and it starts

Study:
The False Promise of Genetically Engineered Rice

"Genetically engineered (GE) rice --such as the now-famous Vitamin A rice or
'Golden Rice'-- is being heavily promoted as a solution to hunger and
malnutrition. Yet these promotional campaigns are clouding the real issues
of poverty and control over resources, and serving to fast-track acceptance
of genetically engineered crops in developing countries. (…) Vitamin A rice
is a techno-fix to the problems of the poor decided upon and developed,
without consultation, by scientists and experts from the North."
Joint statement to the press, 2 June 2000, by three farmer organisations
from Southeast Asia.

which three farmer organisations from SE Asia?

it then says

"(…) Seeking a technological food fix for world hunger may be not only the
biggest scientific controversy of 1999, but also the most commercially
malevolent wild goose chase of the new century. (…) The little research that
has been conducted about the origins of famine reveals that the solution of
"more food" may be no solution at all."
Dr Richard Horton, editor of the British science journal The Lancet

when did he say this, which issue, or was it at a press interview?

the whole thing is just copied from Greenpeace

http://www.greenpeace.de/GP_DOK_3P/STU_LANG/C05ST03.HTM


so all you have is a collection of 2nd and 3rd hand stores, many
unattributable.

"three farmer organisations from Southeast Asia" can hardly be regarded as a
specific reference

Jim Webster

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/25/01 3:06 AM

"ant" <dont-look@evil.spam> wrote in message
news:vUQb6.420$6O3.10621@ozemail.com.au...
:
: Torsten Brinch wrote in message ...

The GM crops have less variation from their parents than they have for
another variety. If you are going to preach genetics go learn some.
Besides the propaganda being fed you. Look at the world thorough your own
eyes not what some political hack tells you.


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/25/01 3:11 AM

"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kvvMGgAgQ+b6Ewv3@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
: ant wrote on Thu, 25 Jan 2001

I don't think he understand he understands the difference in carotene and
vitamin A. If I remember right excess carotene is stored in the fat until
the liver needs it to make vitamin A. The way to get vitamin A posing is
to eat livers of high level carnivores such has sled dogs that had been
fed their mates as the loads lightened on arctic expeditions or polar bear
livers and such. Or to take high levels of vitamin A supplements.


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/25/01 3:15 AM

gcouger skrev i meddelelsen ...

If that is the case, I guess GM could rather simply be used to knock out
the gene responsible for the tying up of the B-vitamin. That way,
those who want to eat only corn would not necessarily have to to eat
anything else.

Likewise, the golden rice could  be stacked with a full complement
of anti-pellagra,  anti-beri-beri, anti-rickkets, and anti-goiter genes
(I think I've heard that it is already being planning to stack it with
anti-iron and anti-calcium deficiency genes.) Eventually a single golden
rice line  could then be used to cure every conceivable nutrient
deficiency of the poor.

The only problem might be how to avoid  that complete GM diet rice
originally designed for the poor actually  ends up as feed for
relatively more affluent  pigs and chicken.  But with the ongoing
progression of science and technology, one should think that it would
be a minor problem  to modify the golden rice to produce
anti-nutritional factors specific to the most common farm animals,
such as to minimize the risk that it is being diverted to animal feed.
Very practically, the golden colour of the rice is already there as
a warning signal to the market place for animal feed stuffs,
and the rice would not need to be labelled 'Unfit for animal
consumption'.

Of course, if practise should indicate that  the golden colour itself
is insufficient for this purpose , it would probably be easy to modify
it to express the yellow color in clear sharp stripes across the grain.
Or, if the problem is that the yellow color pales during processing,
perhaps an additional gene for some heat stable colorant
-- suitably hued for optimal visual alarm -- could  be stacked
into the construction too. Cough.


Best regards,

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/25/01 3:49 AM

gcouger skrev i meddelelsen
<6RTb6.10459$d25....@newsfeed.slurp.net>...

><..> If I remember right excess carotene is stored in the fat until


>the liver needs it to make vitamin A.

Just a minor quibble. I think it could be more correct to
say  that the liver stores excess of vitamin A, while
the (incomplete) conversion of carotene to vitamin A
takes place in the intestinal mucosa.

The risk of getting an overdose of vitamin A through
ingestion of carotene must be small or nonexistent.
One must remember that humans have evolved in
a world which has always literally been swamped
in carotene. It is in all that green stuff we call plants,
forming part of the protection system of the
photosynthetic arrangement.

>The way to get vitamin A posing is
>to eat livers of high level carnivores such has sled dogs that had been
>fed their mates as the loads lightened on arctic expeditions or polar
bear
>livers and such. Or to take high levels of vitamin A supplements.

One should also not indulge in e.g liver from farmed
pigs. Pigs are richly supplemented with extraneous
vitamin A,  with the excess  being stored in their liver too.


Best regards,

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/25/01 4:25 AM
gcouger wrote on Thu, 25 Jan 2001

>I don't think he understand he understands the difference in carotene and
>vitamin A. If I remember right excess carotene is stored in the fat until
>the liver needs it to make vitamin A. The way to get vitamin A posing is
>to eat livers of high level carnivores such has sled dogs that had been
>fed their mates as the loads lightened on arctic expeditions or polar bear
>livers and such. Or to take high levels of vitamin A supplements.

I suppose it's possible he doesn't understand such a basic thing.

I expect he hasn't realised that lots of biological agents are essential
but toxic in overdose. Most minerals fall in this category and so do
many vitamins and other agents. Some essential things are in fact
carinogenic, at least according to some tests. Arsenic being the best
known but also the hormone on another thread and, I belive, vitamin A.

Even survival requires you to take risks.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/25/01 6:30 AM

Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kvpMmlA4R+b6EwP7@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...[Ryan] and I am afraid to tell you that farmers in the Philippines are
deserting the green revolution in droves .... they are getting better yields
for lower inputs from returning to organic methods.  Labour costs are not an
issue  ..... agrochemical costs are prohibitive.

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/25/01 6:34 AM

Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Nu4W2BA9xvb6Ewa6@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> Ryan Curtis wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001
>
> >[Ryan] "If at first you don't succeed ....try, try again".
>
> Pretty insulting to those who have spent a lifetime trying to deal with
> this, particularly from someone who knows almost nothing about it and
> have only just come across it.
>
[Ryan] Well I didn't want to treat you like a complete idiot Oz ... but it
is immediately apparent that you do not have a clue who I am or what I do
(or what I know) ... or for how long I have been doing/knowing it.

Ergot outbreaks was [Re: some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world'] Ryan Curtis 1/25/01 6:39 AM

Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pz$PBQAhRyb6EwP9@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...

> Ryan Curtis wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001
> >>
> >I don't want to burst your bubble over what was gonna be a friendly chat
but
> >it was actually some woman from one of the English universities working
with
> >the British Museum.
>
> Well she said she was an american journalist and certainly sounded very
> american on the program. Maybe she lied or maybe she studied and worked
> as above which is where she came across it.

[Ryan] Or maybe we are talking about different programs.

> I don't dispute that the work she did put it on a firmer footing, merely
> that it's not new. I must have first heard it nearly 40 years ago.

[Ryan] I have heard of it before too, I just commented that it was a really
interesting program.  You were the one who began the whole ergot thread.

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/25/01 6:41 AM

Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qjJPlVA4Tyb6EwPR@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...[Ryan]  Whereas we of course do not indulge in any unsafe dietary or medical
practices.  Nor do we include dubious materials in any construction process
of any kind .... Generations to come will look back on us with awe and
reverence .....

some crap about GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/25/01 6:46 AM

>
> <snip>
>
> > > > We are moving at a rapid pace on this because of greed, not
> > > > good science.
>
> > > Perhaps you could make an argument on this point, but it seems
> > > to me that a much stronger argument could be made, based on
> > > the content of the current debate, that opposition to GM is
> > > not based on good science.
>
> > [Ryan] Only by an idiot.
>
> Consider the arguments that have been advanced against GM rice
> just in recent messages in this thread:
>
> 1. In vitamin-A-deficient, rice-consuming parts of the world,
> vegetables containing vitamin A are produced.
>
>   [No evidence for this claim was offered and not one of these
>    mystery vegetables was named.]

Pick a dozen common vitamin A containing vegetables, etc from a book (at
random) - at least one of them will be available in any given country.  You
are being silly, and I do not wish to share in your delusion.

> 2. The mystery vegetables would be available to the poor and
> would have some impact on the deficiency if wealthy countries
> were not buying them.
>
>   [No evidence was offered that such vegetables are produced in
>    quantities sufficient to impact the deficiency, or that the
>    poor want to consume the mystery vegetables.  No evidence was
>    offered that any agricultural exports are made up of crops
>    purchased in local markets from poor farmers.]

[Ryan] Please refer to the statement I made some moments earlier.

> 3. Vitamin A deficiency didn't exist before poor farmers started
> selling their produce.
>
>   [No evidence was offered to support this absurd claim.]

[Ryan] Please refer to the statement I made some moments earlier.

> 4. The risks of consuming familiar agricultural crops are known
> because these crops have been consumed for millenia.
>
>   [Not only are many staple food items relatively new (several
>    hundred years old) for most human populations, but the old
>    foods have undergone extensive breeding and selection and
>    crossing with wild relatives.  They differ by thousands of
>    genes from early human foods.]

[Ryan] Please refer to the statement I made some moments earlier.

> <snip>
>
> >> In another message, you were satisfied with what Native
> >> Americans knew 450 years ago about the effects of foods on
> >> health.  Far more is known now, and we have a problem
> >> recognition capability that hadn't even begun to exist back
> >> then.  By any objective measurement, there is no comparison
> >> between the risks of today and in the time of Columbus.
>
> >[Ryan] In Columbus' time, if a food made you ill you could
> >simply stop eating it.
>
> 5.  Hundreds of years ago, people could just stop eating food
> that made them sick.
>
>   [People today do that, but only if they have alternatives
>    available and notice the illness and its apparent cause.  In
>    human populations where mortality is high because of
>    contagious disease, nutritional deficiencies, parasites,and
>    lack of health care, mortality from other sources has to be
>    high and on a short time scale to be noticed. The
>    sophistication of modern public health systems gives developed
>    countries the ability to detect tiny health effects that occur
>    long after consumption.  Any preference for the old days is a
>    fantasy.]

[Ryan] Please refer to the statement I made some moments earlier.

> >  The world was a much bigger place, a mistake in one place
> > was unlikely to have much effect on the population of
> > another place.
>
> 6.  Isolation is an advantage.  What happened in one place was
> unlikely to affect another place.
>
>   [Guam has an incidence of Parkinson's Disease, Lou Gehrig's
>    Disease, and Alzheimer's Disease that is about 50 times higher
>    than the rates of PD, ALS, and AD in Europe.  There is recent,
>    circumstantial evidence that this is caused by consumption of
>    cycad seeds.  In the time of Columbus, if this relationship
>    could have been discovered at all, it would have had to be
>    rediscovered independently on dozens of isolated tropical
>    islands.  Today doctors watch for such conditions anywhere
>    cycads can be found.]

No relation to the comment I made.  My comment was that outbreaks of x in
location Y would have little effect on the residents of z.  You have merely
backed up my claim.

> >      A generation from now how much food will be
> >non-GM?  If, a generation from now, we discover some very nasty
> >side-effects that were not in the prediction models (not unheard
> >of you must agree) then how do you go about feeding the world
> >population on the minute amount of food available from the
> >allotments and back gardens that have avoided the use of GM
> >material?
>
> 7. GM breeding is monolithic.
>
>   [GM techniques are not identical and the target species are not
>    identical.  Conventional breeding has had its failures in
>    specific crops, but no one calls for a moratorium on
>    conventional breeding in all crops as a result.  Even if
>    golden rice doesn't work out, for whatever reason, that will
>    not mean that all attempts to insert carotene genes into rice
>    will fail and should be abandoned in advance as a matter of
>    principle.  GM opponents think that one failure condemns all
>    GM in all species.]
>
[Ryan] Answer the question.

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/25/01 7:53 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

> [Ryan] Well I didn't want to treat you like a complete idiot Oz ... but it
> is immediately apparent that you do not have a clue who I am or what I do
> (or what I know) ... or for how long I have been doing/knowing it.

Maybe that is because you have not provided that information? I don't have a
clue about who you are or what you do either, or for how long. I wish to know.
Please, do tell.
Tracy

Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Ryan Curtis 1/25/01 7:58 AM

Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote in message
news:3A704BDE.9312C9@bpmlegal.com...

[Ryan] None of your business, I am not here in a professional capacity.  If
you would like to know more about the sort of thing that I am professionally
involved in then feel free to visit the website: www.foundation-gaia.org.
It's still under development but it's close enough.


GM rice Tracy Aquilla 1/25/01 8:43 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

> [Ryan] The impression being given by supporters of Golden Rice is that *it*
> is the only alternative, and that there are no other suitable sources of
> Vitamin A available in the relevant countries

Exactly where did you get that impression? Can you please provide a citation or
a direct quote? I have read a great deal about the golden rice and I have not
gotten that impression at all.

> - which is untrue.  Personally
> I think that the main problem is still political

As I understand the situation, the problem is mostly cultural. Apparently, they
only want to eat their traditional diet, and that does not include supplements.
Tracy

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/25/01 9:15 AM
ant wrote:

> and we have seen data that shows that genes can persis and be talken up by
> both bacterial and mamilian cells in the gut,

I would be very interested in seeing the data to which you refer above. Can you
please provide a citation?

> i see no reason why the unstable constructs

To which constructs, exactly, do you refer? I am not aware of any evidence that
any GMO currently on the market carries an "unstable construct." Are you? Can
you please provide a reference that supports your assertion?

> used by the biotehc industry should be excempt for some reason.

Exempt from what, exactly?

> >Unless you are working for a GM company then there is no
> >possible reason why you would be supporting it, scientifically it's a dud,

Well that is certainly NOT what the National Academy of Sciences says about it,
and they are some of the most highly revered scientists in the world. Are you a
scientist, or is this merely your non-professional opinion?

> >The possible long-term effects of ingesting GM products are well documented

Can you please cite such documentation? I am quite interested in learning about
these alleged long-term effects.

> >and have been publicised at length...

See above.

> >restating them would be a waste of our time

I disagree most emphatically. I am not aware of any reliable evidence showing
any long-term effect of GMOs. If you are aware of such evidence, you are doing
us a disservice by withholding it.
Tracy

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/25/01 9:16 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

> Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:qjJPlVA4Tyb6EwPR@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> > Ryan Curtis wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001
> > >
> > >[Ryan] Personally I don't think they were quite as stupid as you would
> like
> > >to think.
> >
> > hey. They ate off lead/tin/antimon alloy plates with lead/tin/antimony
> > cutlery and sweetened (and preserved) their beer and wine with lead
> > acetate, took mercury and arsenic as a medicine and had a whole raft of
> > common practices that would be considered very highly dangerous today.
> >
> > And it went on for centuries.
> >
> [Ryan]  Whereas we of course do not indulge in any unsafe dietary or medical
> practices.  Nor do we include dubious materials in any construction process

Whereas you missed the entire point. Review the thread. How do you expect them
to be able to avoid toxins in their food when generally they were quite unaware
of what constitutes a toxin?
Tracy

Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Tracy Aquilla 1/25/01 9:39 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

> Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote in message
> news:3A704BDE.9312C9@bpmlegal.com...
> > Ryan Curtis wrote:
> >
> > > [Ryan] Well I didn't want to treat you like a complete idiot Oz ... but
> it
> > > is immediately apparent that you do not have a clue who I am or what I
> do
> > > (or what I know) ... or for how long I have been doing/knowing it.
> >
> > Maybe that is because you have not provided that information? I don't have
> a
> > clue about who you are or what you do either, or for how long. I wish to
> know.
> > Please, do tell.
>
> [Ryan] None of your business,

If you have something to hide, that is your business. But then, it is not
reasonable for you to complain that others "do not have a clue who I am or what
I do (or what I know) ... or for how long I have been doing/knowing it." You
cannot have your cake and eat it too.

> I am not here in a professional capacity.

Nor am I. Hey, you brought it up, not me. I just find it strange that one would
complain that others know nothing about him, and then refuse to reveal anything
when asked. Were I sexist, I might conclude from this that you are female. ;-)
Tracy

Some dross about GM products Ryan Curtis 1/25/01 9:34 AM

Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote in message
news:3A705F1C.FD84254D@bpmlegal.com...

[Ryan] That is because you are in terminal denial - another very good reason
why I am not going to provide anything that you have 'asked' for.  I am
happy to post information and clarifications for those who are genuinely
interested in any matter for which I have (or can get) data.  However, you
do not fit into that category so I won't bother.

the politics of starvation Ryan Curtis 1/25/01 9:44 AM

Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote in message
news:3A7057A5.B2B585CB@bpmlegal.com...
>
> > [Ryan] Personally I think that the main problem is still political

>
> As I understand the situation, the problem is mostly cultural. Apparently,
they
> only want to eat their traditional diet, and that does not include
supplements.

[Ryan] ... but their traditional diet does not consist solely of rice and
nothing else.  That has been forced upon them by economic circumstances.
Those economic circumstances *can* be remedied by their respective
governments but it will not be - because those governments have nothing to
lose by allowing a percentage of their population to starve, indeed it
attracts foreign aid so it is positively advantageous.  During the worst of
the Ethiopian droughts when the west sent money and food and anything else
we could lay our hands on ... the Ethiopian government spent $5 billion on
food and drink to mark the celebrations of the revolution that brought them
to power.  Needless to say the poor people were not invited.

Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Ryan Curtis 1/25/01 9:39 AM
> > >
> > > > [Ryan] Well I didn't want to treat you like a complete idiot Oz ...
> > > > but it is immediately apparent that you do not have a clue who I
> > > > am or what I do (or what I know) ... or for how long I have been
> > > > doing/knowing it.
> > >
> > > Maybe that is because you have not provided that information? I
> > > don't have a clue about who you are or what you do either, or for
> > > how long. I wish to know.  Please, do tell.
> >
> > [Ryan] None of your business,
>
> If you have something to hide, that is your business. But then, it is
> not reasonable for you to complain that others "do not have a clue
> who I  am or what I do (or what I know) ... or for how long I have
> been doing/knowing it." You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

[Ryan] Of course I can - I live in England.  I don't have anything to hide,
I just have no interest in getting involved in an academic argument based on
who got the best grades in kindergarten.

> > I am not here in a professional capacity.
>
> Nor am I. Hey, you brought it up, not me. I just find it strange that one
> would complain that others know nothing about him, and then refuse to
> reveal anything when asked. Were I sexist, I might conclude from this
> that you are female. ;-)

[Ryan] Wow, with 'logic' like that I would have to conclude that you are
female too ;-)  Actually I am a 30-something englishman.

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/25/01 9:46 AM

Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote in message
news:3A705F77.8830A90A@bpmlegal.com...

[Ryan] and you missed the entire point of my reply ... we *are* aware of the
toxins in our food and yet we still use them .... how clever does that make
us?


Some dross about GM products Tracy Aquilla 1/25/01 10:00 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

> Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote in message
> news:3A705F1C.FD84254D@bpmlegal.com...

> [snip]


> > Can you please cite such documentation? I am quite interested in learning
> > about these alleged long-term effects.
> >
> > > >and have been publicised at length...
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > > >restating them would be a waste of our time
> >
> > I disagree most emphatically. I am not aware of any reliable evidence
> > showing any long-term effect of GMOs. If you are aware of such evidence, you
> are
> > doing us a disservice by withholding it.
>
> [Ryan] That is because you are in terminal denial

Denial of what, exactly? I did not deny anything, rather, you claimed to know
something that I don't - well, can you prove it or not? Apparently not!

> - another very good reason
> why I am not going to provide anything that you have 'asked' for.  I am
> happy to post information and clarifications for those who are genuinely
> interested in any matter for which I have (or can get) data.

Of course I am genuinely interested. I am a scientist and this is a matter of
personal interest. Otherwise, I would not spend my time reading this newsgroup.

>  However, you do not fit into that category so I won't bother.

On what basis do you reach such a conclusion? It is clear that you simply cannot
support your assertions with any evidence. But I am not particularly surprised,
judging from the content of your posts so far.
Tracy

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/25/01 9:49 AM
Amos Keppler wrote:

>
>  As shown, there are a lot of signs of it. Additionally there are a LOT of
> scientific results more than suggesting (proving) the inherent dangers. That you
> keep promoting it, in spite of the obvious dangers, isn't any surprise.
>
>  The producers are doing quite an effort, fortunately in vain, to keep more of the
> truth from surfacing.
>
>  http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100380/archive8.html

Amos, it is quite clear that you have no training in any form of
science. The strength of science is that you can cite the basis of your
information.

That website is riddled with unreferenced information. They are full of
statements which have no substance.

If you want a site that it full of accurate and verified information,
then go to

www.probiotech.fsnet.co.uk

I dare you!

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

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/25/01 10:05 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

So what? What does our level of intelligence have to do with the fact that,
during Columbus' time, people were quite unaware of what constitutes a toxin
and, therefore, were unlikely to have the means of avoiding them? The fact that
we are aware of toxins in our food is wholly irrelevant. The fact remains, you
were simply wrong when you claimed that they could just stop eating foods that
made them sick. And pointing out that there are toxins in our food cannot change
that.


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/25/01 5:31 AM
Torsten Brinch wrote on Thu, 25 Jan 2001

>
>One should also not indulge in e.g liver from farmed
>pigs. Pigs are richly supplemented with extraneous
>vitamin A,  with the excess  being stored in their liver too.

I have never, ever, heard of a problem with vitamin A in pigs livers.
Do you have references that show this?

OTOH I have seen several documented cases of europeans being killed by
the excessive vitamin A in polar bear liver.

--
Oz

GM rice David Kendra 1/25/01 12:47 PM

"Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:m2Fb6.400$I5.5809@stones...
>
> George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>
wrote
> in message news:3A6F0FCA.FA41FE83@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...

> > Ryan Curtis wrote:
> > >
> > > Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:1$xIiDAYJub6EwMr@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...

> > > > Ryan Curtis wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001
> > > >
> > > > >[Ryan] Learn to think outside the box.  Why not convince them of
the
> > > > >benefits of eating rice AND beans?  It'll make the bean farmers
> really
> > > > >happy, and still no need for franken-foods.  It's a simple
problem -
> use
> > > a
> > > > >simple solution!
> > > >
> > > > Do you really think this sort of thing hasn't been tried?
> > > >
> > > [Ryan] "If at first you don't succeed ....try, try again".  I
personally
> > > don't know of any societies that eat *just* rice and nothing else, in
> the
> > > area of the Philippines where we have relatives, meat is very
expensive
> so
> > > it is only used for special occasions or if there are guests.  But we
> always
> > > ate lots of vegetables and fish, fruit, etc ....
> >
> >
> > The methods that have been tried are improved existing agriculture, and
> > handing out vitamin suppliments. The WHO has originally set a target of
> > 2000 for complete eradication. There was some slight success when
> > governments put a lot of resources, but generally it has failed. If you
> > have access to all those in the Philipines, then may not be a problem
> > there. Who said that only eat rice?

> >
> [Ryan] The impression being given by supporters of Golden Rice is that
*it*
> is the only alternative, and that there are no other suitable sources of
> Vitamin A available in the relevant countries - which is untrue.

Can you name a few which havent already been tried?

dk

Personally
> I think that the main problem is still political - the countries where
> people are starving, or have vitamin deficiences (which I do not dispute)
> are all places where they have inefficient (or nonexistent) taxation
> systems.  When a government is required to bear the cost of treating
> illnesses - it tends to take more effective steps to prevent illness.
Where
> governments derive an income from economic activity - it tends to ensure
> that economic activity is supported.
>
>
>


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' David Kendra 1/25/01 12:47 PM

"Amos Keppler" <theweek...@theweeklyreport.com> wrote in message
news:3A6F15F5.D52EE879@theweeklyreport.com...

> George Baxter wrote:
>
> > Ryan Curtis wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > [Ryan] Well presumably if they always had the Vit A deficiency and it
was
> > > never a problem ... but now it is a problem because we have a product
we
> > > want to sell them<?>
> >
> > Never a problem? Do you know how serious the problem is? You clearly do
> > not. 230 million people have VAD. Of those about 1 million will die, or
> > go blind.
> > --
> > George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net
>
>  Do you know the problem with GM? People will suffer from malnutrition
even if
> they seemingly have enough to eat. They'll steadily, "voluntarily" poison
> themselves. And so on and so on.

And of course you have data to back up this claim?  Probably not.

dk


>
>  And this you and other madmen will continue to expose people to.
>
>  You're bent.
>
>  H A
>
> --
> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>        THE WEEKLY REPORT
>  dangerous news and articles collected from around the world
>  http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100380/theweeklyreport.html
>  awareness, forums and discussions about PageOne news and facts
> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>
>


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/25/01 12:25 PM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Thu, 25 Jan 2001

>[Ryan] and I am afraid to tell you that farmers in the Philippines are
>deserting the green revolution in droves .... they are getting better yields
>for lower inputs from returning to organic methods.  Labour costs are not an
>issue  ..... agrochemical costs are prohibitive.

Excellent if true.

However I suspect that the state of their economy has more to do with
it.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/25/01 12:27 PM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Thu, 25 Jan 2001
>

Well why not tell us then?


--
Oz

Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Oz 1/25/01 12:29 PM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Thu, 25 Jan 2001
>
>[Ryan] Of course I can - I live in England.  I don't have anything to hide,
>I just have no interest in getting involved in an academic argument based on
>who got the best grades in kindergarten.

If you have nothing to hide then why not post your job and position as
you claimed we had a problem because we didn't know this.

--
Oz

Some dross about GM products Oz 1/25/01 12:26 PM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Thu, 25 Jan 2001
>
>[Ryan] That is because you are in terminal denial - another very good reason
>why I am not going to provide anything that you have 'asked' for.  I am
>happy to post information and clarifications for those who are genuinely
>interested in any matter for which I have (or can get) data.  However, you
>do not fit into that category so I won't bother.
>

In other words you don;t have the information.

Why not just say so?

--
Oz

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/25/01 12:34 PM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Thu, 25 Jan 2001
>
>Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:qjJPlVA4Tyb6EwPR@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
>> Ryan Curtis wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001
>> >
>> >[Ryan] Personally I don't think they were quite as stupid as you would
>like
>> >to think.
>>
>> hey. They ate off lead/tin/antimon alloy plates with lead/tin/antimony
>> cutlery and sweetened (and preserved) their beer and wine with lead
>> acetate, took mercury and arsenic as a medicine and had a whole raft of
>> common practices that would be considered very highly dangerous today.
>>
>> And it went on for centuries.
>>
>[Ryan]  Whereas we of course do not indulge in any unsafe dietary or medical
>practices.  

Perhaps you could name us some of comparable risk, say to sweetening
beer with lead acetate?

>Nor do we include dubious materials in any construction process
>of any kind ....

Such as?

>Generations to come will look back on us with awe and
>reverence .....

Probably not.

--
Oz

the politics of starvation Oz 1/25/01 12:32 PM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Thu, 25 Jan 2001

>[Ryan] ... but their traditional diet does not consist solely of rice and


>nothing else.  That has been forced upon them by economic circumstances.
>Those economic circumstances *can* be remedied by their respective
>governments but it will not be - because those governments have nothing to
>lose by allowing a percentage of their population to starve, indeed it
>attracts foreign aid so it is positively advantageous.

Which foreign governments happily let their people starve although they
could fix it in order to get foreign aid where there is a vitamin A
deficiency?

A list would be good.

--
Oz

some crap about GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/25/01 12:36 PM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Thu, 25 Jan 2001
>
>Pick a dozen common vitamin A containing vegetables, etc from a book (at
>random) - at least one of them will be available in any given country.  You
>are being silly, and I do not wish to share in your delusion.

So please explain why these people are clinically vitamin A deficient?

Despite some decades of work to stop this problem.

--
Oz

Some dross about GM products David Kendra 1/25/01 12:59 PM

"Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:2sZb6.1735$I5.24559@stones...

It is more the case that you cant provide any real data showing negative
effects let alone long term effects, simply because because none exists.  I
suspect you are the one in terminal denial.

dk

I am
> happy to post information and clarifications for those who are genuinely
> interested in any matter for which I have (or can get) data.  However, you
> do not fit into that category so I won't bother.
>
>
>


Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Tracy Aquilla 1/25/01 1:34 PM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

> > > >
> > > > > [Ryan] Well I didn't want to treat you like a complete idiot Oz ...
> > > > > but it is immediately apparent that you do not have a clue who I
> > > > > am or what I do (or what I know) ... or for how long I have been
> > > > > doing/knowing it.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe that is because you have not provided that information? I
> > > > don't have a clue about who you are or what you do either, or for
> > > > how long. I wish to know.  Please, do tell.
> > >
> > > [Ryan] None of your business,
> >
> > If you have something to hide, that is your business. But then, it is
> > not reasonable for you to complain that others "do not have a clue
> > who I  am or what I do (or what I know) ... or for how long I have
> > been doing/knowing it." You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
>
> [Ryan] Of course I can - I live in England.  I don't have anything to hide,

Well then, why did you refuse to answer the question? Of course, actions speak
louder than words. You _say_ you have nothing to hide, yet your actions show
otherwise, as you refuse to reveal the information. Clearly, you are hiding
something, whether you have good reason to or not.

> I just have no interest in getting involved in an academic argument based on
> who got the best grades in kindergarten.

Nor do I, and I do not believe anyone else suggested that either.

> > > I am not here in a professional capacity.
> >
> > Nor am I. Hey, you brought it up, not me. I just find it strange that one
> > would complain that others know nothing about him, and then refuse to
> > reveal anything when asked. Were I sexist, I might conclude from this
> > that you are female. ;-)
>
> [Ryan] Wow, with 'logic' like that I would have to conclude that you are
> female too ;-)

I don't follow the logic there. Are you of the opinion that females tend to be
illogical?

> Actually I am a 30-something englishman.

Well that tells us essentially nothing about who you are, what you know, etc. If
you want to keep it secret, then that's fine with me. But then you ought not
whine that others don't know you, if you won't reveal the information when
asked, since that is your fault alone, not ours.
Tracy

the politics of starvation Tracy Aquilla 1/25/01 1:40 PM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

> Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote in message
> news:3A7057A5.B2B585CB@bpmlegal.com...
> >
> > > [Ryan] Personally I think that the main problem is still political
> >
> > As I understand the situation, the problem is mostly cultural. Apparently,
> they
> > only want to eat their traditional diet, and that does not include
> supplements.
>
> [Ryan] ... but their traditional diet does not consist solely of rice and
> nothing else.

Well who ever said it did? The problem appears to be simply that their
traditional diet tends to be deficient in vit. A.

>  That has been forced upon them by economic circumstances.

So far, no evidence has been presented to support that assertion.

> Those economic circumstances *can* be remedied by their respective
> governments but it will not be - because those governments have nothing to
> lose by allowing a percentage of their population to starve, indeed it
> attracts foreign aid so it is positively advantageous.

So far, no evidence has been presented to support that assertion either.
Tracy

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/25/01 11:56 AM
In article <e6Xb6.1673$I5.22816@stones>, Ryan Curtis
<off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> writes

>
>Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:kvpMmlA4R+b6EwP7@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
>> ant wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001
>> >>
>> >grow some green leafy vegetable, eat some beetroot or whatever, golden
>rice
>> >is going to the the final nail in the coffin of global acceptance of
>> >transgenic foods, especially in Asia where public hostility to transgenic
>> >crops is high, partially as a result of being burned so badly be the
>green
>> >revolution.
>>
>> I am afraid to tell you the green revolution is alive and well and
>> thriving. How else do you think places like India have become net grain
>> exporters?

>>
>[Ryan] and I am afraid to tell you that farmers in the Philippines are
>deserting the green revolution in droves .... they are getting better yields
>for lower inputs from returning to organic methods.  Labour costs are not an
>issue  ..... agrochemical costs are prohibitive.
>
>
>
Just thought I'd put this one in - gleaned from the Farmers Weekly
website

A RADICAL new cultivation system introduced in Madagascar in the 1980s
has produced startling results in rice crops, reports the Financial
Times.

Yields of two tonnes shot up to between 8-10t/ha without chemical
fertilisers, pesticides or expensive seed varieties.

The technique, developed by agronomist priest Henri de Laudani and known
as System of Rice Intensification, broke traditional rules of rice
management.

Seedlings are transplanted earlier and fields are kept dry for much of
the time, improving oxygen and nutrient flow, and deriving more benefits
from the sun.

After being ignored for a number of years, SRI has spread to other
countries including Bangladesh, China and Indonesia.

Details were presented at a recent conference on sustainable agriculture
in London.


Financial Times 23 January, 2001 page 44


And, it seems, not a GMO in sight.  I wonder if Monsanto etal will be
researching / promoting this method?  I'm not holding my breath.

--
Ian Alexander

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/25/01 12:01 PM
In article <WYTb6.92$_N1....@news.get2net.dk>, Torsten Brinch
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> writes
>
>gcouger skrev i meddelelsen ...
>>
>>"John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
>>news:x4h8zo0xjkk.fsf@Steam.Stanford.EDU...
>>: Blindness from lack of vitamin A has been a problem since before cash
>>: crops.  The diseases of rickets, pellagra, beri-beri, and goiter
>>: are also long standing deficiency diseases, all relieved by small
>>: additions to the diet.
>
>>I beleive Pellagra is not a true deficiency disease. It is caused by a
>>diet of corn tying up one of the B vitamins and making unavailable
>>causing a deficiency of that vitamin. That is being rather picky but
>>additions to the diet aren't necessary only eating anything besides
>>corn all the time.
>
>If that is the case, I guess GM could rather simply be used to knock out
>the gene responsible for the tying up of the B-vitamin. That way,
>those who want to eat only corn would not necessarily have to to eat
>anything else.
>
>Likewise, the golden rice could  be stacked with a full complement
>of anti-pellagra,  anti-beri-beri, anti-rickkets, and anti-goiter genes
>(I think I've heard that it is already being planning to stack it with
>anti-iron and anti-calcium deficiency genes.) Eventually a single golden
>rice line  could then be used to cure every conceivable nutrient
>deficiency of the poor.
>
>The only problem might be how to avoid  that complete GM diet rice
>originally designed for the poor actually  ends up as feed for
>relatively more affluent  pigs and chicken.  But with the ongoing
>progression of science and technology, one should think that it would
>be a minor problem  to modify the golden rice to produce
>anti-nutritional factors specific to the most common farm animals,
>such as to minimize the risk that it is being diverted to animal feed.
>Very practically, the golden colour of the rice is already there as
>a warning signal to the market place for animal feed stuffs,
>and the rice would not need to be labelled 'Unfit for animal
>consumption'.
>
>Of course, if practise should indicate that  the golden colour itself
>is insufficient for this purpose , it would probably be easy to modify
>it to express the yellow color in clear sharp stripes across the grain.
>Or, if the problem is that the yellow color pales during processing,
>perhaps an additional gene for some heat stable colorant
>-- suitably hued for optimal visual alarm -- could  be stacked
>into the construction too. Cough.
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>Torsten Brinch
>Email: interpret dot in domain name
>
>
And be engineered to emit a distinctive noise (perhaps a raspberry) on
cooking to alert the visually impaired.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Ian Alexander

the politics of starvation gcouger 1/25/01 3:25 PM

"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Mpgm3XAD1Ic6EwSf@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
: Ryan Curtis wrote on Thu, 25 Jan 2001:
They only let the opposition starve it is cheaper than killing them in a
war.
--
Gordon    W5RED
G. C. Couger gco...@provalue.net  Stillwater, OK


some crap about GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' J K Cason 1/25/01 3:20 PM
"Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:j6Xb6.1677$I5.22816@stones...

>> <snip>

>> > > > We are moving at a rapid pace on this because of greed,
>> > > > not good science.

>> > > Perhaps you could make an argument on this point, but it
>> > > seems to me that a much stronger argument could be made,
>> > > based on the content of the current debate, that
>> > > opposition to GM is not based on good science.

>> > [Ryan] Only by an idiot.

Strong arguments can be backed by references.  Your multiple
refusals to supply references are a clear admission that your
argument is weak.

>> Consider the arguments that have been advanced against GM rice
>> just in recent messages in this thread:

>> 1. In vitamin-A-deficient, rice-consuming parts of the world,
>> vegetables containing vitamin A are produced.

>>   [No evidence for this claim was offered and not one of these
>>    mystery vegetables was named.]

>Pick a dozen common vitamin A containing vegetables, etc from a
>book (at random) - at least one of them will be available in any
>given country.  You are being silly, and I do not wish to share
>in your delusion.

Imagining what the world must be like is from the irrational,
weak, internet-kook style of argument: Make grand pronouncements,
provide no documentation, and demand that anyone who disagrees
do the work to test the unsupported claim.

The book "Culture, Environment, and Food to Prevent Vitamin A
Deficiency" is available online.  It is a report by experts who
studied various vitamin-A deficient communities around the world,
including the Philippines, South America, Africa, China, etc.:
http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UIN07E/uin07e00.htm

The experts found reasons such as poverty, lack of sufficient fat
in the diet, lack of knowledge about which foods contain vitamin
A, and no vitamin-A-rich foods available in some seasons.  They
mentioned cultural attitudes such as "Green leafy vegetables are
poor man's food," that people think that A-deficient foods taste
better than A-rich foods, and that rice was the center of one
area's food culture and was purchased ahead of all other foods
when cash was scarce.  In one area, men don't eat vitamin-A-rich
papaya because they think that it causes impotence.  There are
many more reasons listed in the book, but the first sentence of
the Overview states:

    The root of the problem of vitamin A deficiency is lack
    of sufficient vitamin A in community food supplies.

>> 2. The mystery vegetables would be available to the poor and
>> would have some impact on the deficiency if wealthy countries
>> were not buying them.

>>   [No evidence was offered that such vegetables are produced
>>    in quantities sufficient to impact the deficiency, or that
>>    the poor want to consume the mystery vegetables.  No
>>    evidence was offered that any agricultural exports are made
>>    up of crops purchased in local markets from poor farmers.]

>[Ryan] Please refer to the statement I made some moments
> earlier.

That is really weak.  In the book mentioned above, not a single
investigator reported that vitamin A foods were produced locally,
but were bought up for export to developed countries.

>> 3. Vitamin A deficiency didn't exist before poor farmers
>>started selling their produce.

>>   [No evidence was offered to support this absurd claim.]

>[Ryan] Please refer to the statement I made some moments
>earlier.

That is really weak.  Several vitamin deficiencies were
discovered long ago.  Human cultures have long histories, and
the book referenced above cites many examples of the influence
of culture on A deficiency.

>> 4. The risks of consuming familiar agricultural crops are
>> known because these crops have been consumed for millenia.

>>   [Not only are many staple food items relatively new (several
>>    hundred years old) for most human populations, but the old
>>    foods have undergone extensive breeding and selection and
>>    crossing with wild relatives.  They differ by thousands of
>>    genes from early human foods.]

>[Ryan] Please refer to the statement I made some moments
>earlier.

Why?  It was a weak, unsupported claim that is irrelevant to
the issue of risks in traditional foods.

>> <snip>

>> >> In another message, you were satisfied with what Native
>> >> Americans knew 450 years ago about the effects of foods on
>> >> health.  Far more is known now, and we have a problem
>> >> recognition capability that hadn't even begun to exist back
>> >> then.  By any objective measurement, there is no comparison
>> >> between the risks of today and in the time of Columbus.

>> >[Ryan] In Columbus' time, if a food made you ill you could
>> >simply stop eating it.

>> 5.  Hundreds of years ago, people could just stop eating food
>> that made them sick.

>>   [People today do that, but only if they have alternatives
>>    available and notice the illness and its apparent cause.
>>    In human populations where mortality is high because of
>>    contagious disease, nutritional deficiencies, parasites,and
>>    lack of health care, mortality from other sources has to be
>>    high and on a short time scale to be noticed. The
>>    sophistication of modern public health systems gives
>>    developed countries the ability to detect tiny health
>>    effects that occur long after consumption.  Any preference
>>    for the old days is a fantasy.]

>[Ryan] Please refer to the statement I made some moments
>earlier.

Why?  Your silly statement had no relevance to the point.  The
book above mentions that choices don't exist when food is scarce.
It says that several of the cultures think that illness is the
result of evil spirits.  How could that belief lead to abandoning
a food item?

>> >  The world was a much bigger place, a mistake in one place
>> > was unlikely to have much effect on the population of
>> > another place.

>> 6.  Isolation is an advantage.  What happened in one place was
>> unlikely to affect another place.

>>   [Guam has an incidence of Parkinson's Disease, Lou Gehrig's
>>    Disease, and Alzheimer's Disease that is about 50 times
>>    higher than the rates of PD, ALS, and AD in Europe.  There
>>    is recent, circumstantial evidence that this is caused by
>>    consumption of cycad seeds.  In the time of Columbus, if
>>    this relationship could have been discovered at all, it
>>    would have had to be rediscovered independently on dozens
>>    of isolated tropical islands.  Today doctors watch for such
>>    conditions anywhere cycads can be found.]

>No relation to the comment I made.  My comment was that
>outbreaks of x in location Y would have little effect on the
>residents of z.  You have merely backed up my claim.

If that were true, it would be the first time that one of your
claims has been backed up.

Outbreaks of x (PD, ALS, and AD) in location y (Guam) would have
had little effect on the residents of z (other islands where the
residents ate cycad seeds, because they would never have been
warned about the dangers of the toxins in the seeds due to the
lack of modern medicine and communication).

>> >      A generation from now how much food will be
>> >non-GM?  If, a generation from now, we discover some very
>> >nasty side-effects that were not in the prediction models
>> >not unheard of you must agree) then how do you go about
>> >feeding the world population on the minute amount of food
>> >available from the allotments and back gardens that have
>> >avoided the use of GM material?

>> 7. GM breeding is monolithic.

>>   [GM techniques are not identical and the target species are
>>    not identical.  Conventional breeding has had its failures
>>    in specific crops, but no one calls for a moratorium on
>>    conventional breeding in all crops as a result.  Even if
>>    golden rice doesn't work out, for whatever reason, that
>>    will not mean that all attempts to insert carotene genes
>>    into rice will fail and should be abandoned in advance as a
>>    matter of principle.  GM opponents think that one failure
>>    condemns all GM in all species.]

>[Ryan] Answer the question.

That's funny coming from you.

If different species of genetically modified crops are
constructed with different gene inserts and different methods,
what reason is there to assume that suddenly all GM crops will
have the same problem?

What happened to Soren and Mr. Snappy?  You need some help.

GM rice Ray Dobson 1/25/01 4:32 PM
Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote:

>Ryan Curtis wrote:
>
>> [Ryan] The impression being given by supporters of Golden Rice is that *it*
>> is the only alternative, and that there are no other suitable sources of
>> Vitamin A available in the relevant countries
>
>Exactly where did you get that impression? Can you please provide a citation or
>a direct quote? I have read a great deal about the golden rice and I have not
>gotten that impression at all.
>
Haven't you? I have...but then your reading, though extensive, may
have been highly selective.

May I suggest you go to:

http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2000/Ost/msg00043.html

and read what Dr Vandana Shiva has to say about other sources of Vit A
in India.
(If I have mistyped that URL do a search on Google under 'Dr Vandana
Shiva' and you'll find it there.)

In any case the "golden rice" scheme has served its purpose ( that of
boostering the image of the agricultural biotech industry) and  will
be quietly forgotten.  "Golden mustard" is now flavour of the month.
WRD

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/25/01 6:08 PM
Jim Webster wrote:

> Amos Keppler wrote in message <3A6F7CEC...@theweeklyreport.com>...
> >Jim Webster wrote:
> >
> >> >  Hysterical? For pointing out the obvious? Well, I guess that isn't
> very
> >> >surprising coming from you, which contribution consists of snide
> comments.
> >> >
> >> > There are tons and tons of material. This is a minor selection.
> >> >
> >> >  WEEK 34
> >> >
> >> >  GENE MODIFIED FOOD MAY BE DANGEROUS
> >>
> >> says it all, May be dangerous
> >>
> >> >
> >> >  A new study by Scottish scientists, shows that gene modified food may
> be
> >> >dangerous to humans. The study shows that rats fed by gene modified
> food,
> >> grow
> >> >less than other rats and got lower resistance to disease. The study has
> led
> >> to
> >> >demands to prohibit gene modified food in Britain.
> >>
> >> source of the study, web page, scientific paper?
> >> >
> >>
> >> rest snipped because they were merely second or third hand reports of
> >> reports, no references no details. Several could well refer to the same
> >> initial scientific work.
> >>
> >
> > They don't. Attempting to get off by a technicality again?
> >
> > http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100380/archive8.html
>
> I went there and found
>
>    THE WEEKLY REPORT WEEK 43 1997
>    SCIENTISTS CLAIM: Can clone headless people
>
>    British scientists has developed a way that over time can lead to cloning
> of human beings without heads, claim scientists in a documentary yet to be
> shown. The headless human is supposed to be grown in an artificial womb and
> work as a organ donor. That the head is not growing is caused by gene
> manipulation
>
> >
> > This is a bit more than you asked for, since they're covering more than
> food
> >and more than the previous provided scientific news.
> >
> >http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/001015a.html
>
> I went to this and it starts
>
> Study:
> The False Promise of Genetically Engineered Rice
>
> "Genetically engineered (GE) rice --such as the now-famous Vitamin A rice or
> 'Golden Rice'-- is being heavily promoted as a solution to hunger and
> malnutrition. Yet these promotional campaigns are clouding the real issues
> of poverty and control over resources, and serving to fast-track acceptance
> of genetically engineered crops in developing countries. (…) Vitamin A rice
> is a techno-fix to the problems of the poor decided upon and developed,
> without consultation, by scientists and experts from the North."
> Joint statement to the press, 2 June 2000, by three farmer organisations
> from Southeast Asia.
>
> which three farmer organisations from SE Asia?
>
> it then says
>
> "(…) Seeking a technological food fix for world hunger may be not only the
> biggest scientific controversy of 1999, but also the most commercially
> malevolent wild goose chase of the new century. (…) The little research that
> has been conducted about the origins of famine reveals that the solution of
> "more food" may be no solution at all."
> Dr Richard Horton, editor of the British science journal The Lancet
>
> when did he say this, which issue, or was it at a press interview?
>
> the whole thing is just copied from Greenpeace
>
> http://www.greenpeace.de/GP_DOK_3P/STU_LANG/C05ST03.HTM
>
> so all you have is a collection of 2nd and 3rd hand stores, many
> unattributable.
>
> "three farmer organisations from Southeast Asia" can hardly be regarded as a
> specific reference
>
> Jim Webster
>
> We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
> Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.

 Misdirection want help. You looked long and hard before finding something NOT
referenced.

 I didn't really expect you to admit your long failure, but this reaction is as
sick as ever. How blind and so eager to please your masters are you? Lying and
make a fool out of yourself openly?

 http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/001015a.html
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000903.html
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000813.html
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1999/990312.htm
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1999/990311a.htm
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1998/981204c.htm
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1998/980904.htm
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1998/980314.htm
http://www.netlink.de/gen/fagan.html#dangers
http://www.netlink.de/gen/fagan.html#glob
http://www.cqs.com/50harm.htm
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000913a.html

 HA

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/25/01 6:08 PM
David Kendra wrote:

> "Amos Keppler" <theweek...@theweeklyreport.com> wrote in message
> news:3A6F15F5.D52EE879@theweeklyreport.com...
> > George Baxter wrote:
> >
> > > Ryan Curtis wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > [Ryan] Well presumably if they always had the Vit A deficiency and it
> was
> > > > never a problem ... but now it is a problem because we have a product
> we
> > > > want to sell them<?>
> > >
> > > Never a problem? Do you know how serious the problem is? You clearly do
> > > not. 230 million people have VAD. Of those about 1 million will die, or
> > > go blind.
> > > --
> > > George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net
> >
> >  Do you know the problem with GM? People will suffer from malnutrition
> even if
> > they seemingly have enough to eat. They'll steadily, "voluntarily" poison
> > themselves. And so on and so on.
>
> And of course you have data to back up this claim?  Probably not.
>

 You'll  find it in three or four of these links. I'm posting them all because
I want to push the truth down your throat.


http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/001015a.html
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000903.html
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000813.html
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1999/990312.htm
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1999/990311a.htm
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1998/981204c.htm
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1998/980904.htm
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1998/980314.htm
http://www.netlink.de/gen/fagan.html#dangers
http://www.netlink.de/gen/fagan.html#glob
http://www.cqs.com/50harm.htm
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000913a.html

 I have a thousand more. How long will you guys attempt to keep up this sick
pretence?

 H A

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Amos Keppler 1/25/01 6:08 PM
George Baxter wrote:

 I was there the first time some time ago. I have always been to many similar sites.
Their lies don't improve with age.

 As I told you i fyou had bothered to look, there are a lot of verification links on my
pages. What you saw was pure news.

 Here's some recent ones (not put up yet).

 http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/001015a.html
 http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000903.html
 http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000813.html
 http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1999/990312.htm
 http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1999/990311a.htm
 http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1998/981204c.htm
 http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1998/980904.htm
 http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1998/980314.htm
 http://www.netlink.de/gen/fagan.html#dangers
 http://www.netlink.de/gen/fagan.html#glob
 http://www.cqs.com/50harm.htm
 http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000913a.html

 This is a bit more than you "asked" for since some of the links are also discussing GM
in a more general way.

 As I've said before there isn't any problem finding verification anywhere on the net
(by searching on supplied names and incidents). The only reason I can think of why you
can't find it (since you're not ilitterate) is that you're not looking.

 H A

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/25/01 7:26 PM

"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote in message
news:WYTb6.92$_N1.5600@news.get2net.dk...
:
: gcouger skrev i meddelelsen ...:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/25/01 7:32 PM

"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote in message
news:WYTb6.92$_N1.5600@news.get2net.dk...
:
: gcouger skrev i meddelelsen ...
: >
: >"John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
: >news:x4h8zo0xjkk.fsf@Steam.Stanford.EDU...
: >: Blindness from lack of vitamin A has been a problem since before cash
: >: crops.  The diseases of rickets, pellagra, beri-beri, and goiter
: >: are also long standing deficiency diseases, all relieved by small
: >: additions to the diet.
:
: >I beleive Pellagra is not a true deficiency disease. It is caused by a
: >diet of corn tying up one of the B vitamins and making unavailable
: >causing a deficiency of that vitamin. That is being rather picky but
: >additions to the diet aren't necessary only eating anything besides
: >corn all the time.
============
I think this was a disease only in the southern US. As soon as they
figured out what caused it education took care of it. Corn wasn't all they
could grow it was just the most productive crop and they were eating a lot
of by products. I don't remember the particulars but my grandmother said
it was simple to prevent.

:
: If that is the case, I guess GM could rather simply be used to knock out
: the gene responsible for the tying up of the B-vitamin. That way,
: those who want to eat only corn would not necessarily have to to eat
: anything else.
:
: Likewise, the golden rice could  be stacked with a full complement
: of anti-pellagra,  anti-beri-beri, anti-rickkets, and anti-goiter genes
: (I think I've heard that it is already being planning to stack it with
: anti-iron and anti-calcium deficiency genes.) Eventually a single golden
: rice line  could then be used to cure every conceivable nutrient
: deficiency of the poor.
============
We might as well add in vaccines for malaria, colera, river blindness and
bad breath.

:
: The only problem might be how to avoid  that complete GM diet rice
: originally designed for the poor actually  ends up as feed for
: relatively more affluent  pigs and chicken.  But with the ongoing
: progression of science and technology, one should think that it would
: be a minor problem  to modify the golden rice to produce
: anti-nutritional factors specific to the most common farm animals,
: such as to minimize the risk that it is being diverted to animal feed.
: Very practically, the golden colour of the rice is already there as
: a warning signal to the market place for animal feed stuffs,
: and the rice would not need to be labelled 'Unfit for animal
: consumption'.
:
: Of course, if practise should indicate that  the golden colour itself
: is insufficient for this purpose , it would probably be easy to modify
: it to express the yellow color in clear sharp stripes across the grain.
: Or, if the problem is that the yellow color pales during processing,
: perhaps an additional gene for some heat stable colorant
: -- suitably hued for optimal visual alarm -- could  be stacked
: into the construction too. Cough.
=========
Make it heavy and flat on one end so the grains stand on end.
:

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

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/25/01 7:38 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk>
Newsgroups:
alt.agriculture,alt.save.the.earth,alt.sustainable.agriculture,sci.agricul
ture,sci.environment
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: GM rice 'best hope of feeding world'


>
> Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Nu4W2BA9xvb6Ewa6@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> > Ryan Curtis wrote on Wed, 24 Jan 2001
> >
> > >[Ryan] "If at first you don't succeed ....try, try again".
> >
> > Pretty insulting to those who have spent a lifetime trying to deal
with
> > this, particularly from someone who knows almost nothing about it and
> > have only just come across it.
> >
> [Ryan] Well I didn't want to treat you like a complete idiot Oz ... but
it
> is immediately apparent that you do not have a clue who I am or what I
do
> (or what I know) ... or for how long I have been doing/knowing it.

Please tell us what you do and how long you have been doing it. Oz and the
rest of us are pretty open about our backgrounds.

Gordon
Gordon Couger gco...@couger.com
Stillwater, OK www.couger.com/gcouger

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/25/01 3:30 PM

Ian Alexander wrote in message ...

>In article <e6Xb6.1673$I5.22816@stones>, Ryan Curtis
><off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> writes

>Just thought I'd put this one in - gleaned from the Farmers Weekly


>website
>
>A RADICAL new cultivation system introduced in Madagascar in the 1980s
>has produced startling results in rice crops, reports the Financial
>Times.
>
>Yields of two tonnes shot up to between 8-10t/ha without chemical
>fertilisers, pesticides or expensive seed varieties.
>
>The technique, developed by agronomist priest Henri de Laudani and known
>as System of Rice Intensification, broke traditional rules of rice
>management.
>
>Seedlings are transplanted earlier and fields are kept dry for much of
>the time, improving oxygen and nutrient flow, and deriving more benefits
>from the sun.
>
>After being ignored for a number of years, SRI has spread to other
>countries including Bangladesh, China and Indonesia.
>
>Details were presented at a recent conference on sustainable agriculture
>in London.
>
>
>Financial Times 23 January, 2001 page 44
>
>
>And, it seems, not a GMO in sight.  I wonder if Monsanto etal will be
>researching / promoting this method?  I'm not holding my breath.
>
>--
>Ian Alexander

interesting and pretty standard. Someone picks up a good technique and it
spreads slowly and steadily from farmer to farmer, though the various
specialist agricultural media and where it works it becomes standard
practice. People actually get too hung up on what the big companies do,
because they spend a lot of money telling people how wonderful they are
(pretty much like political parties) when down at the grass roots techniques
and products are evalutated and either taken on board or junked.

Jim Webster

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

Some dross about GM products Ryan Curtis 1/26/01 12:55 AM
>
> > [snip]

> > > Can you please cite such documentation? I am quite interested in
learning
> > > about these alleged long-term effects.
> > >
> > > > >and have been publicised at length...
> > >
> > > See above.
> > >
> > > > >restating them would be a waste of our time
> > >
> > > I disagree most emphatically. I am not aware of any reliable evidence
> > > showing any long-term effect of GMOs. If you are aware of such
evidence, you
> > > are doing us a disservice by withholding it.
> >
> > [Ryan] That is because you are in terminal denial
>
> Denial of what, exactly? I did not deny anything, rather, you claimed to
know
> something that I don't - well, can you prove it or not? Apparently not!

[Ryan] It's no good simply denying that you are in terminal denial ... tisk
tisk.  I wish to see a well thought out analysis, with flip charts and
OHP's, to prove your claim that you are not in denial (an unsubstantiated
claim in my view).  Plus I need it all cross indexed and references so that
I can check your sources.

> > - another very good reason why I am not going to provide anything that
> > you have 'asked' for.  I am happy to post information and clarifications

> > for those who are genuinely interested in any matter for which I have
> > (or can get) data.
>
> Of course I am genuinely interested. I am a scientist and this is a matter
> of personal interest. Otherwise, I would not spend my time reading this
> newsgroup.

>
> >  However, you do not fit into that category so I won't bother.
>
> On what basis do you reach such a conclusion? It is clear that you
> simply cannot support your assertions with any evidence. But I am
> not particularly surprised, judging from the content of your posts so
> far.

[Ryan] ;o) Actually it was based upon your own posts, and responses to the
posts of others, that I reach my conclusion.

the politics of starvation Ryan Curtis 1/26/01 1:05 AM
> > >
> > > > [Ryan] Personally I think that the main problem is still political
> > >
> > > As I understand the situation, the problem is mostly cultural.
Apparently,
> > they
> > > only want to eat their traditional diet, and that does not include
> > supplements.
> >
> > [Ryan] ... but their traditional diet does not consist solely of rice
and
> > nothing else.
>
> Well who ever said it did? The problem appears to be simply that their
> traditional diet tends to be deficient in vit. A.
>
> >  That has been forced upon them by economic circumstances.
>
> So far, no evidence has been presented to support that assertion.
>
> > Those economic circumstances *can* be remedied by their respective
> > governments but it will not be - because those governments have nothing
to
> > lose by allowing a percentage of their population to starve, indeed it
> > attracts foreign aid so it is positively advantageous.
>
> So far, no evidence has been presented to support that assertion either.
> Tracy
>
[Ryan] Read a book, read a newspaper, watch the news once in a while dear
lady.  Get your nose out of a textbook, put aside your back issues of the
National Enquirer and pay attention.

Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Ryan Curtis 1/26/01 1:03 AM
[Ryan] Everything you *need* to know about me, or the organisation I 'work
for' (I am unremunerated) is contained on the following URL.  Your 'right to
know' is totally based on my desire to tell.  If my CV is good enough for HM
Govt, and the UN, then it is good enough for you.

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/26/01 1:13 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Ryan] Personally I don't think they were quite as stupid as you
> > > > > > would like to think.
> > > > >
> > > > > hey. They ate off lead/tin/antimon alloy plates with
lead/tin/antimony
> > > > > cutlery and sweetened (and preserved) their beer and wine with
lead
> > > > > acetate, took mercury and arsenic as a medicine and had a whole
raft
> > > > > of common practices that would be considered very highly dangerous
> > > > > today.
> > > > >
> > > > > And it went on for centuries.
> > > > >
> > > > [Ryan]  Whereas we of course do not indulge in any unsafe dietary
> > > > or medical practices.  Nor do we include dubious materials in any
> > > > construction process
> > >
> > > Whereas you missed the entire point. Review the thread. How do you
> > > expect them to be able to avoid toxins in their food when generally
> > > they were quite unaware of what constitutes a toxin?
> >
> > [Ryan] and you missed the entire point of my reply ... we *are* aware
> > of the toxins in our food and yet we still use them .... how clever does
> > that make us?
>
> So what? What does our level of intelligence have to do with the fact
that,
> during Columbus' time, people were quite unaware of what constitutes a
> toxin and, therefore, were unlikely to have the means of avoiding them?
> The fact that we are aware of toxins in our food is wholly irrelevant. The
> fact remains, you were simply wrong when you claimed that they could
> just stop eating foods that made them sick. And pointing out that there
are
> toxins in our food cannot change that.
>
[Ryan] Oh dear, a bad loser as well as a poor debater ..... back to the
laboratory for you girl.

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/26/01 1:18 AM
> >> >
> >> > [Ryan] Personally I don't think they were quite as stupid as you
would
> >> > like to think.
> >>
> >> Hey. They ate off lead/tin/antimon alloy plates with lead/tin/antimony

> >> cutlery and sweetened (and preserved) their beer and wine with lead
> >> acetate, took mercury and arsenic as a medicine and had a whole raft of
> >> common practices that would be considered very highly dangerous today.
> >>
> >> And it went on for centuries.
> >>
> >[Ryan]  Whereas we of course do not indulge in any unsafe dietary or
medical
> >practices.
>
> Perhaps you could name us some of comparable risk, say to sweetening
> beer with lead acetate?

[Ryan] I suppose it could be fun to put known carcinogens in our food,  how
about we bury all of our hazardous waste (kind of like a midden don't ya
think), or maybe we could burn it so all the shit goes into the air, etc ...
maybe we could take some really interesting plastics and turn them into
eating utensils - that would be cool.  How about we poison the soil so that
nothing will grow in it, then use more chemicals to grow stuff
artificially - then eat the produce!  How dumb would that be huh?  We could
even inject dye into our meat to make it a more appealing colour, and add
hormones to make it grow faster ...

> >Nor do we include dubious materials in any construction process
> >of any kind ....
>
> Such as?

[Ryan] Styrofoam for instance, asbestos, the ash from incinerated hazardous
waste .....

> >Generations to come will look back on us with awe and
> >reverence .....
>
> Probably not.

[Ryan] Almost certainly not ...

some crap about GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/26/01 1:38 AM
> >> > > > We are moving at a rapid pace on this because of greed,
> >> > > > not good science.
>
> >> > > Perhaps you could make an argument on this point, but it
> >> > > seems to me that a much stronger argument could be made,
> >> > > based on the content of the current debate, that
> >> > > opposition to GM is not based on good science.
>
> >> > [Ryan] Only by an idiot.
>
> Strong arguments can be backed by references.  Your multiple
> refusals to supply references are a clear admission that your
> argument is weak.

[Ryan] Generally speaking the demand for references is a clear admission
that the requester lacks the  ability of original thought.  I do not *need*
to supply sources and references because my ideas are my own and stand up to
independent scrutiny.  The fact that you do not agree with my ideas is a
matter of total indifference to me.


> >> Consider the arguments that have been advanced against GM rice
> >> just in recent messages in this thread:
>
> >> 1. In vitamin-A-deficient, rice-consuming parts of the world,
> >> vegetables containing vitamin A are produced.
>
> >>   [No evidence for this claim was offered and not one of these
> >>    mystery vegetables was named.]
>
> >Pick a dozen common vitamin A containing vegetables, etc from a
> >book (at random) - at least one of them will be available in any
> >given country.  You are being silly, and I do not wish to share
> >in your delusion.
>
> Imagining what the world must be like is from the irrational,
> weak, internet-kook style of argument: Make grand pronouncements,
> provide no documentation, and demand that anyone who disagrees
> do the work to test the unsupported claim.

[Ryan] I refer you to the comments made some moments earlier.

> The book "Culture, Environment, and Food to Prevent Vitamin A
> Deficiency" is available online.  It is a report by experts who
> studied various vitamin-A deficient communities around the world,
> including the Philippines, South America, Africa, China, etc.:
> http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UIN07E/uin07e00.htm
>
> The experts found reasons such as poverty, lack of sufficient fat
> in the diet, lack of knowledge about which foods contain vitamin
> A, and no vitamin-A-rich foods available in some seasons.  They
> mentioned cultural attitudes such as "Green leafy vegetables are
> poor man's food," that people think that A-deficient foods taste
> better than A-rich foods, and that rice was the center of one
> area's food culture and was purchased ahead of all other foods
> when cash was scarce.  In one area, men don't eat vitamin-A-rich
> papaya because they think that it causes impotence.  There are
> many more reasons listed in the book, but the first sentence of
> the Overview states:

[Ryan] and selling them gm food is so much simpler than educating them
within the context of their own culture.  The papaya argument is simple to
overcome ... (for instance).

>     The root of the problem of vitamin A deficiency is lack
>     of sufficient vitamin A in community food supplies.
>
> >> 2. The mystery vegetables would be available to the poor and
> >> would have some impact on the deficiency if wealthy countries
> >> were not buying them.
>
> >>   [No evidence was offered that such vegetables are produced
> >>    in quantities sufficient to impact the deficiency, or that
> >>    the poor want to consume the mystery vegetables.  No
> >>    evidence was offered that any agricultural exports are made
> >>    up of crops purchased in local markets from poor farmers.]
>
> >[Ryan] Please refer to the statement I made some moments
> > earlier.
>
> That is really weak.  In the book mentioned above, not a single
> investigator reported that vitamin A foods were produced locally,
> but were bought up for export to developed countries.

[Ryan] ".. bought up for export to developed countries" from where?  If they
are selling their vit-A rich stuff for export (i.e. cash crops) then it is a
failure of govt policy that can be addressed without recourse to GM.  The
biotech industry is interested in selling its product, not in providing
solutions to famine, vitamin deficiencies, etc.


> >> 3. Vitamin A deficiency didn't exist before poor farmers
> >>started selling their produce.
>
> >>   [No evidence was offered to support this absurd claim.]
>
> >[Ryan] Please refer to the statement I made some moments
> >earlier.
>
> That is really weak.  Several vitamin deficiencies were
> discovered long ago.  Human cultures have long histories, and
> the book referenced above cites many examples of the influence
> of culture on A deficiency.

[Ryan] Sure .... and scurvy is making a comeback in the United Kingdom - go
figure. Ricketts is really doing nicely in some of the inner city areas, and
TB is looking like a good investment.  Maybe we should be sending our golden
rice to Birmingham or Manchester ...


> >> 4. The risks of consuming familiar agricultural crops are
> >> known because these crops have been consumed for millenia.
>
> >> [Not only are many staple food items relatively new (several
> >> hundred years old) for most human populations, but the old
> >> foods have undergone extensive breeding and selection and
> >> crossing with wild relatives.  They differ by thousands of
> >> genes from early human foods.]
>
> >[Ryan] Please refer to the statement I made some moments
> >earlier.
>
> Why?  It was a weak, unsupported claim that is irrelevant to
> the issue of risks in traditional foods.


> >> >[Ryan] In Columbus' time, if a food made you ill you could
> >> >simply stop eating it.
>
> >> 5.  Hundreds of years ago, people could just stop eating food
> >> that made them sick.
>
> >>   [People today do that, but only if they have alternatives
> >>    available and notice the illness and its apparent cause.
> >>    In human populations where mortality is high because of
> >>    contagious disease, nutritional deficiencies, parasites,and
> >>    lack of health care, mortality from other sources has to be
> >>    high and on a short time scale to be noticed. The
> >>    sophistication of modern public health systems gives
> >>    developed countries the ability to detect tiny health
> >>    effects that occur long after consumption.  Any preference
> >>    for the old days is a fantasy.]
>
> >[Ryan] Please refer to the statement I made some moments
> >earlier.
>
> Why?  Your silly statement had no relevance to the point.  The
> book above mentions that choices don't exist when food is scarce.
> It says that several of the cultures think that illness is the
> result of evil spirits.  How could that belief lead to abandoning
> a food item?

[Ryan] .... because it would be reasonably easy to show that the 'evil
spirits' were in the food and eating the food transferred them to the
sufferer.... cease eating the food and the 'evil spirits' cannot touch you.
Or show them that 'good spirits' live in other plants and that eating those
foods allows the 'good spirits' to enter you body and kill the 'evil
spirits'.  That is the sort of nutritional information that they would
understand within the context of the local cultures and traditions.


> >> >  The world was a much bigger place, a mistake in one place
> >> > was unlikely to have much effect on the population of
> >> > another place.
>
> >> 6.  Isolation is an advantage.  What happened in one place was
> >> unlikely to affect another place.
>
> >>   [Guam has an incidence of Parkinson's Disease, Lou Gehrig's
> >>    Disease, and Alzheimer's Disease that is about 50 times
> >>    higher than the rates of PD, ALS, and AD in Europe.  There
> >>    is recent, circumstantial evidence that this is caused by
> >>    consumption of cycad seeds.  In the time of Columbus, if
> >>    this relationship could have been discovered at all, it
> >>    would have had to be rediscovered independently on dozens
> >>    of isolated tropical islands.  Today doctors watch for such
> >>    conditions anywhere cycads can be found.]
>
> >No relation to the comment I made.  My comment was that
> >outbreaks of x in location Y would have little effect on the
> >residents of z.  You have merely backed up my claim.
>
> If that were true, it would be the first time that one of your
> claims has been backed up.
>
> Outbreaks of x (PD, ALS, and AD) in location y (Guam) would have
> had little effect on the residents of z (other islands where the
> residents ate cycad seeds, because they would never have been
> warned about the dangers of the toxins in the seeds due to the
> lack of modern medicine and communication).

[Ryan] .... and an outbreak of ebola in Kansas would have had zero impact on
the residents of Kampala.  The people on the other islands of course would
have independently developed their own original concept of why eating the
seeds made you ill ... the explanation might vary but they would not have
remained 'unaware'.

> >> >      A generation from now how much food will be
> >> >non-GM?  If, a generation from now, we discover some very
> >> >nasty side-effects that were not in the prediction models
> >> >not unheard of you must agree) then how do you go about
> >> >feeding the world population on the minute amount of food
> >> >available from the allotments and back gardens that have
> >> >avoided the use of GM material?
>
> >> 7. GM breeding is monolithic.
>
> >>   [GM techniques are not identical and the target species are
> >>    not identical.  Conventional breeding has had its failures
> >>    in specific crops, but no one calls for a moratorium on
> >>    conventional breeding in all crops as a result.  Even if
> >>    golden rice doesn't work out, for whatever reason, that
> >>    will not mean that all attempts to insert carotene genes
> >>    into rice will fail and should be abandoned in advance as a
> >>    matter of principle.  GM opponents think that one failure
> >>    condemns all GM in all species.]
>
> >[Ryan] Answer the question.
>
> That's funny coming from you.
>
> If different species of genetically modified crops are
> constructed with different gene inserts and different methods,
> what reason is there to assume that suddenly all GM crops will
> have the same problem?
>
> What happened to Soren and Mr. Snappy?  You need some help.
>
[Ryan] You said it not me ;-)


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/25/01 11:07 PM

Amos Keppler wrote in message <3A70DC4A...@hl.telia.no>...

links which merely send you to the identical page produced by greenpeace are
not hard evidence. I followed several of these links and never actually get
to the scientific evidence that is supposed to underly it

merely 2nd and 3rd hand reports, barely qualifying as hearsay

Jim Webster

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/25/01 11:12 PM

Amos Keppler wrote in message <3A70DC46...@hl.telia.no>...

>Jim Webster wrote:
>
>> "three farmer organisations from Southeast Asia" can hardly be regarded
as a
>> specific reference
>>
>> Jim Webster
>>
>> We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
>> Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
>
> Misdirection want help. You looked long and hard before finding something
NOT
>referenced.

no, just the first three


>
> I didn't really expect you to admit your long failure, but this reaction
is as
>sick as ever. How blind and so eager to please your masters are you? Lying
and
>make a fool out of yourself openly?

if you post to a sci group then expect to be judged somewhat more harshly as
to the quality of your evidence. 2nd and 3rd hand reports quoting "three
farmer organisations from Southeast Asia" is evidence only of sloppy
research. Perhaps you ought to restrict yourself to personal attacks

Jim Webster

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


the politics of starvation gcouger 1/26/01 2:17 AM

"Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:ekbc6.2256$I5.39892@stones...
: > > >
: > > > > [Ryan] Personally I think that the main problem is still

I think you need to pay attention to the politics of the world and not
those in your mind. Your window to reality is badly warped.


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


some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/26/01 2:11 AM

Ryan Curtis wrote in message ...

>> >> >
>> >> > [Ryan] Personally I don't think they were quite as stupid as you
>would
>> >> > like to think.
>> >>
>> >> Hey. They ate off lead/tin/antimon alloy plates with lead/tin/antimony
>> >> cutlery and sweetened (and preserved) their beer and wine with lead
>> >> acetate, took mercury and arsenic as a medicine and had a whole raft
of
>> >> common practices that would be considered very highly dangerous today.
>> >>
>> >> And it went on for centuries.
>> >>
>> >[Ryan]  Whereas we of course do not indulge in any unsafe dietary or
>medical
>> >practices.
>>
>> Perhaps you could name us some of comparable risk, say to sweetening
>> beer with lead acetate?
>
>[Ryan] I suppose it could be fun to put known carcinogens in our food,  how
>about we bury all of our hazardous waste (kind of like a midden don't ya
>think), or maybe we could burn it so all the shit goes into the air, etc
...
>maybe we could take some really interesting plastics and turn them into
>eating utensils - that would be cool.  How about we poison the soil so that
>nothing will grow in it, then use more chemicals to grow stuff
>artificially - then eat the produce!  How dumb would that be huh?  We could
>even inject dye into our meat to make it a more appealing colour, and add
>hormones to make it grow faster ...

and the people who worry about these things inhale carcinogens in their
tobacco smoke and screw their liver with alcohol, their wives and daughters
screw up their reproductive systems with contraceptive hormones and spend
far too much time basking in the radiation given off by their PCs and Mobile
Phones :-)))


Jim Webster

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


Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). gcouger 1/26/01 2:31 AM

"Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:dkbc6.2255$I5.39892@stones...
: [Ryan] Everything you *need* to know about me, or the organisation I

If you tell us nothing about yourself we assume you are only what your
words lead us to believe. Which is when speaking of agriculture nothing.
You may be the best IT man on the planet but you don't know come here from
sic 'um about agriculture and your posts prove it.


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/26/01 2:21 AM
Tracy Aquilla skrev i meddelelsen <3A6DF9ED...@bpmlegal.com>...
>Torsten Brinch wrote:


>> "We gain a knowledge of genes--as opposed to a mere assertion
>> of their material existence--only through knowledge of the organism
>> as a whole.

>Clearly one can indeed gain knowledge of genes by studying genes
>isolated from the whole organism. So the statement above is quite
>obviously false.

Can one? Is it? Take for example, we chart the genome of a worm
and find that it has 400 genes in it. How do we gain knowledge
of these genes? I suggest, only by experimenting with knocking
them out one by one, and/or changing bits and pieces in them,
then studying the effect on the organism _as a whole_.

Are there other ways to gain knowledge of genes, that you
know of?

>> The more knowledge we have of the organism as a whole,
>> the more information we have.

>And the more knowledge we have of the parts that make up a whole
>organism, the more information we have.

Cats are made of atoms. Atoms are colorless.
Therefore cats are colorless.

>> THIS INFORMATION IS NOT IN THE GENES;

>Some of the knowledge we have of the organism as a
>whole is in the genes, but not all of it, of course.

(The author  is as far as I can see saying nothing about
where  the knowledge I have of my cat -is-.  But since
you bring up this question, let me say I don't think any
of it  is in it's genes.)

I think you still don't know what the author is saying
in that quote. Perhaps you should try  looking at
is as a whole :-)

"We gain a knowledge of genes--as opposed to a mere assertion
of their material existence--only through knowledge of the organism
as a whole.The more knowledge we have of the organism as a whole,
the more information we have.THIS INFORMATION IS NOT IN
THE GENES; IT IS IN THE CONCEPTUAL THREAD THAT WEAVES
TOGETHER THE VARIOUS DETAILS INTO A MEANINGFUL
WHOLE."


Best regards,

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/26/01 1:54 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001

>[Ryan] Oh dear, a bad loser as well as a poor debater ..... back to the
>laboratory for you girl.

Why not just admit you lost the argument instead of posting the rather
juvenile attempt at cover up you posted above.

BTW Tracy is male, but he has long since got used to europeans getting
it wrong.

--
Oz

Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Oz 1/26/01 1:51 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001
>[Ryan] Everything you *need* to know about me, or the organisation I 'work
>for' (I am unremunerated) is contained on the following URL.  Your 'right to
>know' is totally based on my desire to tell.

So don't complain that people don't know who you are when you won't tell
them.

--
Oz

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/26/01 2:04 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001

>> Perhaps you could name us some of comparable risk, say to sweetening


>> beer with lead acetate?
>
>[Ryan] I suppose it could be fun to put known carcinogens in our food,  how
>about we bury all of our hazardous waste (kind of like a midden don't ya
>think), or maybe we could burn it so all the shit goes into the air, etc ...
>maybe we could take some really interesting plastics and turn them into
>eating utensils - that would be cool.  How about we poison the soil so that
>nothing will grow in it, then use more chemicals to grow stuff
>artificially - then eat the produce!  How dumb would that be huh?  We could
>even inject dye into our meat to make it a more appealing colour, and add
>hormones to make it grow faster ...

None of these are a remotely comparable risk.

>> >Nor do we include dubious materials in any construction process
>> >of any kind ....
>>
>> Such as?
>
>[Ryan] Styrofoam for instance,

Since when was this highly toxic?

>asbestos,

Banned as soon as dangers were known. Then progressively through all the
grades whether or not they were shown to be a problem.

>the ash from incinerated hazardous
>waste .....

Containing what problem products?

--
Oz

Some dross about GM products Tracy Aquilla 1/26/01 6:10 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

> > > [snip]
> > > > Can you please cite such documentation? I am quite interested in
> > > > learning about these alleged long-term effects.
> > > >
> > > > > >restating them would be a waste of our time
> > > >
> > > > I disagree most emphatically. I am not aware of any reliable evidence
> > > > showing any long-term effect of GMOs. If you are aware of such
> > > > evidence, you are doing us a disservice by withholding it.
> > >
> > > [Ryan] That is because you are in terminal denial
> >
> > Denial of what, exactly? I did not deny anything, rather, you claimed to
> know something that I don't - well, can you prove it or not? Apparently not!
>
> [Ryan] It's no good simply denying that you are in terminal denial ... tisk
> tisk.  I wish to see a well thought out analysis, with flip charts and
> OHP's, to prove your claim that you are not in denial (an unsubstantiated
> claim in my view).  Plus I need it all cross indexed and references so that
> I can check your sources.

How silly. Why can't you just admit that you have no references to support your
naked assertion? Oh wait, I think I have it - you must be in terminal denial!

> > > - another very good reason why I am not going to provide anything that
> > > you have 'asked' for.  I am happy to post information and clarifications
> > > for those who are genuinely interested in any matter for which I have
> > > (or can get) data.
> >
> > Of course I am genuinely interested. I am a scientist and this is a matter
> > of personal interest. Otherwise, I would not spend my time reading this
> > newsgroup.
> >
> > >  However, you do not fit into that category so I won't bother.
> >
> > On what basis do you reach such a conclusion? It is clear that you
> > simply cannot support your assertions with any evidence. But I am
> > not particularly surprised, judging from the content of your posts so
> > far.
>
> [Ryan] ;o) Actually it was based upon your own posts, and responses to the
> posts of others, that I reach my conclusion.

So not only can you not support your naked assertion regarding the alleged
long-term effects to which you referred, you also are unable to provide any
reasonable basis for reaching your (clearly absurd) conclusion that I am not
genuinely interested. It seems rather obvious that you are not interested in
supporting your assertions or providing any information whatsoever. So why then
do you feign participation in the discussion, if you do not want to participate?
Clearly, you have no information to offer.
Tracy

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/26/01 6:19 AM
Torsten Brinch wrote:

> Tracy Aquilla skrev i meddelelsen <3A6DF9ED...@bpmlegal.com>...
> >Torsten Brinch wrote:
>
> >> "We gain a knowledge of genes--as opposed to a mere assertion
> >> of their material existence--only through knowledge of the organism
> >> as a whole.
>
> >Clearly one can indeed gain knowledge of genes by studying genes
> >isolated from the whole organism. So the statement above is quite
> >obviously false.
>
> Can one? Is it? Take for example, we chart the genome of a worm
> and find that it has 400 genes in it. How do we gain knowledge
> of these genes? I suggest, only by experimenting with knocking
> them out one by one, and/or changing bits and pieces in them,
> then studying the effect on the organism _as a whole_.
>
> Are there other ways to gain knowledge of genes, that you
> know of?

Yes. I already indicated such above. I am somewhat surprised that you are
unaware of the fact that one can gain knowledge of genes by studying genes
isolated from the whole organism. But I am not here to teach you genetics.
I was merely pointing out the error in your statement.
Tracy

Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Tracy Aquilla 1/26/01 6:33 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

What URL? What CV? You post was devoid of either! (i.e., I have snipped nothing
from it). Care to try again? BTW, I don't claim to have ANY "right to know" -
IMO, you have the right to hide whatever it is you are trying to hide.

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/26/01 6:20 AM
Jim Webster wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001

>and the people who worry about these things inhale carcinogens in their
>tobacco smoke and screw their liver with alcohol, their wives and daughters
>screw up their reproductive systems with contraceptive hormones and spend
>far too much time basking in the radiation given off by their PCs and Mobile
>Phones :-)))

Not to mention deliberately exposing their skin to the radiation from
the largest nuclear reactor in the solar system which is a known potent
carcinogen.

--
Oz

some crap about GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/26/01 6:24 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001

>
>[Ryan] Generally speaking the demand for references is a clear admission
>that the requester lacks the  ability of original thought.  

No, it usually means the poster doubts the claims and would like to know
if there is any evidence to back the claims up. Not giving refs where
required suggests the claims are specious.

>I do not *need*
>to supply sources and references because my ideas are my own and stand up to
>independent scrutiny.  

If so then you should be able to quote refs. Since you don;t it rather
proves that they won't stand up to any scrutiny at all.

Yours don't for example.

>The fact that you do not agree with my ideas is a
>matter of total indifference to me.

I guess you are very happy to be wrong a lot without realising it.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/26/01 7:03 AM
gcouger wrote:

Ironically, the vehement anti-biotech participants seem to be the ONLY ones
who are desperate to hide their identities and employers. I wonder why that
is?
Tracy

GM rice Tracy Aquilla 1/26/01 7:13 AM
Ray Dobson wrote:

> Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote:
> >Ryan Curtis wrote:
> >
> >> [Ryan] The impression being given by supporters of Golden Rice is that *it*
> >> is the only alternative, and that there are no other suitable sources of
> >> Vitamin A available in the relevant countries
> >
> >Exactly where did you get that impression? Can you please provide a citation or
> >a direct quote? I have read a great deal about the golden rice and I have not
> >gotten that impression at all.
> >
> Haven't you? I have...but then your reading, though extensive, may
> have been highly selective.

Certainly not selective, and not particularly extensive either. But I do generally
read everything I find on the subject.

> May I suggest you go to:
> http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2000/Ost/msg00043.html

You may, and you did suggest it. But, unfortunately, there appears to be no such
page in existence.

> and read what Dr Vandana Shiva has to say about other sources of Vit A
> in India.

Well did you read what Dr. Shiva has to say? If so, can you summarize briefly? Are
you trying to imply that Dr. Shiva is a supporter of Golden Rice who gives the
impression that there are no other suitable sources of Vitamin A available in the
relevant countries? From what I know of Dr. Shiva, I would be rather surprised to
learn that the good Dr. is a "supporter of Golden Rice."

> (If I have mistyped that URL

Yes, perhaps you did.

> do a search on Google under 'Dr Vandana Shiva' and you'll find it there.)

I could search for evidence to support your statement. But I will leave that task
for you, since it is your statement which remains unsupported by any evidence.

> In any case the "golden rice" scheme has served its purpose

No, it certainly has not - it has not even been released for sale to the public yet!

Tracy

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/26/01 8:16 AM
Oz skrev i meddelelsen ...
>Torsten Brinch wrote on Thu, 25 Jan 2001

>>One should also not indulge in e.g liver from farmed
>>pigs. Pigs are richly supplemented with extraneous
>>vitamin A,  with the excess  being stored in their liver too.

>I have never, ever, heard of a problem with vitamin A
>in pigs livers. Do you have references that show this?

Certainly, see e.g.
Leth, T., Jacobsen, J.S. 1993. Vitamin A in Danish pig, calf,
and ox liver. Journal of Food Composition and analysis 6:3-9

Leth et al found up to 137,000 RE/100 g in pig liver
(cf. up to 27,000 in calf liver, up to 48,000 in ox liver)
[1 RE=1 retinol equivalent=1 myg all-trans-retinol]

An adult human needs a daily dose of only  ~300 RE to
avoid vitamin A deficiency symptoms -- while an avg
daily intake of ~500 RE is generally recommended for
adequate liver storage of vitamin,  and is considered
to be safe. Going some what above the recommended
daily dose is probably still reasonably safe.

Otoh, increasing daily intakes to 5000-10,000 RE
should be generally advised against, and a daily intake
of ~15,000 RE over a period can clearly lead to the
development of chronic toxicity.  Just a single dose
of 100,000 RE can be sufficient to cause acute toxicity
symptoms in man.

Add to this, that  just a few doses  of 7,500 RE during
pregnancy can cause teratogenic damage.

And, as I wrote above, Leth et al found up to 137,000 RE/100 g
in pig liver. As you have probably realized by now, this
is -not- by any means a trivially non-toxic concentration
of vitamin A.

I would be surprised if the UK authorities do not  as a
minimum  advise pregnant women to avoid eating pig liver,
just as they are hopefully advising against certain vitamin
A supplements during pregnancy.

Generally, vitamin A content in one type of food material
is quite variable, so of course not all pig liver will be at the extreme
upper limit found by Leth et al.  In fact they found that vitamin A
conc in pig liver  may vary within  2 orders (!)  of magnitude,
from 3,000-137,000 RE/100 g. The problem for the consumer
of conventionally raised pig liver is that she has no way of
knowing  where her purchase of liver lies  within that range.

>OTOH I have seen several documented cases of
>europeans being killed by the excessive vitamin A
>in polar bear liver.

True, polar bear liver is an extremely rich source of
vitamin A;  I have seen measurements indicating
a range of 500,000-900,000 RE/100 g. The toxicity
of polar bear liver is probably widely known.

Otoh, from your comment, it seems to be much
less  known that the  level of vitamin A in some pig liver
from  intensely  farmed animals is  approaching
the level found in polar bear liver.

Best regards,

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name

Some dross about GM products Ryan Curtis 1/26/01 9:04 AM

Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote in message
news:3A71856F.F7FBBB5C@bpmlegal.com...

[Ryan] A somewhat circuitous argument ;-)

[Ryan] Not really, I just do it to annoy you Ms Aquilla

Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Ryan Curtis 1/26/01 9:09 AM

Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eFGicCAYiUc6EwzE@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...[Ryan] For the purposes of this newsgroup it is irrelevant ...


Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Ryan Curtis 1/26/01 9:13 AM
> : [Ryan] Everything you *need* to know about me, or the organisation
> : I 'work for' (I am unremunerated) is contained on the following URL.
> : Your 'right to know' is totally based on my desire to tell.  If my CV
> : is good enough for HM Govt, and the UN, then it is good enough for
> : you.
>
> If you tell us nothing about yourself we assume you are only what
> your words lead us to believe. Which is when speaking of agriculture
> nothing.  You may be the best IT man on the planet but you don't know
> come here from sic 'um about agriculture and your posts prove it.

[Ryan] I am not an agriculturalist, so I do not need to know anything about
agriculture.  Scientists are just there to do a job - like plumbers ...
though a good plumber makes much more interesting conversation than a good
scientist ;-)  My expertise is in project co-ordination and resource
management, if I want a good 'plumber' then I know where to find one.

Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Ryan Curtis 1/26/01 9:14 AM

Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote in message
news:3A718AD1.542EC5AF@bpmlegal.com...[Ryan] oops ....... www.foundation-gaia.org

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/26/01 9:19 AM

Torsten Brinch <ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote in message
news:Nlcc6.74$fW2.1212@news.get2net.dk...[Ryan] ... and unless we open the box there is no proof that the cat is
actually dead (colourless or otherwise) ;-)

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/26/01 9:21 AM
>
> >[Ryan] Oh dear, a bad loser as well as a poor debater ..... back to the
> >laboratory for you girl.
>
> Why not just admit you lost the argument instead of posting the rather
> juvenile attempt at cover up you posted above.
>
> BTW Tracy is male, but he has long since got used to Europeans getting
> it wrong.
>
[Ryan] Oops :-)  Sorry Tracey (if you are listening).  What were we arguing
about again?


Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Tracy Aquilla 1/26/01 10:01 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

Oops - still no CV, or even any mention of the name Ryan Curtis!
Care to try a thrid time? Never mind. You are so very boring, I have lost
interest.

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/26/01 9:29 AM

Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:R1yhQLALvUc6EwQl@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...

> Ryan Curtis wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001
>
> >> Perhaps you could name us some of comparable risk, say to sweetening
> >> beer with lead acetate?
> >
> >[Ryan] I suppose it could be fun to put known carcinogens in our food,
how
> >about we bury all of our hazardous waste (kind of like a midden don't ya
> >think), or maybe we could burn it so all the shit goes into the air, etc
...
> >maybe we could take some really interesting plastics and turn them into
> >eating utensils - that would be cool.  How about we poison the soil so
that
> >nothing will grow in it, then use more chemicals to grow stuff
> >artificially - then eat the produce!  How dumb would that be huh?  We
could
> >even inject dye into our meat to make it a more appealing colour, and add
> >hormones to make it grow faster ...
>
> None of these are a remotely comparable risk.
>
> >> >Nor do we include dubious materials in any construction process
> >> >of any kind ....
> >>
> >> Such as?
> >
> >[Ryan] Styrofoam for instance,
>
> Since when was this highly toxic?

Try reading the list of ingredients dear boy .... it's vicious shit man!
It'll sit in that land fill site slowly seeping into the watercourse for
thousands of years after you and I are dead and gone.

> >asbestos,
>
> Banned as soon as dangers were known. Then progressively through all the
> grades whether or not they were shown to be a problem.

Still used throughout the world.  Indeed, lots of it is still insitu
throughout Britain.

> > the ash from incinerated hazardous
> > waste .....
>
> Containing what problem products?

What sort of hazardous waste do you reckon they would incinerate?  The ash
from it is generally either used in building materials (notably roads) ...
or buried in landfill sites.  Amusingly many of our modern housing estates
are built on old landfill sites - hilarious.  Pretty much the entire of
Telford was built on an old toxic dump during the industrial revolution ...
a really dangerous place to live (just in case you were thinking of moving
there).


some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/26/01 9:31 AM
> > > >[Ryan]  Whereas we of course do not indulge in any unsafe dietary or
> > > > medical practices.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you could name us some of comparable risk, say to sweetening
> >> beer with lead acetate?
> >
> >[Ryan] I suppose it could be fun to put known carcinogens in our food,
how
> >about we bury all of our hazardous waste (kind of like a midden don't ya
> >think), or maybe we could burn it so all the shit goes into the air, etc
> ...
> >maybe we could take some really interesting plastics and turn them into
> >eating utensils - that would be cool.  How about we poison the soil so
that
> >nothing will grow in it, then use more chemicals to grow stuff
> >artificially - then eat the produce!  How dumb would that be huh?  We
could
> >even inject dye into our meat to make it a more appealing colour, and add
> >hormones to make it grow faster ...
>
> and the people who worry about these things inhale carcinogens in their
> tobacco smoke and screw their liver with alcohol, their wives and
daughters
> screw up their reproductive systems with contraceptive hormones and spend
> far too much time basking in the radiation given off by their PCs and
Mobile
> Phones :-)))
>
[Ryan] Yes thank you for mentioning them ;-)  All the dangers are known, and
have been known for sometime ... but companies still sell tobacco, alcohol,
contraceptives and mobile phones .... and we still buy them.  How dumb is
that huh?


some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/26/01 9:32 AM

Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:iZBtrHAFfYc6EwV4@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...[Ryan] Partially true ... I could point out though that the background
stellar and solar radiation are totally different to the stuff that comes
out of your nearest nuke site though.

some crap about GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/26/01 9:36 AM

Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cJki$KAQiYc6Ewy3@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...

> Ryan Curtis wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001
> >
> >[Ryan] Generally speaking the demand for references is a clear admission
> >that the requester lacks the  ability of original thought.
>
> No, it usually means the poster doubts the claims and would like to know
> if there is any evidence to back the claims up. Not giving refs where
> required suggests the claims are specious.

[Ryan] Or suggests that the original poster was guilty of original thought,
a known heresy within academic and scientific circles.

> > I do not *need* to supply sources and references because
> > my ideas are my own and stand up to independent scrutiny.
>
> If so then you should be able to quote refs. Since you don;t it rather
> proves that they won't stand up to any scrutiny at all.

[Ryan] Do try and pay attention, I will be asking questions later.  I said
that my ideas are my own, therefore the reference for them is myself.  Any
questions?

> Yours don't for example.
>
> >The fact that you do not agree with my ideas is a
> >matter of total indifference to me.
>
> I guess you are very happy to be wrong a lot without realising it.
>
[Ryan] Blissfully, thank you.

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/26/01 10:05 AM
Tracy Aquilla skrev i meddelelsen <3A718773...@bpmlegal.com>...
>Torsten Brinch wrote:

It think  it would be valuable if you could give an example of
what you are talking about.  Maybe you have a  point, but if so,
you should be able to argue for it. Your postulate is that it is
possible to gain knowledge of a gene -- as opposed to a mere
assertion of its material existence -- without knowledge of


the organism as a whole.


Best regards,

Torsten Brinch

Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Ryan Curtis 1/26/01 10:09 AM
> > > > [Ryan] Everything you *need* to know about me, or the organisation
> > > > I 'work for' (I am unremunerated) is contained on the following URL.
> > > > Your 'right to know' is totally based on my desire to tell.  If my
CV
> > > > is good enough for HM Govt, and the UN, then it is good enough for
> > > >  you.
> > >
> > > What URL? What CV? You post was devoid of either! (i.e., I have
> > > snipped nothing from it). Care to try again? BTW, I don't claim to
> > > have ANY "right to know" - IMO, you have the right to hide
> > > whatever it is you are trying to hide.
> > >
> > [Ryan] oops ....... www.foundation-gaia.org
>
> Oops - still no CV, or even any mention of the name Ryan Curtis!
> Care to try a third time? Never mind. You are so very boring, I
> have lost interest.
>
[Ryan] I never said I was going to post my CV.  In fact I specifically said
that all you 'needed' to know about me or the org was on the website .... if
it's not there then you don't need to know ... My name is on three of four
pages that I know of.  I didn't write the content of the website personally
so can't tell you what is one *every* page.

Boring? Me?  Have I fallen so low?  Someone with more than a passing
interest in genetics thinks that *I* am boring!  Oh the horror! the shame!
How will I ever live with myself?  How can I show my face again ....


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/26/01 4:22 AM
Thanks for that stats. I do not state the proportion of the diet, just
that some part of the diet will contain gmo. The people of the US,
Canada, Mexico, Argentina and China are eating gm. Unofficially so are
the people of Brazil as the farmers have been caught smuggling gm seeds
into the country as they find it better. Then of course there is all the
undocumented gm getting to food from exports from those countries. Gp
recently held a campaign about the hidden gmo, to try and frighten
people again.

Fact facts, Torsten. It is widely eaten. There is no evidence of harm.
If anything is to be classes as harmful there should evidence by now.
--
George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/26/01 9:42 AM
Tracy,

Ant has posted this stuff before. He never produces the goods when
pressed. He just ignores it. You watch.


Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>
> ant wrote:
>
> > and we have seen data that shows that genes can persis and be talken up by
> > both bacterial and mamilian cells in the gut,
>
> I would be very interested in seeing the data to which you refer above. Can you
> please provide a citation?
>
> > i see no reason why the unstable constructs
>
> To which constructs, exactly, do you refer? I am not aware of any evidence that
> any GMO currently on the market carries an "unstable construct." Are you? Can
> you please provide a reference that supports your assertion?
>
> > used by the biotehc industry should be excempt for some reason.
>
> Exempt from what, exactly?
>
> > >Unless you are working for a GM company then there is no
> > >possible reason why you would be supporting it, scientifically it's a dud,
>
> Well that is certainly NOT what the National Academy of Sciences says about it,
> and they are some of the most highly revered scientists in the world. Are you a
> scientist, or is this merely your non-professional opinion?
>
> > >The possible long-term effects of ingesting GM products are well documented


>
> Can you please cite such documentation? I am quite interested in learning about
> these alleged long-term effects.
>
> > >and have been publicised at length...
>
> See above.

>
> > >restating them would be a waste of our time
>
> I disagree most emphatically. I am not aware of any reliable evidence showing
> any long-term effect of GMOs. If you are aware of such evidence, you are doing
> us a disservice by withholding it.
> Tracy

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/26/01 9:55 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:


>
> Well, apart from the fact that I am not a member of either GP or FOE - I
> formed my thoughts completely independently.  I would have to state that if
> the British government is sufficiently worried to take action then the
> problem must be *really* bad.  Our government doesn't usually  give a toss
> about harmful ingredients and/or licencing issues.
>

The British goverment, both current and past, have supported gmo. They
can see it is not harmful. There demand evidence it is

The actions they are taking are to reassure the public.


> > By the way, I can buy carrots, and so can you. But the poor people
> > (there are 230 million of them by the way) cannot. Their normal diet
> > is deficient in the vitamins. They cannot buy carrots. They can and
> > do buy rice. You should hang your head in shame, trying to prevent
> > poor people getting a better life.
>
> ... and you should hang your head in shame for using such tired dogmatic
> tripe as a means to make me come over to your side of the argument.  The
> starvation problems in Africa (for example) are entirely due to political
> problems which affect the distribution of food (which is already plentiful).
> The fact that the starvation is caused by over-population of marginalised
> areas is the largest factor to be addressed.  Move the people OUT - don't
> bring food IN!

It is wrong to think that it is only a problem of distribution. The only
reason there is not more mass starvation on a colossal scale is modern
farming, which uses biotech.

In 1900 the whole world was organic. That year, 2.5 million people died
in India due to famine. In the 1960s' in Bihar, India there was massive
famine. Yes some are caused by political failures.

If the world were still organic, then the population would be below 4
billion because that is the upper limit to organic farming. There is
just not enough organic fertiliser in the world. It is only by chemical
fertilisers there is enough food.

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/26/01 4:26 AM
>does this man not know any history, or the pathology of cancer and many
>auto immune diseases.

>i dont think many smokers drop dead from heart atacks, lung cancer and
>strokes in their first 3 years of smokeing. how can george hope to maintain
>any credability with arguments like that, but i guess that is the best the
>spin doctors could come up with.

Yes I do. The illnesses like cancer and allergies are caused when things
get into the body. The testing and approval of gmo is based on the fact
that the genes and any byproducts are easily destroyed by heat and or
stomach acid. This prevents them getting into the body. So if they
cannot get into the body, they cannot do harm. Perhaps you care to
comment?
--
George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/26/01 9:47 AM
I hate to disappoint you but they are just reports about opinions, Not
facts or evidence.

Get the evidence that it is bad or harmful to people, animals or the
evironment.

Society used to burn witches on that sort of "evidence"
--
George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/26/01 10:01 AM
Amos Keppler wrote:

>
> George Baxter wrote:
>
> > Ryan Curtis wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > [Ryan] Well presumably if they always had the Vit A deficiency and it was
> > > never a problem ... but now it is a problem because we have a product we
> > > want to sell them<?>
> >
> > Never a problem? Do you know how serious the problem is? You clearly do
> > not. 230 million people have VAD. Of those about 1 million will die, or
> > go blind.
> > --
> > George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net
>
>  Do you know the problem with GM? People will suffer from malnutrition even if
> they seemingly have enough to eat. They'll steadily, "voluntarily" poison
> themselves. And so on and so on.
>
>  And this you and other madmen will continue to expose people to.
>
>  You're bent.
>

I notice that you did not even attempt to answer the point I raised.

I do not know what you mean by bent. Homosexual? A crook? I am neither.
The only thing I am mad about is how GP and FoE have abused the trust
built up over 30years, to mislead people over gmo.

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

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' J Wootton 1/26/01 10:33 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote:

It's Tracy, dang it.  Or was that to annoy Tracy too? ;-)
J

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Ian Alexander 1/26/01 11:02 AM
>
>Since when was this highly toxic?
>
>>asbestos,
>
>Banned as soon as dangers were known.

Well no as a matter of fact.  Continued in use for decades after the
first reports of diseases, linked to asbestos in the workers.  Putting
many thousands at risk (miners, dockers who unloaded it by hand,
manufacturers and the residents near the factories, whose children often
played in the stuff because it was left lying around like artificial
snow).

No it was definitely not banned as soon as the dangers were known.
>

--
Ian Alexander

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Tracy Aquilla 1/26/01 12:45 PM
Torsten Brinch wrote:

> Tracy Aquilla skrev i meddelelsen <3A718773...@bpmlegal.com>...
> >Torsten Brinch wrote:

[snip]

> >Yes. I already indicated such above. I am somewhat surprised
> > that you are unaware of the fact that one can gain knowledge
> > of genes by studying genes isolated from the whole organism.
> > But I am not here to teach you genetics. I was merely pointing
> > out the error in your statement.
>
> It think  it would be valuable if you could give an example of
> what you are talking about.

For example, one can learn things about genes by analyzing their nucleotide
sequences, and without knowing anything else about the organism from which
the gene was isolated.

> Your postulate is that it is
> possible to gain knowledge of a gene -- as opposed to a mere
> assertion of its material existence -- without knowledge of
> the organism as a whole.

Not exactly. I stated that one can gain knowledge of genes by studying genes
isolated from the whole organism. Indeed, one can gain knowledge of genes by
merely studying their structure.
Tracy

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/26/01 12:13 PM

Ryan Curtis wrote in message ...


the one that gets me is fire. They let anyone deal in it, someone ought to
do something.

I propose that we get a proper licencing body  (Off-fire?)  probably with an
official "Fire Tzar" to control its use and spread

Jim Webster

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


Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Jim Webster 1/26/01 12:08 PM

Ryan Curtis wrote in message ...
>

alt.agriculture,alt.save.the.earth,alt.sustainable.agriculture,sci.agricultu
re,sci.environment

which one? :-))

Jim Webster

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


Some dross about GM products Oz 1/26/01 11:45 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001
>
>[Ryan] Not really, I just do it to annoy you Ms Aquilla
>

So indeed you admit what you write has no basis in fact as we thought.

Interesting.

--
Oz

Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Oz 1/26/01 11:49 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001
>
>[Ryan] I am not an agriculturalist, so I do not need to know anything about
>agriculture.  

Nice to see you admit it. Your previous postings were indeed the rubbish
we said they were.

>Scientists are just there to do a job - like plumbers ...

They also know a lot about their subject, which is why they should be
listened to as against someone quite ignorant.

>though a good plumber makes much more interesting conversation than a good
>scientist ;-)  My expertise is in project co-ordination and resource
>management,

OK, a bureaucrat.

> if I want a good 'plumber' then I know where to find one.

That's good, doubtless they will see you coming.

--
Oz

some crap about GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' J K Cason 1/26/01 4:36 PM
"Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:vMbc6.2264$I5.40129@stones...

<snip>

>[Ryan] Generally speaking the demand for references is a clear
>admission that the requester lacks the  ability of original
>thought.

Original thoughts are easy.  Original thoughts that have some
connection to reality are difficult.

>          I do not *need* to supply sources and references
>because my ideas are my own and stand up to independent
>scrutiny.

Obviously untrue.  Independent vitamin A deficiency experts
disagree with you.

<snip>

>> In the book mentioned above, not a single investigator
>> reported that vitamin A foods were produced locally,
>> but were bought up for export to developed countries.

>[Ryan] ".. bought up for export to developed countries" from
>where?  If they are selling their vit-A rich stuff

"Vit-A rich stuff?"  Did you read the quote in my last message?
It was the first sentence in the Overview section of the book
that I pointed you to.  Here it is again:

   "The root of the problem of vitamin A deficiency is lack
    of sufficient vitamin A in community food supplies."

That is reality according to experts who have studied the matter.

>    for export (i.e. cash crops)

Export means out of the country.  Cash crops are sold for money.
In poor countries that usually occurs in local markets and almost
never means out of the country.  Your thoughts are not connected
to the real world.

> then it is a failure of govt policy that can be addressed
> without recourse to GM.

False premises, irrelevant conclusion.

<snip>

>>>>>[Ryan] In Columbus' time, if a food made you ill you could
>>>>>simply stop eating it.

>>>> 5.  Hundreds of years ago, people could just stop eating
>>>> food that made them sick.

>>>>   [People today do that, but only if they have alternatives
>>>>    available and notice the illness and its apparent cause.
>>>>    In human populations where mortality is high because of
>>>>    contagious disease, nutritional deficiencies, parasites,
>>>>    and lack of health care, mortality from other sources has
>>>>    to be high and on a short time scale to be noticed. The
>>>>    sophistication of modern public health systems gives
>>>>    developed countries the ability to detect tiny health
>>>>    effects that occur long after consumption.  Any
>>>>    preference for the old days is a fantasy.]

>>>[Ryan] Please refer to the statement I made some moments
>>>earlier.

>> Why?  Your silly statement had no relevance to the point.
>> The book above mentions that choices don't exist when food is
>> scarce.  It says that several of the cultures think that
>> illness is the result of evil spirits.  How could that belief
>> lead to abandoning a food item?

>[Ryan] .... because it would be reasonably easy to show that
>the 'evil spirits' were in the food and eating the food
>transferred them to the sufferer.... cease eating the food and
>the 'evil spirits' cannot touch you. Or show them that 'good
>spirits' live in other plants and that eating those foods allows
>the 'good spirits' to enter you body and kill the 'evil
>spirits'.  That is the sort of nutritional information that they
>would understand within the context of the local cultures and
>traditions.

You claimed that at the the time of Columbus, one could just stop
eating harmful foods.  It was not that simple.

>>>>> The world was a much bigger place, a mistake in one place
>>>>> was unlikely to have much effect on the population of
>>>>> another place.

>>>> 6.  Isolation is an advantage.  What happened in one place
>>>> was unlikely to affect another place.

>>>>   [Guam has an incidence of Parkinson's Disease, Lou
>>>>    Gehrig's Disease, and Alzheimer's Disease that is about
>>>>    50 times higher than the rates of PD, ALS, and AD in
>>>>    Europe.  There is recent, circumstantial evidence that
>>>>    this is caused by consumption of cycad seeds.  In the
>>>>    time of Columbus, if this relationship could have been
>>>>    discovered at all, it would have had to be rediscovered
>>>>    independently on dozens of isolated tropical islands.
>>>>    Today doctors watch for such conditions anywhere cycads
>>>>    can be found.]

>>>No relation to the comment I made.  My comment was that
>>>outbreaks of x in location Y would have little effect on the
>>>residents of z.  You have merely backed up my claim.

>> If that were true, it would be the first time that one of your
>> claims has been backed up.

>> Outbreaks of x (PD, ALS, and AD) in location y (Guam) would
>> have had little effect on the residents of z (other islands
>> where the residents ate cycad seeds, because they would never
>> have been warned about the dangers of the toxins in the seeds
>> due to the lack of modern medicine and communication).

>[Ryan] .... and an outbreak of ebola in Kansas would have had
>zero impact on the residents of Kampala.

In the bad old days that you have endorsed.  Today, the mere
possibility of an outbreak of Ebola in Kansas makes developed
countries send experts to Africa every time there is an outbreak.
That has a big impact on the residents of Kampala.  Your
endorsement of conditions 400+ years ago is absurd.

>  The people on the other islands of course would have
> independently developed their own original concept of why
> eating the seeds made you ill ... the explanation might vary
> but they would not have remained 'unaware'.

You're fantasizing again.  People in Guam have eaten cycads for
a long time.  Despite the rate of neurological disease 50 X higher
than in Europe, the connection to cycads was made only recently.

<snip>

*Can someone else get through to Ryan?  I'm having no luck at all.


some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/26/01 11:24 PM

"Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:bPic6.2387$I5.44926@stones...
:
: Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

There is a great deal less radiation coming out of a nuclear power plant
than coal or gas fired on. Even Three Mile Island put out less than a coal
fired plant would over it's live time.
--
Gordon    W5RED
G. C. Couger gco...@provalue.net  Stillwater, OK


:
:
:


Some dross about GM products gcouger 1/26/01 11:50 PM

"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:z8R5iDAHPdc6EwFr@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
: Ryan Curtis wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001

: >
: >[Ryan] Not really, I just do it to annoy you Ms Aquilla
: >
:
: So indeed you admit what you write has no basis in fact as we thought.
:
: Interesting.
:
He is more fun than Chive and Amos.
GM rice Ray Dobson 1/26/01 11:57 PM
Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote:

>Ray Dobson wrote:
>> May I suggest you go to:
>> http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2000/Ost/msg00043.html
>
>You may, and you did suggest it. But, unfortunately, there appears to be no such
>page in existence.

Oops. Substitute "Oct" for "Ost" and you'll be home and hosed.

>> and read what Dr Vandana Shiva has to say about other sources of Vit A
>> in India.
>
>Well did you read what Dr. Shiva has to say? If so, can you summarize briefly?

Dr Shiva gives the following sources of beta-carotene/retinols in
India. Figures are micrograms/100grams

Amaranth leves  266 - 1,166
Coriander leaves  1,166 - 1,333
Cabbage  217
Curry leaves  1,333
Drumstick leaves  283
Fenugreek leaves  450
Radish leaves  750
Carrot  217 - 434
Mint  300
Pumpkin (yellow)  100 - 120
Spinach  600
Mango (ripe)  500
Jackfruit  54
Orange  35
Tomato (ripe) (non-GM) 32
Milk (caw)  50 - 60
Butter  720 - 1,200
Egg (hen)  300 - 400
Liver (goat, sheep)  6,600 - 10,000

 Are
>you trying to imply that Dr. Shiva is a supporter of Golden Rice who gives the
>impression that there are no other suitable sources of Vitamin A available in the
>relevant countries?
No!

 From what I know of Dr. Shiva, I would be rather surprised to
>learn that the good Dr. is a "supporter of Golden Rice."
Don't be so patronizing.
>> In any case the "golden rice" scheme has served its purpose
>
>No, it certainly has not - it has not even been released for sale to the public yet!
>Tracy

Released for sale to the public? Did you write "released for sale to
the public"?

From all the PR puff-pieces I have read (NY Times, Toronto Globe and
Mail, TIME magazine and others) make a great play on the fact that
'golden rice' will not be sold but given freely to all poor, rice
farmers in the Third World (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, China, Laos,
Cambodia, Viet Nam, Burma, Malaysia, the Philipines, Indonesia and
many other countries. Now, it seems, it is to be sold and all those
people who got a flush of the warm fuzzies at the thought of the
agricultural biotech industry doing something good for a change will
be bitterly disappointed.
WRD


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/26/01 11:59 PM

"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote in message
news:Nlcc6.74$fW2.1212@news.get2net.dk...
: Tracy Aquilla skrev i meddelelsen <3A6DF9ED...@bpmlegal.com>...
: >Torsten Brinch wrote:
:
:
: >> "We gain a knowledge of genes--as opposed to a mere assertion
: >> of their material existence--only through knowledge of the organism
: >> as a whole.
:
: >Clearly one can indeed gain knowledge of genes by studying genes
: >isolated from the whole organism. So the statement above is quite

: >obviously false.
:
: Can one? Is it? Take for example, we chart the genome of a worm
: and find that it has 400 genes in it. How do we gain knowledge
: of these genes? I suggest, only by experimenting with knocking
: them out one by one, and/or changing bits and pieces in them,
: then studying the effect on the organism _as a whole_.
:
: Are there other ways to gain knowledge of genes, that you
: know of?
:
: >> The more knowledge we have of the organism as a whole,
: >> the more information we have.
:
: >And the more knowledge we have of the parts that make up a whole
: >organism, the more information we have.
:
: Cats are made of atoms. Atoms are colorless.
: Therefore cats are colorless.
:
: >> THIS INFORMATION IS NOT IN THE GENES;
:
: >Some of the knowledge we have of the organism as a
: >whole is in the genes, but not all of it, of course.
:
: (The author  is as far as I can see saying nothing about
: where  the knowledge I have of my cat -is-.  But since
: you bring up this question, let me say I don't think any
: of it  is in it's genes.)
:
: I think you still don't know what the author is saying
: in that quote. Perhaps you should try  looking at
: is as a whole :-)
:
: "We gain a knowledge of genes--as opposed to a mere assertion
: of their material existence--only through knowledge of the organism
: as a whole.The more knowledge we have of the organism as a whole,
: the more information we have.THIS INFORMATION IS NOT IN
: THE GENES; IT IS IN THE CONCEPTUAL THREAD THAT WEAVES
: TOGETHER THE VARIOUS DETAILS INTO A MEANINGFUL
: WHOLE."

Of course we can understand them better if we take them as a whole but
Gregor Mendel understood a great deal with out a clue to what a gene was.
If some one finds a gene for resistance to a herbicide and inserts in
another plant and it confers resistance to the herbicide and test show
that there is no delectable difference in the new plant with herbicide
resistance and the same plant with out it except herbicide resistance they
have a pretty good understanding of that gene and it's relation to those
two plants. When it is transferred to a dozen plants there is considerable
understanding of that gene.
--
Regards

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/27/01 12:04 AM

"George Baxter" <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>
wrote in message news:3A71BA10.F1EBFF55@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...

Four Billion I think I'll change sides. A wold population that size would
solve most of the problems in the world today.
--


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' ant 1/26/01 8:14 PM

Torsten Brinch wrote in message ...
>Oz skrev i meddelelsen ...
>>Torsten Brinch wrote on Thu, 25 Jan 2001
>
>>>One should also not indulge in e.g liver from farmed
>>>pigs. Pigs are richly supplemented with extraneous
>>>vitamin A,  with the excess  being stored in their liver too.
>
>>I have never, ever, heard of a problem with vitamin A
>>in pigs livers. Do you have references that show this?
>
>Certainly, see e.g.
>Leth, T., Jacobsen, J.S. 1993. Vitamin A in Danish pig, calf,
>and ox liver. Journal of Food Composition and analysis 6:3-9
>
>Leth et al found up to 137,000 RE/100 g in pig liver
>(cf. up to 27,000 in calf liver, up to 48,000 in ox liver)
>[1 RE=1 retinol equivalent=1 myg all-trans-retinol]
>


wow, that high.

guess one should not over indulge in liver based pate, i am particularly
fond of liverwerst on toast.


ant


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/27/01 1:02 AM
Torsten Brinch wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001

>Oz skrev i meddelelsen ...

>>I have never, ever, heard of a problem with vitamin A


>>in pigs livers. Do you have references that show this?
>
>Leth et al found up to 137,000 RE/100 g in pig liver
>(cf. up to 27,000 in calf liver, up to 48,000 in ox liver)
>[1 RE=1 retinol equivalent=1 myg all-trans-retinol]

What were the average figures?

>Going some what above the recommended
>daily dose is probably still reasonably safe.

The recommended daily dose is no indication of the hazardous dose (eg
see vitamin C). Do you have information on a likely hazardous dose.
Furthermore I understand vitamin A is rather heat-labile (which may be a
reason why some populations are deficient), do you have any information
on the likely reduction during cooking.

>Otoh, increasing daily intakes to 5000-10,000 RE
>should be generally advised against, and a daily intake
>of ~15,000 RE over a period can clearly lead to the
>development of chronic toxicity.  Just a single dose
>of 100,000 RE can be sufficient to cause acute toxicity
>symptoms in man.

OK, excepting strange people who eat liver on a near daily basis and
discounting thermal degradation normal animal liver is unlikely to be a
problem. This is presumably why I have never heard of a case of vitamin
A toxicity other than via polar bear liver.

>Add to this, that  just a few doses  of 7,500 RE during
>pregnancy can cause teratogenic damage.

I was aware of this.
Strangely liver is recommended for pregnant mothers in the UK!

>I would be surprised if the UK authorities do not  as a
>minimum  advise pregnant women to avoid eating pig liver,
>just as they are hopefully advising against certain vitamin
>A supplements during pregnancy.

They didn't up to 16 yrs ago, quite the contrary.
Mind you B vitamins are also important during pregnency.

>In fact they found that vitamin A
>conc in pig liver  may vary within  2 orders (!)  of magnitude,
>from 3,000-137,000 RE/100 g. The problem for the consumer
>of conventionally raised pig liver is that she has no way of
>knowing  where her purchase of liver lies  within that range.

That's what I had expected, a wide range. The solution is presumable
little and often and/or lots of green veg.

>>OTOH I have seen several documented cases of
>>europeans being killed by the excessive vitamin A
>>in polar bear liver.
>
>True, polar bear liver is an extremely rich source of
>vitamin A;  I have seen measurements indicating
>a range of 500,000-900,000 RE/100 g. The toxicity
>of polar bear liver is probably widely known.

By some, yes. Apparently the Inuit eat large doses (without apparent
effect) when they catch a bear and it's the sharing of this by visiting
europeans where the mortality arises.

>Otoh, from your comment, it seems to be much
>less  known that the  level of vitamin A in some pig liver
>from  intensely  farmed animals is  approaching
>the level found in polar bear liver.

Not on average, but I shall eat only limited amounts in future (100g?),
particularly as I like mine au point.  :-)

I'll just have to have it more often. :-)

--
Oz

Some dross about GM products Oz 1/27/01 1:10 AM
gcouger wrote on Sat, 27 Jan 2001

>He is more fun than Chive and Amos.

Long since killfiled then.
They are sorely lacking in the brain department.

Ryan is just a political beast furthering some aims that I don't think
even he believes in but which give him either cash or kudos that he
craves dearly.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/27/01 1:08 AM
ant wrote on Sat, 27 Jan 2001

>
>guess one should not over indulge in liver based pate, i am particularly
>fond of liverwerst on toast.

Commercial liverwurst is almost vertainly made in large batches of very
many livers and will thus be much nearer the average. Also 100g of
liverwurst on toast really would be OTT, even for me!

Mind you, you have probably become acclimatised. My information is that
absorbtion/excretion of vitamin A is under feedback control so those
with a high daily intake absorb less than those with a low intake. See
another post and Inuit. The problem is when chronically deficient people
(who will be at peak absorbtion) suddenly get given a tablet(s)
containing 5,000 units. Many think that if one tablet does you good then
two are twice as good. This is frequently quite wrong thinking in
biological systems.

--
Oz

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/27/01 1:13 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001

>[Ryan] Partially true ... I could point out though that the background
>stellar and solar radiation are totally different to the stuff that comes
>out of your nearest nuke site though.

Yes indeed. Those from the sun are at a level known to cause cancer
whilst thise from your nearest nuke site are at a level known not to.

--
Oz

some crap about GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/27/01 1:16 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001
>
>Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:cJki$KAQiYc6Ewy3@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> No, it usually means the poster doubts the claims and would like to know
>> if there is any evidence to back the claims up. Not giving refs where
>> required suggests the claims are specious.
>
>[Ryan] Or suggests that the original poster was guilty of original thought,

Original thought is one thing, you use complete invention which is far
from being original.

>a known heresy within academic and scientific circles.

Not the one's I know of. It's very highly prized.

>> If so then you should be able to quote refs. Since you don;t it rather
>> proves that they won't stand up to any scrutiny at all.
>
>[Ryan] Do try and pay attention, I will be asking questions later.  I said
>that my ideas are my own, therefore the reference for them is myself.  Any
>questions?

I will give them the weighting they deserve, that for febrile
imagination, which is zero.

>> I guess you are very happy to be wrong a lot without realising it.
>>
>[Ryan] Blissfully, thank you.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/26/01 6:01 PM
Tracy Aquilla skrev i meddelelsen <3A71E1DD...@bpmlegal.com>...
>Torsten Brinch wrote:

>> It think  it would be valuable if you could give an example of
>> what you are talking about.

>For example, one can learn things about genes by analyzing
>their nucleotide sequences, and without knowing anything else
>about the organism from which the gene was isolated.

A few questions of clarification. You say you can learn things etc..
Which things? And you say you can do that without knowing anything
else etc.. Anything else than what?

>> Your postulate is that it is
>> possible to gain knowledge of a gene -- as opposed to a mere
>> assertion of its material existence -- without knowledge of
>> the organism as a whole.

>Not exactly. I stated that one can gain knowledge of genes by
>studying genes isolated from the whole organism. Indeed, one
>can gain knowledge of genes by merely studying their structure.

-- but this is the statement that you say is obviously false:
"We gain a knowledge of genes--as opposed to a mere assertion
of their material existence--only through knowledge of the
organism as a whole."

-- and that statement can as far as I can see only be said to be
false, if it is possible  to gain knowledge of a gene --


as  opposed to a mere assertion of  its material existence --
without knowledge of he organism as a whole.

Are you saying that this is possible, or are you not?

Best regards,

Torsten Brinch


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/27/01 3:13 AM

"ant" <dont-look@evil.spam> wrote in message
news:iyvc6.1864$Ac6.31860@ozemail.com.au...
:
: Torsten Brinch wrote in message ...

: >Oz skrev i meddelelsen ...
: >>Torsten Brinch wrote on Thu, 25 Jan 2001
: >
: >>>One should also not indulge in e.g liver from farmed
: >>>pigs. Pigs are richly supplemented with extraneous
: >>>vitamin A,  with the excess  being stored in their liver too.
: >
: >>I have never, ever, heard of a problem with vitamin A
: >>in pigs livers. Do you have references that show this?
: >
: >Certainly, see e.g.
: >Leth, T., Jacobsen, J.S. 1993. Vitamin A in Danish pig, calf,
: >and ox liver. Journal of Food Composition and analysis 6:3-9
: >
: >Leth et al found up to 137,000 RE/100 g in pig liver
: >(cf. up to 27,000 in calf liver, up to 48,000 in ox liver)
: >[1 RE=1 retinol equivalent=1 myg all-trans-retinol]
: >
:
:
: wow, that high.
:
Just don't eat it every day.

As a side note all oil soluble vitamins A, E and D can build up to toxic
levels. A is the most likely because it is concentrated in livers of
animals that eat livers of other animals at high levels.

To get toxic levels of D & E you have to really work at taking to many
vitamin pills.


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


some crap about GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' J K Cason 1/27/01 3:44 AM
"Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote in message
GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/27/01 5:05 AM

Oz skrev i meddelelsen ...

><..>My information is that


>absorbtion/excretion of vitamin A is under feedback control

Feed back control? I am interested. What is the reference?

>so those
>with a high daily intake absorb less than those with a low intake.

That is also my information. As far as I have understood how this
is working,  at higher doses, vitamin A seems to be absorbed
passively,  while at low doses it is carrier-mediated. This would
seem to me to indicate that the carrier system can be saturated,
rather than that the absorbed amount feeds back on it negatively.

There does not seem to be any carrier-mediation in place
for carotenoids, so  they would be absorbed passively at any
dose level, high or low.

Best regards,

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/27/01 5:51 AM
gcouger skrev i meddelelsen ...

>"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote in message

>: "We gain a knowledge of genes--as opposed to a mere assertion


>: of their material existence--only through knowledge of the organism
>: as a whole.The more knowledge we have of the organism as a whole,
>: the more information we have.THIS INFORMATION IS NOT IN
>: THE GENES; IT IS IN THE CONCEPTUAL THREAD THAT WEAVES
>: TOGETHER THE VARIOUS DETAILS INTO A MEANINGFUL
>: WHOLE."

>Of course we can understand them better if we take them as a whole but
>Gregor Mendel understood a great deal with out a clue to what a gene
>was.<snip>

You are missing the point. The question is whether Mendel gained
knowledge of genes -without- working through knowledge of the whole
organism. He quite obviously did not.

"Some of the traits listed do not permit a definite and sharp
separation, since the difference rests on a "more or less" which
is often difficult to define.  Such traits were not usable for
individual experiments; these had to be limited to characteristics
which stand out clearly and decisively in the plants."  (Mendel, 1866)


Best regards,

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/27/01 4:48 AM
gcouger wrote on Sat, 27 Jan 2001

>
>To get toxic levels of D & E you have to really work at taking to many
>vitamin pills.

But in the case of D, it does happen.

--
Oz

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/27/01 9:57 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001
>> >[Ryan] Styrofoam for instance,

>>
>> Since when was this highly toxic?
>
>Try reading the list of ingredients dear boy .... it's vicious shit man!
>It'll sit in that land fill site slowly seeping into the watercourse for
>thousands of years after you and I are dead and gone.

I don;t suppose you can quote a url for these 'highly toxic'
ingredients?

>> >asbestos,
>>
>> Banned as soon as dangers were known. Then progressively through all the
>> grades whether or not they were shown to be a problem.
>
>Still used throughout the world.  Indeed, lots of it is still insitu
>throughout Britain.

AFAIK only in brakepads and a few highly regulated industrial
situations.

>> > the ash from incinerated hazardous
>> > waste .....
>>
>> Containing what problem products?
>
>What sort of hazardous waste do you reckon they would incinerate?  

Mostly organic compounds, which would be destroyed.

>The ash
>from it is generally either used in building materials (notably roads) ...
>or buried in landfill sites.  

What are the regulations for use in these situations. I know that
anything designated 'waste' must have a disposal license. This includes
topsoil if it is to be tipped as waste(!).

>Amusingly many of our modern housing estates
>are built on old landfill sites - hilarious.  Pretty much the entire of
>Telford was built on an old toxic dump during the industrial revolution ...
>a really dangerous place to live (just in case you were thinking of moving
>there).

How dangerous is it? What was the 'toxic waste'. You are aware that much
of the midlands natural soil contains enough nickel (due to being
derived from ironstone) to be classified as 'toxic waste' and the same
applies to large areas of the west UK where natural levels of heavy
metals are quite high. Personally I consider this to be an over reaction
to the definition of 'toxic waste', which in many cases isn't sensibly
toxic at all.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/27/01 9:51 AM
Torsten Brinch wrote on Sat, 27 Jan 2001

>
>Oz skrev i meddelelsen ...
>
>><..>My information is that
>>absorbtion/excretion of vitamin A is under feedback control
>
>Feed back control? I am interested. What is the reference?

Any system where the amount taken in is mediated by internal levels must
have a negative feedback loop of some sort. This does not mean the
mechanism is known, indeed it is often decades before a known negative
feedback mechanism is identified. Which is another way of saying I have
never seen the mechanism described.

>>so those
>>with a high daily intake absorb less than those with a low intake.
>
>That is also my information. As far as I have understood how this
>is working,  at higher doses, vitamin A seems to be absorbed
>passively,  while at low doses it is carrier-mediated. This would
>seem to me to indicate that the carrier system can be saturated,
>rather than that the absorbed amount feeds back on it negatively.

Whilst intake exceeds consumption *something* must be reducing either
intake or breakdown or both. Given that people can become acclimatised
to high vitamin A intakes (so as to survive a meal of polar bear liver)
I would put my money on a more active process to prevent absorbtion or
increase excretion as I suspect degradation may be too slow given your
comments about acute toxic doserates.

>There does not seem to be any carrier-mediation in place
>for carotenoids, so  they would be absorbed passively at any
>dose level, high or low.

Very likely, it's quite hard to OD on them but my understanding is that
a diet comprising exclusively carrots would be rather unwise.

NB It's not something I have ever researched, but ever since hearing
about the toxicity of polar bear livers I've noted the very rare comment
on this subject. It's thus not something I have much of a view on.

--
Oz

Some dross about GM products Ryan Curtis 1/27/01 10:23 AM
> >
> >[Ryan] Not really, I just do it to annoy you Ms Aquilla
> >
>
> [Oz] So indeed you admit what you write has no basis in fact as we
> thought.  Interesting.
>
[Ryan] Oh no my writings have a basis in fact, but some of them seem to
annoy Tracey ... so I find it perversely amusing to repeat them as often as
possible ;-)

Some dross about GM products Ryan Curtis 1/27/01 10:25 AM

Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:x445z9AgCpc6EwkX@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...[Ryan] Well obviously I am rather fond of both cash and kudos, but I have
something that is even more valuable ... a raison d'être if you will.

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/27/01 10:30 AM
> >
> > Well, apart from the fact that I am not a member of either GP or FOE - I
> > formed my thoughts completely independently.  I would have to state that
if
> > the British government is sufficiently worried to take action then the
> > problem must be *really* bad.  Our government doesn't usually  give a
toss
> > about harmful ingredients and/or licencing issues.
> >
>
> The British goverment, both current and past, have supported gmo. They
> can see it is not harmful. There demand evidence it is
>
> The actions they are taking are to reassure the public.
>
[Ryan] I agree... but, if they thought the public was being 'silly' then
they would have said so and left it at that.  HM Govt has gone much further
than would be expected for a mere pacification exercise.

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Marty Sachs 1/27/01 10:45 AM
In article <4Hxc6.525$804...@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:


Hmmm,

I would certainly agree that one cannot fully understand how a gene
functions outside of the context of the organism (at least with our
present knowledge base).  However, the sequence of an isolated gene does
tell us at least some of the potential information contained within the
gene (transcription/translation initiation sites, intron locations,
primary amino acid sequence of encoded polypeptide) much of this can be
confirmed with invitro transcription/translation assays (and perhaps if
lucky, one could figure out potential functions of the encoded protein
with invitro assays if the protein folds properly).  Promotor regions
can be used in invitro assays to 'fish' out potential regulatory
proteins (these proteins that bind to the promotor region can then be
characterized, etc).  I certainly would consider this information far
more than 'mere assertion of a gene's material existence'.

   Best regards,

      -Marty Sachs

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/27/01 10:38 AM
> >
> > Well, apart from the fact that I am not a member of either GP or FOE - I
> > formed my thoughts completely independently.  I would have to state that
> > if the British government is sufficiently worried to take action then
the
> > problem must be *really* bad.  Our government doesn't usually  give a
> > toss about harmful ingredients and/or licencing issues.
> >
>
> The British government, both current and past, have supported gmo. They

> can see it is not harmful. There demand evidence it is
>
> The actions they are taking are to reassure the public.
>
[Ryan] I agree... but, if they thought the public was being 'silly' then
they would have said so and left it at that.  HM Govt has gone much further
than would be expected for a mere pacification exercise.

> > > By the way, I can buy carrots, and so can you. But the poor people
> > > (there are 230 million of them by the way) cannot. Their normal diet
> > > is deficient in the vitamins. They cannot buy carrots. They can and
> > > do buy rice. You should hang your head in shame, trying to prevent
> > > poor people getting a better life.
> >
> > ... and you should hang your head in shame for using such tired dogmatic
> > tripe as a means to make me come over to your side of the argument.
> > The starvation problems in Africa (for example) are entirely due to
> > political problems which affect the distribution of food (which is
> > already plentiful).  The fact that the starvation is caused by over-
> > population of marginalised areas is the largest factor to be addressed.
> > Move the people OUT - don't bring food IN!
>
> It is wrong to think that it is only a problem of distribution. The only
> reason there is not more mass starvation on a colossal scale is modern
> farming, which uses biotech.

[Ryan] Poor Georgie ... talking out of his arse again.  The starving of
Africa are fed by the stockpiled grain of the western nations .... we have
so much grain (even without GM) that we are burning it, storing it until it
rots - all to keep the prices artificially high.  .... and now and then we
ship a load of it out to Africa.

> In 1900 the whole world was organic. That year, 2.5 million people died
> in India due to famine. In the 1960s' in Bihar, India there was massive
> famine. Yes some are caused by political failures.

[Ryan] Interesting story but completely meaningless to the discussion in
hand.  Those who died in India during that famine did so because the
population was too high for the amount of crops that could be grown
naturally.  Instead of cutting back the population they decided to poison
the food instead - clever.  The population there now is no doubt higher than
it was then - so the next famine will be even worse.

> If the world were still organic, then the population would be below 4
> billion because that is the upper limit to organic farming. There is
> just not enough organic fertiliser in the world. It is only by chemical
> fertilisers there is enough food.
>
[Ryan] Good.  Nothing wrong with a population of 4 billion ..... what were
you going to do with all the extra people anyway?

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' J Wootton 1/27/01 10:55 AM
Oz wrote:

> Ryan Curtis wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001
>
> >> >Nor do we include dubious materials in any construction process
> >> >of any kind ....
> >>
> >> Such as?

> >
> >[Ryan] Styrofoam for instance,
>
> Since when was this highly toxic?

http://www.extolohio.com/MSDS/Dow-Chemical/7-8-10in.html
Fire water run off may be toxic.

Gas fired recirculating air furnaces or heaters, gas water heaters, etc., drawing
air from areas where there may be a
     presence of ethyl chloride and chlorodifluoroethane gases from storage or
fabrication of extruded polystyrene foam, can
     be subjected to rust and corrosion problems as a result of thermal
decomposition of the blowing agents to hydrogen
     chloride.

And  some of these products, if not all, breakdown in the presence of solvents.
IMO
J


Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Ryan Curtis 1/27/01 10:47 AM
> > > > [Ryan] Everything you *need* to know about me, or the organisation
> > > > I 'work for' (I am unremunerated) is contained on the following URL.
> > > > Your 'right to know' is totally based on my desire to tell.
> >>
> > > So don't complain that people don't know who you are when you won't
> > > tell them.
> >>
> >[Ryan] For the purposes of this newsgroup it is irrelevant ...
>
>
alt.agriculture,alt.save.the.earth,alt.sustainable.agriculture,sci.agricultu
> re,sci.environment
>
> which one? :-))

I am on alt.save.the.earth - this stuff is just getting crossposted.


Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Ryan Curtis 1/27/01 10:53 AM

Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tc0+6KARTdc6EwFH@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...

> Ryan Curtis wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001
> >
> >[Ryan] I am not an agriculturalist, so I do not need to know anything
about
> >agriculture.
>
> Nice to see you admit it. Your previous postings were indeed the rubbish
> we said they were.
>
[Ryan] Not at all, they were just pitched at the level understood by someone
without any interest in the details of agricultural minutae.  I am sure I
can drum up some information from the Soil Association on any particular
point I want ..... no point me taking the course if I can ask someone who
already did.

> >Scientists are just there to do a job - like plumbers ...
>
> They also know a lot about their subject, which is why they should be
> listened to as against someone quite ignorant.

As does a plumber ... but I wouldn't necessarily trust one to rewire my
house or fix my car.

> >though a good plumber makes much more interesting conversation than a
good
> >scientist ;-)  My expertise is in project co-ordination and resource
> >management,
>
> OK, a bureaucrat.

More of a plutocrat actually ... ;-)

> > if I want a good 'plumber' then I know where to find one.
>
> That's good, doubtless they will see you coming.

[Ryan] That's ok .... I don't know much about plumbing but I know lots about
visiting unpleasantness on those guilty of poor workmanship.

The truth about GM rice Ryan Curtis 1/27/01 10:57 AM
> > [Tracey] No, it certainly has not - it has not even been released for

> > sale to the public yet!
> >
>
> Released for sale to the public? Did you write "released for sale to
> the public"?
>
> From all the PR puff-pieces I have read (NY Times, Toronto Globe and
> Mail, TIME magazine and others) make a great play on the fact that
> 'golden rice' will not be sold but given freely to all poor, rice
> farmers in the Third World (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, China, Laos,
> Cambodia, Viet Nam, Burma, Malaysia, the Philipines, Indonesia and
> many other countries. Now, it seems, it is to be sold and all those
> people who got a flush of the warm fuzzies at the thought of the
> agricultural biotech industry doing something good for a change will
> be bitterly disappointed.
> WRD
>
[Ryan] haha.  Tracey got caught out in a Freudian slip there ..... Come on
lad let's see you waffle your way out of that one.


The truth about GM Ryan Curtis 1/27/01 11:01 AM
> > > >
> > > > [Ryan] Well presumably if they always had the Vit A deficiency and
it was
> > > > never a problem ... but now it is a problem because we have a
product we
> > > > want to sell them<?>
> > >
> > > Never a problem? Do you know how serious the problem is? You clearly
do
> > > not. 230 million people have VAD. Of those about 1 million will die,
or
> > > go blind.
> > > --
> > > George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net
> >
> >  Do you know the problem with GM? People will suffer from malnutrition
even if
> > they seemingly have enough to eat. They'll steadily, "voluntarily"
poison
> > themselves. And so on and so on.
> >
> >  And this you and other madmen will continue to expose people to.
> >
> >  You're bent.
> >
>
> I notice that you did not even attempt to answer the point I raised.
>
> I do not know what you mean by bent. Homosexual? A crook? I am neither.
> The only thing I am mad about is how GP and FoE have abused the trust
> built up over 30years, to mislead people over gmo.
>
[Ryan] I couldn't give a stuff about GP and FoE abuses ... compared to the
amount of dedication and resourcefulness shown by their members I think the
odd mistake or over-enthusiastic interpretation can be forgiven.  They are
trying to prevent the genocide of a variety of species including our own
.... what is your excuse?

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/27/01 11:04 AM

J Wootton <jwoo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A71C416.83BE1181@home.com...
> Ryan Curtis wrote:
>
> > >
> > > >[Ryan] Oh dear, a bad loser as well as a poor debater ..... back to
the
> > > >laboratory for you girl.
> > >
> > > Why not just admit you lost the argument instead of posting the rather
> > > juvenile attempt at cover up you posted above.
> > >
> > > BTW Tracy is male, but he has long since got used to Europeans getting
> > > it wrong.
> > >
> > [Ryan] Oops :-)  Sorry Tracey (if you are listening).  What were we
arguing
> > about again?
>
> It's Tracy, dang it.  Or was that to annoy Tracy too? ;-)
>
[Ryan] My spellchecker wanted to add an -e, no idea why I think I have fixed
it now.

some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/27/01 11:16 AM

Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NB4m9FAiwwc6Ewwq@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...

> Ryan Curtis wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001
> >> >[Ryan] Styrofoam for instance,
> >>
> >> Since when was this highly toxic?
> >
> >Try reading the list of ingredients dear boy .... it's vicious shit man!
> >It'll sit in that land fill site slowly seeping into the watercourse for
> >thousands of years after you and I are dead and gone.
>
> I don;t suppose you can quote a url for these 'highly toxic'
> ingredients?
>
[Ryan] No need to old son.  Type in styrofoam on your search engine and see
where it takes you.  It's not a secret.

> >> >asbestos,
> >>
> >> Banned as soon as dangers were known. Then progressively through all
the
> >> grades whether or not they were shown to be a problem.
> >
> >Still used throughout the world.  Indeed, lots of it is still insitu
> >throughout Britain.
>
> AFAIK only in brakepads and a few highly regulated industrial
> situations.

[Ryan] In your dreams.... my flat had a load of it removed only last
year.... no-one knew it was even there until we got them in to do some
renovation work.  The woman who had the flat before us had not let anyone in
the flat since the 1970's .....

> >> > the ash from incinerated hazardous
> >> > waste .....
> >>
> >> Containing what problem products?
> >
> >What sort of hazardous waste do you reckon they would incinerate?
>
> Mostly organic compounds, which would be destroyed.

[Ryan] Fraid not .. some of it is 'destroyed' by converting it to smoke
which is dissipated over a wide area ... the heavier particles settle as
dust and have to be cleaned out and dumped.

> > The ash from it is generally either used in building materials
> > (notably roads) ... or buried in landfill sites.
>
> What are the regulations for use in these situations. I know that
> anything designated 'waste' must have a disposal license. This
> includes topsoil if it is to be tipped as waste(!).

Your local council is a Waste Collection Authority (WCA), they are charged a
levy by a Waste Disposal Agency (WDA) who actually have the licence to get
rid of the stuff.  Usually a group of WCA's will be amalgamated into a
single Waste Authority in order to cope with the economies of scale.  Each
disposal site whether it be a landfill or incinerator have a set of
guidelines for emissions and what-have-you, and are checked regularly to
ensure that the guidelines are not being ignored.  All  of the incinerators
in the London area regularly pass their checks ... However, I have copies of
the Environment Agency safety reports on them which states quite clearly
tests on the really nasty emissions are routinely not carried out do to
'operational difficulties'.  Amusingly, 'spot checks' require 3 months
notice.  All these documents are publicly available you just have to know
where to get them. <g>.

> > Amusingly many of our modern housing estates are built on old landfill
> > sites - hilarious.  Pretty much the entire of Telford was built on an
old
> > toxic dump during the industrial revolution ... a really dangerous place
> > to live (just in case you were thinking of moving there).
>
> How dangerous is it? What was the 'toxic waste'. You are aware that much
> of the midlands natural soil contains enough nickel (due to being
> derived from ironstone) to be classified as 'toxic waste' and the same
> applies to large areas of the west UK where natural levels of heavy
> metals are quite high. Personally I consider this to be an over reaction
> to the definition of 'toxic waste', which in many cases isn't sensibly
> toxic at all.
>
[Ryan] The ground is extremely unstable, lots of subsidence going on... in
addition to the nasties being emitted into the atmosphere.  Did you see that
news reel on the tv recently (might have been last year now) of the suburb
that blew up because of the methane contained in the landfill site upon
which it was built?


some twaddle about nukes being good for you Ryan Curtis 1/27/01 11:21 AM
>
> > [Ryan] Partially true ... I could point out though that the background
> > stellar and solar radiation are totally different to the stuff that
comes
> > out of your nearest nuke site though.
>
> Yes indeed. Those from the sun are at a level known to cause cancer
> whilst those from your nearest nuke site are at a level known not to.
>
[Ryan] You're not gonna rehash that old argument are ya Oz?  I reckon that
nuke plant workers who eat GM food are really gonna love you when bits stop
dropping off of them .. :-)

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' John McCarthy 1/27/01 11:52 AM
Ryan Curtis includes:

someone else:


> In 1900 the whole world was organic. That year, 2.5 million people died
> in India due to famine. In the 1960s' in Bihar, India there was massive
> famine. Yes some are caused by political failures.

[Ryan] Interesting story but completely meaningless to the discussion in
hand.  Those who died in India during that famine did so because the
population was too high for the amount of crops that could be grown
naturally.  Instead of cutting back the population they decided to poison
the food instead - clever.  The population there now is no doubt higher than
it was then - so the next famine will be even worse.

Who was the "they" who had the option of cutting back on the population?

> If the world were still organic, then the population would be below 4
> billion because that is the upper limit to organic farming. There is
> just not enough organic fertiliser in the world. It is only by chemical
> fertilisers there is enough food.
>
[Ryan] Good.  Nothing wrong with a population of 4 billion ..... what were
you going to do with all the extra people anyway?

Ryan Curtis dreams of the power to reduce world population to 4
billion.  If he had power, he'd make Pol Pot envious.  Well, probably
he'd draw back.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

some crap about GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/27/01 11:42 AM

J K Cason <jkc...@negia.net> wrote in message
news:t746omhpa8me9d@corp.supernews.com...

> "Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:vMbc6.2264$I5.40129@stones...
>
> <snip>
>
> >[Ryan] Generally speaking the demand for references is a clear
> >admission that the requester lacks the  ability of original
> >thought.
>
> Original thoughts are easy.  Original thoughts that have some
> connection to reality are difficult.
>
[Ryan] Oh! so *now* we move the goalposts ;-)  I had some dealings with
reality a while back - it's over-rated.

> >          I do not *need* to supply sources and references
> >because my ideas are my own and stand up to independent
> >scrutiny.
>
> Obviously untrue.  Independent vitamin A deficiency experts
> disagree with you.
>
[Ryan] Which specific bit do they disagree with?  The bit where I said that
genetically altered rice was not the easiest or most sensible solution.  Or
the bit where I said that there were other sources of Vitamin A within the
same country as those suffering from the deficiency?

> >> In the book mentioned above, not a single investigator
> >> reported that vitamin A foods were produced locally,
> >> but were bought up for export to developed countries.
>
> >[Ryan] ".. bought up for export to developed countries" from
> >where?  If they are selling their vit-A rich stuff
>
> "Vit-A rich stuff?"  Did you read the quote in my last message?
> It was the first sentence in the Overview section of the book
> that I pointed you to.  Here it is again:
>
>    "The root of the problem of vitamin A deficiency is lack
>     of sufficient vitamin A in community food supplies."
>
> That is reality according to experts who have studied the matter.
>
> >    for export (i.e. cash crops)
>
> Export means out of the country.  Cash crops are sold for money.
> In poor countries that usually occurs in local markets and almost
> never means out of the country.  Your thoughts are not connected
> to the real world.
>
[Ryan] Trust me, I have seen enough of the real world to know I prefer
living in my own little one.  "I have seen enough of death to know that I
prefer life" - now *there's* a quote you can take to the bank.

> > then it is a failure of govt policy that can be addressed
> > without recourse to GM.
>
> False premises, irrelevant conclusion.
>
[Ryan] I disagree, as is my right (and my inclination).

<snip>


>
> >> Why?  Your silly statement had no relevance to the point.
> >> The book above mentions that choices don't exist when food is
> >> scarce.  It says that several of the cultures think that
> >> illness is the result of evil spirits.  How could that belief
> >> lead to abandoning a food item?
>
> >[Ryan] .... because it would be reasonably easy to show that
> >the 'evil spirits' were in the food and eating the food
> >transferred them to the sufferer.... cease eating the food and
> >the 'evil spirits' cannot touch you. Or show them that 'good
> >spirits' live in other plants and that eating those foods allows
> >the 'good spirits' to enter you body and kill the 'evil
> >spirits'.  That is the sort of nutritional information that they
> >would understand within the context of the local cultures and
> >traditions.
>
> You claimed that at the the time of Columbus, one could just stop
> eating harmful foods.  It was not that simple.
>
[Ryan] Why not?  Where are your sources?  Give me a reference regarding
contemporaries of Columbus discussing the difficulties involved in stopping
inhabitants from eating harmful foods.

[Ryan] Yeah we gave them all sypphilis I expect ;-)  I never actually
endorsed anything if you read the text as opposed to your own interpretation
of it ...

> >  The people on the other islands of course would have
> > independently developed their own original concept of why
> > eating the seeds made you ill ... the explanation might vary
> > but they would not have remained 'unaware'.
>
> You're fantasizing again.  People in Guam have eaten cycads for
> a long time.  Despite the rate of neurological disease 50 X higher
> than in Europe, the connection to cycads was made only recently.
>
> <snip>
>
> *Can someone else get through to Ryan?  I'm having no luck at all.

[Ryan] Don't take it too badly, I don't think any less of you for trying :-)

Fire (examples of Appropriate Technology) Ryan Curtis 1/27/01 11:31 AM
>
> the one that gets me is fire. They let anyone deal in it, someone ought to
> do something.
>
> I propose that we get a proper licencing body  (Off-fire?)  probably with
an
> official "Fire Tzar" to control its use and spread
>
[Ryan] .. and the wheel!  I mean it's just asking for trouble innit? ;-)


some crap about GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/27/01 11:34 AM

Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qoH$HGBdHpc6EwHm@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...

> Ryan Curtis wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001
> >
> >Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:cJki$KAQiYc6Ewy3@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> >>
> >> No, it usually means the poster doubts the claims and would like to
know
> >> if there is any evidence to back the claims up. Not giving refs where
> >> required suggests the claims are specious.
> >
> >[Ryan] Or suggests that the original poster was guilty of original
thought,
>
> Original thought is one thing, you use complete invention which is far
> from being original.

[Ryan] I didn't know that invention was a dirty word - don't tell Leonardo.

> > a known heresy within academic and scientific circles.
>
> Not the one's I know of. It's very highly prized.

[Ryan] highly prized ... so long as you can cite your references and list
your sources.

> >> If so then you should be able to quote refs. Since you don't it rather
> >> proves that they won't stand up to any scrutiny at all.
> >
> >[Ryan] Do try and pay attention, I will be asking questions later.  I
said
> >that my ideas are my own, therefore the reference for them is myself.
Any
> >questions?
>
> I will give them the weighting they deserve, that for febrile
> imagination, which is zero.
>
[Ryan] ... feverish?

> >> I guess you are very happy to be wrong a lot without realising it.
> >>
> >[Ryan] Blissfully, thank you.


Population controls Ryan Curtis 1/27/01 12:31 PM

John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:x4hk87g7oya.fsf@Steam.Stanford.EDU...

> Ryan Curtis includes:
>
> someone else:
> > In 1900 the whole world was organic. That year, 2.5 million people died
> > in India due to famine. In the 1960s' in Bihar, India there was massive
> > famine. Yes some are caused by political failures.
>
> [Ryan] Interesting story but completely meaningless to the discussion in
> hand.  Those who died in India during that famine did so because the
> population was too high for the amount of crops that could be grown
> naturally.  Instead of cutting back the population they decided to poison
> the food instead - clever.  The population there now is no doubt higher
than
> it was then - so the next famine will be even worse.
>
> Who was the "they" who had the option of cutting back on the population?
>
[Ryan] Johhhnnnn!  Buddy.  How are ya?

> > If the world were still organic, then the population would be below 4
> > billion because that is the upper limit to organic farming. There is
> > just not enough organic fertiliser in the world. It is only by chemical
> > fertilisers there is enough food.
> >
> [Ryan] Good.  Nothing wrong with a population of 4 billion ..... what were
> you going to do with all the extra people anyway?
>
> Ryan Curtis dreams of the power to reduce world population to 4
> billion.  If he had power, he'd make Pol Pot envious.  Well, probably
> he'd draw back.
>
[Ryan] Gee I missed ya john-boy!  Glad to see you've lost none of your wit
.. 'coz then you'd only be a quarter-wit and that would make no sense at all
:-)

GM rice is NOT the 'best hope of feeding world' Paul Pikowsky 1/27/01 1:14 PM
Chive Mynde,

I have heard arguments similar to yours before.  While I'll agree that
industrialized farming can interfere with food distribution and prevent
preservationist farming tactics, I have to disagree that industrialized
farming is at the root of hunger or poverty or the inability to feed people.
The problem is strictly one of overpopulation.  Farming is an extraction
from ecosystems and relies on the destruction of ecosystems to exist.  In
order to support populations as they exist now in the way that you suggest,
you would have to tolerate the further destruction of existing ecosystems in
order to reduce them to farms.  You also pointed out that there are many
farms being lost to "devolopment".  But the pressure for that development
comes from the need for places for people to live and the numbers of these
increases daily.  Even if everyone in the world were to become some kind of
Maoist overnight, the planet simply could not stand the damage.  Even farms
depend on existing ecosystems somewhere to contribute to the Big Generator.
The collapse of the American Great Plains ecosystem and the consequent
economic damage was corrected only by further damage to ecosystems elsewhere
and a massive industrialization of the area.

Paul


"Chive Mynde" <chyve...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:946d5u$ni5$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <lI496.553$0u3....@news7.onvoy.net>,
>   "David Kendra" <dke...@mr.net> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?
> ac=004169176849937&rtmo=kCoqJLAp&atmo=rrrrrrrq
> > &pg=/et/01/1/16/nrice16.html
> >
> > GM rice 'best hope of feeding world'
> >
> > The Daily Telegraph
> > By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
> > 16 January 2001
> >
> > THE best hope of feeding the world lies in genetically modified crops
> > because organic and other "sustainable" farming methods would not be
> able
> > to do the job, a conference at St James's Palace was told yesterday.
>
> This is PURE corporate propaganda, disinformation, and total and
> complete bullshit.
>
> "If anyone tells you that GM is going to feed the world," Steve Smith,
> a director of the world's biggest biotechnology company,
> Novartis, insisted, "tell them that it is not... To feed the world
> takes political and financial will - it's not about
> production and distribution."
>
> Studies Show Organic & Sustainable Farms Can Best Feed the World
>
> THE GUARDIAN (U.K.)
>
> Thursday August 24, 2000
>
> Biotech Has Bamboozled Us All:
> Studies Suggest That Traditional Farming Methods Are
> Still The Best
>
> George Monbiot
>
> The advice could scarcely have come from a more surprising source. "If
> anyone tells you that GM is going to feed the world," Steve Smith, a
> director of the world's biggest biotechnology company,
> Novartis, insisted, "tell them that it is not... To feed the world
> takes political and financial will - it's not about
> production and distribution."
>
> Mr Smith was voicing a truth which most of his colleagues in
> biotechnology companies have gone to great lengths to deny.
> On a planet wallowing in surfeit, people starve because they
> have neither the land on which to grow food for themselves nor
> the money with which to buy it. There is no question that, as the
> population increases, the world will have to grow more, but if
> this task is left to the rich and powerful - big farmers and big
> business - then, irrespective of how much is grown, people will
> become progressively hungrier. Only a redistribution of land and wealth
> can save the world from mass starvation.
>
> But in one respect Mr Smith is wrong. It is, in part, about
> production.  A series of remarkable experiments has shown that
> the growing techniques which his company and many others have
> sought to impose upon the world are, in contradiction to
> everything we have been brought up to believe, actually less
> productive than some of the methods developed by traditional
> farmers over the past 10,000 years.
>
> Last week, Nature magazine reported the results of one of the
> biggest agricultural experiments ever conducted. A team of Chinese
> scientists had tested the key principle of modern rice-growing
> (planting a single, hi-tech variety across hundreds of hectares)
> against a much older technique (planting several breeds in one field).
>
> They found, to the astonishment of the farmers who had been drilled for
> years in the benefits of "monoculture", that reverting to the old
> method resulted in spectacular increases in yield. Rice blast - a
> devastating fungus which normally requires repeated applications of
> poison to control - decreased by 94%. The farmers planting a
> mixture of strains were able to stop applying their poisons
> altogether, while producing 18% more rice per acre than they were
> growing before.
>
> Another paper, published in Nature two years ago, showed that yields of
> organic maize are identical to yields of maize grown with fertilisers
> and pesticides, while soil quality in the organic fields dramatically
> improves. In trials in Hertfordshire, wheat grown with manure has
> produced higher yields for the past 150 years than wheat grown with
> artificial nutrients.
>
> Professor Jules Pretty of Essex University has shown how farmers in
> India, Kenya, Brazil, Guatemala and Honduras have doubled or tripled
> their yields by switching to organic or semi-organic techniques.
>
> A study in the US reveals that small farms growing a wide range of
> plants can produce 10 times as much money per acre as big farms
> growing single crops. Cuba, forced into organic farming by the
> economic blockade, has now adopted this as policy, having discovered
> that it improves both the productivity and the quality of its crops.
>
> Hi-tech farming, by contrast, is sowing ever graver problems. This
> year, food production in Punjab and Haryana, the Indian states long
> celebrated as the great success stories of modern, intensive
> cultivation, has all but collapsed.
>
> The new crops the farmers there have been encouraged to grow demand
> farmore water and nutrients than the old ones, with the result that, in
> many places, both the ground water and the soil have been
> exhausted.
>
> We have, in other words, been deceived. Traditional farming has
> been stamped out all over the world not because it is less productive
> than monoculture, but because it is, in some respects, more productive.
> Organic cultivation has been characterised as an enemy of progress for
> the simple reason that it cannot be monopolised: it can be adopted by
> any farmer anywhere, without the help of multinational companies.
> Though it is more productive to grow  several species or several
> varieties of crops in one field, the biotech companies must
> reduce diversity in order to make money, leaving farmers with no choice
> but to purchase their most profitable seeds. This is why they have
> spent the last 10 years buying up seed breeding institutes and lobbying
> governments to do what ours has done: banning the sale of any seed
> which has not been officially - and expensively -
> registered and approved.
>
> All this requires an unrelenting propaganda war against the tried and
> tested techniques of traditional farming, as the big companies and
> their scientists dismiss them as unproductive, unsophisticated and
> unsafe. The truth, so effectively suppressed that it is now
> almost impossible to believe, is that organic farming is the key to
> feeding the world.
>
> g.mo...@zetnet.co.uk
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> When you take away all the "modern" chemical agricultural methods, and
> mechanize the organic production process, there
> will be more than enough food for everyone on the planet and
> the food will be safer, the farm workers will be healthier, the
> consumer will be protected from pesticide poisoning, and the
> environment will be protected from industiral chemical polluters.
>
> Organic hydroponics offer a better alternative to chemical
> nutrient mixes.
>
> 1.  Chemical fertilizers, especially when heavily applied, tend
> to strip soils of beneficial organisms, from earthworms to
> bacteria.  Organic fertilizers not only feed the plant roots,
> but also the community of organisms in which they live.  Organic
> methods generally improve soil texture, long-term fertility and
> water retention characteristics.
>
> 2.  Water run off from chemically fertilized fields is
> increasingly recognized as presenting an environmental danger
> (eutrophication) to surface and ground water supplies and to
> downstream ecosystems.  The buildup of toxic salts in some soils is
> another potential drawback to chemical cultivation.
>
> 3.  The non-availability and increasing cost of inorganic salts
> and compounds make organics, at least as a supplemental measure, an
> attractive option for some applications.  This is especially
> true of lesser developed regions where the choice is often made
> between expensive chemical fertilizers, and cheap or free
> indigenous substitutes.  (What was that BS Minatti was spouting
> about organics and mass starvation?  It's the other way around!)
>
> The closed nature of most hydroponic systems and the ability to
> efficiently deliver plant nutrients can drastically reduce the
> cost of fertilizer inputs per unit of production, while at the
> same time protecting rivers and streams.
>
> Other reasons to go organic include:
>
> a.  Flavor and appearance
> b.  More nutritious
> c.  Superior produce fetches higher price in season or out
> d.  The future of organic hydroponics is bright
>
> In a 1985 supplement to his book "Advanced Guide to
> Hydroponics," James Sholto Douglas notes that organic
> hydroponics systems have been producing successful crops in
> several Third World countries for decades.
>
> This evidence directly contradicts Gordon Couger's unsubstantiated
> claims.
>
> On the Indian subcontinent where inexpensive labor and cheap
> natural fertilizers make the practice profitable, organic
> hydroponics approaches an art.  Through an advocate of chemical
> hydroculture, Douglas admits that the (organic) systems allow
> the people of these areas to reap many of the benefits of
> hydroponics - the efficient use of resources, especially land
> and water - without expending precious capital on imported
> chemicals.
>
> Compiled from a longer article by Don Parker.
>
>      "The reason 800 million people go hungry today is not that there
> isn't enough food in the world, but that they can't afford to buy it.
>       It is not lack of resources that makes people poor today, Sagoff
> argues. It's bad government. He points to Angola, a resource-rich
> country too wracked by civil war to exploit its wealth, and Russia,
> comparable to the United States in natural resources and intellectual
> capital but impoverished by the legacy of communism."
>
> CORPORATE AGRIBUSINESS INDEX
>
> Acoording to USDA figures compiled by Daniel Wood, Christian Science
> Monitor:
> *Nearly 20% of the world's food now comes from city-based farms,
> averaging anywhere from one to 20 acres.
> * The average distance between food in the field and the dining room
> where it is eaten is 1,500 miles.
> * Refrigerating, transporting, and storing this food causes an
> expenditure of energy eight times greater than the value of the food
> itself.
> * In terms of calories, it takes eight calories of energy to produce
> and deliver one calorie of food 1,500 miles.
> * Spinach and other green leafy vegetables can lose as much as 50% of
> their nutrients in five days.
>
> * * *
>
> According to Business Week's annual survey:
> * U.S. executive pay in 1999 continued to grow at an out-of-this-world
> rate, the average CEO of a major corporation made $12.4 million in
> 1999, up 17% from the previous year or 475 times more than an average
> blue-collar worker and six times the average CEO paycheck in 1990. *
> American companies are paying CEOs better than anywhere else in the
> world, not 10% or 20% more, but 1,000 percent more and then some. *
> According to Towers Perrin's 1999 Worldwide Total Remuneration report,
> German CEOs make 13 times what the average manufacturing employee makes
> and in Japan, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio is just 11-to-1.
>
> * * *
>
> Preliminary data from Thomson Financial Securities Data reports that: *
> Mergers and acquisitions worldwide surpassed $3.4 trillion in 2000
> ekeing out a 3.5% increase over 1999's total and producing, the eighth
> consecutive record year for the continuing M&A expansion.
> * With three (weekend) days to go before 2000 drew to a close, total
> volume of M&A deals announced around the world reached $3.409 trillion,
> compared with $3.293 trillion in 1999.
> * In the U.S., announced mergers managed to rack up a total of $1.766
> trillion, up 12.9% over 1999's total of $1.564 trillion. While the
> increase reversed a 3% decline in U.S. merger volume the previous year,
> the total number of announced U.S. deals fell to 10,658 from 11,042 ---
> the second straight year in recent memory the number has dropped.
>
> * * *
>
> USDA figures show that:
> * U.S. fruit production fell 10% in 1999, declining for the second
> consecutive year.
> * Between 1992 and 1997, the number of U.S. farms with land set aside
> for orchards and vineyards declined by nearly 10,000, or 13.5%, to
> 106,069.
> * The state with the largest loss was California, where nearly 2,300
> farms disappeared as the number of acres devoted to fruit production
> increased.
>
> * * *
>
> FARM PRICE SQUEEZE
> Farmers get only a fraction of the price consumers pay for produce.
>
> Price spread to farmers.
> Item Price paid Retail price
> (Los Angeles)
> Carrots (1-pound bag) $0.16 $0.49 206%
> Potatoes (10-pound bag) $0.64 $1.91 198%
> Tomatoes (per pound) $0.57 $2.22 289%
> Iceberg lettuce (each) $0.43 $0.99 130%
>
> SOURCE: Western Growers Association. Week ending November 17, 2000
>
> * * *
>
> * USDA has overestimated the amount of farm land that was developed
> between 1992 and 1997 by 30% and blamed faulty software for the
> mistake. It initially reported that nearly 16 million acres of farm
> land were converted to development between 1992 and 1997 --- a rate of
> 3.2 million per year. The correct figure is 11.2 million acres, a
> development rate of 2.2 million acres per year.
> * Between 1982 and 1992, the annual conversion rate was 1.4 million
> acres a year.
> * The U.S. had 98 million acres of developed land in 1997, about 6.6%
> of the nation's non-federal land.
> * About 25% of the non-federal land is farmed. More than half is in
> rangeland or forests.
>
> http://www.ea1.com/CARP
> http://www.ea1.com/tiller/
> --
> "Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu
> at the same time.  I think I've forgotten
> this before. " - Steven Wright
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/


some crap about GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/27/01 1:52 PM

"Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:LHFc6.3167$I5.72646@stones...
:
: J K Cason <jkc...@negia.net> wrote in message==========
Well, live in your own little world. The rest of us have to live in the
real one. People who insist on living in their own worlds often find them
limited by padded walls.
: > <snip>

: >
: > *Can someone else get through to Ryan?  I'm having no luck at all.

No one can get through to some one who knows it all.
--
Gordon    W5RED
G. C. Couger gco...@provalue.net  Stillwater, OK


The truth about GM rice David Kendra 1/27/01 1:54 PM

"Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:I3Fc6.3069$I5.71833@stones...

I believe it will be given free to Third World countries but
individuals/companies in the developed world will pay for the rice.

dk


Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). gcouger 1/27/01 1:54 PM

"Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:G3Fc6.3067$I5.71833@stones...
: > > > > [Ryan] Everything you *need* to know about me, or the

organisation
: > > > > I 'work for' (I am unremunerated) is contained on the following
URL.
: > > > > Your 'right to know' is totally based on my desire to tell.
: > >>
: > > > So don't complain that people don't know who you are when you
won't
: > > > tell them.
: > >>
: > >[Ryan] For the purposes of this newsgroup it is irrelevant ...
: >
: >
:
alt.agriculture,alt.save.the.earth,alt.sustainable.agriculture,sci.agricul
tu
: > re,sci.environment

: >
: > which one? :-))
:
: I am on alt.save.the.earth - this stuff is just getting crossposted.

The take sci.agriculture out of the headers if you don't want to be
pounded on facts.


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


:
:


some twaddle about GM rice being the 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/27/01 2:08 PM

"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NB4m9FAiwwc6Ewwq@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
: Ryan Curtis wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001

How about dioxins in good old wood smoke.


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/27/01 2:30 PM

"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote in message
news:TsAc6.566$804.2455@news.get2net.dk...
: gcouger skrev i meddelelsen ...
: >"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote in message
:
: >: "We gain a knowledge of genes--as opposed to a mere assertion

: >: of their material existence--only through knowledge of the organism
: >: as a whole.The more knowledge we have of the organism as a whole,
: >: the more information we have.THIS INFORMATION IS NOT IN
: >: THE GENES; IT IS IN THE CONCEPTUAL THREAD THAT WEAVES
: >: TOGETHER THE VARIOUS DETAILS INTO A MEANINGFUL
: >: WHOLE."
:
: >Of course we can understand them better if we take them as a whole but
: >Gregor Mendel understood a great deal with out a clue to what a gene
: >was.<snip>
:
: You are missing the point. The question is whether Mendel gained
: knowledge of genes -without- working through knowledge of the whole
: organism. He quite obviously did not.
:
: "Some of the traits listed do not permit a definite and sharp
: separation, since the difference rests on a "more or less" which
: is often difficult to define.  Such traits were not usable for
: individual experiments; these had to be limited to characteristics
: which stand out clearly and decisively in the plants."  (Mendel, 1866)

Some didn't but some did. Obviously the more we know about the whole the
better we can understood the parts. But if we isolate one gene and
transfer it to a number of plants and see how it expresses its self in
each of them we gain a great deal of knowledge about that gene with out
understanding the whole genome of each plant.

We will never know everything about anything but so we can only learn
about anything in a piece meal way.


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' J K Cason 1/27/01 3:29 PM
"Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:jDEc6.3034$I5.71197@stones...

<snip>

> we have
> so much grain (even without GM) that we are burning it, storing it
until it
> rots - all to keep the prices artificially high.

Please tell us about the current prices for common grains.

How do they relate to the all-time highs and lows?

How do they relate to the cost of production?

<snip>

> Those who died in India during that famine did so because the
> population was too high for the amount of crops that could be grown
> naturally.

Your concern for the poor is a lesson for us all.

<snip>

>> If the world were still organic, then the population would be below
4
>> billion because that is the upper limit to organic farming. There
is
>> just not enough organic fertiliser in the world. It is only by
chemical
>> fertilisers there is enough food.

> [Ryan] Good.  Nothing wrong with a population of 4 billion .....
what were
> you going to do with all the extra people anyway?

Some of the most coldly misanthropic comments that I have ever seen
have been written by proponents of organic and sustainable
agriculture.

And their colleagues let these remarks pass without condemnation.


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/27/01 8:28 PM

Marty Sachs wrote:

>I would certainly agree that one cannot fully understand how a gene
>functions outside of the context of the organism (at least with our
>present knowledge base).  However, the sequence of an isolated gene
>does  tell us at least some of the potential information contained
within
>the gene (transcription/translation initiation sites, intron locations,
>primary amino acid sequence of encoded polypeptide) much of this can be
>confirmed with invitro transcription/translation assays (and perhaps if
>lucky, one could figure out potential functions of the encoded protein
>with invitro assays if the protein folds properly).  Promotor regions
>can be used in invitro assays to 'fish' out potential regulatory
>proteins (these proteins that bind to the promotor region can then be
>characterized, etc).  I certainly would consider this information far
>more than 'mere assertion of a gene's material existence'.

Hello Marty, and thanks for this beautiful  illustration of
how a person with your training will tend to deal with the
problem. It illustrates it so well that I have chosen to
leave an undisturbed copy of your text (above) while
repeating it (below) chopped up by my comments.

But first, here  is the first part of the quote which points to the
problem, you are adressing:


>> "We gain a knowledge of genes--as opposed to a mere assertion
>> of their material existence--only through knowledge of the
>> organism as a whole."

>I would certainly agree that one cannot fully understand how a gene


>functions outside of the context of the organism (at least with our
>present knowledge base)

So basically, you do agree with the author. The knowledge
he is talking about  gaining--  what you call  'to understand
how a  gene functions' -- will ultimately need to be gained
or understood in the context of the organism.


The knowledge or understanding which is being adressed has
as its subject -- the significance of the gene to the organism.
No wonder then, that something will be missing when one tries
to understand the gene -outside- the context of the organism.

> However, the sequence of an isolated gene does
>tell us at least some of the potential information  contained within
>the gene (transcription/translation initiation sites, intron locations,
>primary amino acid sequence of encoded polypeptide)

Full stop here. Your use of the term 'information' is
problematic. It should be kept in mind that we are talking
about  how to gain knowledge of genes --  with your
expression -- to understand how a gene functions. We
are talking about how we can bring ourselves in a
position to  know something about the significance
of a gene to an organism.

So, if we want to use the term 'information' here,
it -must-惑e used, such that we can say 'to gain
information about genes' thereby meaning the same
as 'to gain knowledge of genes'. We -must- use
that term, such that we can say 'to have information
about how a gene functions' meaning the same
as when we say 'to understand how a gene functions'.

But that is not how you are using the term 'information',
when you write:

><..>the sequence of an isolated gene does


>tell us at least some of the potential information
>contained within  the gene (transcription/translation
>initiation sites, intron locations, primary amino acid
>sequence of encoded polypeptide) much of this can
>be confirmed with invitro transcription/translation assays.

The  benchmark question is: Has any of
this given us information about the significance
of the gene to the organism? Have we harvested
information such  that we now better understand
how the gene functions in the context of the organism?

I think the answer is no. The trick, if I may call it that,
which you are performing, is to utilize that there is
-- in one sense of that word --  'information'  in
the base sequence of a gene. It can be measured
in bits, just like we say that the number 4 represents
2 bits of information.

So, right, we can locate transcription/translation
initiation  sites, intron locations, and determine
the primary  amino acid  sequence of the encoded
polypeptide. And then we have indeed  gained
something which can be represented as a certain
number of bits of information. So it -is- information.
And we have gained it outside the context
of the organism.

<Cough>. But these bits of information do not
represent  information of how the gene functions.
They do not represent information of the significance
of the gene to the organism.

>(and perhaps if lucky, one could figure out potential
>functions of the encoded protein with invitro assays
>if the protein folds properly).

Perhaps. However we cannot hope to do what you describe
without making reference to another gene from another
organism with a similarly  conformed encoded protein,
the function of which in that organism we have already
gained knowledge about.

This raises two questions
1) How was the knowledge of the function of that
other gene gained?
2) On which basis can we deduce that two
similarly conformed protein have the same
function in different contexts? (It does not
represent a gain in knowledge to -assume-
that they have)

> Promotor regions
>can be used in invitro assays to 'fish' out potential regulatory
>proteins (these proteins that bind to the promotor region can then be
>characterized, etc).

This  harks back to the characterisation of the regulated
gene which you have already mentioned.  As I have argued
above, this characterisation does represent a gain of information,
but it does not represent  a gain in information=understanding
how the gene functions, as it does not represent
information=knowledge of the significance of the gene
to the organism.

>I certainly would consider this information far
>more than 'mere assertion of a gene's material existence'.

Yes, if you by that mean the mere assertion
that "the gene exists".

But can we really think that the author could just
as well have expressed his train of thought like this:

'We gain a knowledge of genes--AS OPPOSED
TO KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY EXIST -- only through
knowledge of the organism as a whole. The more


knowledge we have  of the organism as a whole,
the more information we have. This information is not
in the genes, it is in the conceptual  thread that weaves
together the various details into a meaningful whole.' ?

At this point in our discussion, I would be disrespectful
to you, were I not to to expect you to  realize from
considering  the whole expression, and in particular
the functional use of the expressions 'in the genes'
and 'various details' in the last statement in it, that we can't.


Best regards,

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name

Fire (examples of Appropriate Technology) Jim Webster 1/27/01 12:36 PM

Ryan Curtis wrote in message ...

there's some mornings when coming down from the trees doesn't seem as good
an idea as it did.

I do think it is about time they started including risk assessment in the
schools. Even if they just explained the concept.

Jim Webster

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

>
>


The truth about GM rice Ray Dobson 1/27/01 11:48 PM
"David Kendra" <dke...@mr.net> wrote:

Don't hold your breath. It will be a long, long time before there is
enough 'golden rice' to plant even a small field in any Third World
country and WHO estimates that about 50 million (give or take 10
million) such small fields are necessary to alleviate VAD. At present
'golden rice' is sitting in a grenade-proof greenhouse in Switzerland
closely guarded by 72 patents.

The so-called 'golden rice' scheme is a cruel and callous scam. It is
cruel because the hopes of the poor rice farmers with suffering
children have been raised only to have those hopes dashed completely
when the scheme collapses under its own weight of balony and
balderdash  and it is callous because the agribusiness giants, fully
aware it is impossible, are promoting it in order to salvage a morally
as well as a financially bankrupt agricultural biotech industry.
WRD

some crap about GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/28/01 2:56 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Sat, 27 Jan 2001

>>Oz:


>> Original thought is one thing, you use complete invention which is far
>> from being original.
>
>[Ryan] I didn't know that invention was a dirty word - don't tell Leonardo.
>
>> > a known heresy within academic and scientific circles.
>>
>> Not the one's I know of. It's very highly prized.
>
>[Ryan] highly prized ... so long as you can cite your references and list
>your sources.

Not at all unless you need these sources for what you claim but do not
show. IIRC several of einstein's papers had none or only one or two
references. After all there was nothing he needed to refer to because he
derived it all from a few postulates.

The key is whether you can back your argument up with facts from the
universe.

--
Oz

some twaddle about nukes being good for you Oz 1/28/01 2:52 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Sat, 27 Jan 2001
>>

You really have a problem in admitting you are wrong, don't you?

--
Oz

Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Oz 1/28/01 2:49 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Sat, 27 Jan 2001
>
>Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:tc0+6KARTdc6EwFH@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
>> Ryan Curtis wrote on Fri, 26 Jan 2001
>> >
>> >[Ryan] I am not an agriculturalist, so I do not need to know anything
>about
>> >agriculture.
>>
>> Nice to see you admit it. Your previous postings were indeed the rubbish
>> we said they were.
>>
>[Ryan] Not at all, they were just pitched at the level understood by someone
>without any interest in the details of agricultural minutae.  

Someone with absolutely no knowledge of agriculture is what you really
mean. That's why you spout such bs.

>I am sure I
>can drum up some information from the Soil Association on any particular
>point I want .....

They have been telling porkies too. Recently got their adverts pulled
and a good telling of from the advertising standards agency, and
criticised bt the food agency for telling fibs.

Naughty naughty.

So not a very good source.

>no point me taking the course if I can ask someone who
>already did.

Because then you might be able to distinguish between truth and porkies?
Oh, but I doubt you would want to know because it wouldn't be nice and
black and white.

>> >Scientists are just there to do a job - like plumbers ...
>>
>> They also know a lot about their subject, which is why they should be
>> listened to as against someone quite ignorant.
>
>As does a plumber ... but I wouldn't necessarily trust one to rewire my
>house or fix my car.

Who said a plumber necessarily knew about car repair?
The point (as you know full well) is that experts in the fields
concerned know a whole lot more than most.

>> >though a good plumber makes much more interesting conversation than a
>good
>> >scientist ;-)  My expertise is in project co-ordination and resource
>> >management,
>>
>> OK, a bureaucrat.
>
>More of a plutocrat actually ... ;-)

Yup. A parasite.

>> > if I want a good 'plumber' then I know where to find one.
>>
>> That's good, doubtless they will see you coming.
>
>[Ryan] That's ok .... I don't know much about plumbing but I know lots about
>visiting unpleasantness on those guilty of poor workmanship.

Maybe. I think a real crook would pick your bones clean, you are so
gullible.

--
Oz

some crap about GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/28/01 2:59 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Sat, 27 Jan 2001

>[Ryan] Trust me, I have seen enough of the real world to know I prefer


>living in my own little one.  "I have seen enough of death to know that I
>prefer life" - now *there's* a quote you can take to the bank.

That just about sets your viewpoint.

You believe things that you want to believe and ignore any inconvenient
counter facts and reality.

Not someone I would employ.

It's people like you who cock things up bigtime.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/28/01 2:41 AM

<< Someone:

>> In 1900 the whole world was organic. That year, 2.5 million people died
>> in India due to famine. In the 1960s' in Bihar, India there was massive
>> famine. Yes some are caused by political failures.
>
>[Ryan] Interesting story but completely meaningless to the discussion in
>hand.  Those who died in India during that famine did so because the
>population was too high for the amount of crops that could be grown
>naturally.  Instead of cutting back the population they decided to poison
>the food instead - clever.  The population there now is no doubt higher than
>it was then - so the next famine will be even worse.

You may remember Mrs Gandhi was very strong on population control.
Paying large (locally) sums for people to agree to being sterilised.

She was assassinated.

Hard to see they could have tried much harder, really.

You are amazingly ignorant.
Heading for the killfile due inability to learn.
Which will probably be a relief to you.


--
Oz

Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Oz 1/28/01 2:43 AM
Ryan Curtis wrote on Sat, 27 Jan 2001
>
>I am on alt.save.the.earth - this stuff is just getting crossposted.

Yes, indeed. God save the earth from you then.

You don't have remotely enough knowledge to even understand the basic
problems, let alone any sensible solutions.

--
Oz

The truth about GM rice Jim Webster 1/28/01 4:49 AM

Ray Dobson wrote in message

>The so-called 'golden rice' scheme is a cruel and callous scam. It is
>cruel because the hopes of the poor rice farmers with suffering
>children

I suspect that poor rice farmers have far too much experience of life to
actually believe what they are told by corporate PR people, politicians or
pressure groups. Like everyone else in agriculture they will believe it when
they see it.


Jim Webster

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


more twaddle about GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/28/01 8:57 AM
>
> <snip>
>
> > we have so much grain (even without GM) that we are
> > burning it, storing it until it rots - all to keep the prices
> > artificially high.
>
> Please tell us about the current prices for common grains.
> How do they relate to the all-time highs and lows?
> How do they relate to the cost of production?
>
[Ryan] Dunno, don't care - and I suspect you don't either.

> <snip>
>
> > Those who died in India during that famine did so because the
> > population was too high for the amount of crops that could be
> > grown naturally.
>
> Your concern for the poor is a lesson for us all.
>
[Ryan] At least I show some concern ....

> <snip>
>
> > > If the world were still organic, then the population would
> > > be below 4 billion because that is the upper limit to organic
> > > farming. There is just not enough organic fertiliser in the
> > > world. It is only by chemical fertilisers there is enough food.
>
> > [Ryan] Good.  Nothing wrong with a population of 4 billion .....
> > what were you going to do with all the extra people anyway?
>
> Some of the most coldly misanthropic comments that I have ever
> seen have been written by proponents of organic and sustainable
> agriculture.  And their colleagues let these remarks pass without
> condemnation.
>
[Ryan] Well I wouldn't want to be accused of being a misanthropist .... is
that any worse than being a misanthropomorphist?  or if being
humano-centric?

Oz's killfile Ryan Curtis 1/28/01 8:59 AM
> You are amazingly ignorant.
> Heading for the killfile due inability to learn.
> Which will probably be a relief to you.
>
[Ryan] But Oz, I thought we really had something special man! You can't just
throw away all the good times we had together <sniff>.


Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Ryan Curtis 1/28/01 9:00 AM
> : >
> : > which one? :-))
> :
> : I am on alt.save.the.earth - this stuff is just getting crossposted.
>
> Then take sci.agriculture out of the headers if you don't want to be
> pounded on facts.
>
[Ryan] Then you take alt.save.the.earth out of your header if you don't want
to be pounded by those who can understand and interpret the 'facts' better
than you can memorise them ;-)

Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Ryan Curtis 1/28/01 9:01 AM

Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:heydaLALf$c6Ewkn@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...[Ryan] That's why I keep a list of approved 'plumbers' - you don't appear to
be on it Oz.  I wonder why that might be?

Dioxins in Wood Smoke Ryan Curtis 1/28/01 9:14 AM
>
> How about dioxins in good old wood smoke.
>
[Ryan] An excellent question.  Not directly relevant to the question of
using hazardous waste in building materials but nonetheless interesting.  I
was actually sent something recently on this very topic so I will try and
find it.

Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Ryan Curtis 1/28/01 9:06 AM
> > no point me taking the course if I can ask someone who
> > already did.
>
> Because then you might be able to distinguish between truth and porkies?
> Oh, but I doubt you would want to know because it wouldn't be nice and
> black and white.
>
[Ryan] But I like black and white ... I live in a world of morale absolutes,
hardly any gray areas - a thing is either right .... or it is wrong.  I find
it very comforting.

> > > >Scientists are just there to do a job - like plumbers ...
> > >
> > > They also know a lot about their subject, which is why they should be
> > > listened to as against someone quite ignorant.
> >
> >As does a plumber ... but I wouldn't necessarily trust one to rewire my
> >house or fix my car.
>
> Who said a plumber necessarily knew about car repair?
> The point (as you know full well) is that experts in the fields
> concerned know a whole lot more than most.
>
[Ryan] My point exactly, some scientists are like plumbers who profess
knowledge of car mechanics.  They need to shut up and get back under the
sink where they belong.

> > > > though a good plumber makes much more interesting conversation
> > > > than a good scientist ;-)  My expertise is in project co-ordination
> > > > and resource management,
> >>
> >> OK, a bureaucrat.
> >
> >More of a plutocrat actually ... ;-)
>
> Yup. A parasite.
>
> > > > if I want a good 'plumber' then I know where to find one.
> > >
> > > That's good, doubtless they will see you coming.
> >
> > [Ryan] That's ok .... I don't know much about plumbing but I know lots
about
> > visiting unpleasantness on those guilty of poor workmanship.
>
> Maybe. I think a real crook would pick your bones clean, you are so
> gullible.
>
[Ryan] Don't worry about me dear boy.  I've managed this far .... your
concern is touching however.  Thanks.

some twaddle about nukes being good for you Ryan Curtis 1/28/01 9:16 AM
[Ryan] Well it happens so rarely that I never really learned to cope with it
... it's part of me charm don't ya know.

Dioxins in Wood Smoke Timothy Miller 1/28/01 9:50 AM
"Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote:

>>
>> How about dioxins in good old wood smoke.
>>

The EPA should ban forest fires and weenie roasts immediately!

>[Ryan] An excellent question.  Not directly relevant to the question of
>using hazardous waste in building materials but nonetheless interesting.  I
>was actually sent something recently on this very topic so I will try and
>find it.
>
>
>

Fire (examples of Appropriate Technology) Ryan Curtis 1/28/01 9:20 AM
> > > [Jim] ... the one that gets me is fire. They let anyone deal in it,

> > > someone ought to do something.
> > >
> > > I propose that we get a proper licencing body  (Off-fire?)
> > > probably with an official "Fire Tzar" to control its use and
> > > spread
> > >
> > [Ryan] .. and the wheel!  I mean it's just asking for trouble innit? ;-)
>
> there's some mornings when coming down from the trees doesn't seem as good
> an idea as it did.
>
> I do think it is about time they started including risk assessment in the
> schools. Even if they just explained the concept.
>
[Ryan] The compensation culture being what it is I expect that the day is
not far away ... talking of coming down from the trees .... I have decided
to run off into the woods .. basically my thought processes <no sniggering!>
are thus:  shaded in the summer, sheltered in the winter.  Lots of flora
fauna and fungi, throw in a couple of mountains, lakes and grassy knolls and
you have a national park ... lovely. <straps on sword, throws kit bag over
shoulder and heads for door>.

some crap about GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/28/01 9:23 AM
> > > [Oz] Original thought is one thing, you use complete invention which

> > > is far from being original.
> >
> >[Ryan] I didn't know that invention was a dirty word - don't tell
Leonardo.
> >
> >> > a known heresy within academic and scientific circles.
> >>
> >> Not the one's I know of. It's very highly prized.
> >
> >[Ryan] highly prized ... so long as you can cite your references and list
> >your sources.
>
> Not at all unless you need these sources for what you claim but do not
> show. IIRC several of einstein's papers had none or only one or two
> references. After all there was nothing he needed to refer to because he
> derived it all from a few postulates.
>
[Ryan] But then apparently Einstein did not develop the ideas all by himself
... he just neglected to credit anyone else ..... what was the name of his
mate, the one who helped him with the maths?

> The key is whether you can back your argument up with facts from the
> universe.
>
[Ryan] Based on previous conversations with it over hot cocoa, I have come
to the understanding that the universe really doesn't care ....

GM rice is NOT the 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/28/01 9:37 AM

Paul Pikowsky <pks...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a733b38@excalibur.gbmtech.net...
> Chive Mynde,
>
> I have heard arguments similar to yours before.  While I'll agree that
> industrialized farming can interfere with food distribution and prevent
> preservationist farming tactics, I have to disagree that industrialized
> farming is at the root of hunger or poverty or the inability to feed
people.
> The problem is strictly one of overpopulation.

[Ryan] take a step back and look at it from the pov that the overpopulation
problem is directly linked to previous attempts to increase production of
food.  Each new technology which increases food production is followed by an
increase in population .... stop improving food technologies and the
population *will* stabilise.

> Farming is an extraction from ecosystems and relies on the destruction of
> ecosystems to exist.  In order to support populations as they exist now in
> the way that you suggest, you would have to tolerate the further
destruction
> of existing ecosystems in order to reduce them to farms.  You also pointed
> out that there are many farms being lost to "development".  But the
pressure
> for that development comes from the need for places for people to live and
> the numbers of these increases daily.

[Ryan] So decrease the numbers ... that will immediately lead to decreased
demands for housing, etc.

> Even if everyone in the world were to become some kind of Maoist
> overnight, the planet simply could not stand the damage.  Even farms
> depend on existing ecosystems somewhere to contribute to the Big
> Generator.  The collapse of the American Great Plains ecosystem and
> the consequent economic damage was corrected only by further damage
> to ecosystems elsewhere and a massive industrialization of the area.

The collapse of the plains ecosystem was caused by over-farming .... simple
cure to all our ills is to *stop* over-farming.


some crap about GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 1/28/01 9:25 AM
>
> [Oz] You believe things that you want to believe and ignore any

> inconvenient counter facts and reality.
>
[Ryan] Try using the same sentence to describe the behaviour of those I am
in conflict with ... spooky huh?

The truth about GM rice Ray Dobson 1/28/01 11:16 AM
"Jim Webster" <Jim.Webster@new.address.to.avoid.harassment> wrote:

>Ray Dobson wrote in message
>
>>The so-called 'golden rice' scheme is a cruel and callous scam. It is
>>cruel because the hopes of the poor rice farmers with suffering
>>children
>
>I suspect that poor rice farmers have far too much experience of life to
>actually believe what they are told by corporate PR people, politicians or
>pressure groups. Like everyone else in agriculture they will believe it when
>they see it.
>
>Jim Webster

Well, I sincerely hope you are right as there is no substance
whatsoever in this shameful scam.
WRD

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Marty Sachs 1/28/01 11:38 AM
In article <xhNc6.2$n85...@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:

> Marty Sachs wrote:
>
> >I would certainly agree that one cannot fully understand how a gene
> >functions outside of the context of the organism (at least with our
> >present knowledge base).  However, the sequence of an isolated gene
> >does  tell us at least some of the potential information contained
> within
> >the gene (transcription/translation initiation sites, intron locations,
> >primary amino acid sequence of encoded polypeptide) much of this can be
> >confirmed with invitro transcription/translation assays (and perhaps if
> >lucky, one could figure out potential functions of the encoded protein
> >with invitro assays if the protein folds properly).  Promotor regions
> >can be used in invitro assays to 'fish' out potential regulatory
> >proteins (these proteins that bind to the promotor region can then be
> >characterized, etc).  I certainly would consider this information far
> >more than 'mere assertion of a gene's material existence'.
>
> Hello Marty, and thanks for this beautiful  illustration of
> how a person with your training will tend to deal with the
> problem. It illustrates it so well that I have chosen to
> leave an undisturbed copy of your text (above) while
> repeating it (below) chopped up by my comments.


Thanks!  We wouldn't want to start off by taking quotes out of context
;-)

>
> But first, here  is the first part of the quote which points to the
> problem, you are adressing:
> >> "We gain a knowledge of genes--as opposed to a mere assertion
> >> of their material existence--only through knowledge of the
> >> organism as a whole."
>
> >I would certainly agree that one cannot fully understand how a gene
> >functions outside of the context of the organism (at least with our
> >present knowledge base)
>
> So basically, you do agree with the author. The knowledge
> he is talking about  gaining--  what you call  'to understand
> how a  gene functions' -- will ultimately need to be gained
> or understood in the context of the organism.


Not exactly, but I do to the extent that if you want to understand an
organism, a study of that organism is an essential part in gaining that
understanding.  

That's not to say that one cannot obtain some understanding of an
organism by studying a part of it, or that one can fully understand an
organism with out ALSO studying its parts in isolation.

One can certainly gain some understanding (in addition to being able to
assert its material existence) of a part of an organism, by studying
only that part.

> The knowledge or understanding which is being adressed has
> as its subject -- the significance of the gene to the organism.


That's not how I interpreted your quote.  But, OK, even with this
interpretation, I would still say that one can certainly obtain some
understanding (in addition to being able to assert its material
existence) of a gene in isolation.


> No wonder then, that something will be missing when one tries
> to understand the gene -outside- the context of the organism.
>
> > However, the sequence of an isolated gene does
> >tell us at least some of the potential information  contained within
> >the gene (transcription/translation initiation sites, intron locations,
> >primary amino acid sequence of encoded polypeptide)
>
> Full stop here. Your use of the term 'information' is
> problematic. It should be kept in mind that we are talking
> about  how to gain knowledge of genes --  with your
> expression -- to understand how a gene functions. We
> are talking about how we can bring ourselves in a
> position to  know something about the significance
> of a gene to an organism.
>
> So, if we want to use the term 'information' here,
> it -must-惑e used, such that we can say 'to gain
> information about genes' thereby meaning the same
> as 'to gain knowledge of genes'. We -must- use
> that term, such that we can say 'to have information
> about how a gene functions' meaning the same
> as when we say 'to understand how a gene functions'.
>
> But that is not how you are using the term 'information',
> when you write:


I agree that the term 'information' can be used in many ways.


>
> ><..>the sequence of an isolated gene does
> >tell us at least some of the potential information
> >contained within  the gene (transcription/translation
> >initiation sites, intron locations, primary amino acid
> >sequence of encoded polypeptide) much of this can
> >be confirmed with invitro transcription/translation assays.
>
> The  benchmark question is: Has any of
> this given us information about the significance
> of the gene to the organism?


Yes, I certainly feel that it has.  However, I would agree that it
presently doesn't give us all the information.  On the other hand, we
would be missing information about the significance without this
analysis of the gene in isolation.


> Have we harvested
> information such  that we now better understand
> how the gene functions in the context of the organism?


Yes, I certainly feel that we have.  Again, I also feel that without
this information obtained from studying isolated genes, we would lack
some understanding about how the gene functions in the context of the
organism.


>
> I think the answer is no. The trick, if I may call it that,
> which you are performing, is to utilize that there is
> -- in one sense of that word --  'information'  in
> the base sequence of a gene. It can be measured
> in bits, just like we say that the number 4 represents
> 2 bits of information.
>
> So, right, we can locate transcription/translation
> initiation  sites, intron locations, and determine
> the primary  amino acid  sequence of the encoded
> polypeptide. And then we have indeed  gained
> something which can be represented as a certain
> number of bits of information. So it -is- information.
> And we have gained it outside the context
> of the organism.


Which is clearly much more than a 'mere assertion of a gene's material
existence'.


>

> <Cough>. But these bits of information do not
> represent  information of how the gene functions.


Not in total, but it does give us SOME information about how the gene
functions that we would not otherwise have.


> They do not represent information of the significance
> of the gene to the organism.


Not in total, but it does give us SOME information about the
significance of the gene to the organism, that we would not otherwise
have.

>
> >(and perhaps if lucky, one could figure out potential
> >functions of the encoded protein with invitro assays
> >if the protein folds properly).
>
> Perhaps. However we cannot hope to do what you describe
> without making reference to another gene from another
> organism with a similarly  conformed encoded protein,
> the function of which in that organism we have already
> gained knowledge about.


Similar things can be said about much of our knowledge base; existing
knowledge is important for making many advances in knowledge.  However,
we don't necessarily need to know anything about the specific organism
from which the gene is isolated, to learn something new about that gene.

>
> This raises two questions
> 1) How was the knowledge of the function of that
> other gene gained?
> 2) On which basis can we deduce that two
> similarly conformed protein have the same
> function in different contexts? (It does not
> represent a gain in knowledge to -assume-
> that they have)


One can do biochemical assays (e.g., see if a particular encoded protein
catalyzes a particular reaction).  This may or may not represent the
true function the product in the organism, but would give us information
about the product and the gene encoding it.


>
> > Promotor regions
> >can be used in invitro assays to 'fish' out potential regulatory
> >proteins (these proteins that bind to the promotor region can then be
> >characterized, etc).
>
> This  harks back to the characterisation of the regulated
> gene which you have already mentioned.  As I have argued
> above, this characterisation does represent a gain of information,


And again, clearly much more than a 'mere assertion of a gene's material
existence'.


> but it does not represent  a gain in information=understanding
> how the gene functions, as it does not represent
> information=knowledge of the significance of the gene
> to the organism.


I disagree.  It does give us SOME information about how the gene
functions and the significance of the gene to the organism, that we
would not otherwise have.


>
> >I certainly would consider this information far
> >more than 'mere assertion of a gene's material existence'.
>
> Yes, if you by that mean the mere assertion
> that "the gene exists".
>
> But can we really think that the author could just
> as well have expressed his train of thought like this:
>
> 'We gain a knowledge of genes--AS OPPOSED
> TO KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY EXIST -- only through
> knowledge of the organism as a whole. The more
> knowledge we have  of the organism as a whole,
> the more information we have. This information is not
> in the genes, it is in the conceptual  thread that weaves
> together the various details into a meaningful whole.' ?
>
> At this point in our discussion, I would be disrespectful
> to you, were I not to to expect you to  realize from
> considering  the whole expression, and in particular
> the functional use of the expressions 'in the genes'
> and 'various details' in the last statement in it, that we can't.


I disagree.  We gain knowledge of genes both in the context of the
organism and in isolation.  The knowledge we gain from one analysis
complements that obtained by another.  Even as you've modified the
quote, I still feel that it is wrong.  

Perhaps if it were modified further to read:

'We gain a knowledge of genes through


knowledge of the organism as a whole. The more
knowledge we have  of the organism as a whole,
the more information we have.'

This I would agree with.  However, one should add:

'We gain a knowledge of organisms through
knowledge of their parts (e.g., genes) in isolation. The more
knowledge we have of the parts (e.g., genes),
the more information we have about organism as a whole.'

   Best regards,

      -Marty Sachs

Dioxins in Wood Smoke Jim Webster 1/28/01 10:52 AM

Timothy Miller wrote in message <3a745bb3...@news.mindspring.com>...

>"Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> How about dioxins in good old wood smoke.
>>>
>
>The EPA should ban forest fires and weenie roasts immediately!

Under EU/UK  regulations (as explained in the press last year so I cannot
vouch for 100% accuracy) it is illegal to be burned in a coffin brought in
from another member state. So if you die in (for example) Spain, which is
quite common for elderly English expats) and are sent home in a coffin, you
have to be taken out of your coffin and put in a UK one at customs.

Oh yes, and your foriegn coffin is then disposed of by being burned.

Jim Webster

We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
 Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
>
>>[Ryan] An excellent question.  Not directly relevant to the question of
>>using hazardous waste in building materials but nonetheless interesting.
I
>>was actually sent something recently on this very topic so I will try and
>>find it.
>>
>>
>>
>


Fire (examples of Appropriate Technology) Jim Webster 1/28/01 2:46 PM

Ryan Curtis wrote in message <6_Yc6.81$I5.6136@stones>...

Wouldn't bother with sword. For the same steel you could get a decent
fighting axe, a useful knife, a couple of good spear heads and more arrows
than you need.

Not only that but being ethnic you would blend in so well in Cumbria that
the tourists would probably support you on sandwiches (Well it works for
Herdwicks)

Jim Webster

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

>
>


The truth about GM rice Jim Webster 1/28/01 2:43 PM

Ray Dobson wrote in message <3a746fa...@news.netaccess.co.nz>...

if it is a scam it is a waste of time perpetrating it on peasants who by
definition are short of money and wary. Far better to run your scam on
people with money and very little agricultural knowledge. The Urban west has
millions of these people. :-))

Jim Webster

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

Fire (examples of Appropriate Technology) gcouger 1/28/01 3:47 PM

"Jim Webster" <Jim.Webster@new.address.to.avoid.harassment> wrote in
message news:9527p0$6aj$4@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
:
: Ryan Curtis wrote in message <6_Yc6.81$I5.6136@stones>...:
They best support him with sandwiches he forgot the fishing tackel. Even
with a gun hunting for a living is a hard row to hoe.
--
Gordon    W5RED
G. C. Couger gco...@provalue.net  Stillwater, OK


Dioxins in Wood Smoke gcouger 1/28/01 3:49 PM

"Jim Webster" <Jim.Webster@new.address.to.avoid.harassment> wrote in
message news:9525vc$81m$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
:
: Timothy Miller wrote in message

<3a745bb3...@news.mindspring.com>...
: >"Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote:
: >
: >>>
: >>> How about dioxins in good old wood smoke.
: >>>
: >
: >The EPA should ban forest fires and weenie roasts immediately!
:
: Under EU/UK  regulations (as explained in the press last year so I
cannot
: vouch for 100% accuracy) it is illegal to be burned in a coffin brought
in
: from another member state. So if you die in (for example) Spain, which
is
: quite common for elderly English expats) and are sent home in a coffin,
you
: have to be taken out of your coffin and put in a UK one at customs.
:
:
:
: Oh yes, and your foriegn coffin is then disposed of by being burned.

Sounds like you have a strong undertakers lobby there too.


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


The truth about GM rice gcouger 1/28/01 4:24 PM

"Ray Dobson" <r.d...@cirrostratus.netaccess.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3a746fa4.650833@news.netaccess.co.nz...

On what do you base that assumption? There is a great deal of GE research
going on that will benefit the poor subsistence farmer and will not make a
cent for the folks doing it. Much of it is going on at universities on
grant money but when a for profit company comes up with something that has
no market value but is beneficial to the world to withhold it would be
ethically wrong and passing up a very good PR move. Inspire of what those
out to trash agribusiness they are in the business of feeding people and
making money. If anyone is just interested in making money they don't go
into science and they sure don't go near agriculture. They are both very
hard places to get rich. Agriculture in particular requires very large
amounts of capital and has very low returns on the capital that is tied up
for long periods of time. Since 1980 the rate of return has been so low
that it is difficult to get banks to make loans to agricultural
enterprises.

Golden rice is one of those things that has no commercial value and the
developer knew it had none when they were developing it. The challenge was
to get all the patent holders on the various parts of the rice genome they
used to sign off on making it free. The fact that they were able to get
everyone to agree pretty well shoots holes in the big bad robber baron
image agribusiness's detractors were trying to project so now they are
using the big lie strategy that it is worthless. Hitler would be proud of
their methods.


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


The truth about GM rice John McCarthy 1/28/01 6:27 PM
The main developer of golden rice is Ingo Potrykus, a university
scientist in Switzerland.  Only a fool would call his work a cruel and
callous scam.  

The patent situation is now sufficiently disentangled so that samples
have been turned over for further development to the International
Rice Research Institute in the Philippines.  Is this institute, which
is responsible for Green Revolution rice greatly increasing yields
also a scam.

Here's what Potrykus wrote.


The "Golden Rice" Tale

INGO POTRYKUS

Turning Point Article

Professor Emeritus, Institute of Plant Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology, ETH Centre, LFW 53.1, CH-8092 Zürich, Switzerland
(potr...@active.ch)

(received October 23, 2000; editor I.K. Vasil)

"Golden Rice" is, to date, a popular case – supported by the scientific
community, the agbiotech industry, the media, the public, the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Health
Organization (WHO), official developmental aid institutions, etc., but
equally strongly opposed by the opponents of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs). The first group likes "Golden Rice" because it is an
excellent example of how genetic engineering of plants can be of direct
benefit to the consumer, especially the poor and the disadvantaged in
developing countries, where GMOs offer many more opportunities for the
improvement of livelihood than for those living in well-fed developed
nations.

The GMO opposition, however, is concerned that "Golden Rice" will be a
kind of "Trojan Horse", opening the developing countries to other
applications of the GMO technology, and for improving acceptance of GMO
food. Indra Vasil persuaded me to write the Golden Rice Tale because the
background behind this success, which is embedded in numerous failures and
obstacles, and which covers the entire history of the development of plant
genetic engineering, might be of interest to those who are faced with the
numerous specific problems of strategic research, where the target is set
at the outset, where no attractive alternatives to existing academic
questions are available, where success is measured in relation to the
original target, and not in relation to possible attractive academic
solutions.

Motivation and technique development (1972 to 1987)

My scientific career and my interest in "genetic engineering" began in
1970 with the first protoplast experiments with Petunia in the laboratory
of Professor D. Hess in Stuttgart-Hohenheim, Germany. We regenerated
fertile plants from mesophyll protoplasts (Durand et al. 1973), introduced
isolated nuclei (Potrykus and Hoffmann 1973) and chloroplasts (Potrykus
1973) into protoplasts, and treated protoplasts with naked DNA in an
attempt to transfer genes (Hess et al. 1973). In one exciting experiment
we used DNA from a dominant red-flowering pure line of Petunia to
transform protoplasts of a recessive white flowering pure line. We
expected pink-flowering plants in case of success. When we finally
recovered a greenhouse full of pink-flowering plants, we realized that
something had gone wrong. As far as we could reconstruct, we had taken
leaves for protoplast isolation from a population of young heterozygous
plants that were grown in the same greenhouse to take advantage of the
heterozygous state for anther culture experiments. We fortunately had not
published, but on the basis of this experience I was very skeptical when
Peter Carlson reported about his famous N. glauca x N. langsdorfii
"somatic hybrids". Already at that time (1972) there were claims (from
those working with tobacco and petunia) that the new technology would
contribute to food security in developing countries. Obviously, to
contribute, one would have to work with important crop plants and not only
talk about them.

Even at the peak of success of the Green Revolution it was clear that
feeding the exploding population in developing countries would require
intensive new scientific research. I therefore began in 1973 to work
towards the development of the new technology for cereals (beginning with
barley) and tried to repeat what had been so easy with Petunia. Our
efforts gained the attention of the late Professor G. Melchers who
arranged for the opportunity to establish a small research group at the
Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Genetics in Ladenburg/Heidelberg. With
Emrys Thomas and Gerd Wenzel I had enthusiastic colleagues and with Horst
Lörz and Christian Harms very motivated graduate students. We all were
focusing on cereal tissue and cell culture, and could regenerate plants
from various tissues of wheat, maize, barley, and rye (Potrykus et al.
1976, 1977).   However, a mesophyll protoplast regeneration system could
not be developed despite the fact that I challenged, with a most
sophisticated microdrop array cell culture protocol, more than 120,000
protoplast culture conditions including up to 7-factor gradient mixtures
of all known growth substances in a wide range of concentrations (Potrykus
et al. 1978). The best I could achieve with wheat mesophyll protoplasts
was the formation of ca. 60-celled "globular proembryos", which, however,
refused to develop further. This cereal work found the attention of the
Agrodivision of Ciba-Geigy which intended to complement the
Pharma-oriented research in the recently established Friedrich
Miescher-Institute (FMI) in Basel, Switzerland (a foundation for basic
research) with agrobiotechnology-oriented research (yes, already in
1975!).

The institute offered me in 1976 the task of establishing three Plant
Biology groups, which I tried to coordinate around genetic engineering,
mutagenesis, and haploids of cereals with my colleagues Patrick King and
Emrys Thomas (Potrykus et al. 1979). As the mesophyll protoplast approach
remained very recalcitrant, we studied the loss of competence during the
course of leaf differentiation.  We found that beyond the basal 3 mm of a
young cereal leaf cells are terminally differentiated.  We thus looked for
alternatives such as somatic embryos inducible from the basal leaf
segments, especially effective in Sorghum (Wernicke et al. 1981, 1982),
and the re-meristematizing response of maize tissue to Ustilago maydis
infection.

At the beginning of the 1980s it became evident that the crown gall tumor
was based on a natural transformation process.  Not surprisingly, many
laboratories focused on the development of a transformation protocol based
on T-DNA transfer. As this was based on a wound-response leading to a
wound-meristem to allow for the proliferation of T-DNA transformed cells,
and as we knew that gramineous species have a wound response leading to
death of wound-adjacent cells, we could not believe in a future for
Agrobacterium and cereals (Potrykus 1990, 1991). Consequently, we were
focusing on the development of a vector-independent transformation system:
"direct gene transfer" via incubating protoplasts in DNA. This was
strongly supported through two hard-core molecular biologists joining the
FMI. Barbara and Thomas Hohn were attracted by the scientific potential of
the new research area in the institute. This close collaboration between
the tissue culture specialists and the molecular biologists soon produced
the Agrobacterium-independent transformation technique (Brisson et al.
1984, Paszkowski et al. 1984, Schocher et al. 1986). Instrumental in this
was Jerszy (Jurek) Paszkowski who joined my group as a fresh Ph.D. from
Warzawa (Poland) and who was the perfect link between the two groups. Only
half a year after the first Agrobacterium-mediated tobacco was reported we
could publish the first "direct gene transfer"-derived tobacco. However,
this was tobacco and not any cereal. It took two more years to produce the
first transgenic maize cell culture, but this then was a non-morphogenic
cell line (Potrykus et al. 1985).

The next breakthrough came from Indra Vasil’s concept of preventing
differentiation in cereals by establishing "embryogenic suspensions". This
eventually led to the development of the embryogenic callus-suspension
culture-protoplast systems for cereals, which as shown later, played a
critical role in the production of transgenic cereals (Vasil 1999).
Attempts to transform embryogenic cultures with Agrobacterium did not
yield convincing results. However, this was no longer necessary because by
then John Sanford and Ted Klein had invented the "crazy" biolistic
transformation method (Sanford 2000), which was used successfully for the
regeneration of transgenic plants in tobacco, cotton, etc. Embryogenic
suspensions were the ideal material for biolistic treatment and it was to
be expected that, with the necessary effort, it would produce transgenic
cereals. Embryogenic suspensions were, however, also the only source of
totipotent protoplasts of cereals.  We chose this approach for our work
(Vasil and Vasil 1992).

At the end of 1985, I was offered a full professorship at the Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zürich. I was responsible for
building, together with the professor in crop physiology (Josef
Nösberger), a new institute, combining both basic and applied research.
This Institute of Plant Sciences was the ideal setting for my intentions
(which increasingly focused on the development and use of genetic
engineering technology to contribute to food security in developing
countries), and it provided longer range independent and stable financing
for continued approaches to genetic engineering of cereals.  At the same
time Swapan Datta joined my group and this was the beginning of our work
with rice and an important turning point.

Focusing on rice as the outstanding food security crop (1987-1999)

 Swapan Datta was accompanied by his talented wife Karabi. Swapan had
joined me to learn from our protoplast experience but I was following at
that time another idea. As the embryogenic response was rather
genotype-dependent and as I wanted a generally applicable technique, I
decided to challenge early sexual embryos down to isolated zygotes. For
transformation I wanted to optimize the micro-injection technique (Kost et
al. 1995, Lusardi et al. 1994). I convinced two scientists with exciting
experience in microinjection (Gunther Neuhaus and German Spangenberg) to
join me in Zürich for this purpose, and I invested the entire group,
except for Jerszy Paszkowski who was free to work with his group on
homologous recombination (Paszkowski et al. 1988, Baur et al. 1990) on the
isolation, culture and microinjection of sexual proembryos from wheat,
maize, rice, and later Arabidopsis. After many years of enormous effort,
we found much to our disappointment that the microinjection system worked
fine with protoplasts, but was extremely bad with cells surrounded by a
cell wall. With Christof Sautter we also focused on the development of
mirotargeting as a further genotype-independent transformation technique
(Sautter et al. 1991, Leduc et al. 1994a, 1994b, Sautter et al. 1995),
which too did proved to be ineffective for routine transformation.
Swapan Datta asked for permission to work part-time (over the weekends) on
the embryogenic protoplast transformation approach. And the Dattas made
it. There came hygromycin-resistant rice, the first transgenic Indica rice
(Datta et al. 1990, 1992, Peterhans et al. 1990, Linn et al. 1995), all
from embryogenic protoplasts and direct gene transfer.

Swapan introduced me to Gary Toenniessen and the Rockefeller Foundation,
which by that time had already spent considerable funds in the Rice
Biotechnology Program on colleagues many of whom were not really using
these funds for rice work. By 1990 we also were receiving Rockefeller
funding (for development of Indica rice transformation protocol) and we
were producing the first insect-resistant Indica rice (Wünn 1996). We had
been unsuccessfully using wild type Bt and it took us one year of
bargaining until we were allowed to use the synthetic Ciba-Geigy gene. At
the beginning of 1990 I had also learned that "food security for
developing countries" not only had a quantity aspect, but also a quality
component. The major malnutritions were identified with "iron > iodine >
vitamin A" and this was the beginning of the "Golden Rice" adventure, and
another major turning point.

The problem of iron- and vitamin A-deficiency and traditional solutions

IDA (iron deficiency anemia), the most common nutritional disorder in the
world, impairs immunity and reduces the physical and mental capacities of
people of all ages.  In infants and young children even mild anemia can
impair intellectual development. Anemia in pregnancy is an important cause
of maternal mortality, increasing the risk of hemorrhage and sepsis during
childbirth. Infants born to anemic mothers often suffer from low birth
weight and anemia themselves. An inadequate dietary iron intake is the
main cause of IDA. According to UNICEF, nearly two billion people are
estimated to be anemic and about double that number, or 3.7 billion are
iron deficient, the vast majority of them women. In Africa and Asia UNICEF
estimates that IDA contributes to approximately 20 per cent of all
maternal deaths.

Each year more than one million VAD (vitamin A-deficiency) associated
childhood deaths occur.  And, according to the World Health Organization,
as many as 230 million children are at risk of clinical or subclinical
VAD, a condition which is largely preventable. VAD makes children
especially vulnerable to infections and worsens the course of many
infections. Supplementation with vitamin A is estimated by UNICEF to lower
a child’s risk of dying by approximately 23 percent. VAD is also the
single most important cause of blindness among children in developing
countries, about 500,000 per year.

Rice plants do not produce carotenoid compounds in the grain consumed by
humans. Consequently VAD often occurs where rice is the major staple food.
The amount of bioavailable iron is dependent both on the level of dietary
iron consumption and on iron absorption during the digestive process.
Dietary iron in developing countries consists primarily of non-heme iron
of vegetable origin, whose poor absorption is considered a major factor in
the etiology of iron deficiency anemia. Also legume staples and grains,
including rice, are high in phytic acid, which is a potent inhibitor of
iron absorption. Foods that enhance non-heme iron absorption such as
fruits and vegetables rich in ascorbic acid are often limited in
developing countries. Heme iron, which is relatively well absorbed by the
human intestine, is found primarily in foods containing blood and muscle.
Due to their expense and lack of availability, heme iron-rich foods are
often a negligible part of a typical developing country diet.

Interventions applied, so far, to reduce both IDA and VAD are (a)
supplementation (e.g. distribution of vitamin A capsules), (b) food
fortification (e.g. adding iron to wheat flower), and (c) dietary
education and diversification. In a FAO/WHO World Declaration on Nutrition
(1992) the following strategy has been advocated: "Ensure that sustainable
food-based strategies are given first priority particularly for
populations deficient in vitamin A and iron, favoring locally available
foods and taking into account local food habits." "Supplementation should
be progressively phased out as soon as micronutrient-rich food-based
strategies enable adequate consumption of micronutrients." And Per
Pinstrup-Andersen, Director General of the International Food Policy
Research Institute has pointed out that a sustainable solution of the
problem will come only when it will be possible to improve the content of
the missing micronutrients in the major staple crops. This was exactly
what we were trying to achieve. As the necessary genes for such an
improvement were not available in the rice gene pool, genetic engineering
was the only technical possibility. As rice endosperm did not contain any
provitamin A, the task was to introduce the entire biochemical pathway. As
rice endosperm contains very little iron and considerable amounts of a
potent inhibitor of iron resorption, and as resorption from a vegetarian
diet is generally poor, the task was to increase the iron content, reduce
the inhibitor content, and add a resorption-enhancing factor.  

Solving the scientific problems: "Golden Rice" (1992 to 1999)

Peter Burkhardt joined me in 1991 for a Ph.D. thesis work and it was not
difficult to motivate him for the provitamin A-project. I approached
Nestle, the world’s biggest food company, for funding but Nestle was
(fortunately) not interested. This was "fortunate" in retrospect because
it kept the project open for public funding with its important
consequences for later free distribution to developing countries. With
Peter Beyer at the nearby University of Freiburg, Peter Burkhardt found
the ideal scientific supervisor, and I found a perfect partner. Peter
Beyer was studying the regulation of the terpenoid pathway in daffodil and
was working on the isolation of those genes we would need to establish the
pathway in rice endosperm. We approached the Rockefeller Foundation for
funding and Gary Toenniessen responded with the organization of a
brainstorming session in New York (1992). Many of the participants thought
that such a project did not have much chance of success, but because of
its potential importance it was worth trying. Peter Burkhardt found out
that the last precursor of the pathway in endosperm was
geranlygeranyl-pyrrophosphate and consequently, theoretically, it should
be possible to reach b-carotene via four enzymes: phytoene synthase,
phytoene desaturase, z-carotene desaturase, and lycopene cyclase. There
were hundreds of scientific reasons why the introduction and coordinated
function of these enzymes would not be expected to work, and that it may
cause many problematic side effects.

Those with the necessary scientific knowledge were right in not believing
in the experiment. When we finally had "Golden Rice" I learned that even
my partner, Peter Beyer and the scientific advisory board of The
Rockefeller Foundation, except for Ralph Quatrano, had not believed that
it could work. This exemplifies the advantage of my ignorance and naivete:
with my simple engineering mind I was throughout optimistic, and
therefore, carried the project through, even when Rockefeller stopped
funding of Peter Beyer’s group. Altogether it took eight years but the
first breakthrough came when Peter Burkhardt recovered phenotypically
normal, fertile, phytoene synthase-transgenic rice plants, which produced
good quantities of phytoene in their endosperm (Burkhardt et al. 1997).
This demonstrated two important facts: it was possible to specifically
deviate the pathway towards b-carotene, and channeling a lot of GGPP away
from the other important pathways had no severe consequences on the
physiology and development. This success encouraged me to motivate a
further Ph.D. student, Paola Lucca, with an MS in pharmacy, to work on the
problem of iron deficiency. More on this later, when the provitamin A
story has been completed. The next gene to follow was phytoene desaturase,
and this caused problems for more than a year. Peter Burkhardt could
obtain only heavily distorted transgenic plants. As he left the lab I
transferred the continuation of the project to my postdoc Andreas Klöti,
who had done excellent work towards engineering RTBV tungro disease
resistance (Fütterer et al. 1997, Klöti et al. 1999) and gene silencing,
and was happy about an "easier" task. Andreas continued with single gene
transformations and the concept was to combine the genes via crossing. We
had used biolistic transformation of embryogenic suspensions and
precultured immature embryos and had the typical complex integration
pattern. And this caused the longer the more, problems with gene stability
and fertility.

When we finally had transgenic plants for all genes separately, we could
combine genes pairwise but all this did not look too promising. By that
time Andreas left the lab and the project was transferred to Xudong Ye,
who had done a Ph.D. in forage grass biotechnology in my group, under the
supervision of German Spangenberg (Takamizo et al. 1992, Wang et al.
1992).  Xudong had survived a tough training and he had learned that
success in strategic research may require hard work. Xudong wanted to
invest only one year because he had plans to go to the U.S. He analyzed
the situation and decided, after discussions with Salim Al-Babili from
Peter Beyer’s group and our man behind many constructs, and Andreas, to
try a radical change in the approach: (a) change from biolistic to
Agrobacterium-mediated transformation, (b) use the Erwinia double
desaturase (crtI), and (c) introduce all genes together in a single
co-transformation experiment. Xudong recovered ca. 500 independent
transgenic lines. As our glasshouse had space only for 50 of them he
discarded 450 and grew the 50 best looking ones to maturity. Peter Beyer
polished the seeds, analysed them with HPLC, took beautiful photographs
and presented them to me at the farewell symposium I had organized on 31
March 1999, the date I had to retire because I had passed the age limit.
At this symposium Xudong Ye presented the results for the first time to
the public: the endosperm contained good quantities of provitamin A,
beautifully visible as "golden" color of different intensity in different
lines. The best provitamin A line had 85% of its carotenoids being
b-carotene. Other lines had less b-carotene, but interesting levels of
lutein and zeaxanthin, both substances of nutritional importance because
they have positive effects with regards to macula degeneration (Ye et al.
2000).

Development of "high iron rice" (1995-2000)

At the same farewell symposium Paola Lucca reported about her "high iron
rice". Iron deficiency is the biggest medical problem. This malnutrition
affects more than two billion humans, predominantly women and children.
Consequences are millions of birth-related deaths of mothers and children.
It impairs physical and intellectual development, the immune system, and
fitness. Concerning rice as the major staple there are three key problems:
(a) no other crop contains as little iron, (b) phytate, the phosphate
storage for seed germination is an extremely efficient inhibitor of iron
resorption (up to 98% of available iron can be blocked), and (c)
resorption from a vegetarian diet is rather poor. Our scientific advisor
for the project was Richard Hurrell, ETH professor for human nutrition,
with specialization in iron nutrition. Paola approached an improvement on
all three lines. Knowing that only 5% of the iron in the rice plant is in
the seed she created a sink for iron storage in the endosperm by
expressing a ferritin gene from Phaseolus (our request for funding was
turned down with the argument that we better study iron uptake into the
rice plant!) This led to a 2.5-fold increase in endosperm iron content. As
feeding studies with peptides from muscle tissue had shown that
cystein-rich polypeptides enhance iron resorption, Paola expressed an
appropriate gene, a metallothionin-like gene from Oryza and achieved a
7-fold increase in endosperm cystein. As it appeared unwise to interfere
with the phosphate storage (the inhibitor phytate) prior to germination,
Paola decided to approach inhibitor degradation after cooking. Thanks to
the permission from Hoffmann LaRoche, Basel, we could use a thermotolerant
mutant of a phytase from Aspergillus fumigatus, which refolded to 80%
activity after 20 minutes at 100ºC. To prevent activity which could
interfere with germination, the enzyme was excreted into the extracellular
space. One transgenic line expressed the phytase to levels 700-fold higher
than endogenous phytase. In small intestine simulation experiments the
phytase degraded phytate to zero levels within one hour at 37ºC. However,
much to everybody’s surprise, in the transgenic situation the enzyme did
not refold properly after cooking and had lost it’s thermotolerance. New
transgenic plants are meanwhile maturing, where the enzyme has been
targeted to the phytase storage vesicles to reduce the phytate content
directly. With the experience meanwhile available from low phytase
mutants, we hope that this will not too much affect germination. The three
"iron genes" are combined with the "provitamin A genes" by crossing.
Vitamin A supply is strategy No. 4 against iron deficiency, as it has been
shown that vitamin A-deficiency indirectly interferes with iron resorption
(Lucca et al. 2000a).

Attaining public recognition (2000)

The vitamin A rice project was considered a scientific breakthrough
because it was the first case of pathway engineering, and it was
representing also a considerable technical advancement. We felt it also
was a timely and important demonstration of positive achievements of the
GMO technology. GMO technology had been used to solve an urgent need and
to provide a clear benefit to the consumer, and especially to the poor and
disadvantaged. To make the information available to a wider audience for a
more balanced GMO discussion, we submitted the manuscript to Nature with a
covering letter explaining its importance in the present GMO debate. The
Nature editor did not even consider it worth showing the manuscript to a
referee and sent it back immediately. Even supportive letters from famous
European scientists did not help. From other publications in Nature at
that time we got the impression that Nature was more interested in cases
which would rather question instead of support the value of genetic
engineering technology.

Fortunately, Peter Raven (Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO, USA),
had heard about the "Golden Rice", and asked for more information, and
invited me in the last minute to present the work to the XVI International
Botanical Congress, August 1999 at St. Louis. He also took care of a press
conference and encouraged Science to look at the manuscript. Science was
interested in publishing both the pro-vitamin A case as well as the
iron-case in one publication, but the space it could provide was too
narrow for both (Ye et al. 2000). The iron-rice publication is soon coming
in Theoretical Applied Genetics (Lucca et al. 2000a). The press conference
in St. Louis, the presentation at the Nature Biotechnology Conference in
London, the Science publication with the commentary (Guerrinot 2000) the
feature story in TIME Magazine all led to an overwhelming coverage of the
"Golden Rice" story on TV, radio, and in the international press. A simple
example illustrates the difference in attitude between Europe and the rest
of the world. When the feature story came out in TIME Magazine (31 July
2000) it was planned that it would appear in the European edition the
following week. It has not shown up until now (12 November 2000).

The challenge of donating a GMO to poor countries (1999-open)

"Golden Rice" was developed for the vitamin A-deficient and iron-deficient
poor and disadvantaged in developing countries. To fulfill this goal it
has to reach the subsistence farmers free of charge and restrictions.
Peter Beyer had written up a patent application and the inventors, Peter
and myself, were determined to make the technology freely available. As
only public funding was involved this was not considered too difficult.
The Rockefeller Foundation had the same concept, the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology supported it, but the European Commission had a
clause in it’s financial support to Peter Beyer, stating that industrial
partners of the "Carotene plus" project, of which our rice project was a
small part, would have rights on project results (The IVth and Vth
framework of EU funding forces public research into coalitions with
industry and thus is responsible for two very questionable consequences:
Public research is oriented towards problems of interest to industry, and
public research is loosing it’s independence). We did not consider this
too big a problem because the EU funding was only a small contribution at
the end of the project. But we realized soon that the task of technology
transfer to developing countries, the international patent application,
and the numerous Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) and Technical
Property Rigths (TPRs) we had used in our experiments, were too much for
two private persons to be handled properly. We urgently (because of the
deadline of the international patent application) needed a powerful
partner. In discussions with industry the definition of "subsistence
farmer" and "humanitarian use" was the most difficult problem to be
solved. We wanted a definition as generous as possible, because we not
only wanted the technology free for small-scale farmers, we also wanted to
contribute to poverty alleviation via local commercial development. Very
fortunately the company which agreed to the most generous definition was
also the company which had legal rights because of its involvement in the
EU-project. This facilitated the agreement, via a small licensing company
(Greenovation), with Zeneca. Zeneca received an exclusive license for
commercial use and in return supports the humanitarian use via the
inventors for developing countries. The cut-off line between humanitarian
and commercial is $ 10,000 - income from "Golden Rice". This agreement
also applies for all subsequent applications of this technology to other
crop plants. It turned out that our agreement with Zeneca and the
involvement of our partner in Zeneca, Adrian Dubock, was a real asset to
the development of the humanitarian project. He was very helpful in
reducing the frightening number of IPRs and TPRs and he organized most of
the free licenses for the relevant IPRs and TPRs such that we are now in
the position of having reached "freedom-to-operate" for public research
institutions in developing countries to go ahead with breeding and de-novo
transformation into best adapted local varieties. Publicity sometimes can
be helpful: only few days after the cover of "Golden Rice" had appeared on
TIME Magazine, I had a phone call from Monsanto offering free licenses for
the company’s IPR involved. A really amazing quick reaction of the PR
department to make best use of this opportunity.

Making best use, not fighting patens helps the poor and underprivileged

At this point it is appropriate to add a more general comment on patents
and the  heavy opposition against patenting in life sciences. As we did
not know how many and which intellectual property rights we had used in
developing the "Golden Rice", and as further development for the
humanitarian purpose required "freedom-to-operate" for the institutions
involved, The Rockefeller Foundation commissioned an IPR audit through
ISAAA. The outcome was shocking (ISAAA briefs No. 20-2000). There were 70
IPRs and TPRs belonging to 32 different companies and universities, which
we had used in our experiments and for which we would need free licenses
to be able to establish a "freedom-to-operate" situation for our partners,
who were keen to begin further variety development. As I was in addition
blocked by an unfair use of a material transfer agreement, which had no
causal relation to "Golden Rice" development, I was rather upset. It
seemed to me unacceptable, even immoral, that an achievement based on
research in a public institution and with exclusively public funding, and
designed for a humanitarian purpose, was in the hands of those who had
patented enabling technology early enough or had sneaked in a MTA in
context of an earlier experiment. It turned out that whatever public
research one was doing, it was all in the hands of industry (and some
universities).

At that time I was much tempted to join those who radically fight
patenting. Fortunately I did a bit further thinking and became aware that
"Golden Rice" development was only possible because there was patenting.
Much of the technology I had been using was publicly known because the
inventors could protect their right. Much of it would have remained secret
if this had been the case. If we are interested to use all the knowledge
to the benefit of the poor, it does not make sense to fight against
patenting. It makes far more sense to fight for a sensible use of
intellectual property rights. Thanks to the public pressure there is a lot
of goodwill in the leading companies to come to an agreement on the use of
IPR/TPR for humanitarian use which does not interfere with commercial
interests of the companies.

There was a recent satellite meeting in context with the World Food Prize
Symposium 2000 at Des Moines, Iowa, which surfaced agreements on this line
between all participants, including major agboitech companies (for more
information contact C.S.Prakash; e-mail: pra...@acd.tusk.edu).

The challenge of safe technology transfer (2000-open)

Having solved the scientific problems, and having achieved freedom to
operate, leaves technology transfer as the next hurdle. This is a far
bigger task that anyone having no personal experience should assume.
"Golden Rice" is, of course GMO and this fact is sufficient to cause a
series of further problems. All care has to be taken that it is handled
according to established rules and regulations (where these do not exist,
they have to be established). And, of course, GMO is faced with emotional
and irrational opposition. Rational concerns and questions are taken care
of by the established regulations. Let us focus first on safe technology
transfer. Again we realized that we needed help, because this task is
beyond the capabilities of a retired professor (a private person) and an
already overworked associate professor with no infrastructure and heavy
teaching load. We established a "Golden Rice Humanitarian Board" to help
make the right decisions, and to have secretarial support. Again our
decision to work with Zeneca was extremely helpful. Adrian Dubock was
willing to care for the task of the secretary. We have additional
invaluable help from Katharina Jenny from ISCB (Indo-Swiss Collaboration
in Biotechnology), an institution jointly financed by the Indian
Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and the Swiss Development Corporation.
Golden Rice will be introduced into India in the established
organizational framework of ISCB, which has ten years of experience in
technology transfer. Thanks to this situation and thanks to the strong
commitment of the DBT and the Indian Council for Agricultural Research
(ICAR), India will take a leading role and can serve as a model for other
countries. The project starts with a careful needs assessment, analyzing
and comparing pros and cons of alternative measures and setting a
framework for optimal and complementary use of "Golden Rice". Of course,
there will be bioavailability, substantial equivalence, toxicology, and
allergenicity assessments and we are grateful for offers from specialists
to help. Careful socio-economic and environmental impact studies will help
to avoid any possible risk and make sure that the technology indeed
reaches the poor. Care will be taken that the material is given only to
institutions, which ensure proper handling according to rules and
regulations. Traditional breeding will transfer the trait into locally
best adapted lines, and again will make sure that varieties important to
the poor will be used and not fashionable varieties for the urban middle
class. There will be also direct de-novo transformation into important
varieties, and this will be done with mannose selection (Lucca et al.
2000b). "Golden Rice" so far has a hygromycin resistance gene, as it has
been introduced via co-transformation breeding has a chance to separate it
from the pro-vitamin A trait. All this costs a lot of money, which should
not affect the free distribution to subsistence farmers. Fortunately,
probably the World Bank, ICAR and DBT will share the costs for this
development in India. Agreements have been established with several
institutions in Southeast Asia, China, Africa, and Latin America and as
soon as the written confirmation of the "freedom-to-operate" is in the
hands of the "Humanitarian Board", material will be transferred.        
   
The challenge of the GMO opposition (2000-open)

"Golden Rice" fulfills all the wishes the GMO opposition had earlier
expressed in their criticism of the use of the technology, and it thus
nullifies all the arguments against genetic engineering with plants in
this specific example.
* Golden Rice has not been developed by and for industry.
* It fulfills an urgent need by complementing traditional interventions.
* It presents a sustainable, cost-free solution, not requiring other
resources.
* It avoids the unfortunate negative side effects of the Green Revolution.
* Industry does not benefit from it.
* Those who benefit are the poor and disadvantaged.
* It is given free of charge and restrictions to subsistence farmers.
* It does not create any new dependencies.
* It will be grown without any additional inputs.
* It does not create advantages to rich landowners.
* It can be resown every year from the saved harvest.
* It does not reduce agricultural biodiversity.
* It does not affect natural biodiversity.
* There is, so far, no conceptual negative effect on the environment.
* There is, so far, no conceivable risk to consumer health.
* It was not possible to develop the trait with traditional methods, etc.
Optimists might, therefore, have expected that the GMO opposition would
welcome this case. As the contrary is the case, and GMO opposition is
doing everything to prevent "Golden Rice" reaching the subsistence farmer,
we have learned that GMO opposition has a hidden, political agenda. It is
not so much the concern about the environment, or the health of the
consumer, or the help for the poor and disadvantaged. It is a radical
fight against a technology and for political success. This could be
tolerated in rich countries where people have a luxurious life also
without the technology. It can, however, not be tolerated in poor
countries, where the technology can make the difference between life and
death, and health or severe illness. In fighting against "Golden Rice"
reaching the poor in developing countries, GMO opposition has to be held
responsible for the foreseeable unnecessary death and blindness of
millions of poor every year.  

Opportunities from remaining scientific challenges (future)

My  retirement came too early. We have been working on challenges which
might be worth taking up by other institutions. We have been working on
projects to rescue lost harvests and have been successful with insect pest
resistance, had success with wheat (Clausen et al. 2000) with fungal
resitance, but not with rice despite thousands of transgenic rice lines
with genes for most peptides with antifungal effects. We had also no rice
lines resistant to RTBV tungro disease despite excellent research of the
group of Johannes Fütterer over more than eight years. We were also
interested in better exploitation of natural resources and here are two
projects I would continue, if the necessary resources were available: We
convinced ourselves that engineering of C4 photosynthesis is feasible. We
do not think that simple transfer of one or two genes from maize is going
to do it. However, we know now that rice (a...

Fire (examples of Appropriate Technology) Ryan Curtis 1/29/01 1:49 AM
> >> > > [Jim] ... the one that gets me is fire. They let anyone deal in it,
> >> > > someone ought to do something.
> >> > >
> >> > > I propose that we get a proper licencing body  (Off-fire?)
> >> > > probably with an official "Fire Tzar" to control its use and
> >> > > spread
> >> > >
> >> > [Ryan] .. and the wheel!  I mean it's just asking for trouble innit?
> >> > ;-)
> >>
> >> there's some mornings when coming down from the trees doesn't seem
> >> as good an idea as it did.
> >>
> >> I do think it is about time they started including risk assessment in
the
> >> schools. Even if they just explained the concept.
> >>
> > [Ryan] The compensation culture being what it is I expect that the day
> > is not far away ... talking of coming down from the trees .... I have
> > decided to run off into the woods .. basically my thought processes
> > <no sniggering!> are thus:  shaded in the summer, sheltered in the
> > winter.  Lots of flora fauna and fungi, throw in a couple of mountains,
> > lakes and grassy knolls and you have a national park ... lovely.
> > <straps on sword, throws kit bag over shoulder and heads for door>.
> >
>
> Wouldn't bother with sword. For the same steel you could get a decent
> fighting axe, a useful knife, a couple of good spear heads and more arrows
> than you need.
>
[Ryan] <runs back in the door and grabs fighting axe, useful knife, couple
of good spear heads and more arrows than I need from under bed>

> Not only that but being ethnic you would blend in so well in Cumbria that
> the tourists would probably support you on sandwiches (Well it works for
> Herdwicks).

[Ryan] LOL.  I could paint my face blue and look for a walk on part in a
Hollywood film. Or maybe they will just think I have pneumonia and ignore me
:(


Fire (examples of Appropriate Technology) Ryan Curtis 1/29/01 1:54 AM
> They best support him with sandwiches he forgot the fishing tackle.

> Even with a gun hunting for a living is a hard row to hoe.
>
[Ryan] <comes back in again and collects fishing tackle from cupboard ...
staggers out the door under weight of equipment>  I usually do my hunting
without the use of a gun (UK gun laws being what they are).  I have never
had any trouble catching enough to supplement my diet, but then I know
plenty about nuts, roots and berries (etc) so I can live quite nicely in an
area that most wage-slave consumers would starve to death in.  Grab yerself
a permaculture book and see how much food is in that stand of trees over
there - phenomenal.


Some dross about GM products George Baxter 1/29/01 4:23 AM
>[Ryan] Not really, I just do it to annoy you Ms Aquilla

I think you will find it is Mr Aquilla

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/29/01 4:29 AM

>> It is wrong to think that it is only a problem of distribution. The only
>> reason there is not more mass starvation on a colossal scale is modern
>> farming, which uses biotech.

>[Ryan] Poor Georgie ... talking out of his arse again.  The starving of
>Africa are fed by the stockpiled grain of the western nations .... we have


>so much grain (even without GM) that we are burning it, storing it until it
>rots - all to keep the prices artificially high.  .... and now and then we
>ship a load of it out to Africa.

Admit it, you are a troll.

If it is only the grain from North America which is feeding the world,
how can they produce so much? That is right, through biotech. And if the
poorer peoples need that food, does it not make sense that they should
have the means to grow a safe and health range of foods for themselves?
Of course it does.

The grain does not give them the vitamin-A but the rice can.
--
George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net

Fire (examples of Appropriate Technology) Jim Webster 1/29/01 4:45 AM

Ryan Curtis wrote in message ...

didn't know you had an Australian accent.

Jim Webster

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/29/01 10:38 AM
George Baxter wrote:
>If it is only the grain from North America which is feeding the world,
>how can they produce so much? That is right, through biotech. And if
>the poorer peoples need that food, does it not make sense that they
>should have the means to grow a safe and health range of foods for
>themselves? Of course it does.


The assumption here seems to be that it is the grain
from North America which is feeding the world.

In 1998, there was a net export of ~100 million metric tonnes of
grain from the developed to the developing world. A large proportion
of that grain came from North America indeed. But this should be
compared with the 1000 million metric tonnes of grain which the
developing world produced themselves. To complete the
picture the developed world also had a net export to the developing
world of 0,7 million metric tonnes of meat, 2 million tonnes animal
fat, and 20 million tonnes milk. In summa ~123 million tonnes.

Otoh, the developing world had a net export to the developing
world of 7 million tonnes  starchy roots, 5 million tonnes sweeteners,
1 million tonnes of pulses, 3 million tonnes of vegetable oils,
6 million tonnes of vegetables, 44 million tonnes of fruit,
7 million tonnes of stimulants, 1 million tonnes of alcoholic
beverages, and 8 million tonnes of fish/seafood.
In summa ~82 million tonnes.

So, the developed world is feeding 123-82 = 41 million tonnes
or ~10 kg food per capita to the developing world per year.

Therefore it is not a reasonable assumption, that the
developed world, or North America for that matter,
is 'feeding the world'. It is a myth.  In the main, people all
over the  world are simply feeding themselves, albeit some
do it with very little, some with very much. The contributions
from exports and imports of food are in the large picture
quite insignificant.


Best regards,

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name.


Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). R. N. Robinson 1/29/01 11:26 AM

Ryan Curtis <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:CvYc6.61$I5.4960@stones...

>Snip


> [Ryan] But I like black and white ... I live in a world of morale
absolutes,
> hardly any gray areas - a thing is either right .... or it is wrong.  I
find
> it very comforting.

Never mind.  You'll grow out of it one day.  Or be a pain in the butt for
the rest of your life.  Your choice ;-)

Ron Robinson


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' J K Cason 1/29/01 2:36 PM
"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote in message
news:mSid6.337$ag6.7625@news.get2net.dk...

<snip>

>So, the developed world is feeding 123-82 = 41 million tonnes
>or ~10 kg food per capita to the developing world per year.

>Therefore it is not a reasonable assumption, that the
>developed world, or North America for that matter, is
>'feeding the world'. It is a myth.

Long term, that's right.

>                                    In the main, people all
>over the  world are simply feeding themselves, albeit some
>do it with very little, some with very much.

I don't remember the exact statistic that I read a few years ago,
but 90%+ of all food is consumed quite near where it is produced.
In the case of subsistence farmers, most of it on the same farm.

>                       The contributions from exports and
>imports of food are in the large picture quite insignificant.

As a percent of the total, but most of the food aid from the US
and maybe from all of the developed world is devoted to food
emergencies.  That relatively small amount of food keeps a lot
of people from starving to death.

In the other direction, there are more than a few countries that
get a significant part of their income from food exports.

more twaddle about GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' J K Cason 1/29/01 2:38 PM
"Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:yvYc6.57$I5.4960@stones...

>> <snip>

>> > we have so much grain (even without GM) that we are
>> > burning it, storing it until it rots - all to keep the
>> > prices artificially high.

>> Please tell us about the current prices for common grains.
>> How do they relate to the all-time highs and lows?
>> How do they relate to the cost of production?

>[Ryan] Dunno,

Do you feel any responsibility to check your claims?

> don't care - and I suspect you don't either.

Do you care about believing things that are true?

I don't know about prices in Europe.  Some grain prices in the US were
at record lows within the last two years or so.  The number of small
farms that have disappeared indicates that the prices are pretty close
to the cost of production, maybe below it at times for small farms.
And I think that the "record lows" are absolute numbers, not corrected
for inflation, so the true value is even lower.

How does that fit with your claim that grain prices are kept
artificially high?  How high would that be?

>> <snip>

>> > Those who died in India during that famine did so because
>> > the population was too high for the amount of crops that
>> > could be grown naturally.

>> Your concern for the poor is a lesson for us all.

>[Ryan] At least I show some concern ....

The sarcasm went over your head.

<snip>


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/29/01 2:20 PM

Torsten Brinch wrote in message ...

I seem to remember being told that only about 5% of agricultural produce is
every traded across frontiers. This seems to fit in with your figures

Jim Webster

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

>
>


>Best regards,
>
>Torsten Brinch
>Email: interpret dot in domain name.
>
>
>
>
>
>


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Walter Epp 1/29/01 3:23 PM
"J K Cason" <jkc...@negia.net> wrote:
>>Gee...the uhh, native Americans...check my history on this, ok?
>>They were uhh, alive and healthy when we first visited them,
>>were they not?
>
>How would you rate the native Americans and the Europeans at the time
>of the first contact?  How advanced was their pathology, microscopy,
>histology, bacteriology, epidemiology, and medicine?  

Native American medicine was generally superior to European.
Medicine men were sought out, and snake oil salesmen
made sure to say they got their potions from Indians because
Indian medicine had a better reputation even among whites.
At the time, European doctors were using mercury and bloodletting
as "treatments" with reckless abandon. There is evidence
Native Americans were using syringes and penicillin before Europeans.
One tribe has been documented to have known the medical uses
of over 1000 species of herbs. Hundreds of Indian herbal medicines
were later accepted in European pharmacopias. Thoreau
travelled with an  Indian guide who said he knew a medicinal use
for every plant that grew there. Think about that for a minute, and how
it renders the idea of "weed" a notion born of ignorance.

Native Americans have been bathing themselves since time
immemorial. The Europeans considered bathing an offense
and actively worked to stop the Indians from such a "heathenish"
custom. As late as the 1890s or 1900s it was illegal in
the city of Boston to take a bath without a doctor's prescription.

To learn more on this subject, read American Indian Medicine
by Virgil Vogel.
--
delete N0SPAAM to reply by email

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Walter Epp 1/29/01 3:23 PM
"gcouger" <gco...@NoXSPAM.mercury.rfdata.net> wrote:
>The FDA requires safety trials before approving any thing.

Not true. All the GE products now on the market came out when
the FDA "consultation" process was voluntary.

> The red herring of moving a very small number of
>genes is some how more dangerous than swapping half the genes in the plant
>is ridiculous.

Certainly not. Think about it. Those natural genes have been tested by going
through millions of swaps, and selection has finely tuned them so they swap
smoothly like precisely matched gears. Add one tooth to a gear and you
can easily throw the whole mechanism out of kilter.


--
delete N0SPAAM to reply by email
Dioxins in Wood Smoke Walter Epp 1/29/01 3:22 PM
rabbit...@mindspring.noamspay.com (Timothy Miller) wrote:
>>> How about dioxins in good old wood smoke.
>The EPA should ban forest fires and weenie roasts immediately!

from www.safe2use.com/pesticides/truelies.htm:
Industry's "True Lies"
The Politics Behind the Scientific Debate on Dioxin
By Stephen U. Lester

The full story of dioxin is a complex one, and includes coverups, lies, and
deceit; data manipulation by corporations and government; and fraudulent claims
and faked studies.

Although many companies have contributed to the dioxin story, three chemical
companies have played particularly significant roles: Monsanto, BASF, and Dow
Chemical. All three manufactured commercial products that were contaminated with
dioxin. All three conducted health studies to evaluate dioxin toxicity, which
were then used for many years to support claims that there were no long-term
effects, including cancer, from dioxin exposure.

The "Classic" Dioxin Studies

In 1949, an explosion at the Monsanto chemical plant in Nitro, West Virginia,
exposed many workers to the dioxin-contaminated herbicide 2,4,5-T. Thirty years
later, Monsanto scientists and an independent researcher, Dr. Raymond Suskind,
compared death rates among workers they said had been exposed to the death rates
of workers who were not exposed. When no differences between the two groups were
found, Monsanto claimed that dioxin did not cause cancer and that there were no
long-term effects from dioxin exposure (Zack and Suskind, 1980). Monsanto
released additional studies from 1980 to 1984 supporting this general conclusion
that there was no evidence of adverse health effects, other than chloracne, in
workers exposed in the 1949 accident.

Similarly, a chemical accident in 1953 at a BASF trichlorophenol plant in
Germany released dioxin-contaminated chemicals, exposing workers and the nearby
communities of Mannheim and Ludwigshafen. Again, scientists working for the
company looked at cancer rates nearly thirty years later and reported no
differences between workers who were exposed and workers who were not exposed
during the accident. Both the BASF and the first Monsanto study were released in
1980, shortly after researchers at Dow Chemical Company found that very low
levels of dioxin caused cancer in rats. BASF and Monsanto results to challenge
EPA efforts to regulate dioxin as a probable human carcinogen, arguing that
humans respond differently to dioxin than do laboratory animals. People must be
less sensitive, they argued. Otherwise, some evidence of cancer would have been
found in the two "classic" studies. But when both the Monsanto and BASF studies
were re-examined, the methodology used in both was found to have serious
scientific flaws.

Monsanto

Evidence of inaccuracies in both the Monsanto and BASF studies was first
revealed during the Kemner vs. Monsanto trial, in which a group of citizens in
Sturgeon, Missouri, sued Monsanto for alleged injuries suffered during a
chemical spill caused by a train derailment in 1979. While reviewing documents
obtained from Monsanto during discovery, lawyers for the victims noticed that in
one of the Monsanto studies, certain people were classified as dioxin exposed,
while in a later study, the same people were classified as not exposed (Hay,
1992).

These documents revealed that Monsanto scientists omitted five deaths from the
dioxin-exposed an put them in the unexposed group. This resulted in a decrease
in the observed death rate for the dioxin-exposed group, and an increase in the
observed death rate for the non-exposed group. Based on this misclassification
of dat, the researchers concluded that there was no relation between dioxin
exposure and cancer in humans (Kemner, 1989).

In truth, the death rate in the dioxin exposed group of Nitro workers was 65%
higher than expected, with death rated from certain diseased (such as lung,
genitourinary, bladder, and lymphatic cancers, and heart disease) showing large
increases (Kemner, 1989).

Another Suskind study did not look at an original group of workers known to be
dioxin-exposed, but instead looked at hundreds of Monsanto workers at the Nitro
facility. Some of the same classification sleight-of-hand was performed in this
study. Again, documents uncovered in Kemner vs. Monsanto showed that in fact
there were 28 cancer cases in the exposed-worker group and only two in the
unexposed group. Suskind, however, reported finding only 14 cancers in the
exposed-workers group, compared to six in the unexposed group.

Suskind also examined a group of 37 exposed Monsanto workers during the
four-year period following the 1949 accident. Medical documents obtained by
Greenpeace from the Sloan-Kettering Institute in Cincinnati, Ohio, where Suskind
worked, showed that workers suffered "aches, pain, fatigue, nervousness, loss of
libido, irritability, and other symptoms, active skin lesions, and definite
patterns of psychological disorders." All but one of the 37 workers had
developed chloracne, a sever skin condition. But in a report to Monsanto at the
time, Suskind concluded, without further explanation, that "his finding were
limited to the skin;" in other words, all other health effects of dioxin
exposure besides chloracne, were not reported (Greenpeace, 1994). Out of these
studies grew the industry claim that chloracne is the only long-term effect of
dioxin exposure.

BASF

The study of BASF workers exposed to dioxin in 1953 was also found to have
serious scientific flaws. BASF workers weren't convinced by company scientists'
claim that there was no evidence of any health problems, other than chloracne,
linked to dioxin exposure. They hired their own independent scientists to review
the data. This review found that some workers who had developed chloracne, known
to occur only in people exposed to high levels of dioxin, were included in the
low or unexposed groups in the study. In addition, the exposed group had been
"diluted" with 20 supervisory employees who appeared to be unexposed. When these
20 people were removed from the exposed group, significant increases in cancer
were found among the exposed workers (Wanchinski, 1989; Rohleder, 1989).

In February 1990, Dr. Cate Jenkins, project manager for the EPA Waste
Characterization and Assessment Division of the Office of Solid Waste, alerted
EPA's Science Advisory Board about the revelations of fraud in the BASF and
Monsanto studies. The Board, which is an independent group of scientists from
outside the agency, had recently completed a review of the cancer data on
dioxin, which included the BASF and Monsanto studies and concluded that there
was "conflicting" evidence about wheter dioxin caused cancer in humans. The
Board recommended that EPA continue to rely on data from animal studies
(Jenkins, 1990).

This animal study data however, had been under attack since mid-1987 when, under
pressure from industry, EPA stated that they may have "overestimated" the risks
of dioxin. The agency was then preparing to weaken their risk estimate from
dioxin (Inside EPA, 1987), based largely on the exposure effects reported in the
Monsanto and BASF studies.

Jenkins asked EPA to re-evaluate the proposed regulatory changes and to conduct
a scientific audit of Monsanto's dioxin studies. Instead, in August 1990, the
EPA Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI) recommended a "full field criminal
investigation be initiated by OCI." After two years, OCI abandoned the
investigation because some of the alleged criminal activities were "beyond the
statue of limitation." In fact, EPA actually spent two years investigating Cate
Jenkins (Sanjour, 1994).

Subsequent studies on the exposed workers at both the Monsanto plant and the
BASF plant have been published in scientific journals. In 1991, the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) re-examined the causes of
death in workers at the Nitro plant and found increases in all cancers
(Fingerhut, 1991). Similarly, in 1989, data on the BASF workers was re-examined
and an increase in all cancers was found for workers with chloracne and with 20
or more years since exposure (Zober, 1990). The re-examination of these once
"classic" studies provides strong evidence that the workers exposed to
dioxin-contaminated chemicals in these two accidents did indeed suffer higher
rates of cancer.

The Dow Chemical Company

Dow Chemical Company produced the herbicides 2,4,5-T and Agent Orange, the
defoliant that was sprayed on the jungles of Vietnam. Both herbicides are
contaminated with dioxin during the manufacturing process.

In 1965, Dow conducted a series of experiments to evaluate the toxicity of
dioxin on inmates at Holmesburg prison in Pennsylvania. Under the direction of
Dow researchers, pure dioxin was applied to the skin of prisoners. According to
Dow, these men developed chloracne but no other health problems. But no health
records are available to confirm these findings, and no follow-up was done on
the prisoners, even after several went to the EPA after they were released
seeking help because they were sick. EPA did not help them (Casten, 1995).

In 1976, Dow began studies to evaluate whether animals exposed to dioxin would
develop cancer. Dow chose very low exposure levels, perhaps anticipating that
the studies would show no toxic effects at low levels. Much to their surprise,
they found cancer at very low levels, the lowest being 210 parts per trillion
(Kociba, 1978).

Around the same time, evidence was found of increased miscarriages in areas of
the Pacific Northwest that were sprayed with the herbicide 2,4,5-T (USEPA,
1979). Based on these findings, the EPA proposed a ban on the herbicide (Smith,
1979). Dow brought their scientists to Washington and created enough pressure
that by 1979 EPA had decided to only "suspend' most used of 2,4,5-T. This
enabled Dow to continue to produce this poison until 1983, when all uses of the
herbicide were finally banned.

In mid-1978, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources found dioxin in fish
in the Tittabawassee and Saginaw rivers. Dow discharged wastewater into these
rivers from its plant in Midland.

Dow responded in a most unusual way. In November 1978, after an intense four and
one half month effort that cost the company $1,8 million, Dow released a report
called the "Trace Chemistries of Fire," (Rawls, 1979) which introduced the idea
that dioxin was present everywhere and that its source was combustion and any
and all forms burning (Dow, 1978). Dow released the report at a press conference
rather than in the scientific literature, which is the standard procedure with
scientific studies. The report concluded that dioxin in the Tittabawassee and
Saginaw rivers came not from Dow, but from "normal combustion processes that
occur everywhere." A Dow scientist stated at the time that, "We now think dioxin
have been with us since the advent of fire" (Rawls, 1979).

Subsequent studies have proven the "combustion theory" claims to be more public
relations myth than scientific fact. Measurements of dioxin in lake sediments
show that dioxin levels dramatically increased after 1940, (Czuczwa, 1984, 1985,
1986) when chemical companies such as Dow began to make products contaminated
with dioxin.

Other studies reveal that prehistoric humans, who burned wood for fuel, did not
have significant quantities of dioxin in their bodies. Tissues from
2,000-year-old Chilean Indian mummies did not have dioxin (Ligon, 1989). EPA
states in its reassessment that dioxin can be formed through natural combustion
sources, but this contribution to levels in the environment "probably is
insignificant" (USEPA, 1994a).

Despite the persistent efforts of industry to detoxify dioxin, the weight of
evidence from scientific literature today confirms its pervasive toxic effects.
Faced with the toxic truth about the dioxin they create, industry has two
choices: either stop producing dioxin, or continue to deliberately poison the
public policy debate with lies and conflicting information. History tells us
they will continue the lies until we make them own up to the truth.

--
delete N0SPAAM to reply by email

Dioxins in Wood Smoke gcouger 1/29/01 9:36 PM
I find it odd that millions of cows sprayed with 2 4 5 T showed no change
in calving rates.

I strongly suspect that the nature of the dioxin has to do wiht the danger
of it. In the case of wood smoke it is pretty low. In the case of some
others it is pretty high. Before painting them all black with the same
brush we should  find out which ones are a danger and which ones aren't.

Dioxins cover a broad range of chemicals.


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


"Walter Epp" <NOSPAAM...@idiom.com> wrote in message
news:3hkb7t44l9nv0snjaui9lcn6393rha6j2a@4ax.com...

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/29/01 10:04 PM

"George Baxter" <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>
wrote in message news:3A756237.ED783764@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...
:
: >> It is wrong to think that it is only a problem of distribution. The

Having the most farm land of any country in the world helps a lot as well.


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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' ant 1/29/01 6:37 PM

"George Baxter" <"George Baxter
RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> wrote in message
news:3A756237.ED783764@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net...
>
> >> It is wrong to think that it is only a problem of
distribution. The only
> >> reason there is not more mass starvation on a colossal scale
is modern
> >> farming, which uses biotech.
>
> >[Ryan] Poor Georgie ... talking out of his arse again.  The
starving of
> >Africa are fed by the stockpiled grain of the western nations
.... we have
> >so much grain (even without GM) that we are burning it,
storing it until it
> >rots - all to keep the prices artificially high.  .... and now
and then we
> >ship a load of it out to Africa.
>
> Admit it, you are a troll.
>
> If it is only the grain from North America which is feeding the
world,

whatever gave you that idea?
i belive that if you do the sums america imports more calories
then it exports.
australias grain output is almost as high as americas and see
torsten's post on the quantitys.

> how can they produce so much? That is right, through biotech.
And if the

but america is not the hub of world food production, you have
based your argument on a faulty assumption. australiaoften
exports more grain then the usa does, yet we use no transgenic
food crops.

i am very intrested to find out where you got the idea that the
world was dependant on american grain exports


> poorer peoples need that food, does it not make sense that they
should
> have the means to grow a safe and health range of foods for
themselves?
> Of course it does.
>

then why is the IMF, the World bank and American corporate
interests forcing thousands of subsistence farmers off of their
land every day to make way for cash crops or commercial
plantations?
why are subsistence farmers considered non units in the world
economy?

transgenic crops are aimed at large plantation style farms with
the products being _sold_ to the desperate and hungry slum
dwellers<the ones who used to live on and farm the land that
these plantation crops are being grown on> subsistence farmers
gave away most of their production, plantations farms wont do
that and its only the large scale plantation farms that
transgenic crops are being designed for, they will worsen world
hunger by making marginal lands<the ones subsistence farmers are
forced into as their more productive lands are taken away by
plantation croppers> more viable for the plantation owners to
exploit, thus forcing subsistence farmers off of the marginal
lands and leaving them no where to go but the overcrowded citys
and become factory fodder for the migratory trans national
conglomerates.

ant


Dioxins in Wood Smoke Oz 1/29/01 10:36 PM
Walter Epp wrote on Mon, 29 Jan 2001

>
>The full story of dioxin is a complex one, and includes coverups, lies, and
>deceit; data manipulation by corporations and government; and fraudulent claims
>and faked studies.

Yeah, right. All from the 40's and 50's. Real modern stuff.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/29/01 10:37 PM
Walter Epp wrote on Mon, 29 Jan 2001

>Native American medicine was generally superior to European.

Hence their huge population .....

Dream on.

--
Oz

Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Ryan Curtis 1/30/01 3:15 AM
>
> > Snip
> >
> > [Ryan] But I like black and white ... I live in a world of morale
> > absolutes, hardly any gray areas - a thing is either right .... or it
> > is wrong.  I find it very comforting.
>
> Never mind.  You'll grow out of it one day.  Or be a pain in the butt for
> the rest of your life.  Your choice ;-)
>
[Ryan] I choose the latter ... principles are not something you grow in and
out of (unless your a politician - or a biotech exponent).


Biotech vs reality Ryan Curtis 1/30/01 3:30 AM
> >
> > > > It is wrong to think that it is only a problem of distribution.
> > > > The only reason there is not more mass starvation on a
> > > > colossal scale is modern farming, which uses biotech.
> >
> > > [Ryan] Poor Georgie ... talking out of his arse again.  The
> > > starving of Africa are fed by the stockpiled grain of the
> > > western nations .... we have so much grain (even without
> > > GM) that we are burning it, storing it until it rots - all to
> > > keep the prices artificially high.  .... and now and then we
> > >ship a load of it out to Africa.
> >
> > Admit it, you are a troll.

[Ryan] Only to you dear chap.  Speak to me nicely and I am more of a furbie.
Incidently I cannot respond to you direct 'coz I dropped you in the
killfile - no offence.

> >
> >  ... If it is only the grain from North America which is feeding the
> > world, ...


>
> whatever gave you that idea?  i belive that if you do the sums
> america imports more calories then it exports.  australias grain
> output is almost as high as americas and see torsten's post on
> the quantitys.
>
[Ryan] Typical americano-centric attitude from the previous poster ... I
believe that I use dthe term 'western nations' which includes pretty much
everyone in the developed world.

> > ... how can they produce so much? That is right, through biotech.
> > And if the ....


>
> but america is not the hub of world food production, you have
> based your argument on a faulty assumption. australia often
> exports more grain then the usa does, yet we use no transgenic
> food crops.
>
[Ryan] He is working on the understanding that america is the centre of the
universe.

> i am very interested to find out where you got the idea that the


> world was dependant on american grain exports
>
> > ... poorer peoples need that food, does it not make sense that

> > they should have the means to grow a safe and health range of
> > foods for themselves? Of course it does.
>
> then why is the IMF, the World bank and American corporate
> interests forcing thousands of subsistence farmers off of their
> land every day to make way for cash crops or commercial
> plantations?  Why are subsistence farmers considered non

> units in the world economy?
>
[Ryan] Because subsistence farmers are independent, they have a choice that
has not been given to them ... that is dangerous.  If they are allowed to
get away with it then others might choose to copy them, might choose to take
up options that cannot be permitted, they might choose to do things for
themselves (shock horror)

> transgenic crops are aimed at large plantation style farms with
> the products being _sold_ to the desperate and hungry slum
> dwellers<the ones who used to live on and farm the land that
> these plantation crops are being grown on> subsistence farmers
> gave away most of their production, plantations farms wont do
> that and its only the large scale plantation farms that
> transgenic crops are being designed for, they will worsen world
> hunger by making marginal lands<the ones subsistence farmers are
> forced into as their more productive lands are taken away by
> plantation croppers> more viable for the plantation owners to
> exploit, thus forcing subsistence farmers off of the marginal
> lands and leaving them no where to go but the overcrowded citys
> and become factory fodder for the migratory trans national
> conglomerates.
>
> ant
>


Fire (examples of Appropriate Technology) Ryan Curtis 1/30/01 3:34 AM
> >> >>
> >> > [Ryan] The compensation culture being what it is I expect that the
day
> >> > is not far away ... talking of coming down from the trees .... I have
> >> > decided to run off into the woods .. basically my thought processes
> >> > <no sniggering!> are thus:  shaded in the summer, sheltered in the
> >> > winter.  Lots of flora fauna and fungi, throw in a couple of
mountains,
> >> > lakes and grassy knolls and you have a national park ... lovely.
> >> > <straps on sword, throws kit bag over shoulder and heads for door>.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Wouldn't bother with sword. For the same steel you could get a decent
> >> fighting axe, a useful knife, a couple of good spear heads and more
> >> arrows than you need.
> >>
> >[Ryan] <runs back in the door and grabs fighting axe, useful knife,
couple
> >of good spear heads and more arrows than I need from under bed>
> >
> >> Not only that but being ethnic you would blend in so well in Cumbria
that
> >> the tourists would probably support you on sandwiches (Well it works
for
> >> Herdwicks).
> >
> >[Ryan] LOL.  I could paint my face blue and look for a walk on part in a
> >Hollywood film.
>
> didn't know you had an Australian accent.
>
[Ryan] It depends on (a) what is in the sandwiches, and (b) how big the film
is.


Some dross about GM products Ryan Curtis 1/30/01 6:43 AM
>
> > ..... I am not aware of any reliable evidence showing any
> > long-term effect of GMOs. If you are aware of such
> > evidence, you are doing us a disservice by withholding it.
>
> > [Ryan] That is because you are in terminal denial
>
> [Jim Blair] Hi, Remember me?

How could I ever forget? ;-)

> If there is any references to any long term or short term
> harmful effects of eating any GMO foods, I have not seen
> them. Please post any that you have.

I have 'seen' some stuff but do not have my own copies, also the stuff that
I have 'seen' were more to do with the possible implications as opposed to
definite known effects .... I am erring on the side of caution and waiting
to see what happens to other people who do eat it  ... like a generation or
so.

> I mean we  all know now that however much the Europeans worry about food
> quality and hormones and GMO and corporate agriculture and all that, the
> REAL dangers are in the meats they eat from Mad Cows, and in E. Coli and
> other bacteria.

Well of course it was precisely corporate agriculture that brought us BSE in
the first place.

> Maybe they should be more open to using irradiation?

No need, eat fresh organically grown food - it's good for you.  Let the bugs
in your stomach do their job.

> On another topic, I thought of you when the USDA issued that report on
> the effectiveness of various diets. They said the conventionl low fat
> high carbohydrate diets are effective, and stood by their "Food Pyramid".
> They said nothing about the various "high protein-reduced carbohydrate"
> diets that you support, and that I think have a reasonable basis.
>
> Looks like the "conventional wisdom" is still against us ;-)
>
As you are no doubt aware I have little faith in 'conventional wisdom' :-)


Some dross about GM products Jim Blair 1/30/01 6:40 AM
"Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote: (of this)

> ..... I am not aware of any reliable
>evidence
> showing any long-term effect of GMOs. If you are aware of such
> evidence, you are doing us a disservice by withholding it.

> [Ryan] That is because you are in terminal denial

Hi,

Remember me?  If there is any references to any long term or short term


harmful effects of eating any GMO foods, I have not seen them. Please
post any that you have.

I mean we  all know now that however much the Europeans worry about food


quality and hormones and GMO and corporate agriculture and all that, the
REAL dangers are in the meats they eat from Mad Cows, and in E. Coli and
other bacteria.  

Maybe they should be more open to using irradiation?

On another topic, I thought of you when the USDA issued that report on


the effectiveness of various diets. They said the conventionl low fat
high carbohydrate diets are effective, and stood by their "Food Pyramid".
They said nothing about the various "high protein-reduced carbohydrate"
diets that you support, and that I think have a reasonable basis.

Looks like the "conventional wisdom" is still against us ;-)


                     ,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
                       (_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call:   http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/30/01 9:29 AM
Torsten, you are mine of information. I do seem to recall the US making
significant exports of grain to the USSR in the 1970's.

Do you accept that it is biotech which permits that amount of grain to
be grown?


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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/30/01 9:33 AM
>then why is the IMF, the World bank and American corporate
>interests forcing thousands of subsistence farmers off of their
>land every day to make way for cash crops or commercial
>plantations?
>why are subsistence farmers considered non units in the world
>economy?

Does it never occur to you that subsistance farming might actually be a
misable existance. All you can do is grow enough to feed yourself and
perhaps a bit more?

But if you can grow cash crops - to get money to buy extras in life and
get a better standard of life, then things might just be better than
they were.
--
George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/30/01 9:40 AM


If life were really that unstable it would never have evolved. Think
about that other side. When plants are breed, literally hundreds and
even thousands of genes are smashed together in an uncontrolled way. Yet
living viable plants are produced. So if you can smash thousands genes
together, then one or two genes are not going to have the catastrophic
effects.
--
George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/30/01 10:06 AM
George Baxter wrote on Tue, 30 Jan 2001

>Torsten, you are mine of information. I do seem to recall the US making
>significant exports of grain to the USSR in the 1970's.
>
>Do you accept that it is biotech which permits that amount of grain to
>be grown?

Biotech in the 1970's?

I don;t think so.

--
Oz

Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). R. N. Robinson 1/30/01 10:11 AM

Ryan Curtis <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:bvxd6.3720$I5.39120@stones...I wasn't talking about your principles,  just your limited view of the world
and those who live in it.

Ron Robinson

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ohiorganic 1/31/01 3:23 AM

George Baxter wrote:

Actually the subsistence farmer is healthy and eats a good diet. Most see
the farming as a part of their religion and the extras are seen as a
threat to that life. A great example of this in the US are the Amish. They
are for the most part subsistence farmers that do grow some cash crops but
they do not buy and use extras because they feel these things are a
threat.
We love to look at subsistence farmers with American and European eyes and
these people do not think this way. We see poverty and they see themselves
as enlightened. they don't see a problem with their lives. it is us who
see the problem and than we have to barge in and change them for their own
good. it doesn't matter that we may destroy a culture or 2. It doesn't
matter that we treat fellow humans as imbecilic children because they are
different than us because we westerners know, just ask us.
The people who stopped subsistence farming and grow cash crops do have a
problem. they have terrible nutrition and live in true poverty-they no
longer grow their own food and have to use the funds from the cash crops
to buy food. maybe in some other reality the farmer will make enough cash
to do more than scrape by but in this one the cash farmer is in trouble
because Americans want cheap food and they do not care what the
consequences are to the farmers.

Lucy Goodman-Owsley
Boulder Belt Organics
New Paris, OH
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/boulderbeltcsa

>
>


Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). Ryan Curtis 1/31/01 3:42 AM
> > >
> > > > Snip
> > > >
> > > > [Ryan] But I like black and white ... I live in a world of morale
> > > > absolutes, hardly any gray areas - a thing is either right .... or
it
> > > > is wrong.  I find it very comforting.
> > >
> > > Never mind.  You'll grow out of it one day.  Or be a pain in the
> > > butt for the rest of your life.  Your choice ;-)
> > >
> > [Ryan] I choose the latter ... principles are not something you grow
> > in and out of (unless your a politician - or a biotech exponent).
> >
> I wasn't talking about your principles,  just your limited view of the
world
> and those who live in it.
>
[Ryan] But *my* world view, and *my* morality are absolutely determined by
*my* principles ... (they are inseparable) I expect a lot from myself and
therefore expect a lot from everyone else as well (and am continually
disappointed) ..... when you get some principles of your own you will
understand what I talking about   ;-)

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/31/01 3:59 AM
George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> >
skrev i meddelelsen <3A76FA02...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>...

>Torsten, you are mine of information.

No, I am a volcano.

>I do seem to recall the US making significant exports of grain
>to the USSR in the 1970's.

That would have been in about 1972-1973, then.
USSR import of grain was very high in those years,
due to a series of bad harvests, I think. It was only
a few years later that USSR shifted from having been
a small and irregular exporter of grain to become
a major importer.

>Do you accept that it is biotech which permits that amount of grain to
>be grown?

That certainly depends on what you mean by biotech.
You are American, so by biotech you could
well mean just genetic engineering. But -that- has so far
had no effect on grain production. Otoh, if you mean
biotechnology as the  much  wider concept, including
the use of mechanisation, fertilizer etc for agricultural
production, biotechnology  is obviously involved as a
significant  factor in grain production, and has been
for quite some time.

US grain production increased quite dramatically from
1960 to 1980, more precisely, it -doubled-. And that increase
could probably not have been realized without at least great
scale mechanisation. But structural changes must also have
been involved, larger farms, and quite important, there must
have been a developing -market- for all that grain.

But since 1980 there has been  little  change in US grain
production, it has been more or less stagnant. The long term
changes since 1980  have rather been in how the US
is using its grain production (e.g. exports have fallen
about 30 %, the amount of grain gone to waste has doubled,
the amount of  grain used  for animal feeding has increased
about 20 %).

Indeed, since 1980 US -imports- of grain have  increased,
about 15fold, from nearly nothing to now a significant
amount.

Added together, this development has had the effect, that the
US domestic  supply of grain -- with  no increase in production --
continued to increase during 1980-2000, and at a rate  about
the same as that which was experienced from 1960 to 1980.


Best regards,

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/31/01 4:39 AM
Ohiorganic wrote on Wed, 31 Jan 2001

>Actually the subsistence farmer is healthy and eats a good diet. Most see
>the farming as a part of their religion and the extras are seen as a
>threat to that life.

Only if you exclude most of them who live in africa, asia and s.america
or you wear very rose-tinted spectacles.

Try living with them, bringing nothing with you, for a couple of years
and you will be cured of this absurd romanticism and understand why
their main aim in life is to move to a city.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/31/01 5:01 AM

Biotech is anything that uses biology and technology. So the discovery
of nitrogen fertilisers and pesticides are biotech. Since thoe 1940's
the quantity and quality of the foods has increased.

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/31/01 5:09 AM
Torsten Brinch wrote:
>
> George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> >
> skrev i meddelelsen <3A76FA02...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>...
> >Torsten, you are mine of information.
>
> No, I am a volcano.

I hope you are more like Mauna Kea than Krakatoa :-)

>
> >I do seem to recall the US making significant exports of grain
> >to the USSR in the 1970's.
>
> That would have been in about 1972-1973, then.
> USSR import of grain was very high in those years,
> due to a series of bad harvests, I think. It was only
> a few years later that USSR shifted from having been
> a small and irregular exporter of grain to become
> a major importer.
>
> >Do you accept that it is biotech which permits that amount of grain to
> >be grown?
>
> That certainly depends on what you mean by biotech.
> You are American, so by biotech you could


What!!!! How dare you!!! I am English, British and European.


> well mean just genetic engineering. But -that- has so far
> had no effect on grain production. Otoh, if you mean
> biotechnology as the  much  wider concept, including
> the use of mechanisation, fertilizer etc for agricultural
> production, biotechnology  is obviously involved as a
> significant  factor in grain production, and has been
> for quite some time.


My understanding of biotech includes any form of biology and technology.

I recall from a visit to the Rothemsted Instute, seeing a graph showing
yields that they have achieved by various means, over the last 150
years. Up to the 1940's yields were fairly flat, mostly dependent upon
the weather. Then with the discovery or advent of fertilisers and
pesticides, these rose by about a factor of 10.

It is this rather than just plain mechanisation that has underpinned the
growth in world production. I do accept that machinary and plant
breeding are all helping.


>
> US grain production increased quite dramatically from
> 1960 to 1980, more precisely, it -doubled-. And that increase
> could probably not have been realized without at least great
> scale mechanisation. But structural changes must also have
> been involved, larger farms, and quite important, there must
> have been a developing -market- for all that grain.
>
> But since 1980 there has been  little  change in US grain
> production, it has been more or less stagnant. The long term
> changes since 1980  have rather been in how the US
> is using its grain production (e.g. exports have fallen
> about 30 %, the amount of grain gone to waste has doubled,
> the amount of  grain used  for animal feeding has increased
> about 20 %).
>
> Indeed, since 1980 US -imports- of grain have  increased,
> about 15fold, from nearly nothing to now a significant
> amount.
>
> Added together, this development has had the effect, that the
> US domestic  supply of grain -- with  no increase in production --
> continued to increase during 1980-2000, and at a rate  about
> the same as that which was experienced from 1960 to 1980.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Torsten Brinch
> Email: interpret dot in domain name

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Oz 1/31/01 5:23 AM
George Baxter wrote on Wed, 31 Jan 2001

>Torsten Brinch wrote:
>>
>> George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> >
>> skrev i meddelelsen <3A76FA02...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>...
>> >Torsten, you are mine of information.
>>
>> No, I am a volcano.
>
>I hope you are more like Mauna Kea than Krakatoa :-)

well, torsten can indeed vomit forth copiously and relentlessly with the
best of them.

--
Oz

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' David Kendra 1/31/01 6:36 AM

"Ohiorganic" <goo...@infinet.com> wrote in message
news:3a77f5c2$0$1519$6daed22a@news.infinet.com...

>
>
> George Baxter wrote:
>
> > >then why is the IMF, the World bank and American corporate
> > >interests forcing thousands of subsistence farmers off of their
> > >land every day to make way for cash crops or commercial
> > >plantations?
> > >why are subsistence farmers considered non units in the world
> > >economy?
> >
> > Does it never occur to you that subsistance farming might actually be a
> > misable existance. All you can do is grow enough to feed yourself and
> > perhaps a bit more?
> >
> > But if you can grow cash crops - to get money to buy extras in life and
> > get a better standard of life, then things might just be better than
> > they were.
> > --
>
> Actually the subsistence farmer is healthy and eats a good diet.

Then you obviously have not been to many of the African countries.
Subsistance farming in that part of the world is alot different from the
picture you describe.  There the farmers struggle to make enough to feed
themselves, let alone worry if they get a "good diet".

dk

Most see
> the farming as a part of their religion and the extras are seen as a
> threat to that life. A great example of this in the US are the Amish. They
> are for the most part subsistence farmers that do grow some cash crops but
> they do not buy and use extras because they feel these things are a
> threat.
> We love to look at subsistence farmers with American and European eyes and
> these people do not think this way. We see poverty and they see themselves
> as enlightened. they don't see a problem with their lives. it is us who
> see the problem and than we have to barge in and change them for their own
> good. it doesn't matter that we may destroy a culture or 2. It doesn't
> matter that we treat fellow humans as imbecilic children because they are
> different than us because we westerners know, just ask us.
> The people who stopped subsistence farming and grow cash crops do have a
> problem. they have terrible nutrition and live in true poverty-they no
> longer grow their own food and have to use the funds from the cash crops
> to buy food. maybe in some other reality the farmer will make enough cash
> to do more than scrape by but in this one the cash farmer is in trouble
> because Americans want cheap food and they do not care what the
> consequences are to the farmers.
>
> Lucy Goodman-Owsley
> Boulder Belt Organics
> New Paris, OH
> http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/boulderbeltcsa
>
> >
> >
>
>


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/31/01 8:41 AM

George Baxter wrote:
>Torsten Brinch wrote:
>> George Baxter wrote:
>> >Torsten, you are mine of information.

>> No, I am a volcano.

>I hope you are more like Mauna Kea than Krakatoa :-)


One never knows with a volcano.


>> >Do you accept that it is biotech which permits that amount of grain
to
>> >be grown?

>> That certainly depends on what you mean by biotech.
>> You are American, so by biotech you could

>What!!!! How dare you!!! I am English, British and European.


Um. I just wanted to know how you would react to that one :-)

>> well mean just genetic engineering. But -that- has so far
>> had no effect on grain production. Otoh, if you mean
>> biotechnology as the  much  wider concept, including
>> the use of mechanisation, fertilizer etc for agricultural
>> production, biotechnology  is obviously involved as a
>> significant  factor in grain production, and has been
>> for quite some time.

>My understanding of biotech includes any form of
>biology and technology.

Think again. Biology is science. Technology is not.
And certainly it cannot be the case that
any form of technology is biotechnology. Or?

>I recall from a visit to the Rothemsted Instute, seeing a graph showing
>yields that they have achieved by various means, over the last 150
>years. Up to the 1940's yields were fairly flat, mostly dependent upon
>the weather. Then with the discovery or advent of fertilisers and
>pesticides, these rose by about a factor of 10.

Without knowledge of what 'various means'  means,
that says too little, and suggests too much. As good
propaganda should. In practise you are looking at a
doubling of yields, mainly due to fertilisers.

>It is this rather than just plain mechanisation that has underpinned
the
>growth in world production. I do accept that machinary and plant
>breeding are all helping.

Well, from the context, I was talking about USA, and what went on
there in the 1970s.


Best regards,

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/31/01 9:41 AM
Ohiorganic wrote:
>

>
> Actually the subsistence farmer is healthy and eats a good diet. Most see
> the farming as a part of their religion and the extras are seen as a
> threat to that life. A great example of this in the US are the Amish. They
> are for the most part subsistence farmers that do grow some cash crops but
> they do not buy and use extras because they feel these things are a
> threat.
> We love to look at subsistence farmers with American and European eyes and
> these people do not think this way. We see poverty and they see themselves
> as enlightened. they don't see a problem with their lives. it is us who
> see the problem and than we have to barge in and change them for their own
> good. it doesn't matter that we may destroy a culture or 2. It doesn't
> matter that we treat fellow humans as imbecilic children because they are
> different than us because we westerners know, just ask us.
> The people who stopped subsistence farming and grow cash crops do have a
> problem. they have terrible nutrition and live in true poverty-they no
> longer grow their own food and have to use the funds from the cash crops
> to buy food. maybe in some other reality the farmer will make enough cash
> to do more than scrape by but in this one the cash farmer is in trouble
> because Americans want cheap food and they do not care what the
> consequences are to the farmers.

A pity that is not the view of subsistence farmers themselves. Last
year, in the The Times of India, there was an article totally
contradicting your points.

"In India, we are in dire need of an infusion of technology to move from
subsistence farming to profitable farming. This could be that
technology. The World Bank has predicted that by 2020 India will be the
fourth largest economy in the world. India cannot afford to propel
itself into a global economic power without first transforming its
agriculture into a more productive enterprise. Almost two-thirds of
Indians depend on land for their livelihood. A lot of poverty here is
due to the sheer unproductive farmland. "

so that is what some people in India think about subsistence farming

The full article is at

http://biotechknowledge.com/showlibsp.php3?uid=3644
--
George Baxter RgEeM...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 1/31/01 9:57 AM
Torsten Brinch wrote:

>
> Think again. Biology is science. Technology is not.
> And certainly it cannot be the case that
> any form of technology is biotechnology. Or?
>

Science can be of two forms - research for push back the boundaries of
knowledge , or it can be applied science - engineering, technology, etc.
Both can and have been used to boost the yields. The distinction between
them can be quite grey.

> >I recall from a visit to the Rothemsted Instute, seeing a graph showing
> >yields that they have achieved by various means, over the last 150
> >years. Up to the 1940's yields were fairly flat, mostly dependent upon
> >the weather. Then with the discovery or advent of fertilisers and
> >pesticides, these rose by about a factor of 10.
>
> Without knowledge of what 'various means'  means,
> that says too little, and suggests too much. As good
> propaganda should. In practise you are looking at a
> doubling of yields, mainly due to fertilisers.

They are a research institute. For the first 100 years plus, they could
try things such as drainage, different seed, ploughing, etc. It was the
discovery of nitrogen based fertilisers that made the significant
difference to boost yields and pesticides to reduce loses.

They are biotech. They have improved the yields. Do you agree? Yes or no
will suffice


>
> >It is this rather than just plain mechanisation that has underpinned
> the
> >growth in world production. I do accept that machinary and plant
> >breeding are all helping.
>
> Well, from the context, I was talking about USA, and what went on
> there in the 1970s.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Torsten Brinch
> Email: interpret dot in domain

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

Ooh, are your references better than mine ..... (who cares - not I). R. N. Robinson 1/31/01 10:26 AM

Ryan Curtis <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Q1Td6.4366$I5.55431@stones...

That does tend to be the problem when you expect everybody else to espouse
your principles for no better reason than that they are yours.  Others have
a right to theirs too, you know.

..... when you get some principles of your own you will
> understand what I talking about   ;-)
>

Oh I have.  Which is why I am replying.  Just this once.  I have a principle
(among others) about not being tedious ;-)

Ron Robinson


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 1/31/01 11:59 AM

Ohiorganic wrote in message <3a77f5c2$0$1519$6dae...@news.infinet.com>...

>
>
>George Baxter wrote:
>
>> >then why is the IMF, the World bank and American corporate
>> >interests forcing thousands of subsistence farmers off of their
>> >land every day to make way for cash crops or commercial
>> >plantations?
>> >why are subsistence farmers considered non units in the world
>> >economy?
>>
>> Does it never occur to you that subsistance farming might actually be a
>> misable existance. All you can do is grow enough to feed yourself and
>> perhaps a bit more?
>>
>> But if you can grow cash crops - to get money to buy extras in life and
>> get a better standard of life, then things might just be better than
>> they were.
>> --
>
>Actually the subsistence farmer is healthy and eats a good diet.

that is a very wide generalisation.

Most see
>the farming as a part of their religion and the extras are seen as a
>threat to that life. A great example of this in the US are the Amish. They
>are for the most part subsistence farmers that do grow some cash crops but
>they do not buy and use extras because they feel these things are a
>threat.
>We love to look at subsistence farmers with American and European eyes and
>these people do not think this way. We see poverty and they see themselves
>as enlightened. they don't see a problem with their lives.

so that is why the third world is full of shanty towns as all those healthy
and well fed subsistance farmers flock to the cities to give their children
the chance of a better life.

Jim Webster

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/31/01 10:35 PM

"Ohiorganic" <goo...@infinet.com> wrote in message
news:3a77f5c2$0$1519$6daed22a@news.infinet.com...
:
:

: George Baxter wrote:
:
: > >then why is the IMF, the World bank and American corporate
: > >interests forcing thousands of subsistence farmers off of their
: > >land every day to make way for cash crops or commercial
: > >plantations?
: > >why are subsistence farmers considered non units in the world
: > >economy?
: >
: > Does it never occur to you that subsistance farming might actually be
a
: > misable existance. All you can do is grow enough to feed yourself and
: > perhaps a bit more?
: >
: > But if you can grow cash crops - to get money to buy extras in life
and
: > get a better standard of life, then things might just be better than
: > they were.
: > --
================
They are hardly subsistence farmers. They may not show they money they
have but when they need more farm land for a young farmer they pay cash.
Find another group of farmers that can do that.
--
Gordon    W5RED
G. C. Couger gco...@provalue.net  Stillwater, OK


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 1/31/01 11:14 PM

"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote in message
news:rDTd6.166$cb1.6170@news.get2net.dk...
: George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> >

: skrev i meddelelsen <3A76FA02...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>...
: >Torsten, you are mine of information.
:
: No, I am a volcano.
:
: >I do seem to recall the US making significant exports of grain
: >to the USSR in the 1970's.
It ran the price up to $16 USD per 100 pounds.
:
: That would have been in about 1972-1973, then.

: USSR import of grain was very high in those years,
: due to a series of bad harvests, I think. It was only
: a few years later that USSR shifted from having been
: a small and irregular exporter of grain to become
: a major importer.
:
: >Do you accept that it is biotech which permits that amount of grain to
: >be grown?
:
: That certainly depends on what you mean by biotech.
: You are American, so by biotech you could
: well mean just genetic engineering. But -that- has so far
: had no effect on grain production. Otoh, if you mean
: biotechnology as the  much  wider concept, including
: the use of mechanisation, fertilizer etc for agricultural
: production, biotechnology  is obviously involved as a
: significant  factor in grain production, and has been
: for quite some time.
:
: US grain production increased quite dramatically from
: 1960 to 1980, more precisely, it -doubled-. And that increase
: could probably not have been realized without at least great
: scale mechanisation. But structural changes must also have
: been involved, larger farms, and quite important, there must
: have been a developing -market- for all that grain.

Torsten,

That was when I was most active farming. Most of the boost came from
better varities and better understaning of how to fertilze for maxim
production. These were also the best times for farm prices and farm
exports.

Mecinization helped some but the majority of it's benifits had happend by
1960. From there on things just got bigger and required less labor. The
new machines didn't really increase production it just made it less
expensive.
:
: But since 1980 there has been  little  change in US grain


: production, it has been more or less stagnant. The long term
: changes since 1980  have rather been in how the US
: is using its grain production (e.g. exports have fallen
: about 30 %, the amount of grain gone to waste has doubled,
: the amount of  grain used  for animal feeding has increased
: about 20 %).
--------------------------
In the early part of the 1970's the US went off the gold standard that
peged the price of gold at $32 USD per ounce and it went up to $141 per
USD per ounce and then with the oil scare in the late 70's it reached over
$800 USD for a short time. In the ten years from 1970 to 1980 we had a
inflation of about 500%. In 1980 it was brought to a hault and interst
rates to the farmer went to 21% unrelated to this prices of farm products
fell to record lows when adjusted for inflation and have not recouvered a
great deal for any length of time. Also in an unrelated problem in the oil
feild a lot of US banks went broke and were taken over by large banks from
the city. These were the banks that the farmers had borrowed money from to
do business. When the smoke cleared at least by 1990 half the farmers were
gone and the ones left were still farming the same land using the least
expensive ways they could that produced the best return. It was still the
same fertiliy porgram and about the same varities but the feilds were a
not as pretty and the tractors were a lot bigger. A farmer had gone from
the best risk a banker could take to one of the worst in ten years time.
The new bankers didn't want to talk to you. They liked credit cards
better.

We have gone about as far as we can go with the breeding methods we have
on yeild. Our breeders are working on quality traits to get more money for
the crop insted of yeld because they can't get any more except at the
expense of quality such as the baking traits of hard read winter wheat.

That's one of the hopes we have for biotech is to get us of the wall on
yeilds.
:
: Indeed, since 1980 US -imports- of grain have  increased,


: about 15fold, from nearly nothing to now a significant
: amount.
============
What grains are we inporting. I think we import some durham wheat for
pasta because we don't raise a lot of that. We probably import some
cranola from Canada for oil because it is ceaper than we can produce oil.
At least it is the cheapest oil in the store. If it is cheaper than cotton
seed oil that is a by procuct of the cotton industry it getting some
export support because cotton seed doesn't have any cost of production and
oil extraction cost about the same for anything.

In the case of wheat and corn I don't know why would would be buying it
when we are buiding storage to hold more of it. I think we have sold off
some of it. But 3 years ago we had almost every stroage facility full and
we can store a lot. There have been some price rallies and I am sure a lot
of grain was sold into them. I haven't checked in a year or so.


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


:
:
:
:


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 1/31/01 11:27 PM

George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> >
skrev i meddelelsen <3A7851EC...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>...
>Torsten Brinch wrote:

>> Think again. Biology is science. Technology is not.
>> And certainly it cannot be the case that
>> any form of technology is biotechnology. Or?

>Science can be of two forms - research for push back the boundaries of


>knowledge , or it can be applied science - engineering, technology,
etc.

Sorry, no. That would seem to imply that what you call applied
science is not pushing back the boundaries of knowledge.
But if it doesn't then it is not science.

>Both can and have been used to boost the yields.

No. No matter how much you increase -your- knowledge,
the -wheat- does not yield more. You must reach out and do
something with that knowledge to achieve that.

>The distinction between them can be quite grey.


In particular I have noted that GM propagandists seem
unwilling or unable to make the distinction. See, GM
propagandists use this technique, to suggest  that one
cannot be against GM technology without  being
anti-science. (thus implying the false dilemma, that one
must either support their technology or be a fool).

Quite generally technology and science stand in
a dialectic relationship to each other. Which is of course
just another way of saying that they are two different things.

><..>It was the


>discovery of nitrogen based fertilisers that made the significant
>difference to boost yields and pesticides to reduce loses.

Not really. It was the technological use of said fertilisers that
boosted yields. But perhaps that is also what you meant.

>They are biotech. They have improved the yields. Do you agree?
>Yes or no will suffice

I've already told you that I consider the use of fertiliser
to be biotechnology. And I have already said that using
them has increased the yields ~2 fold.

That should suffice, unless you are brain-dead.


Best regards,

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 2/1/01 10:40 AM
gcouger skrev i meddelelsen <508e6.7764$Up3....@newsfeed.slurp.net>...

>"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote in message


>: Indeed, since 1980 US -imports- of grain have  increased,
>: about 15fold, from nearly nothing to now a significant
>: amount.
>============
>What grains are we inporting.<snip>

You can gain access to grain-type specific data via:

http://apps.fao.org/cgi-bin/nph-db.pl


Best regards,

Torsten Brinch

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 2/1/01 1:45 PM

"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote in message
news:4hie6.193$wi2.15008@news.get2net.dk...
: gcouger skrev i meddelelsen <508e6.7764$Up3....@newsfeed.slurp.net>...:
:
:
 Torsten

Thanks for the good URL It will take a while to figure out how to get what
I want out of it.

Gordon


Pure science versus applied science Ryan Curtis 2/2/01 4:01 AM
>
> >> Think again. Biology is science. Technology is not.
> >> And certainly it cannot be the case that
> >> any form of technology is biotechnology. Or?
>
> > Science can be of two forms - research for push back the boundaries of
> > knowledge , or it can be applied science - engineering, technology,
> > etc.
>
> Sorry, no. That would seem to imply that what you call applied
> science is not pushing back the boundaries of knowledge.
> But if it doesn't then it is not science.
>
[Ryan] I figure that science is about understanding and cataloging the
boundaries of knowledge as much as it is about pushing them back ... only a
'scientist' would think that applied science does not count ... is applied
mathematics any less mathematical than pure mathematics? :-)  A physicist
might come up with a great idea - but it will be an engineer that explains
to him why it will or won't work ;-)

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 2/2/01 4:06 AM
> >> > then why is the IMF, the World bank and American corporate
> >> > interests forcing thousands of subsistence farmers off of their
> >> > land every day to make way for cash crops or commercial
> >> > plantations?  Why are subsistence farmers considered non

> >> > units in the world economy?
> >>
> >> Does it never occur to you that subsistance farming might actually be a
> >> miserable existance. All you can do is grow enough to feed yourself and

> >> perhaps a bit more?
> >>
> >> But if you can grow cash crops - to get money to buy extras in life and
> >> get a better standard of life, then things might just be better than
> >> they were.
> >> --
> >
> >Actually the subsistence farmer is healthy and eats a good diet.
>
> that is a very wide generalisation.
>
> > Most see the farming as a part of their religion and the extras are
> > seen as a threat to that life. A great example of this in the US are
> > the Amish. They are for the most part subsistence farmers that do
> > grow some cash crops but they do not buy and use extras because
> > they feel these things are a threat.  We love to look at subsistence
> > farmers with American and European eyes and these people do
> > not think this way. We see poverty and they see themselves as
> > enlightened. they don't see a problem with their lives.
>
> so that is why the third world is full of shanty towns as all those
healthy
> and well fed subsistance farmers flock to the cities to give their
children
> the chance of a better life.

[Ryan] Economics 101, those shanty towns are caused by our economic model,
they are not symptoms of malaise in the subsistence system.  By depriving
the farmers of access to land, we drive them into cities where they have to
trade their labour in return for money which they then use to buy food and
pay for their living costs ... on the farm they grew their own food, had no
accomodation costs, had no transport costs ..... they are financially worse
off in the city - which is precisely why the shanty towns spring up.

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Jim Webster 2/2/01 4:42 AM

Ryan Curtis wrote in message ...


Up here in the North we have a pretty large community from the Indian sub
continent. They put it entirely the other way. Sick of back breaking labour
for no return and not wishing their children to be condemmed to further
generations of it they get out and try and get a sensible job with pay and
time off. They don't want access to the land, they had it, tried it and
decided that it wasn't everything it is cracked up to be. Their children are
now running decent businesses in places like Gargrave and Earby and have a
deep and lasting desire to restrict their contact with the land to watching
Emmerdale.

Jim Webster

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


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 2/2/01 9:46 AM
Torsten Brinch wrote:
>
> George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> >
> skrev i meddelelsen <3A7851EC...@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>...
> >Torsten Brinch wrote:
>
> >> Think again. Biology is science. Technology is not.
> >> And certainly it cannot be the case that
> >> any form of technology is biotechnology. Or?
>
> >Science can be of two forms - research for push back the boundaries of
> >knowledge , or it can be applied science - engineering, technology,
> etc.
>
> Sorry, no. That would seem to imply that what you call applied
> science is not pushing back the boundaries of knowledge.
> But if it doesn't then it is not science.
>
> >Both can and have been used to boost the yields.
>
> No. No matter how much you increase -your- knowledge,
> the -wheat- does not yield more. You must reach out and do
> something with that knowledge to achieve that.

There is a constant flow of information between science and technology.
It is not correct to think only in terms of abstract knowledge and end
product uses.

>
> >The distinction between them can be quite grey.
>
> In particular I have noted that GM propagandists seem
> unwilling or unable to make the distinction. See, GM
> propagandists use this technique, to suggest  that one
> cannot be against GM technology without  being
> anti-science. (thus implying the false dilemma, that one
> must either support their technology or be a fool).
>

Those generally strongest against gmo tend to be those who know least
about science. And there are those with an anti-science attitude who
seem to believe if science cannot produce the goods they want then
science must discarded and replaced by systems that demostrably cannot.
Like organic farming - that is rooted in belief, not scientific fact
that it is in anyway better.

> Quite generally technology and science stand in
> a dialectic relationship to each other. Which is of course
> just another way of saying that they are two different things.
>
> ><..>It was the
> >discovery of nitrogen based fertilisers that made the significant
> >difference to boost yields and pesticides to reduce loses.
>
> Not really. It was the technological use of said fertilisers that
> boosted yields. But perhaps that is also what you meant.
>
> >They are biotech. They have improved the yields. Do you agree?
> >Yes or no will suffice
>
> I've already told you that I consider the use of fertiliser
> to be biotechnology. And I have already said that using
> them has increased the yields ~2 fold.
>
> That should suffice, unless you are brain-dead.

No need to get abusive. It is a sign you are losing the argument when
you do.

>
> Best regards,
>
> Torsten Brinch
> Email: interpret dot in domain

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

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Boulder Belt Organics 2/2/01 2:12 PM


> <snip>


> Those generally strongest against gmo tend to be those who know least
> about science. And there are those with an anti-science attitude who
> seem to believe if science cannot produce the goods they want then
> science must discarded and replaced by systems that demostrably cannot.
> Like organic farming - that is rooted in belief, not scientific fact
> that it is in anyway better.
>
No organic growing is not rooted in mere belief anymore than
conventional farming is. there is science backing organics, though
funding from the gov't or universities is meager due to most funding
going to the chemical based agribusinesses. But that is not to say that
there is no research going on.

Dr Elaine Ingrham (http://www.soilfoodweb.com) has been researching
soils for 20 years at Oregon State University. The Ohio State University
in 2000 stared organic research at their Wooster campus. I doubt they
will have meaningful results for anything for 15 to 20 years. SARE
(http://www.sare.org) is the granting body for both producer and
scientists led research projects. ATTRA (http://www.attra.org) has done
many research projects concerning organic and sustainable farms. The
Michael Fields Institute in Wisconsin has been around for about 7 years
and also has done research on organic farming systems among other things.
Organic farming may not be your cup of tea but it is not a religious
based farming system. It is just a way of farming that uses techniques
from years back combined with modern technology and knowledge. All of
which have been time tested and do work. I know too many research
scientist turned farmers to ever think that know formal science was not
going on on organic farms all over the world. <snip>


Ohiorganic


Boulder Belt Organics
New Paris, OH
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/boulderbeltcsa

>
>

GM rice is not the 'best hope of feeding world' Ryan Curtis 2/2/01 2:46 PM
> Up here in the North we have a pretty large community from the Indian sub
> continent. They put it entirely the other way. Sick of back breaking
labour
> for no return and not wishing their children to be condemned to further

> generations of it they get out and try and get a sensible job with pay and
> time off. They don't want access to the land, they had it, tried it and
> decided that it wasn't everything it is cracked up to be. Their children
are
> now running decent businesses in places like Gargrave and Earby and have a
> deep and lasting desire to restrict their contact with the land to
watching
> Emmerdale.
>
[Ryan] and I respect their choice, admire their courage and wish them luck
in their endeavours.  I personally have no wish to be a farmer - I can
hardly keep up with my 10 rod allotment .. but I also respect the right of
choice of those who *do* want to stay on the land.

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' J K Cason 2/2/01 5:57 PM
"Ohiorganic" <goo...@infinet.com> wrote in message
news:3a77f5c2$0$1519$6daed22a@news.infinet.com...

<snip>

>Actually the subsistence farmer is healthy and eats a good diet.

Skeletal remains from past civilizations indicate that human
nutrition got worse immediately after permanent agriculture
started, so the best nutrition was at the hunter-gatherer stage
long ago.  Until relatively recently in the developed world,
nutrition only approached that level for elites or for average
people in a few lucky times and places in history.

When I worked in Central America, it was possible to make a rough
guess where people were from just by how tall they were.  The
shorter they were, in general, the farther from town they grew
up.  Far out in the middle of nowhere was prime territory for
subsistence farming.  Why do the children of subsistence farmers
grow up to be so short if their nutrition is so good?  I saw
goiters, rickets, and all sorts of things that indicated that
nutritional problems abound among poor people in the countryside.

That was how I see the "good diet" part of your statement.  I
won't even start on the "healthy" part.

I looked around for definitions just to see if I have the wrong
idea of what subsistence farming is.  I saw definitions ranging
from "eat everything they produce, don't sell anything" all the
way to "sell less than 50% of what they produce."  My experience
falls in there somewhere.

>Most see the farming as a part of their religion and the extras
>are seen as a threat to that life.

Many that I knew saw farming as dull drudgery and wanted to move
to town.

>A great example of this in the US are the Amish. They are for
>the most part subsistence farmers that do grow some cash crops
>but they do not buy and use extras because they feel these
>things are a threat.

The Amish are a dreadful example.  For them to fit the pattern
of subsistence farmers worldwide, they would have to move into
whichever of their tool sheds are in the worst condition, give
up their houses and barns, give up title to their land, give up
their animals, and forget their education and experience with
farming.  They would also have to move to a place with less
dependable legal protection, no advocates for the poor, etc.

>We love to look at subsistence farmers with American and
>European eyes and these people do not think this way.

You're looking through some sort of filter yourself.

>We see poverty and they see themselves as enlightened.

They know that they live on the edge, that life is a lot more
fair for other people.

>they don't see a problem with their lives.

Many of them want something better for their children, but aren't
particularly hopeful of that actually happening.

> it is us who see the problem and than we have to barge in and
>change them for their own good.

Outsiders can certainly be overbearing and patronizing, but many
of the poor know they have problems.

> it doesn't matter that we may destroy a culture or 2.

A few cultures, and some aspects of many cultures, are not very
nice.

> It doesn't matter that we treat fellow humans as imbecilic
>children because they are different than us because we
>westerners know, just ask us.

The concept of the noble savage ebbs and flows in human history.

>The people who stopped subsistence farming and grow cash crops
>do have a problem. they have terrible nutrition and live in true
>poverty-they no longer grow their own food and have to use the
>funds from the cash crops to buy food.

Why does it have to flip all the way over to 100% selling of
everything they grow?

> maybe in some other reality the farmer will make enough cash
>to do more than scrape by but in this one the cash farmer is in
>trouble because Americans want cheap food and they do not care
>what the consequences are to the farmers.

Farmers in the third world may be in trouble, but how does cheap
American food contribute to that?


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' John McCarthy 2/2/01 6:32 PM
Two stray items to add to J. K. Cason's patient and accurate reply to
Ohioorganic's sentimentality.

Adding to his remark about being able to tell rural people from urban
by their height.  100 years ago the average upper class Englishman was
5 inches taller than the average of the lower class.  The present
difference is 2 inches.

In the Soviet Union the peasants were very badly off and always had
been.  I remember being buttonholed in Moscow by a peasant who told me
insistently that judging Russia was a delusion, that it was much worse
for peasants.  I told him I knew that, but I must admit that my
knowledge was almost entirely from reading.  The one Siberian village
I saw did was entirely consistent with what he said.  I saw a woman
carrying two buckets of water hanging from a yoke.  The tiny houses
had TV antennas, but evidently did not have running water.  It was
right next to Akademgorodok, the headquarters of the Siberian Division
of the USSR Academy of Sciences.  When I asked why the Akademgorodok
people didn't do something to improve conditions in the neighboring
village, the reply was that there was no point since the plant was to
get rid of the village to make room for expansion of Akademgorodok.
The other complaint was that residents of the village sometimes came
into Akademgorodok to shop in the so-called supermarket.

I suspect that this attitude of the middle class to the peasants is
not just a characteristic of socialism.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Torsten Brinch 2/4/01 3:04 AM

Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
>In article <xhNc6.2$n85...@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:


>> But can we really think that the author could just
>> as well have expressed his train of thought like this:

>> 'We gain a knowledge of genes--AS OPPOSED
>> TO KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY EXIST -- only through
>> knowledge of the organism as a whole. The more
>> knowledge we have  of the organism as a whole,
>> the more information we have. This information is not
>> in the genes, it is in the conceptual  thread that weaves
>> together the various details into a meaningful whole.' ?

>> At this point in our discussion, I would be disrespectful
>> to you, were I not to to expect you to  realize from
>> considering  the whole expression, and in particular
>> the functional use of the expressions 'in the genes'
>> and 'various details' in the last statement in it, that we can't.

>I disagree.  We gain knowledge of genes both in the context of the
>organism and in isolation.  The knowledge we gain from one analysis
>complements that obtained by another.  Even as you've modified the
>quote, I still feel that it is wrong.


Whoah. You misunderstood my point. I was certainly not
trying to 'fix' the quote. Bluntly, I was asking you if
it is a fair interpretation of the quote that the author
is saying that one cannot e.g. gain knowledge
of  the number of atoms in a gene without knowledge
of the whole organism as a whole. Once more
I must draw your attention to the last statement
in the quote.

>Perhaps if it were modified further to read:

>'We gain a knowledge of genes through
>knowledge of the organism as a whole. The more
>knowledge we have  of the organism as a whole,
>the more information we have.'

>This I would agree with.  However, one should add:

>'We gain a knowledge of organisms through
>knowledge of their parts (e.g., genes) in isolation. The more
>knowledge we have of the parts (e.g., genes),
>the more information we have about organism as a whole.'

IMO this is just avoiding the problem, which the author
is pointing to. It does not really adress it. In logical terms
the problem is one of avoiding to commit the fallacies
of division and composition when going from knowledge
of genes to knowledge of an organism and vice versa.

The fallacy of Division is committed when a person
infers that what is true of a whole must also be true
of its constituents and justification for that inference
is not provided.

The fallacy of Composition is committed when a
conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the
features of its constituents when, in fact, no
justification is provided for the inference.


Best regards,

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Marty Sachs 2/5/01 2:30 PM
In article <QLaf6.119$Bu5...@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:


I thought that I understood your point (but see below). I'm simply
replying that I disagree with it and showed you how I would modify the
quote to some fashion that I would agree with.  I feel that the original
statement is simply wrong because it doesn't allow for the fact that
only can certainly gain information about a gene and how it works by
analysis of an isolated gene.  However, as stated previously, I do agree
that at least at present, we cannot know everything about a gene and how
it works simply from information gained by studying it in isolation.  
That is clearly different than saying (as I think you are) that one can
ONLY gain knowledge about a gene by studying it in the context of the
organism.  There clearly is information in an isolated gene from which
we can and do gain some understanding about how a gene works.


>
> >Perhaps if it were modified further to read:
>
> >'We gain a knowledge of genes through
> >knowledge of the organism as a whole. The more
> >knowledge we have  of the organism as a whole,
> >the more information we have.'
>
> >This I would agree with.  However, one should add:
>
> >'We gain a knowledge of organisms through
> >knowledge of their parts (e.g., genes) in isolation. The more
> >knowledge we have of the parts (e.g., genes),
> >the more information we have about organism as a whole.'
>
> IMO this is just avoiding the problem, which the author
> is pointing to. It does not really adress it. In logical terms
> the problem is one of avoiding to commit the fallacies
> of division and composition when going from knowledge
> of genes to knowledge of an organism and vice versa.
>

IMO, the author is making similar fallacies with this quote.


> The fallacy of Division is committed when a person
> infers that what is true of a whole must also be true
> of its constituents and justification for that inference
> is not provided.
>
> The fallacy of Composition is committed when a
> conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the
> features of its constituents when, in fact, no
> justification is provided for the inference.


I don't have any problem with this.  I'm not sure how this relates to
the quote that you gave (or the discussion that this quote was brought
into) unless you trying to say that this quote had such a fallacy. Did
you feel that something said in the discussion had a similar fallacy?  
Was that your point?  If so, what are you really trying to say?

   Best regards,

      -Marty Sachs

Some dross about GM products Mark Huebner 2/18/01 6:44 AM
It can take three or more generations before the effects of a novel food are
known.  Experts in mammals know this.

> definite known effects .... I am erring on the side of caution and waiting
> to see what happens to other people who do eat it  ... like a generation
or
> so.

Some dross about GM products Ryan Curtis 2/19/01 1:11 AM
> > [Ryan] ... I am erring on the side of caution and waiting

> > to see what happens to other people who do eat it  ...
> > like a generation or so.
>
> [Mark] It can take three or more generations before the effects of a novel

food are
> known.  Experts in mammals know this.
>
[Ryan] Precisely ... and if such scientific rational is good for the
observation of dietary effects on critters, then it is good enough for the
observation of dietary effects on humans :-)  The GM-lobby can come back and
poll me in about 75 years.

Some dross about GM products George Baxter 2/21/01 10:03 AM


You are talking rubbish. Where do you get such glib statements as taking
three or more generations before the effects of a novel food are known?

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

Some dross about GM products gcouger 2/21/01 8:54 PM

...

: Mark Huebner wrote:
: >
: > It can take three or more generations before the effects of a novel
food are
: > known.  Experts in mammals know this.
: >
: > > definite known effects .... I am erring on the side of caution and
waiting
: > > to see what happens to other people who do eat it  ... like a
generation
: > or
: > > so.
:
:

:
Non GM cranola oil may kill us all. Eating enough raw non GM potatoes will
make you sick too. Try it some time. And all this beef that is being fed
triticale that has never been tested for safety may be doing us in as we
speak. Or the barley in your beer that was created with carcinogen
mutignes or the hops that were created with radiation induced mutation.
Neither were tested for safety. Both are a far great change with more
unknowns than inserting a gene.

Go listen to scientists that understand what is going on at
http://www.agbioworld.org at least 5 Nobel laureates support that
position. How many support the green position.


Some dross about GM products gcouger 2/24/01 7:41 PM

"Ryan Curtis" <off...@gaiafoundation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:lv5k6.6892$I5.177430@stones...
: > > [Ryan] ... I am erring on the side of caution and waiting

I think you will find almost no nutritional research done on humans it is
all done on hogs or rats. As long as you get close to the minimums daily
allowances health does not suffer. The idea of nutrient density sounds
good but if you look at all the fat folks in the world it doesn't hold up
too well. There are no indications of mineral or vitamins shortages in the
first world diet that eats these diluted foods. You need a better red
herring than that.

You will find nutrient density research being done every year by Animal
Science departments on the same foods that we eat because the surplus and
waste foods are used to feed livestock so if you are interested you can
find the data there.

Gordon


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Boulder Belt Organics 3/16/01 2:09 PM
Walter Epp wrote:
>
> Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>Native American medicine was generally superior to European.
> >
> >Hence their huge population .....
> >Dream on.
>
> Since when does being the victim of a holocaust have anything
> to do with the quality of medicine?
> Read American Indian Medicine by Virgil Vogel for historical
> documentation of how the systems of medicine actually compared.
> --
> Besides there actually was a big population in the Americas prior to European contact. It is estimated to be around 30 million in N and Central America though it fell quickly to around 5 million due to genocide by around 1800.

Lucy Goodman-Owsley


Boulder Belt Organics
New Paris, OH
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/boulderbeltcsa

>
>

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' gcouger 3/16/01 7:37 PM

"Boulder Belt Organics" <goo...@infinet.com> wrote in message
news:3ab28ef0$0$11812$4c5ecdc7@news.erinet.com...

: Walter Epp wrote:
: >
: > Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: > >>Native American medicine was generally superior to European.
: > >
: > >Hence their huge population .....
: > >Dream on.
: >
: > Since when does being the victim of a holocaust have anything
: > to do with the quality of medicine?
: > Read American Indian Medicine by Virgil Vogel for historical
: > documentation of how the systems of medicine actually compared.
: > --
: > Besides there actually was a big population in the Americas prior to
European contact. It is estimated to be around 30 million in N and Central
America though it fell quickly to around 5 million due to genocide by
around 1800.

And what does that have to do with agriculture?


--
Gordon    W5RED
G. C. Couger gco...@provalue.net  Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Walter Epp 3/15/01 10:35 PM
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Native American medicine was generally superior to European.
>
>Hence their huge population .....
>Dream on.

Since when does being the victim of a holocaust have anything
to do with the quality of medicine?
Read American Indian Medicine by Virgil Vogel for historical
documentation of how the systems of medicine actually compared.
--
delete N0SPAAM to reply by email
GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Walter Epp 3/15/01 10:35 PM
George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> wrote:
>> > The red herring of moving a very small number of
>> >genes is some how more dangerous than swapping half the genes in the plant
>> >is ridiculous.
>>
>> Certainly not. Think about it. Those natural genes have been tested by going
>> through millions of swaps, and selection has finely tuned them so they swap
>> smoothly like precisely matched gears. Add one tooth to a gear and you
>> can easily throw the whole mechanism out of kilter.
>
> When plants are breed, literally hundreds and
>even thousands of genes are smashed together in an uncontrolled way. Yet
>living viable plants are produced. So if you can smash thousands genes
>together, then one or two genes are not going to have the catastrophic
>effects.

Once again the fundamental fallacy of biotech is the simplistic presumption
that a genome consists of a random assortment of genes. Utter nonsense.
A billion years of natural selection has resulted in genomes that are
nonrandom in the extreme.
Those genes are related to each other and finely tuned to work together in
ways we do not understand. Injecting foreign genes into the system can
trigger a cascade of side effects in ways we do not understand.

Natural reproduction is not uncontrolled at all. You can inform yourself on
the basics of how it works by looking up "chromosomes" and "linkage"
in any elementary genetics book.

--
delete N0SPAAM to reply by email

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' David Kendra 3/16/01 4:43 AM

"Walter Epp" <NOSPAAM...@idiom.com> wrote in message
news:ok63btouhck6qvc9jbt0cgokqh9ka59r2l@4ax.com...

> George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net>
wrote:
> >> > The red herring of moving a very small number of
> >> >genes is some how more dangerous than swapping half the genes in the
plant
> >> >is ridiculous.
> >>
> >> Certainly not. Think about it. Those natural genes have been tested by
going
> >> through millions of swaps, and selection has finely tuned them so they
swap
> >> smoothly like precisely matched gears. Add one tooth to a gear and you
> >> can easily throw the whole mechanism out of kilter.
> >
> > When plants are breed, literally hundreds and
> >even thousands of genes are smashed together in an uncontrolled way. Yet
> >living viable plants are produced. So if you can smash thousands genes
> >together, then one or two genes are not going to have the catastrophic
> >effects.
>
> Once again the fundamental fallacy of biotech is the simplistic
presumption
> that a genome consists of a random assortment of genes. Utter nonsense.
> A billion years of natural selection has resulted in genomes that are
> nonrandom in the extreme.

Please tell us more about the nonrandomness of the genome.  Also, be sure to
talk about the accuracy of the addition of DNA by into a plant cell by
Agrobacterium tumefaciens.  Mother nature created this capability.  Please
enlighten us with your wisdom.

dk

> Those genes are related to each other and finely tuned to work together in
> ways we do not understand. Injecting foreign genes into the system can
> trigger a cascade of side effects in ways we do not understand.
>
> Natural reproduction is not uncontrolled at all. You can inform yourself
on
> the basics of how it works by looking up "chromosomes" and "linkage"
> in any elementary genetics book.
>
> --
> delete N0SPAAM to reply by email


GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' George Baxter 3/19/01 9:41 AM
Walter Epp wrote:
>
> George Baxter <"George Baxter RgEeMoVrEge"@CbAaPxSter0.screaming.net> wrote:
> >> > The red herring of moving a very small number of
> >> >genes is some how more dangerous than swapping half the genes in the plant
> >> >is ridiculous.
> >>
> >> Certainly not. Think about it. Those natural genes have been tested by going
> >> through millions of swaps, and selection has finely tuned them so they swap
> >> smoothly like precisely matched gears. Add one tooth to a gear and you
> >> can easily throw the whole mechanism out of kilter.
> >
> > When plants are breed, literally hundreds and
> >even thousands of genes are smashed together in an uncontrolled way. Yet
> >living viable plants are produced. So if you can smash thousands genes
> >together, then one or two genes are not going to have the catastrophic
> >effects.
>
> Once again the fundamental fallacy of biotech is the simplistic presumption
> that a genome consists of a random assortment of genes. Utter nonsense.
> A billion years of natural selection has resulted in genomes that are
> nonrandom in the extreme.

The very fact that ge works is proof of the truth of my point of view.


> Those genes are related to each other and finely tuned to work together in
> ways we do not understand. Injecting foreign genes into the system can
> trigger a cascade of side effects in ways we do not understand.
>

Finely tuned? What are you on about?

Where is this "cascade of side effects". The nature of living organisms
is that they live they are dynamically stable. If they were as delicate
as you believe, then nothing would have evolved beyond the primordial
slime.

--
George Baxter RbEaMxOtV...@ntlworld.com

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Walter Epp 3/22/01 1:19 PM
George Baxter <GeoRbEaMxOt...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> >> > The red herring of moving a very small number of
>> >> >genes is some how more dangerous than swapping half the genes in the plant
>> >> >is ridiculous.
>> >>
>> >> Certainly not. Think about it. Those natural genes have been tested by going
>> >> through millions of swaps, and selection has finely tuned them so they swap
>> >> smoothly like precisely matched gears. Add one tooth to a gear and you
>> >> can easily throw the whole mechanism out of kilter.
>> >
>> > When plants are breed, literally hundreds and
>> >even thousands of genes are smashed together in an uncontrolled way. Yet
>> >living viable plants are produced. So if you can smash thousands genes
>> >together, then one or two genes are not going to have the catastrophic
>> >effects.
>>
>> Once again the fundamental fallacy of biotech is the simplistic presumption
>> that a genome consists of a random assortment of genes. Utter nonsense.
>> A billion years of natural selection has resulted in genomes that are
>> nonrandom in the extreme.
>
>The very fact that ge works is proof of the truth of my point of view.

Non sequitur even if one accepts your presumption - not a fact - that ge "works".
GE crops have only been grown on a substantial scale for a handful of years,
much too early to tell whether it will work at all in the long run, much less well.

>> Those genes are related to each other and finely tuned to work together in
>> ways we do not understand. Injecting foreign genes into the system can
>> trigger a cascade of side effects in ways we do not understand.
>>
>
>Finely tuned? What are you on about?
>
>Where is this "cascade of side effects". The nature of living organisms
>is that they live they are dynamically stable. If they were as delicate
>as you believe, then nothing would have evolved beyond the primordial
>slime.

They have never before been subjected to they types of tamperings that
GE is now doing, so how they fared under natural conditions is not relevant.
_Natural_ organisms _in their natural environment_ are dynamically stable.
Even natural non-gmo organisms, when moved from their home and introduced
somewhere else, are one of the larger environmental problems today, causing
an estimated $137 billion per year in economic losses in the US alone.
When taken out of the context of their home environment's checks and
balances, their population can explode, disrupting the ecosystem and
snuffing out native species.

The fact that human bodies can restore dynamic equilibrium when stabbed in
the arm does not mean there's no problem with going around stabbing people.

Quoting from
"Why FDA Policy on Genetically Engineered Food Violates Sound Science & U.S.
Law", by Steven Druker at the FDA public meeting on genetically engineered
foods, Nov 30, 1999, Panel on Scientific, Safety, and Regulatory Issues

FDA is disregarding the well-recognized potential for recombinant DNA
techniques to produce unexpected toxins and carcinogens in a different
manner and to a different degree than do conventional methods.  For one
thing, the foreign genetic material invariably disrupts the region of host
DNA into which it wedges, and this can adversely alter cellular function.
Another source of potential problems is the routine practice of fusing
powerful promoters from viruses or pathogenic bacteria to the transferred
genes.  This is necessary because genes ordinarily do not express well when
implanted within a foreign cellular environment. However, besides boosting
the foreign genes, these promoters can cause overexpression (or even
suppression) of surrounding native genes. Further, these foreign promoters
cause the transgenes to act independently of the host organism's intricate
control mechanisms and to express their products in an essentially
unregulated manner.  This unregulated flow of foreign substances can upset
complex biochemical feedback loops.  Moreover, these powerful agents can
activate metabolic pathways that are ordinarily inactive.

--
delete N0SPAAM to reply by email

GM rice 'best hope of feeding world' Walter Epp 3/22/01 1:19 PM
"David Kendra" <dke...@mr.net> wrote:
>> >> > The red herring of moving a very small number of
>> >> >genes is some how more dangerous than swapping half the genes in the
>plant is ridiculous.
>> >>
>> >> Certainly not. Think about it. Those natural genes have been tested by
>going
>> >> through millions of swaps, and selection has finely tuned them so they
>swap
>> >> smoothly like precisely matched gears. Add one tooth to a gear and you
>> >> can easily throw the whole mechanism out of kilter.
>> >
>> > When plants are breed, literally hundreds and
>> >even thousands of genes are sm