"Bob Adkins" Wouldn't it be cool if beets had *real blood? :-)

They probably already have Bob.
Many of the Medical Molecular Crops are being engineered for blood products.
The advantages from a lack of contamination point of view are huge.
We have some of the current research on the
http://www.molecularfarming.com/othermedical.html page, as well as bits on
other pages in the site.
Yours Brian.

"Plantigens" wrote in message
...

"Gordon Couger"
Again some promising things on the horison but the the lead time on
medical
reserch is really bad and the testing is difficult to do as well. If we
could develop drugs like we breed plants we could make a lot faster
progress.

It is sort of happening in the developing of transgenic plants to produce
protein drugs Read all about it at the http://www.MolecularFarming.com
site
Large Scale Bio. is a big player in this field, having been the first
company to build a purpose-built bioprocessing facility.
Prodigene, if they get their act together in environmental safety, have
promising technology and product pipeline.

They keep growing corn and beans in corn and bean country if they would go
to irrigated cotton country where no one grows those crops becase cotton
makes more money they could solve those problems in one step.

The problem with drugs is the testing in humans. We can't do good
statistical studies and we can't disect the subjects after the study. I have
seen more good research done on two pens of hogs than has ever been done on
humans. You gate cut them into two groups and treat one group and use the
other as control and evaluate them at slaughter. In fact most of the
nutrition data for humans is extrapolated from just that kind of work on
hogs.

Gordon

The termator gene has it's place. Contorling volenter crops is one and
protecting intlectelual propety is a legtiment use.

Are you trying to use speech recognition or has your spelling checker
failed?

wouldn't it be great if the biotech firms could
come up with things like

Would it?

How about they first understand the full implications of what they're
doing before they start messing about like this? The
one-gene-equals-one-attribute theory of genetics has been shot down
over the last year - things like RR and Bt crops are theoretical
prototypes which have been allowed out into the field without proper
safety testing...

It's simply not possible to insert or delete characteristics without
affecting other aspects of the organism in unknown ways.

regards
Marcus

It is sort of happening in the developing of transgenic plants to produce
protein drugs

Read here about how these "pharm" plants have already caused
contamination of food crops:

http://www.gmfoodnews.com/pharma.html

regards
Marcus

Marcus Williamson wrote in message . ..
It is sort of happening in the developing of transgenic plants to produce
protein drugs

Read here about how these "pharm" plants have already caused
contamination of food crops:

http://www.gmfoodnews.com/pharma.html

regards
Marcus

We actually have even more information on the
http://www.molecularfarming.com/contamination.htm page. As I have
posted earlier, MolecularFarming.com's purpose is to help enable
ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE growing of Molecular Crops [ NON-FOOD GMO ]

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message news:2JcP9.537162$QZ.77075@sccrnsc02...
"Plantigens" wrote in message
...

"Gordon Couger"
They keep growing corn and beans in corn and bean country if they
would go
to irrigated cotton country where no one grows those crops becase cotton
makes more money they could solve those problems in one step.

Gordon,
That is the main purpose of the MolecularFarming.com site. We want
cotton growers in the middle of the cotton region to join our database
and we will try to introduce them to " Genetically engineered former
food crop " Biopharma companies.
We already have 3800 acres which we know can be used for
Environmentally Safe Corn growing alone, in places as diverse as South
Africa, Indonesia and Guinea.
We can grow these crops if we take them away from related food. We
could even grow them beside food if we followed some of the
suggestions on the http://www.molecularfarming.com/safety.html page

"brian marshall" wrote in message
m...
"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:2JcP9.537162$QZ.77075@sccrnsc02...
"Plantigens" wrote in message
...

"Gordon Couger"
They keep growing corn and beans in corn and bean country if they
would go
to irrigated cotton country where no one grows those crops becase cotton
makes more money they could solve those problems in one step.

Gordon,
That is the main purpose of the MolecularFarming.com site. We want
cotton growers in the middle of the cotton region to join our database
and we will try to introduce them to " Genetically engineered former
food crop " Biopharma companies.
We already have 3800 acres which we know can be used for
Environmentally Safe Corn growing alone, in places as diverse as South
Africa, Indonesia and Guinea.
We can grow these crops if we take them away from related food. We
could even grow them beside food if we followed some of the
suggestions on the http://www.molecularfarming.com/safety.html page

How would the big hole in the middle of Waggoner Ranch work for you.
http://www.waggonerranch.com/images/fig2.gif
My mother's family controls that. Unfortuatly it is too hot for beans and
corn and the water from the lake is not fit for irrigation. Getting there
first we got the good grass. Waggoner took the poorer land that had less
water. While drilling for water he kept hitting sal****er and oil at about
200 feet and eventual ended producing.
http://www.waggonerranch.com/prod03b.htm
We still have good water and grass snf no oil.

Gordon

We actually have even more information on the
http://www.molecularfarming.com/contamination.htm page.

There are 3 articles.

What happens to those who don't make use of your "database"?

regards
Marcus

In article ,
writes:

You might find it interesting to do a bit of reading on the "Green
Revolution". Someone called Borlang or Borluag or something like that
received the Nobel Peace Prize for work he did on wheat while with Dupont
(or should that be Du Pont??). Unfortunately, his wonder wheat caused very
real problems down the track in the Third World countries he was intending
to help.

His wheat needed fertilisers that weren't readily available in the Third
World, it wasn't as resistant to local pests as the old varieties were and
the straw that had been used for both animal feeds and thatching was now too
short etc etc etc. In short for a while it was OK but very quickly it
became a real pig's ear. The farmers were caught in a spiral of needing to
buy seed, fertiliser and then sell to make a profit etc.

It was a good idea at the time but 25+ years down the track and it's a
different story but since we don't seem to learn from history then no doubt
we'll repeat it again. Our farmers are mostly screaming blue murder about
GM crops. The government isn't listening and I'm curious as to what
"retainers" might be being spread around by companies with GM interests.

I don't know where you heard this, but none of it is true. The only
reason the world hasn't been having repeated famines for the last 30
years was the development of superior strains of wheat, rice and corn by
plant biologists. Work continues on strains like golden rice and
balanced amino acid corn that drastically reduce dietary disease by
providing a better balanced nutrition. The green revolution tripled crop
yields around the world and saved untold billions of human lives. Norman
Borlaug richly deserved his Nobel prize. Borlaug never worked for Du
Pont. His work was initially funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.

Check out

http://reason.com/0004/fe.rb.billions.shtml

if you want to know the real story.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
writes:

You might find it interesting to do a bit of reading on the "Green
Revolution". Someone called Borlang or Borluag or something like that
received the Nobel Peace Prize for work he did on wheat while with
Dupont
(or should that be Du Pont??). Unfortunately, his wonder wheat caused
very
real problems down the track in the Third World countries he was
intending
to help.

His wheat needed fertilisers that weren't readily available in the Third
World, it wasn't as resistant to local pests as the old varieties were
and
the straw that had been used for both animal feeds and thatching was now
too
short etc etc etc. In short for a while it was OK but very quickly it
became a real pig's ear. The farmers were caught in a spiral of needing
to
buy seed, fertiliser and then sell to make a profit etc.

It was a good idea at the time but 25+ years down the track and it's a
different story but since we don't seem to learn from history then no
doubt
we'll repeat it again.

I don't know where you heard this, but none of it is true.

If you had done any sort of research (even on the net) you would not make
such a knee jerk and unsupportable statement. My source for most of my post
was a memory of a paper done by one of this country's Govt Aid agency. But
just to refute your knee jerker, I have done a bit of a net hunt and there
is certainly enough there if you had chosen to do any research.

He did work for Du Pont, the Green Revolution is causing, has caused and
will continue to cause problems in Third World Countries over the next few
years. However, as you say, he was funded by Rockefeller so you got
something right. He was also funded by Ford.

The only
reason the world hasn't been having repeated famines for the last 30
years was the development of superior strains of wheat, rice and corn by
plant biologists.

Goodness me! Did you think that famines stopped when the tracks of "Concert
for Bangladesh" were laid down? A few I can think of whitout even trying
are (currently) North Korea, and emerging, Zimbabwe, and back a few years,
Somalia, Ethiopia, Chad, Kenya, Eritrea and Sudan. I'm sure I could think
of others if I really got off my blot.

Work continues on strains like golden rice and
balanced amino acid corn that drastically reduce dietary disease by
providing a better balanced nutrition. The green revolution tripled crop
yields around the world and saved untold billions of human lives. Norman
Borlaug richly deserved his Nobel prize.

Yes he probably did deserve his Nobel Prize for very good research but the
green revolution had only short term success. If you had done some research
you would know that my referral to "25+ years" was not an accident. The
green revolution problems are now piling up thick and fast. It was and is
unsustainable. Not necessarily Borlaug's fault, but given the article you
have quoted he certainly seems to be prepared to sprout a fair amount of
rubbish that cannot be supported by the either the facts or even common
sense.

Borlaug never worked for Du
Pont.

You are wrong. He did work for Du Pont. Look at:
http://www.normanborlaug.org/267339_borlaug_21liv..html

His work was initially funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.

He joined the Rockefeller foundation in 1944 and , yes, he was funded by
Rockefeller and Ford for his Nobel Prize winning research.

Check out

http://reason.com/0004/fe.rb.billions.shtml

if you want to know the real story.

One thing I am noticing more and more is that so few people can manage to
read an article critically.

How can you possibly describe that article as being "the real story"?

Hasn't it occurred to you that of course Borlaug is going to say that he can
walk on water and that everything he did was simply miraculous? Didn't you
notice that this so called "real story" has only him as the source? Where
are his critics? Does he answer any criticism?. Of course not, so it is
hardly likely to be any sort of "real story" to anyone who has any critical
facilities.

If you read it critically and if you have any interest in Third World
countries you would notice a number of problems with what he actually says.

For example, read the section where he is interviewed and you will notice
that he refers to Roundup and it's wonderful usefulness to Africa. Then he
talks about bringing roads into Ethiopia so that they can have access to
fertiliser and that then they'll be able to have schools and get cosy with
the neighbours. How out of touch can he be? He doesn't seem to understand
that he's describing the creation of a poverty trap which such expensive
inputs and nor does he seem to know about local conditions in places like
Ethiopia. Even he must know by now that the major problem with the Green
Revolution, and his varieties in particular, is sustainability, rapidly
increasing land degradation, loss of biodiversity and social dislocation.

If you think that one person saying "I'm wonderful", in an interview, is
"the real story", then there really is no point in suggesting you look at
any of the following, but I'll do so anyway.
http://www.sos-arsenic.net/english/mitigation/1.html
http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds...-greenrev.html
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cfford/342Myth5.htm
http://www.corpwatchindia.org/issues...?articleid=603
http://primalseeds.nologic.org/revolution.htm
http://www.biotech-info.net/sour.html
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/bi301/cropdiv.htm

I could go on but I won't.

On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 05:16:01 +1100, "Fran Higham"
wrote:

"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
writes:

You might find it interesting to do a bit of reading on the "Green
Revolution". Someone called Borlang or Borluag or something like that
received the Nobel Peace Prize for work he did on wheat while with
Dupont
(or should that be Du Pont??). Unfortunately, his wonder wheat caused
very
real problems down the track in the Third World countries he was
intending
to help.

His wheat needed fertilisers that weren't readily available in the Third
World, it wasn't as resistant to local pests as the old varieties were
and
the straw that had been used for both animal feeds and thatching was now
too
short etc etc etc. In short for a while it was OK but very quickly it
became a real pig's ear. The farmers were caught in a spiral of needing
to
buy seed, fertiliser and then sell to make a profit etc.

It was a good idea at the time but 25+ years down the track and it's a
different story but since we don't seem to learn from history then no
doubt
we'll repeat it again.

I don't know where you heard this, but none of it is true.

If you had done any sort of research (even on the net) you would not make
such a knee jerk and unsupportable statement. My source for most of my post
was a memory of a paper done by one of this country's Govt Aid agency. But
just to refute your knee jerker, I have done a bit of a net hunt and there
is certainly enough there if you had chosen to do any research.

He did work for Du Pont, the Green Revolution is causing, has caused and
will continue to cause problems in Third World Countries over the next few
years. However, as you say, he was funded by Rockefeller so you got
something right. He was also funded by Ford.

The only
reason the world hasn't been having repeated famines for the last 30
years was the development of superior strains of wheat, rice and corn by
plant biologists.

Goodness me! Did you think that famines stopped when the tracks of "Concert
for Bangladesh" were laid down? A few I can think of whitout even trying
are (currently) North Korea, and emerging, Zimbabwe, and back a few years,
Somalia, Ethiopia, Chad, Kenya, Eritrea and Sudan. I'm sure I could think
of others if I really got off my blot.

Work continues on strains like golden rice and
balanced amino acid corn that drastically reduce dietary disease by
providing a better balanced nutrition. The green revolution tripled crop
yields around the world and saved untold billions of human lives. Norman
Borlaug richly deserved his Nobel prize.

Yes he probably did deserve his Nobel Prize for very good research but the
green revolution had only short term success. If you had done some research
you would know that my referral to "25+ years" was not an accident. The
green revolution problems are now piling up thick and fast. It was and is
unsustainable. Not necessarily Borlaug's fault, but given the article you
have quoted he certainly seems to be prepared to sprout a fair amount of
rubbish that cannot be supported by the either the facts or even common
sense.

Borlaug never worked for Du
Pont.

You are wrong. He did work for Du Pont. Look at:
http://www.normanborlaug.org/267339_borlaug_21liv..html

His work was initially funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.

He joined the Rockefeller foundation in 1944 and , yes, he was funded by
Rockefeller and Ford for his Nobel Prize winning research.

Check out

http://reason.com/0004/fe.rb.billions.shtml

if you want to know the real story.

One thing I am noticing more and more is that so few people can manage to
read an article critically.

How can you possibly describe that article as being "the real story"?

Hasn't it occurred to you that of course Borlaug is going to say that he can
walk on water and that everything he did was simply miraculous? Didn't you
notice that this so called "real story" has only him as the source? Where
are his critics? Does he answer any criticism?. Of course not, so it is
hardly likely to be any sort of "real story" to anyone who has any critical
facilities.

If you read it critically and if you have any interest in Third World
countries you would notice a number of problems with what he actually says.

For example, read the section where he is interviewed and you will notice
that he refers to Roundup and it's wonderful usefulness to Africa. Then he
talks about bringing roads into Ethiopia so that they can have access to
fertiliser and that then they'll be able to have schools and get cosy with
the neighbours. How out of touch can he be? He doesn't seem to understand
that he's describing the creation of a poverty trap which such expensive
inputs and nor does he seem to know about local conditions in places like
Ethiopia. Even he must know by now that the major problem with the Green
Revolution, and his varieties in particular, is sustainability, rapidly
increasing land degradation, loss of biodiversity and social dislocation.

If you think that one person saying "I'm wonderful", in an interview, is
"the real story", then there really is no point in suggesting you look at
any of the following, but I'll do so anyway.
http://www.sos-arsenic.net/english/mitigation/1.html
http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds...-greenrev.html
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cfford/342Myth5.htm
http://www.corpwatchindia.org/issues...?articleid=603
http://primalseeds.nologic.org/revolution.htm
http://www.biotech-info.net/sour.html
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/bi301/cropdiv.htm

I could go on but I won't.


You shouldn't. Did YOU read this stuff?

Fran Higham wrote in message
...

Did you think that famines stopped when the tracks of "Concert
for Bangladesh" were laid down? A few I can think of whitout even
trying
are (currently) North Korea, and emerging, Zimbabwe, and back a few
years,
Somalia, Ethiopia, Chad, Kenya, Eritrea and Sudan. I'm sure I could
think
of others if I really got off my blot.

now try and think of others where there hasn't been a war or nutcase
kicking farmers of their land in the previous decade.
Kenya is the only one of the above list which is not war torn or ruled
by a complete ideologue.

Somalia, Ethiopia, Chad, Eritrea and Sudan have all had pretty major
wars in the last few years, does Somalia actually have a government at
the moment? Sudan has had endemic warfare since pretty much the 1960s.

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
writes:

You might find it interesting to do a bit of reading on the "Green
Revolution". Someone called Borlang or Borluag or something like that
received the Nobel Peace Prize for work he did on wheat while with
Dupont
(or should that be Du Pont??). Unfortunately, his wonder wheat caused
very
real problems down the track in the Third World countries he was
intending
to help.

His wheat needed fertilisers that weren't readily available in the Third
World, it wasn't as resistant to local pests as the old varieties were
and
the straw that had been used for both animal feeds and thatching was now
too
short etc etc etc. In short for a while it was OK but very quickly it
became a real pig's ear. The farmers were caught in a spiral of needing
to
buy seed, fertiliser and then sell to make a profit etc.

It was a good idea at the time but 25+ years down the track and it's a
different story but since we don't seem to learn from history then no
doubt
we'll repeat it again. Our farmers are mostly screaming blue murder
about
GM crops. The government isn't listening and I'm curious as to what
"retainers" might be being spread around by companies with GM interests.

I don't know where you heard this, but none of it is true. The only
reason the world hasn't been having repeated famines for the last 30
years was the development of superior strains of wheat, rice and corn by
plant biologists. Work continues on strains like golden rice and
balanced amino acid corn that drastically reduce dietary disease by
providing a better balanced nutrition. The green revolution tripled crop
yields around the world and saved untold billions of human lives. Norman
Borlaug richly deserved his Nobel prize. Borlaug never worked for Du
Pont. His work was initially funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.

Check out

http://reason.com/0004/fe.rb.billions.shtml

if you want to know the real story.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
I think average corn yields in the USA had already tripled or quadrupled
by the time of the "Green Revolution". The green revolution was really the
"Wheat like we grow it in The USA mand western Europe revolution" It not
only created unrealistc dependency on synthetic fertilizer and toxic rescue
chemistry, it ignorged, with disastrous results, local economic sytems,
local ecology, and local diets with . It was blunt heavy handed and quite
destrucyive agricultural imperialism, Sort of like the fabulous green
revolution of brining the potato to Ireland.

Richard McDermott writes

I think average corn yields in the USA had already tripled or quadrupled
by the time of the "Green Revolution". The green revolution was really the
"Wheat like we grow it in The USA mand western Europe revolution"

Ah, so good enough for us, but not good enough for them.

It not
only created unrealistc dependency on synthetic fertilizer

Like we aren't dependent on it

and toxic rescue
chemistry,

Like they don;t have bugs and weeds

it ignorged, with disastrous results, local economic sytems,

like the locals produced more food on each tiny plot and thus fed more
people and got more income

local ecology,

Que?

and local diets

Rice, not unknown ....

with . It was blunt heavy handed and quite
destrucyive agricultural imperialism,

Hah! Like you think the US can compel some asian peasant to do what you
want? I have news for you, you can't. He does what he wants to do and in
any case most of the varieties have been locally bred for decades.

Sort of like the fabulous green
revolution of brining the potato to Ireland.

Worked brilliantly for decades. Now if they had had blight fungicides,
the US would never have been populated ....

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.