Torsten Brinch wrote in message . ..
On 30 May 2003 11:47:04 -0700, (Jerry) wrote:

I hear and read that the European Union has safety concerns about
growing genetically modified crops and the food produced from them.

Then you must be American :-) In fact the European Union has approved
several genetically modified crops, and is having no particular safety
concerns in regards to that. You have been misinformed.

Yes, I am. No, I haven't. The E. U. has constantly asserted GM
safety concerns as the only reason for shutting U.S. grain out of
their import markets. Read the stories Marcus linked further down in
the thread.

But I never hear details. So here is the question. What are the
SPECIFIC fears of the European Union in regard to genetically modified
crops?

The overshadowing specific concern of the European Union in regard to
GMOs, or 'fear', to use that word, is the potential for disruption of
the internal market by their presence on it. Hence the struggle is for
a common EU legal framework to regulate labelling, traceability and
product liability of GMOs.

I take that to mean that the EU wants complete government control
exercised over U.S. producers in the same manner that European
producers and controlled. But my perception is a bit biased. After
all, I am one of those free Americans.

On 2 Jun 2003 09:06:32 -0700, (Jerry) wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote in message . ..
On 30 May 2003 11:47:04 -0700, (Jerry) wrote:

I hear and read that the European Union has safety concerns about
growing genetically modified crops and the food produced from them.

Then you must be American :-) In fact the European Union has approved
several genetically modified crops, and is having no particular safety
concerns in regards to that. You have been misinformed.

Yes, I am. No, I haven't. The E. U. has constantly asserted GM
safety concerns as the only reason for shutting U.S. grain out of
their import markets. Read the stories Marcus linked further down in
the thread.

Thought so. Yes you have. God help you if you can't come up with
something better for an argument than 'stories Marcus link'. My
argument still stands: In reality, the European Union has approved
several genetically modified crops, and is having no particular safety
concerns in regards to that. In contrast to this, you appear to be
have come to the opposite impression. Because of something you heard
and read. QED, you have been misinformed.

But I never hear details. So here is the question. What are the
SPECIFIC fears of the European Union in regard to genetically modified
crops?

The overshadowing specific concern of the European Union in regard to
GMOs, or 'fear', to use that word, is the potential for disruption of
the internal market by their presence on it. Hence the struggle is for
a common EU legal framework to regulate labelling, traceability and
product liability of GMOs.

I take that to mean that the EU wants complete government control
exercised over U.S. producers in the same manner that European
producers and controlled. But my perception is a bit biased. After
all, I am one of those free Americans.

Probably you just don't appreciate how important it is to the European
Union, that goods and produce can be traded freely across internal
borders within the EU, unimpeded by national legislation imposed
by individual Member States.

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger writes

No till is not likely to be a big an advantage to the high rainfall and
cool
temperatures of the UK an the EU as it is in the hotter dryer parts of
the
world.

In 1976 (and for several years afterwards) I no-tilled my entire farm.
We used paraquat in those days but we were able to burn the straw.

Grassweeds became a major problem, and they still are.

Blackgrass (mysuroides something-or-other) is now resistant to dimfops
over much of the UK, with wild oat following on behind.

Personally I would expect a roundup-resistant blackgrass to be found
within a few years of a RR wheat being introduced.

So in the UK (particularly) weeds are still the major problem.
Remember weeds can and do germinate at any time during the year due to
our rainfall pattern.

Wild oats are one of the reasons I would like to see RR wheat.

I don't think that you can continuously raise one crop in high rain fall
high weed pressure areas conveniently till or no till with out developing
serious problems. I can do it longer in low rain fall areas but I still have
to rotate out.

I was talking to the guy that farms my home place about a place he bought
that had been in cotton for 75 years straight. I had custom farmed it for
the previous owner a few years. It was still making cotton but not very good
cotton. It took him about 7 years to get it back in production. He put it in
alfalfa for 5 years and the took care of all the trace elements problems.
The kicker was boron something that we are no short on.

GM crops are not the total answer to weed problems but they are one of the
best tools we ever have had.

I was able to control things like black grass and wild oats with cotton and
winter tillage to kill the winter weeds. But January and February are our
driest months so killing stuff in the winter is easy. If we have 2 or 3
inches of rain in that period it would be hell killing winter weeds.

We also have a richer choice of herbicides than you have. Having a state and
federal goverment that is pro farming is a real help. I still can't
understand the UK an EU postion on agriculture. How they turn their back on
an industry that is vital to their well being and makes up such a large part
of their GNP when you take it all in to consideration from field to fork.

We have stupid politicians but not that stupid.
Gordon

and suddenly British Ministers are saying that the EU will not let us block
GM anyway

The Times, UK

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...699761,00.html

June 02, 2003

Ministers briefed to back off GM crops

By Valerie Elliott, Countryside Editor

MINISTERS have been warned that they should not be too zealous in
their support for GM crops because there are no immediate advantages
to the country.

This verdict, on the eve of the launch of a national GM debate, is
from an interim report by the Cabinet Office strategy unit which has
been assessing the strict costs and benefits of GM technology.

The findings of the team headed by Jamie Rentoul, a Civil Service
high-flyer, were presented last week to a small group of advisers in
Whitehall.

One insider said yesterday: "The review appears to be extremely
neutral. The unit has not found immediate benefits for the acceptance
of GM crops but it believes there will be benefits in the long run.
The message was very much GM is jam for tomorrow."

The unit is understood to have raised specific concerns that organic
farming in the UK could be seriously damaged unless there are strict
regulations protecting the organic sector and conventional farming
from GM contamination.

A final report however is not due until July but anti-GM campaigners
are certain to exploit the unit's warning to Tony Blair and other
Cabinet ministers to tone down their perceived enthusiasm.

Critics are also concerned that the national GM debate will flop
because of the Government's half-hearted commitment to it. Even though
Mr Blair personally intervened to secure £500,000 for the process,
organisers had requested at least £1 million.

The result is that the formal debates are now only taking place in six
venues starting tomorrow at Birmingham's National Exhibition Centre.
Other debates are to be held in Taunton, Swansea, Glasgow, Belfast and
Harrogate.

There was insufficient cash to hold events in Manchester, Newcastle
and London. A report on the public mood is to be written by Professor
Malcolm Grant, chairman of the Agriculture and Environment
Biotechnology Commission, and sent to ministers this autumn.

GM critics are convinced that Mr Blair and Jack Straw, the Foreign
Secretary, are anxious to appease the US biotechnology industry which
wishes to establish the commercial planting of GM crops throughout the
EU. The US claims it loses £188 million a year due to the EU ban on
the technology.

Indeed. One is forever hopeful.

Why? No-one would buy your product...

Do you know of anyone, other than yourself and Monsanto, who wants
this stuff?

regards
Marcus

9 May 2003 - Grain exchange directors approve specifying non-GMO wheat
(CropChoice News)

4 May 2003 - Farmers not sure they want genetically modified wheat
(Star Tribune)

25 March 2003 - GM wheat a real 'lemon' (The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon))

17 March 2003 - Farmers want GE wheat barred from U.S. fields
(Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News)

13 March 2003 - Biotech wheat may cut US exports in half - study
(Reuters)

12 March 2003 - Farmers Want to Stop Biotech Wheat (AP)

5 March 2003 - Farmers Fight to Keep Monsanto's Genetically Modified
Wheat Out of Canada (CorpWatch)

11 February 2003 - GM Wheat Won’t Make Dough, Warns Economist (Iowa
State University)

27 January 2003 - Italian miller to reject genetically modified wheat
(St Louis Business Journal)

etc...

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

Wild oats are one of the reasons I would like to see RR wheat.

More important than your reasons for wanting it: Would your customers
buy it?!

regards
Marcus

Many articles mention: undesirable species possibly developing
restistance;

Already happened

desirable non-target species being killed;

Already happened

cross pollination;

Already happened

farmers not being allowed to save seed.

Already happened

These are not some kind of science-fiction-future-horror fears. These
problems are already happening today because of contamination from GM
crops.

regards
Marcus

wrote in message
...

and suddenly British Ministers are saying that the EU will not let us
block
GM anyway

The Times, UK

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...699761,00.html

June 02, 2003

Ministers briefed to back off GM crops

By Valerie Elliott, Countryside Editor

MINISTERS have been warned that they should not be too zealous in
their support for GM crops because there are no immediate advantages
to the country.


Michael Meacher, a name doubtless totally unfamiliar to 90% of people on
this list but UK Environment minister, pointed out that the UK is powerless
to ban GM crops.
Unless it can provide direct evidence to environment on human health.
I would suggest that evidence capable of convincing the Commission will be
impossible to find for those GM crops backed by French Companies

Jim Webster

wrote in message
...

Indeed. One is forever hopeful.

Why? No-one would buy your product...

Do you know of anyone, other than yourself and Monsanto, who wants
this stuff?


so far cumulative global consumption of GM soya is over 300 million toones.
where are the bodies?
GM is spreading and will cease to spread if it is shown to be uneconomic
where it is grown, or it is proven to be dangerous. So far, appart from
almost hysterial efforts of the antis, neither of these have been done

Jim Webster

Jim Webster wrote:

wrote in message
...

Indeed. One is forever hopeful.

Why? No-one would buy your product...

Do you know of anyone, other than yourself and Monsanto, who wants
this stuff?


so far cumulative global consumption of GM soya is over 300 million toones.
where are the bodies?
GM is spreading and will cease to spread if it is shown to be uneconomic
where it is grown, or it is proven to be dangerous. So far, appart from
almost hysterial efforts of the antis, neither of these have been done

Jim Webster


A generic defense of GM products is like a generic defense of bacteria.
Most bacteria do not kill you. You are doing the equivalent of defending
all bacteria.
Just because you can find example of no damage detected does not mean
that all GM products are safe. Even more, some have already been proved
dangerous and have been removed from the market before they could kill
millions. Even traditional plant breeding can have unintended consequences
There are plenty of examples of mistakes being made, including for example
a mistake that could have produce a world wide famine with the failure of
genes used worldwide for hybrid corn production. Traditional plant breeding at
least has the safeguard, in most crop cases, of 10 to 15 years between the
original cross and the final contact with a large number of consumers.

Today one can GM incorporate, for example, allergenic peanut proteins into
potatoes. Would that be safe?
Today one can incorporate genes coding for alkaloids or many other
drugs into bananas or cassava. Should we do it?
Should we deny percentages of pollination by wind and insects even in
cases where the crop species is not open pollinated?
Should we deny crosspolinization between many crops and many of their
wild weedy relatives?
Should we deny the impossibility of gene recall?
And what about the tools of Genetic modification?
Who is going to guarantee their safe use?

You argue that we have not seen the deleterious effects of GM crops.
That is difficult to prove and getting more difficult to prove by the
day.
One can visually detect the first drop of milk in a cup of tea, but
once the cup of tea has that first few drops of milk, one can not easily
detect any additional milk. The background 'noise' does not let us
see any obvious changes. Allergies are in the increase and we do not
why. Asthma is in the increase too. Is it an increase in cat population
or is it the sneak GM of the omnipresent soybean. or is it because
traditional breeding has modified wheat proteins so much that they
do not resemble the old cereal?
Is a world with no safguards, privatized, with laws written by monsanto
and Kraft foods, and with engineers and wallstreet salesmen that often
fool even people that once in a while read a science article or two and
that have totally lobotomized a US population that has less scientific
understanding than the europeans during the middle ages.

wrote in message
...


Jim Webster wrote:

wrote in message
...

Indeed. One is forever hopeful.

Why? No-one would buy your product...

Do you know of anyone, other than yourself and Monsanto, who wants
this stuff?


so far cumulative global consumption of GM soya is over 300 million
toones.
where are the bodies?
GM is spreading and will cease to spread if it is shown to be uneconomic
where it is grown, or it is proven to be dangerous. So far, appart from
almost hysterial efforts of the antis, neither of these have been done

Jim Webster


A generic defense of GM products is like a generic defense of bacteria.

therefore a generic attack on GM products must be like a generic attack on
bacteria

Jim Webster

writes
Wild oats are one of the reasons I would like to see RR wheat.

More important than your reasons for wanting it: Would your customers
buy it?!

If it were approved then I expect they would.

Mind you pigs, poultry and cattle aren't that fussy.

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

writes

Many articles mention: undesirable species possibly developing
restistance;

Already happened

desirable non-target species being killed;

Already happened

cross pollination;

Already happened

farmers not being allowed to save seed.

Already happened


And all this with conventional varieties, too.

Do difference here between gm & non-gm.

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

Torsten Brinch wrote in message . ..
On 2 Jun 2003 09:06:32 -0700, (Jerry) wrote:

snip, snip, snip.

Thought so. Yes you have. God help you if you can't come up with
something better for an argument than 'stories Marcus link'. My
argument still stands: In reality, the European Union has approved
several genetically modified crops, and is having no particular safety
concerns in regards to that. In contrast to this, you appear to be
have come to the opposite impression. Because of something you heard
and read. QED, you have been misinformed.

If you don't base your conclusions on things you hear and read, what
do you base them on? I've seen a preponderance of information coming
out of Europe that they are scared of American gm crops for safety
reasons. Granted, alot of that information has come from left wing
enviromental whackos. But the EU certainly hasn't done much to give
any different impression.

And if they aren't shutting out American grain due to saftey concerns,
what is the real reason? That is what I want to hear them say. I
just want to hear the truth.

snip again.

I take that to mean that the EU wants complete government control
exercised over U.S. producers in the same manner that European
producers and controlled. But my perception is a bit biased. After
all, I am one of those free Americans.

Probably you just don't appreciate how important it is to the European
Union, that goods and produce can be traded freely across internal
borders within the EU, unimpeded by national legislation imposed
by individual Member States.

How could I not recognize the importance of free trade across internal
borders? Remember, I'm an American. Free trade across member states'
borders has been the rule here for about 225 years. Yes, we have some
restrictions and local regulations that have cross border impacts.
But consider this example. Some dairymen in Colorado sell their milk
to an ice cream plant in Iowa. The ice cream end up on shelves in
California grocery stores. If we didn't have free trade across our
internal borders, that wouldn't be happening.

On 3 Jun 2003 11:48:48 -0700, (Jerry) wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote in message . ..
.. My argument still stands: In reality, the European Union has
approved several genetically modified crops, and is having no particular
safety concerns in regards to that. In contrast to this, you appear to
be have come to the opposite impression. Because of something you heard
and read. QED, you have been misinformed.

If you don't base your conclusions on things you hear and read, what
do you base them on?

ROFL. How conveniently missing the point you are.

I've seen a preponderance of information coming
out of Europe that they are scared of American gm crops for safety
reasons.
Granted, alot of that information has come from left wing
enviromental whackos. But the EU certainly hasn't done much to give
any different impression.

And if they aren't shutting out American grain due to saftey concerns,
what is the real reason? That is what I want to hear them say. I
just want to hear the truth.

My argument still stands: In reality, the European Union has
approved, and is importing genetically modified Amaerican grain crops,
and is having no particular safety concerns in regards to that.

In contrast to this, your impression is that EU is shutting out
American GMO grain due to safety concerns. Ergo, you have been
misinformed.

Probably you just don't appreciate how important it is to the European
Union, that goods and produce can be traded freely across internal
borders within the EU, unimpeded by national legislation imposed
by individual Member States.

How could I not recognize the importance of free trade across internal
borders? Remember, I'm an American. ..

Good, then why not go ahead, try use that recognition to understand EU
policy regarding GMO.