Indeed. One is forever hopeful.

Here's further confirmation that it would be financial suicide to grow
GM wheat...


Reuters
Top UK miller to cut N.America wheat if GM okayed
Tuesday June 3, 1:26 pm ET
By Ben Harding


LONDON, June 3 (Reuters) - Britain's biggest flour miller Rank Hovis
said on Tuesday it would stop using North American wheat if the United
States or Canada began commercial planting of GM varieties as it might
contaminate non-GM grain during shipment.

Hovis' Wheat Director Peter Jones said if large-scale opposition to
genetically modified (GM) food continued among Britons, Hovis would
have to import high-protein grain from countries such as Germany or
Australia to avoid gene altered material creeping into its bread.

"If in a few years time the British public still felt the same way
about GM when this wheat might be grown commercially, we wouldn't be
able to use it," Jones told Reuters.

Late last week, U.S. industry sources said tests revealed traces of GM
material were finding its way into U.S. wheat supplies.

"We say that the U.S. and Canada should beware. They export a lot of
grain," Jones said.

The United States and Canadian wheat accounts for about 40 percent of
world exports of 98.3 million tonnes.

GM wheat has yet to hit the market, but in January U.S. biotech giant
Monsanto (NYSE:MON - News) announced plans to release a genetically
modified spring wheat variety, which could potentially cripple North
American wheat exports.

Many countries that buy grain from the United States refuse to
purchase GM varieties.

Last week, the Canadian Wheat Board pleaded with Monsanto
(Bombay:MNSN.BO - News) to drop its bid for regulatory approval of the
GM grain.

About 10 percent of the five million tonnes of grain Hovis bakes every
year comes from the United States and Canada and is used in its
higher-grade bread.

Jones said Hovis already finds the odd piece soybean or corn in its
North American wheat that was probably genetically modified, but was
sifted out during processing.

Oz wrote:

Jerry writes

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

1) A paranoid population. (really)

a population that got bitten by the mad cow and the blood supply
tainted with aids while the "scientist" assure the paranoid population
that it was all in their minds.


2) A useful trade blocking mechanism.

Patents on life and artificially low government guaranteed farm loans
are also useful US trade mechanisms. The other side is not going
to sit and say ok hit me.



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

wrote:

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

So would you still support the introduction of RR wheat?

regards
Marcus


one problem: jointed goatgrass

....
Both are primarily self-pollinated, however, a low level of cross pollination can
occur (1 to 2%). Since wheat and jointed goatgrass both share similar genetic ...
wheat.colostate.edu/steward.pdf

Jerry wrote:

wrote in message . ..
What are the SPECIFIC fears of the European Union in regard to genetically modified
crops?

Here are some of the issues:

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

Hope this helps.

regards
Marcus

I appreciate your posting the link, Marcus. But the articles I looked
at just seem to contain more generalities on fears and potentials.
Many articles mention: undesirable species possibly developing
restistance; desirable non-target species being killed; cross
pollination; farmers not being allowed to save seed.

Since I leared to read my dad's farm magazines 37 years ago, I've been
reading about the same types of problems with conventional seeds and
chemicals. We killed the earthworms with Dursban. Our hybrid field
corn pollen messed up the neighbor's sweet corn patch. Cockleburrs
got to the point that they just thrived in atrazine treated fields.


So you dismiss the current and predictable problems?
This might have been a little problem in a world with millions
of little farmers. Now the world is turning into one mega farmer
that uses the seed of one mega seed company and the pesticides
of one mega biochemical company all using the same technological
base. If one little problem appears it will be amplified worldwide.
The problem of malesterility genes that made worldwide corn susceptible
to Southern corn leaf blight will seem tame in comparison.

http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache...fescience.com/
pleiotro.html+male+sterility+corn+susceptibility+& hl=en&ie=UTF-8
(if necesary cut and paste URL in one line)

writes

Here's further confirmation that it would be financial suicide to grow
GM wheat...

I don't grow bread wheat.

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

wrote in message
...

So you dismiss the current and predictable problems?
This might have been a little problem in a world with millions
of little farmers. Now the world is turning into one mega farmer
that uses the seed of one mega seed company and the pesticides
of one mega biochemical company all using the same technological
base.

you seem to forget that conventional seed varieties have a short life,
conventional seed production is a treatmill and new varieties are always
needed. This differs from the GM scenario exactly how?

Jim Webster

wrote in message
...


wrote:

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

So would you still support the introduction of RR wheat?

regards
Marcus


one problem: jointed goatgrass

...
Both are primarily self-pollinated, however, a low level of cross
pollination can
occur (1 to 2%). Since wheat and jointed goatgrass both share similar
genetic ...
wheat.colostate.edu/steward.pdf

Oz is in the UK, last time I was talking to him, jointed goatgrass is not a
UK problem

Jim Webster

Jim Webster writes

Oz is in the UK, last time I was talking to him, jointed goatgrass is not a
UK problem

Indeed, never seen it.

However goatgrass genes are in many UK varieties, where it confers some
resistance to eyespot.

--
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 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.

Torsten, I'm not missing the point. I'm trying to force the issue. Am
I wrong about the reasons given in the press for EU import
restrictions. Are the real reasons being given?

You used that phrase "In reality..." again. You are correct. In
reality, the grain embargoes have never been about safety from the EU
governing body's point. They have only used that as a smoke screen
for the real issue, which was protecting markets for their producers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the EU approves gm grains for export at
about the same rate that the technology becomes available to EU
farmers and they adopt it.

wrote in message ...
Oz wrote:

Jerry writes

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

1) A paranoid population. (really)

a population that got bitten by the mad cow and the blood supply
tainted with aids while the "scientist" assure the paranoid population
that it was all in their minds.

Neither was created by genetic engineering, but both might by cured by
it.


2) A useful trade blocking mechanism.

Patents on life and artificially low government guaranteed farm loans
are also useful US trade mechanisms. The other side is not going
to sit and say ok hit me.

Somebody help me out here. But I don't think patents are a U.S.
invention. Hence, it isn't fair to fling that mud on the U.S. Most
every country uses them.

A patent on life is not legally feasible because life has already been
created. You are using hyperbole. You are really talking about
patents on specific, man made (not naturally occurring)cultivars. And
it would be stupid to use a patent as a trade blocking mechanism. To
be profitable, one would need their patented product traded liberally
so as to reap liscensing revenue.

I'm guessing you think patenting living organisms is evil. Can
patenting medicines be much different. Yet it is an acceptable
practice in most of the world. There would be few new drugs developed
if patents weren't available to enable a reasonable return on
investment.

How about patenting words or music. Is that any less evil than
patenting a crop? Yet nearly every nation has copy right laws to
protect their authors,journalists and musicians.

Low interest loans? Can't argue that one. That has been used to
manipulate supplys and keep prices at the break even level for years.
It is probably more of a producer control issue than marketing
strategy on our government's part.

Jerry writes
A patent on life is not legally feasible because life has already been
created. You are using hyperbole. You are really talking about
patents on specific, man made (not naturally occurring)cultivars. And
it would be stupid to use a patent as a trade blocking mechanism. To
be profitable, one would need their patented product traded liberally
so as to reap liscensing revenue.

People have been patenting all sorts of genes all over.

If patenting is to be allowed to do this then it's worth noting that
patents run out, and surprisingly quickly.

So in a way the more that get patented, almost always without any short
term chance of being used commercially, then the more that fall off of
patent in 30 years and counting.

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

On 4 Jun 2003 11:22:45 -0700, (Jerry) wrote:

You used that phrase "In reality..." again. You are correct. In
reality, the grain embargoes have never been about safety from the EU
governing body's point. They have only used that as a smoke screen
for the real issue, which was protecting markets for their producers.

ROFL, and my argument still stands. In reality, the 'EU governing
body' has never used safety concerns as reason for embargoing a single
GMO grain from entering into EU markets. In contrast to this you have
come to the impression that they have used safety concerns as a smoke
screen. Ergo, you have been misinformed.

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.