Home Page Link AgBioWorld Home Page
About AgBioWorld Donations Ag-Biotech News Declaration Supporting Agricultural Biotechnology Ag-biotech Info Experts on Agricultural Biotechnology Contact Links Subscribe to AgBioView Home Page

AgBioView Archives

A daily collection of news and commentaries on
ag-biotech.


Subscribe AgBioView Subscribe

Search AgBioWorld Search

AgBioView Archives

Subscribe

 


SEARCH:     

Date:

July 3, 2000

Subject:

RE: Engineering Environmental Disaster

 

AgBioView - http://www.agbioworld.org, http://agbioview.listbot.com

Date: Jul 04 2000 00:18:13 EDT
From: Roger Morton
Subject: Re: Engineering Environmental Disaster

At 02:34 PM 3/7/00 +0000, Marcus wrote:

>In fact, The Church of England has forbidden the growing of GM crops
>on its land. See here :
>
>http://www.gmfoodnews.com/dt051299.txt

From this text I read:
"Members fear that the
long-term value of Church land could be adversely affected if it was used
for
GM testing, particularly if it had been targeted by protesters. "

Ie they are not objecting to GM but are woried about criminal damage by
protestors.

On the other hand The Report of the Ethical Investment Advisory Group on
GMOs, 5 April 2000
reported. http://cofe.anglican.org/view/gmos.rtf

"The view that such manipulation represents a usurpation of divine
privilege and a violation of the natural order of God's creation is held by
many who have written to us. It remains true however, that human
intervention has been pivotal in pursuing scientific and medical revelation
over time; discovery and invention are the result of exercising Gods gifts
of mind and reason. The possession of these powers is, in part, what it
means for humanity to be created "in the image of God". Furthermore, the
natural order of God's creation must be recognised and respected, but
"unnaturalness" cannot itself be the source of ethical prohibition if the
benefits can be shown to be very great. Genetic modification may
nonetheless involve some things which ought not to be done today, but which
ought not to be ruled out for ever."


Which confirms what Prakash was saying about the CoE attitude.


--
Dr Roger Morton 02 6246 5069 (ph)
CSIRO Plant Industry 02 6246 5000 (fax)
GPO Box 1600 roger.morton@pi.csiro.au
CANBERRA ACT 2601

=================================================

Date: Jul 03 2000 23:51:30 EDT
From: Rick Roush
Subject: Re: Engineering Environmental Disaster

I'll leave it to others to reply to other inaccuracies in your tirade, but
will comment on others about which I have particular knowledge.

>Crops which are genetically engineered to resist herbicide require
>both the seed and herbicide to be purchased from the same
>manufacturer. This is not therefore just a matter of a "few rupees".

In the US and Canada, but not necessarily elsewhere. In effect, there is
no technology fee in Argentina, where farmers are saving their own seed,
and where the release of Roundup Ready soybeans has reduced herbicide
expenditures by $200 million. (So say the companies !)

>In this case herbicide resistance has already resulted from GM canola
>(rapeseed) crossing with other GM canola to produce GM canola
>resistant to multiple herbicides, creating a "superweed"

Some superweed. It is still easily controlled by other cheap "broadleaf
weed" herbicides, which growers would use anyway in a rotation to cereal
crops in the next season.


>In another case, the EPA has had to insist that at least 20% of corn
>planted by farmers is not genetically modified to produce Bt
>insecticide. This is because insects are already becoming resistant to
>Bt insecticide incorporated into the corn.

I was the first to propose the 20% figure (and 50% in the southern US
cotton growing areas), in a letter to EPA in 1995. We want the US EPA to
require it to remind growers that it is serious.

Your website does not show evidence that "insects are already becoming
resistant to Bt insecticide". There is no such evidence, even though many
people have been monitoring. The resistance management program is not in
response to resistance, but to avert that possibility.


*PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: rick.roush@adelaide.edu.au
_____________________________________________________________________

Richard T. Roush
Associate Professor and Director Phone +61 8 8303-6590
Centre for Weed Management Systems FAX +61 8 8303-7125
Waite Institute ;-_|
University of Adelaide /
Glen Osmond 5064 ( )
South Australia _;-*_/
AUSTRALIA | v

Adelaide,
South
Australia
http://www.waite.adelaide.edu.au/CRCWMS

"Weeds - Australia's most underestimated environmental threat"
=====================================================

From: Marcus Williamson
Subject: Response from Chris Wozniak
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 00:52:55 +0100

Here's a response from Mr Chris Wozniak.

Is this the reasoned argument I would expect from a member of
AgBioView?

I look forward to some serious responses, on the list, if you please,
so we can *all* see the views being put forward.

Thanks & regards
Marcus Williamson
Editor, "Genetically Modified Food - UK and World News"
http://www.gmfoodnews.com/

To: marcus@myrealbox.com
Subject: Facts and Fiction
From: cwozniak@mindspring.com
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 13:17:16 -0400

Dearest Mr. Williamson,

I read your lengthy and somewhat boorish diatribe on a listserve and
thought I would point a few inaccuracies out to you (as if you were
ever actually interested in accuracy anyway). I don't have time to
address all the emotive claptrap and deliberate misinformation as I
have plans for this coming weekend.

You don't have to buy the herbicide and the seed from the same
greedy, monstrous behomoth corporation. Roundup - case in point;
sulfonylureas -case in point.

USDA is not the only entity regulating plants that have been
genetically modified (as you know, but omit for sake of trying to make
a point). All these evil plants with their built in pesticides go
through toxicity testing and environmental evaluation (i.e.,
bioassays, persistence, fate....).

Food shortages are not just a matter of distribution. Finances,
political unrest, AND crummy yields are responsible. This information
is discretely hidden in any freshman biology text if you care to
examine it. Not sure if any Christian group has picked up on it yet
though. try a visit to Africa sometiem to see how well they are doing
w/o fertilizers or pesticides. Maybe you'll arrange to feed them
personally?

Who gives a shit what the Church of England, Prince Charles the
Pompous or any other pseudo religious body (e.g., $$Greenpeace$$)
says? Opinions are cheap. Stick to the facts if you can.

Of course corporate greed is at the bottom of all of this BT. I
understand these scientific types are planning to grow all THEIR
vegetables organically, poison the rest of us, then leave for a
distant planet at some point, presumably after they have made their
profits. Not sure where I read this, but since it was in print it must
be true. If I cite a published reference, does that make it even
better?

In closing I must say it is a shame that the web allows people like
yourself to spew verbal vomit and deliberate misinformation for the
sake of your own miserable feeling of self worth. Freedom of speech
was never meant to be so tortous. If you were really interested in the
facts or truths, it is clear you could have found most of the answers
to your questions without looking too hard. Must be you are not
looking too hard...

Your friend,

Chris 'I like that extra DNA in my chips' Wozniak

PS What planet are you from?
=====================================================

From: Marcus Williamson
Cc: Neal Stewart
Subject: Engineering "fixes"
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 01:28:48 +0100

Neal

Do you see a pattern?

GM plants to "fix" the problem of landmines.

GM rice with added vitamin A to "fix" the problem of monoculture,
which is causing a lack of green vegetables in developing countries.=20

GM broccoli to "fix" cancer.

GM goats to make bullet proof jackets to "fix" the problem of people
being killed by bullets in senseless wars...

Now, please start applying your energy to looking at the *causes* of
each of these problems, instead of trying to remedy afterwards.
Preventation, as we all know, is better than cure.

In the meantime, please inform where I can find full details of safety
*testing* (not "assessment") in plants, animals and humans carried out
for :

* GM Soya
* GM Maize
* GM Tomatoes
* GM Potatoes
* GM "golden" rice
etc

I have requested this detail from the UK Government "GM Information
Unit" and FDA many times, but never received an answer.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks & regards
Marcus Williamson
Editor, "Genetically Modified Food - UK and World News"
http://www.gmfoodnews.com/


On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 10:54:29 -0400, you wrote:

>Marcus, While you are very wrong on many fronts, I'll address just one:
>
>>>GM crops are not properly tested. They are merely "assessed" by the
>>>USDA, which relied on data supplied by the manufacturer
>
>For the USDA risk assessments, AHPHIS utilizes all available data-- much
>of it comes from academic and government labs. I perform ecological
>risk research of transgenic plants-- I am an ecologist. While there are
>risks, there have been no disasters, and I don't see any coming. The GM
>crop products on the US market are safe. The APHIS people are good and
>take honest looks at biosafety. I've had permits denied, and I've had
>frank conversations with them. They are not rubber stampers and are not
>in the corporate pockets.
>
>BTW, I am in the process of making GM plants that will be able to detect
>landmines. You've blasted golden rice and mercury decon plants, I
>figured I'd give you some lead time on this technology as well.
>
>Biotechnology is not the complete answer to food and environmental
>problems, but it a portion of the answer. To dismiss it as you do is
>foolishness.
>
>cheers, Neal