posted on May 22, 2003 04:53:20 PM new
I'll bet they dont own a hydrogen car either.
The oil Co.s made sure they are part of the program,to keep up our dependency on oil.
posted on May 22, 2003 05:53:55 PM new
Thanks Helen. I don't know how to do a search
since they've changed. It would be interesting to go back and see how many deaths the CDC has listed for last year.
I remember wrightracing came back another time and was fighting to get more information out to the public. I hope she/he was successful in Florida.
Colin, I suspect if one of us owned an electic or hydrogen car we wouldn't have to be selling online. Does a bike count? Or
walking shoes?
We had a solar heater for a pool we had in our last house. Alot of our neighbors have solar heaters in this state. I personally would like to have a windmill. But, with all the trees around here I don't think it is possible and the neighbors might pitch a fit.
[ edited by aposter on May 22, 2003 06:00 PM ]
posted on May 22, 2003 09:24:41 PM new All modern ag production corn is genetically modified, as are all domestic food animals.
reamond, there is a huge difference between selective breeding, and mechanical manipulation of individual genetic material. No amount of selective breeding will cause corn to produce it's own insecticide.No amount of selective breeding will cause goats milk to contain spider silk proteins. Industry standard breeds of meat cattle, sheep and hogs, while heavily manipulated through selective breeding and not very viable without human care, are not genetically manipulated beyond that, except in laboratory experiments which are ongoing.Husbandry and bioengineering are very different things.To say that corn which produces it's own insecticide is no different than you being the product of your parents is a specious argument.
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
- Elbert Hubbard
posted on May 22, 2003 09:40:38 PM newTo say that corn which produces it's own insecticide is no different than you being the product of your parents is a specious argument
Far from it. There are plants that occur naturally that produce their own insecticide.
There is no difference between the thousands and millions of years of speciation and genetic evolution and what is done in a labratory.
posted on May 23, 2003 03:53:57 AM new
I too would like a good windmill. Trouble is I live at a small private airport. Wouldn't be feasible to have something that tall here.
I got into solar in the early 70's, it was expensive and not a great benefit here in the great northeast. I try to use Passive solar, whenever possible.
I would have figured the technology and price structure of solar and fuel cells would have come a long way by now but that's not the case.
I do burn wood as a back up. Probably causing the air quality to drop..but with all the cow's in the area and all their flatulence. I think the ozone layer is DOOMED anyway.
posted on May 23, 2003 05:37:28 AM new
[i]Far from it. There are plants that occur naturally that produce their own insecticide.
There is no difference between the thousands and millions of years of speciation and genetic evolution and what is done in a labratory.[/i]
There are plants which naturally produce insecticidal substances, like marigolds which produce pyrethrum. There are also plants which have been selectively bred to resist certain pests, such as tobacco mosaic virus resistant tomatoes. Starlink corn and other GM crops have been created not through selective breeding, but by having genetic material from utterly foreign species grafted to their own. The Cry9 protein which is the key to Starlink corn comes originally from a bacteria, Bacillus Thuringiensis, which is often used as an organic insecticide, because it interferes with the digestive process of various worms and borers that damage crops. GM involves forcing the mixture of genetic material from species which would never mix in nature. There is a fundamental difference between selectively bred and genetically engineered species.
_________________________
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
- Elbert Hubbard
posted on May 23, 2003 06:29:08 AM new
I think one of the reasons people swallow the "just more genetic engineering already done by nature" are the lengths the media go though NOT to mention bioengineering, transgenic manipulations, genetically altered whatevers.
I feel for the farmers who haven't read but plant anyway, only to find out they are being sued by Monsanto or conventional farmers who plants non-gmo crops or organic farmers whose crops and lands are contaminated by drifting.
I was told by organic farmers in this area they could no longer plant corn because the drift from biotech farms was contaminating them. When more of these crops hit the market
organics could become obsolete in many areas,
thus leaving consumers with little choice.
posted on May 23, 2003 06:56:59 AM new
It's natural. I think people need to believe that their food supply is safe. As mainstream America gets farther away and more isolated from the sources of the stuff it eats, this need becomes greater. I'm not really worried about eating starlink corn, what worries me is the patenting of genetic material and how it may affect local landraces of food crops and the farmers who save seeds that have adapted to their local environment for generations. As a breeder of an endangered race of sheep, the same thing worries me on the animal side.
Bt is an excellent pesticide. It's safe, and lots of strains of it have been developed for use on different varieties of soft bodied pests. The bacterium is infinitely adaptable to pests as the need arises. This isn't the case when you fix the gentic material into a plant.Creating plant crops which give off Bt toxin may do nothing in the long run but help nature grow Bt resistant pests. Of course, it'll make gobs of moola for the seed patenters.
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
- Elbert Hubbard
posted on May 23, 2003 08:12:49 AM newGM involves forcing the mixture of genetic material from species which would never mix in nature
A totally unfounded claim. Over time, you do not have any idea what cross specie genetic material will occur nor what genetic change may occur through mutation.
There is a fundamental difference between selectively bred and genetically engineered species
Yes, and that difference is baseless fear spread by the ignorant about GM material.
posted on May 23, 2003 10:21:16 AM newI believe the fear is that we're plunging ahead blindly with no idea of the impacts of what we're doing
We aren't blindly plunging ahead with GM foods anymore than we blindly plunged ahead with automobiles and electricty. There were unfounded alarmists against car and electricity too.
You can NEVER move forward with anything new if all the "unknowns" must first be explored.
You move forward with known factors. And thus far, everything we know about GM foods provides no ill effects.
posted on May 23, 2003 11:15:19 AM new
Since there is no difference between the thousands and millions of years of speciation and genetic evolution and what is done in a labratory I assume you are also in support of human cloning and are excited at the prospect of the increased benefits it will provide our species REAMOND.
posted on May 23, 2003 01:55:16 PM new
Everything women once knew about cosmetics in the said they were safe to use ... so they dropped belladonna in their eyes to make them sparkle, drank solutions based on arsenic to give them beatiful complexions and piled on the lead based paint when that didn't work (assuming they lived that long.)
As it turns out, that was maybe the wrong thing to do.
I'm not saying "GM" food isn't safe. But there are a lot of questions that aren't being answered because they're deliberately not being asked. The general system is now entirely market driven - companies develop products that they think will meet needs or desires of consumers (cheaper food, lower-calorie soda, bigger breasts) and they want as few impediments as possible between their product and the market. So they make sure that's the case, and cripple the government from even asking those questions.
posted on May 23, 2003 05:44:48 PM new
Cancer rate increasing
Children diagnosed with autistic symptoms on the increase
ATD increasing
Migraines increasing
Allergies increasing
Heart Disease increasing
Liver disease increasing
Kidney disease increasing
Agribusiness increasing
Family owned farms decreasing
posted on May 23, 2003 09:30:29 PM new A totally unfounded claim. Over time, you do not have any idea what cross specie genetic material will occur nor what genetic change may occur through mutation.
The sky may turn hot pink with purple stripes tomorrow too, it's possible I suppose. But go find me one documentable example where bacterial or other NON-PLANT genetic material has become part of the the genome of a plant species naturally, without human intervention. You can't do it. Your argument remains specious. The difference between selective breeding and genetic manipulation is profound. You can call those who are concerned about it ignorant or anything else. The two are not the same by a long shot.
__________________________________________
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
- Elbert Hubbard
posted on May 24, 2003 08:35:09 AM newBut go find me one documentable example where bacterial or other NON-PLANT genetic material has become part of the the genome of a plant species naturally, without human intervention
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Have you never seen the identical genetic sequences that appear in plants and animals?
How do you think these identical sequences came into being?
Do you deny that species evolve over time, which means that the genetic code changes?
Chicken Little alarmist and baseless arguments, using the same baseless opinions that the global warming crowd uses will fail every time when confronted by science.
posted on May 24, 2003 11:00:56 AM newHave you never seen the identical genetic sequences that appear in plants and animals?
No I haven't, and I asked you for a documentable example, not an insult followed by a generalization.Let's assume such sequences exist in spite of your inability to document them. So what.. A human being and a mouse are nearly identical on a genetic level. That does not mean that a mouse contains human genetic material, nor does it mean that humans contain mouse genetic material. That plants contain gene sequences similar to animals does not mean that they contain animal genetic material. It means they contain sequences that are alike, that's all. Bio-engineering involves the transplantation of material from one living thing into another utterly different life-form. Swapping the codes of living things that would never cross otherwise.
How do you think these identical sequences came into being?
Since you're the expert here, why don't you explain it?..give us a little science ..betcha don't, betcha can't
Do you deny that species evolve over time, which means that the genetic code changes?
Of course not, I breed sheep for part of my living, but I haven't gotten my rams interested in any bacteria or plants so far..
Your opinion in this matter is as valid as anyone else's, but not more so. You're just going to call people's arguments baseless, alarmist, and tell them they don't know what they're talking about until another thread dies because people who want to discuss rather than call names get bored and go away.
____________________________________________
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
- Elbert Hubbard
posted on May 24, 2003 04:07:40 PM new
Reamond, did you call and ask an allergist's office how they are testing for mutant food allergies? Did you call a blood lab and ask how they are testing? Are you going to blindly accept what the governmental agencies tell you?
Call the FDA, USDA or even the Grocery Manufacturer's of America and ask how the new products are tested before being sent to the marketplace.
Whenever a government official states in a speech in another country (or here) our gm food is safe, call their office and ask how they know. They will not be able to answer. I know. I call. They give the same answer each time. The FDA says it is safe so therefore it is so.
Here are three difference abstracts (& views) from www.pubmed.gov
Notice the UT scientist in the third study
writes in his abstract:
Food allergies are no more prevalent in foods from GM plants than in conventional foods. Further, the use of antibiotics in the development of GM plants does not pose a significant risk to the human population.
He can't possibly know the prevalence of food allergies because THERE IS NO FOLLOW-UP!!
There is someone close to me who cannot use most antibiotics who should have the right to decide for himself whether he chooses to eat food developed with antibiotics. He does not because the government has decided not to label the foods or acknowledge what has been used to develop them.
=============================
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2001 Jan-Feb;5(1):25-9 Related Articles, Links
Genetically modified foods and children potential health risks.
Cantani A, Micera M.
Pediatric Department, University of Roma La Sapienza.
AIM: Professor Pusztai was publicly humiliated over claims that genetically
modified (GM) Frankenstein food may be harmful. He was stripped of his post and described as 'muddled' by his superiors after he referred to experiments in which rats had been damaged when fed genetically-altered potatoes. Who is in an unsound scenario, supported by verbal expressions
"substantially" should even more expend further effort in conducting scientific investigation into the safety of GM varieties of plants.
OBSERVATIONS: Of particular concern is the exposure of infants and children to GM foods (GMFs) because of their possible increased susceptibility for untoward effects. Several examples stress that the ascertainment of human disease emerged after certain materials were widely used. Studies show that
some compounds were not adequately tested for toxicity before their commercial introduction, whereas proper premarked testing would have prevented a prolonged exposure.
CONCLUSIONS: Too often the toxicity of
these substances is untested and the potential hazards that they may pose to children have not been examined. Nobody has evaluated whether intrauterine and infant exposure to GMFs may have profound permanent and irreversible consequences even in adult life. In this paper we analyse issues pertaining to children's health that have been largely ignored.
Publication Types:
Review
Review, Tutorial
PMID: 11860219 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
========================
1: Hastings Cent Rep 1997 Jul-Aug;27(4):34-8 Related Articles, Links
Food biotechnology's challenge to cultural integrity and individual consent.
Thompson PB.
Texas A&M University, USA.
Consumer response to genetically altered foods has been mixed in the United
States. While transgenic crops have entered the food supply with little comment, other foods, such as the bioengineered tomato, have caused considerable controversy. Objections to genetically engineered food are varied, ranging from the religious to the aesthetic. One need not endorse these concerns to conclude that food biotechnology violates procedural protections of consumer sovereignty and religious liberty. Consumer sovereignty, a principle especially valued in this country, requires that information be made available so each individual or group may make food choices based on their own values. And as yet, there is no policy provision for informing consumers about the degree to which food has been genetically engineered.
Publication Types:
Review
Review, Tutorial
PMID: 9271720 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
================================
1: Tex Med 2003 Mar;99(3):66-9 Related Articles, Links
Safety of foods derived from genetically modified plants.
Thomas JA.
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, TX, USA.
[email protected]
Biopharmaceuticals have been available for clinical use for nearly three decades, but foods derived from agribiotechnology have been available for just under a decade. Controversy surrounding foods from genetically modified (GM) plants has focused primarily upon their allergenicity, with
lesser concerns about antibiotic resistance genes. Concerns are related to possible environmental impacts on non-human species, including effects on non-target species (e.g., butterflies) and on the development of so-called "super weeds." Food allergies are no more prevalent in foods from GM plants
than in conventional foods. Further, the use of antibiotics in the development of GM plants does not pose a significant risk to the human population. Foods from the current GM plant products have been shown not to
pose any detrimental effects to humans, and, in fact, nutritionally enhanced products are being developed. GM foods are subjected globally to intense regulatory scrutiny, and extensive data have been provided consistently to regulatory agencies in the United States on a voluntary basis, with mandatory reporting of data soon to be in force. Existing environmental concerns appear to be unjustified on the basis of existing data and experience.
posted on May 24, 2003 07:37:35 PM newHe can't possibly know the prevalence of food allergies because THERE IS NO FOLLOW-UP
There is no such thing a "FOLLOW-UP" in scientific testing protocol. And he does knowv-- The GM foods have been tested more than any other food product on the market, including all the artificial sweetners that have been on the market for decades.
It is impossible to bring any new food product onto the market and test for allegies that someone somewhere may have to the product. That scope of testing has never been done on anything.
Increases in allergies have also been shown to correlate to being raised in hyper clean environments. Children that eat the same foods, but are raised in environments with close proximity to dogs, cats, or on farms have significantly lower allergy rates. Their immune system is confronted early and successfully adapts to the allergens due to the early exposure.
these objection to GM foods are unfounded. There is not one iota of evidence of any adverse effects from GM foods, and they have been heavily tested.
Closing markets to a product because it is "unknown" if someone somewhere may be allergic to the product is a fools errand.
posted on May 24, 2003 08:40:40 PM new
Reamond:
The GM foods have been tested more than any other food product on the market
There is not one iota of evidence of any adverse effects from GM foods, and they have been heavily tested.
Prove it Reamond!
You keep saying they have been tested. Prove it. And I hope to God you can come up with something. We haven't been able to do so. There are people who have been researching online and off looking for answers for years. I correspond with some regularly, scientists, allergics, ngos, etc. If we haven't found any research how are you able to do it? Are you connected with a company who is testing and able to keep research secrets for trade reasons?
Since no one has been able to answer the question “Who is minding the store” when it comes to research
maybe you in all your wisdom can! Many of us, including some that are or were on these boards have life threatening allergies to various medicines and foods.
I spoke to a person at the FDA about 3 months ago and ask what new research was
being done by our government to insure citizen’s safety as more mutants hit the market. She said none. It was the company’s responsibility to insure that nothing harmful is used.
When I said I didn’t like the answer because I needed to know what was in the food I ate she said, “Well, sometimes people have to be sacrificed for the good of others!” Wouldn’t give me her name of course. I realized too late I should have called Venneman’s office and filed a complaint by giving the time and
date so the representative could be reprimanded (Ha!). What about the babies drinking transgenic soy formula or baby food with gm canola or children eating a peanut butter sandwich with transgenic rapeseed oil (canola oil parent)in it? Rape oil BTW which wasn't even supposed to be in this country. Are they to be sacrificial lambs for the FDA and food industries too?
Prove it, damn it. Don’t just keep saying they have been tested. Spit it out.
posted on May 25, 2003 08:11:45 AM new
While I am waiting for Reamond to jump in
I wonder if Christy Todd Whitman saw this kind of letter coming from our scientists or doctors? They seem to be freer to submit because so many other countries are questioning now.
I don't have the articles to which this scientist is relying (not a subscriber), but his letter to the editor in this publication outside the U.S. is VERY layperson friendly.
I have decided not to bold anything because much he has said is important. Please read carefully, print out and give to any person you care about. Don't forget to take it to your allergist,GP or DO. Many have NO idea about gm foods and medicines and are just finding out themselves.
By
Dr David Williams, Professor, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego
"Overseas consumers have a strong interest in New Zealand's GE debate"
In the February 12 and March 26 issues of Straight Furrow Sir Peter Elworthy and Dr William Rolleston presented commentaries on the GE moratorium.
My only interest in this moratorium is indirect; I have a brother who is a conventional sheep and cattle farmer on the Canterbury farm where we were brought up. However, I am a consumer of New Zealand agricultural products that are exported to California, I work in the medical field, and
I run a research laboratory that has employed genetic engineering technologies for many years. From these perspectives I have some comments on the above-mentioned commentaries, particularly on the responses
provided by Dr Rolleston to Sir Peter's questions.
1. Loss of access to premium markets and harm to the economy.
Not only is there consumer resistance to GM foods in Europe and Japan, but it is starting to stir in the US. Consumption of 'organic and free-range' produce is clearly growing rapidly, at least here in Southern California. My local Vons store (Vons is a very large grocery store chain) recently added an 'organic and free-range' section. My local Wholefoods store prominently displays New Zealand 'free-range' lamb and other produce, and does a brisk business; Wholefoods is now nationwide and the most rapidly growing grocery store chain in the US.
My sister, who works in the catering business in London, has made the same observations in her locale. These fast-growing premium markets will clearly be best exploited by exporters that have a green image Dr Rolleston noted that "most of our markets are under all sorts of threat most of the time: non-tariff trade barriers, competitors, food scares, etc." Consider exports to a nation, such as the USA, that
produces GM crops and feedlot-fattened livestock. Which exports are more likely to suffer from these factors that Dr Rolleston mentions: those that are produced by the same methods, or those that are distinct? Non-GM foods target a different consumer, and so are less likely to be regarded as competition and affected by trade barriers. They are probably also less likely to be affected by food scares.
The problem with individual farmer choice that Dr Rolleston advocates is that the consumers of organic, free-range, or non-GM produce are a skeptical bunch. They are much more likely to trust and buy New
Zealand produce if they know that the whole country is GM-free. There are already too many incidents of failures to separate GM and non-GM foods grown in the same region. As Sir Peter noted, even the threat of trace
contamination is seen as sufficient cause to shun an entire crop.
2. GE technology and increased profitability from GMOs.
Current GMOs are made with a technology that is still very crude. Foreign genes are inserted randomly into the organism's DNA; with current technology the site of insertion cannot be controlled. Consequently, the results are quite unpredictable. Depending on the site of insertion, the foreign gene can turn off the organism's normal genes, create mutant genes
out of the normal genes, or abnormally activate normal genes.
Unfortunately, gene therapy in medicine is still limited by the same approach of uncontrolled gene insertion. Less than three years ago, gene therapy for severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) was hailed as a success. In the past few months, at least two patients from a SCID gene
therapy trial have developed cancer as a consequence of gene insertion at an unfortunate site.
The intended role of the inserted foreign gene is to produce a foreign protein, such as Bt toxin or the protein that confers resistance to Roundup. A major problem is that, in practice, the generation of the
protein from the foreign gene is variable. It can vary enormously in response to different environmental conditions (such as drought). But it can also vary in the absence of any obvious external factor. Variation among organisms derived from the same ancestor is quite common. Foreign
protein production can even vary unexpectedly at different times within an
individual organism. I have seen all these possibilities happen in my own
laboratory with GM mice (which are generated by the most advanced GE technology available for any organism).
There are already numerous examples where GM crops have not lived up to their promise because of unexpected outcomes due to the unpredictability of the foreign protein production. There are examples of Bt crops and RoundupReady crops that have been wiped out because production of the protein was transiently suppressed - just when the pest arrived or Roundup was applied. As a side effect of the foreign protein, some
RoundupReady soya plants produce 20% more lignin, which makes their stems too brittle in warm weather (New Scientist 164:25, 1999). Even under favourable conditions for the GM soya plants, their yield is still
significantly less than that of plants that were otherwise genetically identical (Agronomy Journal 93:408, 2001). "Yield drag" is common among GM crops.
Potential advantages of GM crops have been well advertised by the large corporations that make them. However, these advantages assume a level of reliability that current GE technology cannot and does not provide.
3. Safety of GM food.
With GM crops the public is being asked to eat a new protein (from the foreign gene), such as a Bt endotoxin. A number of articles, including one in the most highly-respected scientific journal in the USA, Science (288:1748, 2000), have reported that there is a dearth of tests of any
sort on the health risks of GM foods. Unfortunately, the unpredictability of the amount and precise form of the foreign protein makes comprehensive testing extremely difficult.
For example, results from a test may indicate safe levels of Bt toxin
for a given Bt plant, but those results may not be relevant for a crop of a subsequent generation, or under, say, drought conditions. In such circumstances, Bt toxin levels could be very much higher, or there could be a subtle change in the final form of the protein (e.g. addition of
different sugars), which could alter its allergenic properties.
An argument put forward by Dr Rolleston is that there is no evidence that GM foods have caused ill-health or harm. But how well have we looked for such evidence? For decades, trans fatty acids, which are formed when
oils are partially hydrogenated (e.g. to make margarine), were argued to be safe. We now know that such fatty acids are a primary factor in heart disease, a leading cause of death in the western world. It is probably
only a matter of time before at least some food allergies (which have increased markedly in the US during recent years) are linked to the foreign proteins in GM foods.
The burden of proof should be on the producers of GM foods. Before a drug can be approved for use in medicine, it usually has to pass rigorous animal studies, followed by three phases of clinical trials. It is a double standard for a government to require such extensive (and very expensive) safety and efficacy data to protect a group of sick people, without requiring similar scientifically-sound safety data to protect masses of healthy consumers of foreign proteins in GM foods. If government regulators ever remove this double standard, the GE debate will
be over; GM foods will be too expensive.
4. Anxiety of Doctors over GM food.
It is not just the BMA that is concerned about GM foods. The concern is especially high among those of us in the medical profession who also work with genetic engineering in our laboratories. In addition to health-related issues, we are acutely aware of the limitations of the current technology used in the generation of GMOs.
From my different perspectives, the introduction of GMOs into New Zealand agriculture appears to be a potential threat to the New Zealand farmer. Farmers should at least recognize that there are major risks associated with uncertainties about GE. By maintaining the GE moratorium,
there is still the option to introduce GMOs into the field at a later date. The converse is not true; once GMOs are in the field, it may be impossible to revert. In medicine, we try to "first, do no harm" (from the Hippocratic oath). New Zealand agriculture would do well to do the same.
Dr David Williams
Professor, School of Medicine,
University of California, San Diego
posted on May 25, 2003 09:31:33 AM new
Africans would rather starve than become experimental subjects by accepting genetically modified food aid. France and Germany are not buying it either. This has upset Bush, of course, since U.S. corporations are anxious to begin profitable biotechnology exports.
........Michael Hanson of the US-based Consumers Union, which advised Zambian consumer groups, warned that appropriate tests have not been done. ''You can say there's no hard data saying it is unsafe,'' he said, ''but that's because there's a paucity of data. ''
...........Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Mozambique protested that the aid contained genetically modified food. They feared that the modified grains could mix into their crop seed, change the genetic makeup of the food they grow, and threaten future exports. Some activists also worry that the modified grains could present health risks, such as allergic reactions.
Last week, Zambia announced that it will refuse any genetically modified food aid. Ending days of debate, officials said they would import regular grain for sale and for food reserves, and they have appealed for food aid that does not include genetically altered grain.
''We would rather starve than get something toxic,'' Zambian president Levy Mwanawasa told Sky News recently, The UN estimates that 1.75 million people face starvation in Zambia.
The link above shows this title in a search, but I cannot link to the article. It is
apparently written by a Frank MacDonald.
IRELAND:Government warned on 'invasion' of GM crops
Publication: THE IRISH TIMES
May 21, 2003 7:26pm
The Irish Organic Network (ION) has called on the Government to take immediate action to 'defend Ireland's environmental and food security from an invasion' of genetically-modified (GM) crops.
Last week, the US, Canada, Argentina and Egypt announced that they were seeking 'consultations' with the World Trade Organisation with a view to lifting the EU's moratorium on the commercial growing and importation of GM foods.
If the WTO rules against the EU on the basis of 'free trade' laws, as environmentalists fear it will, the US and its allies will have the right to impose tariffs on imports from the 'guilty' countries, including Ireland.
The European Commission said the US-led move was 'legally unwarranted, economically unfounded and politically unhelpful'.
[b]ION claims 'this coalition against nature' is being spearheaded by the
companies with most to gain from it.[/b]
[b]'Transnational biotech and agribusiness giants Monsanto, Cargill, Novartis and Nestle have slapped a dollars 4 billion [E3.5 billion] annual price tag on the losses they will incur if they can't flood
Europe with GM products nobody wants or needs,' it said.[/b]
Mr Michael O'Callaghan, ION's chairman, said it would be a 'disaster' if the Government was to allow the release of GM crops here. 'The consequences will be irreversible.'
At an ION conference in Dublin yesterday on the future of Irish farming, one of the events in the fourth annual Convergence festival, he said Ireland's world-famous 'green image' was a big advantage for Irish farmers. http://www.convergence.sustainable.ie/
With one of the least-polluted topsoils in the EU, he said Ireland should opt for GM-free organic farming to advance its transition to real security and a sustainable economy, and increase our share of the E25 billion organic food market.
The conference keynote speaker, Ms Helena Norberg-Hodge, author of Bringing the Food Economy Home and a member of the International Forum on Globalisation, warned that GM technology was an attempt to control
the world's food supply. Disputing its proponents' contention that GM food was a way of solving hunger, she said: 'What is actually happening is that farmers around the world are now being forbidden to use their own local seeds that for generations have fed people.' <snip>
Distributed by Financial Times Information Limited
Edited to fix link and bolding hopefully.
[ edited by aposter on May 25, 2003 10:16 AM ]
[ edited by aposter on May 25, 2003 10:17 AM ]
posted on May 25, 2003 10:20:47 AM new
aposter - You make up pretty good stories. The last person here that went off on this board about "their" experience and personal knowledge in a Fortune 500 corporation later admitted they lied.
I think you have one lie after another about your "experience" calling everybody but god about GM foods. All the info is out there, go find it yourself. I know for a fact that the patented genetics are open to the public, as well as the safety testing.
I think there is a place in eastern Texas where the chicken little wackos live who are allergic to everything and think that the government is after them. I think some of you folks must live there.
