Re: [biofuel] GMOs are Bad Bad Bad
esbuck wrote: It is my understanding that most of the foods we eat are genetically modified, but the mods. were made millenia ago. Corn (maise) cannot reproduce without human help, since the kernels, seeds, stick to the cob. Obviously, corn is genetically different than wild maise. similarly with wheat. I believe domestic wheat has many more genes than the wild variety, emmer. Civilization would not exist, except for genetic modifications. Anyone out there prepared to expand on that? It's completely wrong. Natural selection and the selective breeding practised by the many generations of careful and wise peasant farmers who've developed our food crops through the millenia have NEVER used genes from OTHER species to do so, and that's the basis of what's called Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms. Myth No. 1: Genetic engineering (GE) is not new. It is just the same as speeded-up selective breeding. FACT: Genetic engineering (GE) and conventional breeding are worlds apart. Breeding does not manipulate genes; it involves crossing of selected parents of the same or closely related species. In contrast, GE involves extracting selected genes from one organism (e.g. animals, plants, insects, bacteria) and/or viruses, or synthesising copies, and artificially inserting them into another completely different organism (eg. food crops). GE usually employs virus genes to smuggle in and promote the inserted genes, and antibiotic resistance genes to act as markers. All these inserted genes are present in every cell of the plant. http://prorev.com/genetic.htm Thirteen myths about genetic engineering Basic but a useful document. More: http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/10reasons.htm Ten Reasons why farmers should think twice before growing GE crops http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q4/myths.html Biotechnology Will Feed the World and Other Myths http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Genetically-Modified-Foods-are-Inheren tly-Unsafe.php?menu1_id=9menu2_id=1 Genetically Modified Foods are Inherently Unsafe ESB, your level of information on GMOs is in a parlous state. Please see the GMO refs I provided in the post you've responded to (but snipped): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/32240/ It's something you need to know about if you're interested in biofuels - you'd be wrong to think that biodiesel derived from GMO soy monocrops or ethanol from GMO maize monocrops were necessarily environmentally friendly. At the tailpipe maybe, but not far beyond that. It's something you need to know anyway. Best Keith Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] GMOs are Bad Bad Bad
x-charset ISO-8859-1I'm converted. Thank you Keith for putting all those links together. I'm enlightened but now so depressed :-( Lillie - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Bush administration fudging data top scientists warn Hello Lillie The point I was trying to make since I heard that admission, not my admission since I like to believe I have scruples, is that everyone with power wants more and anyone with money wants more; human nature. The top greens, the ones running the movement are just as corrupt as their enemies. Many believe global warming is a certainty but many others have doubts and have historical information that is more convincing to me than computer simulations. I'm a programmer and know very well that algorithms can be flawed and junk in means junk out. What does the UN have to gain, well they want to be the world government and they are certainly using scare tactics. They want to control you and me and have their hand in our pocket. The thing is, only God knows the absolute truth and when governments get powerful enough they become God on Earth but its always politics that wins. Politics poses as a struggle between right and wrong but it is actually about winning. The arrogance of humans is in everyone of us, we think we can overwhelm Mother Nature but are always wrong. Mother Nature can take care of herself. Now I believe science is the only thing that can save the world, science like making biodiesel. Like genetically modified food but the greens have killed that in Europe and forced Africa to comply, so they starve. Most human suffering is caused by the so called leadership. On and on it goes, but nobody knows the absolute truth; with humans it's always politics. Now where is all this hate coming from, some of these posts are reeking with hate. Lillie Re GMOs. Have you bothered to have a look at what 3rd World farmers themselves actually say about the GMOs the Monsantos et al in cahoots with their bought-off or pressured-off governments are trying to force down their throats? Broad-brushing the greens for discrediting an allegedly worthwhile technology is a stance that has no legs to support it, you're hanging precariously in very thin air. There's such an embarrassment of riches by way of counter-evidence to your view that I don't know where to start (other than to wonder why you didn't - start, that is). For one thing, GMOs do NOT increase yields (nor reduce pesticide use, rather they increase it), do NOT improve food security, and have little if anything to do with alleviating hunger. Here's a rare moment of honesty: The advice could scarcely have come from a more surprising source. If anyone tells you that GM is going to feed the world, Steve Smith, a director of the world's biggest biotechnology company, Novartis, insisted, tell them that it is not... To feed the world takes political and financial will - it's not about production and distribution. From: Biotech has bamboozled us all Studies suggest that traditional farming methods are still the best George Monbiot Guardian Thursday August 24, 2000 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4054683,00.html See also: Bad for the Poor and Bad for Science, by Colin Tudge http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0220-09.htm See: GMOs Not Answer to Poverty/Hunger in Africa - New Study (Genetically Modified Crops and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Assessment of Current Evidence, Aaron deGrassis) http://allafrica.com/stories/200306240443.html A new study released by Third World Network-Africa (www.twnafrica.org) offers new evidence against claims of the miracle potential of genetically modified crops for dealing with famine and poverty in Africa. After examining the impact of three genetically modified crops, sweet potato, maize and Bt cotton, on poverty alleviation in Africa it concluded that biotechnology does not address the real causes of poverty and hunger in Africa. Indeed it shows that biotechnology is an inappropriate method of agricultural innovation for poverty alleviation. More about this study: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1006 GMWatch.org Trade Wars and Media Campaigns - a powerful new analysis (27/6/2003) See GM Crops - Going Against the Grain: GM crops will not feed the world and could pose a considerable threat to poor farmers, warns a new report launched today by ActionAid. GM Crops - Going Against the Grain examines biotech companies' claims that genetically modified (GM) crops can tackle world hunger. The report is being submitted to the Government in advance of the UK public debate starting on 3 June. GM Crops - Going Against the Grain reveals that at best GM crops are irrelevant to poor farmers, at worst they threaten to push them deeper into debt, making
Re: [biofuel] GMOs are Bad Bad Bad
Lillie, GM is not a bad science and it will give the humanity many valuable contributions. The thing is that nearly all important knowledge have positive and negative applications. The commercial and monopolistic applications and utilizations that corporations like Monsant represent, is only the ugly and disgusting side of it. You will see, if you are not in my age, enormous breakthroughs in medicine from genetic manipulation. It is going to be one of the three most important discoveries, sharing it with antibiotics and ulcer treatments. I belive that it can carry the future cancer cure and infarct resistance. It is very long to go, before they learn enough to develop sustainable new variants of species. The ones that exist today are proven survivors of the natural GM and it will be difficult to mimic, without large risks of very damaging mistakes. Hakan At 02:44 23/02/2004, you wrote: I'm converted. Thank you Keith for putting all those links together. I'm enlightened but now so depressed :-( Lillie - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Bush administration fudging data top scientists warn Hello Lillie The point I was trying to make since I heard that admission, not my admission since I like to believe I have scruples, is that everyone with power wants more and anyone with money wants more; human nature. The top greens, the ones running the movement are just as corrupt as their enemies. Many believe global warming is a certainty but many others have doubts and have historical information that is more convincing to me than computer simulations. I'm a programmer and know very well that algorithms can be flawed and junk in means junk out. What does the UN have to gain, well they want to be the world government and they are certainly using scare tactics. They want to control you and me and have their hand in our pocket. The thing is, only God knows the absolute truth and when governments get powerful enough they become God on Earth but its always politics that wins. Politics poses as a struggle between right and wrong but it is actually about winning. The arrogance of humans is in everyone of us, we think we can overwhelm Mother Nature but are always wrong. Mother Nature can take care of herself. Now I believe science is the only thing that can save the world, science like making biodiesel. Like genetically modified food but the greens have killed that in Europe and forced Africa to comply, so they starve. Most human suffering is caused by the so called leadership. On and on it goes, but nobody knows the absolute truth; with humans it's always politics. Now where is all this hate coming from, some of these posts are reeking with hate. Lillie Re GMOs. Have you bothered to have a look at what 3rd World farmers themselves actually say about the GMOs the Monsantos et al in cahoots with their bought-off or pressured-off governments are trying to force down their throats? Broad-brushing the greens for discrediting an allegedly worthwhile technology is a stance that has no legs to support it, you're hanging precariously in very thin air. There's such an embarrassment of riches by way of counter-evidence to your view that I don't know where to start (other than to wonder why you didn't - start, that is). For one thing, GMOs do NOT increase yields (nor reduce pesticide use, rather they increase it), do NOT improve food security, and have little if anything to do with alleviating hunger. Here's a rare moment of honesty: The advice could scarcely have come from a more surprising source. If anyone tells you that GM is going to feed the world, Steve Smith, a director of the world's biggest biotechnology company, Novartis, insisted, tell them that it is not... To feed the world takes political and financial will - it's not about production and distribution. From: Biotech has bamboozled us all Studies suggest that traditional farming methods are still the best George Monbiot Guardian Thursday August 24, 2000 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4054683,00.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4054683,00.html See also: Bad for the Poor and Bad for Science, by Colin Tudge http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0220-09.htmhttp://www.commondreams.org/views04/0220-09.htm See: GMOs Not Answer to Poverty/Hunger in Africa - New Study (Genetically Modified Crops and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Assessment of Current Evidence, Aaron deGrassis) http://allafrica.com/stories/200306240443.htmlhttp://allafrica.com/stories/200306240443.html A new study released by Third World Network-Africa (www.twnafrica.org) offers new evidence against claims of the miracle potential of genetically modified crops for dealing
Re: [biofuel] GMOs are Bad Bad Bad
x-charset ISO-8859-1I'm converted. Thank you Keith for putting all those links together. You're welcome - it wasn't putting them together that took a little time, it was paring down the embarrassment of riches (?) to that sized chunk. What I didn't say, though I've said it before here a few times, is that I'm not against GMOs per se, Genetic Engineerig could and should be a most promising technology, but I'm very much against its current (mis)implementation by a bunch of unscrupulous pirates with a uniformly dreadful record behind them - altogether the wrong people to entrust such powerful tools to before they're even properly understood, if ever. I'm enlightened but now so depressed :-( No need to be - there's plenty of good news too. Jules Pretty, for instance, also has this to offer: Reducing Food Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture: A Summary of New Evidence Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex http://www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/ResearchProgrammes/SAFEWexecsummfinalreport.htm 47 Portraits of Sustainable Agriculture Projects and Initiatives Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex http://www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/ResearchProgrammes/SAFEW47casessusag.htm Plenty more like that. And despite the hundreds of millions who're forced to go without, it really is good news that it's NOT because of any food shortage - we can and do grow enough food, and we can and will grow a whole lot more, and do it better, more sustainably, with better availability, better local food security, and indeed better quality, more than enough to support both the current human population and a healthy biosphere, with plenty of room for the expected growth. Don't you think that's a good anti-depressant? And all you lose is some dangerous myths about GMOs, well worth the price! 12 Myths About Hunger Myth 1 -- Not Enough Food to Go Around. Reality -- Abundance, not scarcity, best describes the world's food supply. Enough wheat, rice and other grains are produced to provide every human being with 3,500 calories a day. That doesn't even count many other commonly eaten foods -- vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits, grass-fed meats, and fish. Enough food is available to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food per person a day worldwide: two and half pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of fruits and vegetables, and nearly another pound of meat, milk and eggs -- enough to make most people fat! So why do so many go hungry? 12 Myths About Hunger and The Myth of Scarcity are essential reading -- based on World Hunger: 12 Myths, 2nd Edition, by Frances Moore Lappé, Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset, with Luis Esparza (fully revised and updated, Grove/Atlantic and Food First Books, Oct. 1998). 12 Myths About Hunger http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/s98v5n3.html The Myth of Scarcity http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/w98v5n1.html Now d'you want me to do the same thing for you with global warming, bent science, and Iraq? No problem, but why not just peruse these snippets and do it yourself? Global warming has been a major theme as scientists, led by Sir David King, chief scientific adviser for the British government, urged an international effort to reduce harmful emissions of greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels. Scientific debate has largely ended as to whether human activity is responsible for the average 1.1 degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperatures in the 20th century. The evidence is virtually unassailable, King said -- a view shared by nearly all credible researchers. Now the debate is focused on the effects of warming and what should be done to prevent more serious damage. -- Scientists focus on global warming at Seattle conclave http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/16/MNGFJ51OAR1.DTL Try taking their word for it and see what else you find. Bent science (just some of the current crop): http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030901s=block August 14, 2003 Science Gets Sacked by Jennifer Block Faced with inconvenient scientific information, the Bush Administration just hits delete. http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040308s=kennedy The Junk Science of George W. Bush by ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. [from the March 8, 2004 issue] ... Today, flat-earthers within the Bush Administration--aided by right-wing allies who have produced assorted hired guns and conservative think tanks to further their goals--are engaged in a campaign to suppress science that is arguably unmatched in the Western world since the Inquisition. Sometimes, rather than suppress good science, they simply order up their own. Meanwhile, the Bush White House is purging, censoring and blacklisting scientists and engineers whose work threatens the profits of the Administration's corporate paymasters or challenges the ideological underpinnings of their radical anti-environmental agenda. Indeed, so extreme is this campaign
Re: [biofuel] GMOs are Bad Bad Bad
It is my understanding that most of the foods we eat are genetically modified, but the mods. were made millenia ago. Corn (maise) cannot reproduce without human help, since the kernels, seeds, stick to the cob. Obviously, corn is genetically different than wild maise. similarly with wheat. I believe domestic wheat has many more genes than the wild variety, emmer. Civilization would not exist, except for genetic modifications. Anyone out there prepared to expand on that? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
