Discussion:
Wales set to ban GM crops
(too old to reply)
Old Codger
2008-03-23 09:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Wales set to ban GM crops
Mar 18 2008 by Steve Dube, Western Mail

PROPOSALS by the Welsh Assembly Government will effectively ban
genetically modified crops from Wales.

New regulations, if adopted, will set Wales apart from England in
applying a strict “polluter pays” principle that will put an end even
to trial plantings.

GM companies have consistently resisted efforts to make them accept
responsibility for “leaks” of GM material and Defra’s proposals for
England stop short of pinning liability on the operator or permit
holder in the event of environmental or economic damage.

But in Wales the WAG proposals make GM companies like Monsanto and
Bayer and the farmers who plant GM crops legally liable for
contamination or “genetic trespass” – even if they have a licence and
even if scientific knowledge at the time leads them to believe the
material was harmless.

The move puts clear water between the administrations in Cardiff Bay
and London and takes Welsh opposition to GM science to new levels.

“We have a particular commitment on GM,” said Wales Rural Affairs
Minister Elin Jones.

“It was reinforced by the One Wales Government programme last year
where we have a commitment to ensure the maximum restriction of GM
crops in Wales.

“We are now consulting on implementing regulations that reflect our
aspirations and promoting the concept that the polluter pays.”

The consultation period ends in mid-May, and Ms Jones said she did not
foresee any particular difficulties in taking a different course from
England, where GM crop farmers would become liable in the event of
contamination on the Welsh side of the border.

“Border issues will arise along any boundaries between EU countries,
but it’s the right of this Assembly Government to exercise the powers
we have to pursue our political aspiration,” she said.

“This is supported by a number of environmental groups and certain
farming interests also want us to retain our GM free status.”

The supporters include the Farmers’ Union of Wales, which is a member
of the GM Free Alliance – a group of environmental and countryside
organisations which includes the RSPB, Friends of the Earth Cymru and
GM Free Cymru.

Organic farmer and FUW vice-president Brian Walters said the threat of
cross-contamination was one of the major concerns that led the FUW to
oppose GM crops.

“Obviously it would be completely unfair if a non-GM farmer’s income
suffered as a result of wind or insect-borne cross-pollination that
was beyond their control, and we welcome WAG’s suggestion that a more
pragmatic approach be taken in Wales,” said Mr Walters.

“The draft Welsh regulations provide security for Welsh farmers,
whereas Defra has left English farmers that are put at risk out in the
cold.”

The GM Free Wales Alliance has written to Elin Jones to congratulate
her and the Assembly Government on what they describe as “the latest
step in the protection of Welsh farming and the Welsh environment”.

Brian John of GM Free Cymru said he expected the other devolved
administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to follow the Welsh
lead.

“There is a degree of frustration that Westminster continues to vote
in favour of GM approval at EU level despite the reservations that the
other three authorities have,” said Mr John.

“Westminster always pushes a pro-GM agenda in the EU, despite the fact
that it’s not the majority view but a distinctly English line.”

Mr John said anti-GM campaigners were delighted with the Welsh
approach

“The GM industry has always refused to accept liability on the basis
that if something is harmless, as they say it is, they can’t be liable
if something goes wrong,” said Mr John.

“The Welsh regulations say that neither the state-of-the-art nor the
legal permit defences can be used and is exactly what we and bodies
like the RSPB have been asking for.”

A spokesman for Monsanto said the proposal was inconsistent with EU
guidelines on co-existence with conventional and organic crops.

“These specify that member state rules should respect the right of
both non-GM and GM farmers to grow the crops of their choice,” he
said.

“Furthermore, since approximately 85% of compound animal feed
throughout the UK already contains imported GM ingredients, due to the
large shortage of home produced protein, we would have concern that in
the long run this proposal would put the majority of Welsh livestock
farmers at a serious competitive disadvantage, and merely drive
livestock production overseas.”

He said the cultivation of GM crops is increasing world-wide, with
more than 100 million hectares grown every year by 10 million farmers.

“Most of the world is moving on from the tired old debate of 10 years
ago and accepting that biotechnology has a place to play alongside a
range of farming methods,” he said.
pearl
2008-03-23 09:48:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Old Codger
Wales set to ban GM crops
Mar 18 2008 by Steve Dube, Western Mail
PROPOSALS by the Welsh Assembly Government will effectively ban
genetically modified crops from Wales.
New regulations, if adopted, will set Wales apart from England in
applying a strict "polluter pays" principle that will put an end even
to trial plantings.
GM companies have consistently resisted efforts to make them accept
responsibility for "leaks" of GM material and Defra's proposals for
England stop short of pinning liability on the operator or permit
holder in the event of environmental or economic damage.
But in Wales the WAG proposals make GM companies like Monsanto and
Bayer and the farmers who plant GM crops legally liable for
contamination or "genetic trespass" - even if they have a licence and
even if scientific knowledge at the time leads them to believe the
material was harmless.
The move puts clear water between the administrations in Cardiff Bay
and London and takes Welsh opposition to GM science to new levels.
"We have a particular commitment on GM," said Wales Rural Affairs
Minister Elin Jones.
"It was reinforced by the One Wales Government programme last year
where we have a commitment to ensure the maximum restriction of GM
crops in Wales.
"We are now consulting on implementing regulations that reflect our
aspirations and promoting the concept that the polluter pays."
The consultation period ends in mid-May, and Ms Jones said she did not
foresee any particular difficulties in taking a different course from
England, where GM crop farmers would become liable in the event of
contamination on the Welsh side of the border.
"Border issues will arise along any boundaries between EU countries,
but it's the right of this Assembly Government to exercise the powers
we have to pursue our political aspiration," she said.
"This is supported by a number of environmental groups and certain
farming interests also want us to retain our GM free status."
The supporters include the Farmers' Union of Wales, which is a member
of the GM Free Alliance - a group of environmental and countryside
organisations which includes the RSPB, Friends of the Earth Cymru and
GM Free Cymru.
Organic farmer and FUW vice-president Brian Walters said the threat of
cross-contamination was one of the major concerns that led the FUW to
oppose GM crops.
"Obviously it would be completely unfair if a non-GM farmer's income
suffered as a result of wind or insect-borne cross-pollination that
was beyond their control, and we welcome WAG's suggestion that a more
pragmatic approach be taken in Wales," said Mr Walters.
"The draft Welsh regulations provide security for Welsh farmers,
whereas Defra has left English farmers that are put at risk out in the
cold."
The GM Free Wales Alliance has written to Elin Jones to congratulate
her and the Assembly Government on what they describe as "the latest
step in the protection of Welsh farming and the Welsh environment".
Brian John of GM Free Cymru said he expected the other devolved
administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to follow the Welsh
lead.
"There is a degree of frustration that Westminster continues to vote
in favour of GM approval at EU level despite the reservations that the
other three authorities have," said Mr John.
"Westminster always pushes a pro-GM agenda in the EU, despite the fact
that it's not the majority view but a distinctly English line."
Mr John said anti-GM campaigners were delighted with the Welsh
approach
"The GM industry has always refused to accept liability on the basis
that if something is harmless, as they say it is, they can't be liable
if something goes wrong," said Mr John.
"The Welsh regulations say that neither the state-of-the-art nor the
legal permit defences can be used and is exactly what we and bodies
like the RSPB have been asking for."
A spokesman for Monsanto said the proposal was inconsistent with EU
guidelines on co-existence with conventional and organic crops.
"These specify that member state rules should respect the right of
both non-GM and GM farmers to grow the crops of their choice," he
said.
"Furthermore, since approximately 85% of compound animal feed
throughout the UK already contains imported GM ingredients, due to the
large shortage of home produced protein, we would have concern that in
the long run this proposal would put the majority of Welsh livestock
farmers at a serious competitive disadvantage, and merely drive
livestock production overseas."
He said the cultivation of GM crops is increasing world-wide, with
more than 100 million hectares grown every year by 10 million farmers.
"Most of the world is moving on from the tired old debate of 10 years
ago and accepting that biotechnology has a place to play alongside a
range of farming methods," he said.
/Really/.

'New Statesman
Environment

The secret GM invasion

Gundula Azeez
Published 20 November 2007

2 comments

A Soil Associaition study has found that many supermarkets are
selling products from animals fed on GM crops, despite having
'non-GM' policies

For over a decade, the public has rejected GM foods. Intuitive
concerns had been reinforced by the highly publicised findings
of the first Government sponsored animal trials, in which strange
lesions were found in the guts of GM-fed rats. To their credit, the
supermarkets adopted non-GM policies and, by October 2002,
they were using no GM (genetically modified) ingredients in their
own-brand products.

Yet, for some years the Soil Association and other organisations
have been concerned about the use of GM animal feed. Due to a
legal loop-hole, although foods or animal feeds that directly
contain GM ingredients must be labelled as 'GM', there is no such
requirement for meat and dairy foods produced from animals fed
on GM crops.

Any use of GM animal feed could thus be kept hidden from
consumers. Last year, in noticeably evasive replies to letters from
our supporters, the supermarkets admitted that their non-GM
policies did not cover animal feed. The Soil Association decided
to conduct an in-depth investigation.

Our findings - presented in our report, Silent invasion - the hidden
use of GM crops in livestock feed - are deeply concerning. By
testing animal feeds and reviewing the industry's sourcing policies,
we have found that high levels of GM animal feed are being used.
73% of the feeds we tested contained some GM soya and 75% were
labelled as 'GM'. Based on our findings, around 60% of the maize
and 30% of the soya in the dairy and pig sectors are GM.

What this means is that nearly all non-organic milk, dairy products
(such as cheese and yoghurt) and pork products sold in UK shops
and restaurants are produced from GM-fed animals. So, most
consumers are unwittingly eating foods produced from GM crops
every day.

We also reviewed progress on the science of the safety of GM crops,
since the early days of the debate when there was little to go on. The
Food Standards Agency had been assuring consumers that they
would not be exposed to GM material by eating foods from GM-fed
animals. However, four studies by different scientific teams have now
found that small amounts of GM DNA can be detected in milk and
tissues from GM-fed animals.

It also turns out that the first animal feeding trials were not flukes.
Very many of the animal trials carried out since then have found
deeply worrying effects. These include toxic effects in body organs,
allergic reactions, unexplained deaths and stunted growth in the
offspring. This raises serious questions about how GM-fed animals
can be considered suitable for producing human food.

In the view of the Soil Association, there has been a failure of both
the market and the scientific advisory process. The biotechnology
industry has managed to persuade many normally clear-minded people,
sadly including many scientists, that they should support GM crops if
they are 'pro-science'.

The important fact that the science has actually emerged against GM
crops has gone unnoticed. Perhaps it would help to point out that
genetic engineering is not a science, it is only a technique. Rejection
of GM does not mean a rejection of science.

Until the scientific community come to terms with the research and
supports a responsible - and genuinely science-based - approach,
the Soil Association strongly recommends that people try to avoid
foods produced from GM-fed animals. Among the supermarkets,
Marks-and-Spencer is far ahead of the others, with all of their milk
and fresh meat produced from non-GM feed. We urge other
supermarkets and catering companies to follow their lead and to
meanwhile to label any products from GM-fed animals so that at
least people can choose.


2 comments from readers

geoff.gibbins
20 November 2007

An interesting article, with some interesting implications. If the public
really has been mislead into eating GM crops for years, then surely
we would expect to see signs of this from a public health perspective?

Isn't there now a responsibility for the anti-GM lobby to produce
findings that this has had a deleterious effect on the health of the
meat-eating population? If we're going to extend the analogy,
shouldn't we all have strange lesions in our guts by now?

If not, maybe such 'intuitive concern' might be shown to be nothing
more than superstition... just a thought.

___________________________________________________

fran
20 November 2007

The Canadian government tried to do post market evaluation of the
health of people eating GM food but abandoned it as too difficult.
Part of the difficutly lies in the lack of labelling.

There has been a documented health disaster with a GM produced
food supplement, L-tryptophan. 100 people died and 5000 were
injured, some permanently. This was only picked up and traced to
the GM produced supplement because the symptoms came on
suddenly and were dramatic. They included pain, swelling, coughs,
rashes, physical weakness, visual problems, hardening of the skin
memory problems and paralysis. It still took several years for the
disease to be identified and the source traced.

If GM foods are causing symtoms such as allergic reactions, cancer,
diabetes, organ damage, high blood pressure how would we be able
to tell? Interestingly there has been a rise in food related illnesses in
the US. In the UK there was a 50% increase in soy allergies following
the introduction of GM soy.

The whole issue is that there has been no long term testing of GM
foods. There are very few feeding studies done and many of them
show very worrying out comes. I recommend that you read Jeffrey
Smith's book Genetic Roulette for details of the studies done to date.
He lists the documented health risks of GM foods. His website is at
http://www.GeneticRoulette.com

http://www.newstatesman.com/200711200004
Old Codger
2008-03-23 09:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
Wales set to ban GM crops
Mar 18 2008 by Steve Dube, Western Mail
PROPOSALS by the Welsh Assembly Government will effectively ban
genetically modified crops from Wales.
New regulations, if adopted, will set Wales apart from England in
applying a strict "polluter pays" principle that will put an end even
to trial plantings.
GM companies have consistently resisted efforts to make them accept
responsibility for "leaks" of GM material and Defra's proposals for
England stop short of pinning liability on the operator or permit
holder in the event of environmental or economic damage.
But in Wales the WAG proposals make GM companies like Monsanto and
Bayer and the farmers who plant GM crops legally liable for
contamination or "genetic trespass" - even if they have a licence and
even if scientific knowledge at the time leads them to believe the
material was harmless.
The move puts clear water between the administrations in Cardiff Bay
and London and takes Welsh opposition to GM science to new levels.
"We have a particular commitment on GM," said Wales Rural Affairs
Minister Elin Jones.
"It was reinforced by the One Wales Government programme last year
where we have a commitment to ensure the maximum restriction of GM
crops in Wales.
"We are now consulting on implementing regulations that reflect our
aspirations and promoting the concept that the polluter pays."
The consultation period ends in mid-May, and Ms Jones said she did not
foresee any particular difficulties in taking a different course from
England, where GM crop farmers would become liable in the event of
contamination on the Welsh side of the border.
"Border issues will arise along any boundaries between EU countries,
but it's the right of this Assembly Government to exercise the powers
we have to pursue our political aspiration," she said.
"This is supported by a number of environmental groups and certain
farming interests also want us to retain our GM free status."
The supporters include the Farmers' Union of Wales, which is a member
of the GM Free Alliance - a group of environmental and countryside
organisations which includes the RSPB, Friends of the Earth Cymru and
GM Free Cymru.
Organic farmer and FUW vice-president Brian Walters said the threat of
cross-contamination was one of the major concerns that led the FUW to
oppose GM crops.
"Obviously it would be completely unfair if a non-GM farmer's income
suffered as a result of wind or insect-borne cross-pollination that
was beyond their control, and we welcome WAG's suggestion that a more
pragmatic approach be taken in Wales," said Mr Walters.
"The draft Welsh regulations provide security for Welsh farmers,
whereas Defra has left English farmers that are put at risk out in the
cold."
The GM Free Wales Alliance has written to Elin Jones to congratulate
her and the Assembly Government on what they describe as "the latest
step in the protection of Welsh farming and the Welsh environment".
Brian John of GM Free Cymru said he expected the other devolved
administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to follow the Welsh
lead.
"There is a degree of frustration that Westminster continues to vote
in favour of GM approval at EU level despite the reservations that the
other three authorities have," said Mr John.
"Westminster always pushes a pro-GM agenda in the EU, despite the fact
that it's not the majority view but a distinctly English line."
Mr John said anti-GM campaigners were delighted with the Welsh
approach
"The GM industry has always refused to accept liability on the basis
that if something is harmless, as they say it is, they can't be liable
if something goes wrong," said Mr John.
"The Welsh regulations say that neither the state-of-the-art nor the
legal permit defences can be used and is exactly what we and bodies
like the RSPB have been asking for."
A spokesman for Monsanto said the proposal was inconsistent with EU
guidelines on co-existence with conventional and organic crops.
"These specify that member state rules should respect the right of
both non-GM and GM farmers to grow the crops of their choice," he
said.
"Furthermore, since approximately 85% of compound animal feed
throughout the UK already contains imported GM ingredients, due to the
large shortage of home produced protein, we would have concern that in
the long run this proposal would put the majority of Welsh livestock
farmers at a serious competitive disadvantage, and merely drive
livestock production overseas."
He said the cultivation of GM crops is increasing world-wide, with
more than 100 million hectares grown every year by 10 million farmers.
"Most of the world is moving on from the tired old debate of 10 years
ago and accepting that biotechnology has a place to play alongside a
range of farming methods," he said.
/Really/.
'New Statesman
Environment
The secret GM invasion
Gundula Azeez
Published 20 November 2007
2 comments
A Soil Associaition study has found that many supermarkets are
selling products from animals fed on GM crops, despite having
'non-GM' policies
For over a decade, the public has rejected GM foods. Intuitive
concerns had been reinforced by the highly publicised findings
of the first Government sponsored animal trials, in which strange
lesions were found in the guts of GM-fed rats. To their credit, the
supermarkets adopted non-GM policies and, by October 2002,
they were using no GM (genetically modified) ingredients in their
own-brand products.
Yet, for some years the Soil Association and other organisations
have been concerned about the use of GM animal feed. Due to a
legal loop-hole, although foods or animal feeds that directly
contain GM ingredients must be labelled as 'GM', there is no such
requirement for meat and dairy foods produced from animals fed
on GM crops.
Any use of GM animal feed could thus be kept hidden from
consumers. Last year, in noticeably evasive replies to letters from
our supporters, the supermarkets admitted that their non-GM
policies did not cover animal feed. The Soil Association decided
to conduct an in-depth investigation.
Our findings - presented in our report, Silent invasion - the hidden
use of GM crops in livestock feed - are deeply concerning. By
testing animal feeds and reviewing the industry's sourcing policies,
we have found that high levels of GM animal feed are being used.
73% of the feeds we tested contained some GM soya and 75% were
labelled as 'GM'. Based on our findings, around 60% of the maize
and 30% of the soya in the dairy and pig sectors are GM.
What this means is that nearly all non-organic milk, dairy products
(such as cheese and yoghurt) and pork products sold in UK shops
and restaurants are produced from GM-fed animals. So, most
consumers are unwittingly eating foods produced from GM crops
every day.
We also reviewed progress on the science of the safety of GM crops,
since the early days of the debate when there was little to go on. The
Food Standards Agency had been assuring consumers that they
would not be exposed to GM material by eating foods from GM-fed
animals. However, four studies by different scientific teams have now
found that small amounts of GM DNA can be detected in milk and
tissues from GM-fed animals.
It also turns out that the first animal feeding trials were not flukes.
Very many of the animal trials carried out since then have found
deeply worrying effects. These include toxic effects in body organs,
allergic reactions, unexplained deaths and stunted growth in the
offspring. This raises serious questions about how GM-fed animals
can be considered suitable for producing human food.
In the view of the Soil Association, there has been a failure of both
the market and the scientific advisory process. The biotechnology
industry has managed to persuade many normally clear-minded people,
sadly including many scientists, that they should support GM crops if
they are 'pro-science'.
The important fact that the science has actually emerged against GM
crops has gone unnoticed. Perhaps it would help to point out that
genetic engineering is not a science, it is only a technique. Rejection
of GM does not mean a rejection of science.
Until the scientific community come to terms with the research and
supports a responsible - and genuinely science-based - approach,
the Soil Association strongly recommends that people try to avoid
foods produced from GM-fed animals. Among the supermarkets,
Marks-and-Spencer is far ahead of the others, with all of their milk
and fresh meat produced from non-GM feed. We urge other
supermarkets and catering companies to follow their lead and to
meanwhile to label any products from GM-fed animals so that at
least people can choose.
2 comments from readers
geoff.gibbins
20 November 2007
An interesting article, with some interesting implications. If the public
really has been mislead into eating GM crops for years, then surely
we would expect to see signs of this from a public health perspective?
Isn't there now a responsibility for the anti-GM lobby to produce
findings that this has had a deleterious effect on the health of the
meat-eating population? If we're going to extend the analogy,
shouldn't we all have strange lesions in our guts by now?
If not, maybe such 'intuitive concern' might be shown to be nothing
more than superstition... just a thought.
___________________________________________________
fran
20 November 2007
The Canadian government tried to do post market evaluation of the
health of people eating GM food but abandoned it as too difficult.
Part of the difficutly lies in the lack of labelling.
There has been a documented health disaster with a GM produced
food supplement, L-tryptophan. 100 people died and 5000 were
injured, some permanently. This was only picked up and traced to
the GM produced supplement because the symptoms came on
suddenly and were dramatic. They included pain, swelling, coughs,
rashes, physical weakness, visual problems, hardening of the skin
memory problems and paralysis. It still took several years for the
disease to be identified and the source traced.
If GM foods are causing symtoms such as allergic reactions, cancer,
diabetes, organ damage, high blood pressure how would we be able
to tell? Interestingly there has been a rise in food related illnesses in
the US. In the UK there was a 50% increase in soy allergies following
the introduction of GM soy.
The whole issue is that there has been no long term testing of GM
foods. There are very few feeding studies done and many of them
show very worrying out comes. I recommend that you read Jeffrey
Smith's book Genetic Roulette for details of the studies done to date.
He lists the documented health risks of GM foods. His website is at
http://www.GeneticRoulette.com
http://www.newstatesman.com/200711200004
Maybe it's time for a class action against the GM fans and bent
government officials bowing to the wallet of Monsanto!
pearl
2008-03-23 11:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Old Codger
Maybe it's time for a class action against the GM fans and bent
government officials bowing to the wallet of Monsanto!
At the *very least*...

"This GM stealth invasion of the UK food-chain is denying
consumers their right to make fully informed choices. ...."

'Public unaware that most milk, dairy products and pork from GM

Soil Association PRESS RELEASE 16/11/2007
..
Supermarkets have been trumpeting their non-GM food policies,
having removed all of their own-label foods made directly with GM
ingredients by October 2002 in response to consumer concerns.
However, unknown to most of the public supermarkets did not
prohibit the use of GM animal feed. Because of a legal loophole,
there is no requirement to label food produced from GM-fed animals
so shoppers will find it hard to avoid food produced from GM. [2]

Currently, the only food standard that guarantees the non-use of
GM feed is organic. The basic food industry mark, the 'Little Red
Tractor', allows the use of GM feed. Even ethical labels like
'Freedom foods' allow animals to be fed GM crops. For non-organic
food, Marks & Spencer offers the only refuge in offering all its milk
and fresh meat from non-GM feed, but it does allow GM feed for its
frozen and processed foods.
...
This GM stealth invasion of the UK food-chain is denying consumers
their right to make fully informed choices. For years, the Food
Standards Agency has been assuring consumers they would not be
exposed to GM material by eating meat and dairy products from GM-
fed animals. Scientific studies have now found small amounts of GM
DNA in milk and animal tissues from GM-fed livestock. [4] And
studies on GM-fed livestock are finding horrendous effects, including
lesions on the gut, toxic effects in body organs, unexplained deaths
and stunted growth in their offspring. [5] This raises concerns about the
long-term health impacts on humans consuming products from GM-fed
animals.

Patrick Holden, Soil Association director said:
"This amounts to deception on a large-scale. This is not just accidental
contamination, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of GM grain are being
used to produce our food each year. Biotechnology companies have
clearly used imported animal feed as a Trojan Horse to introduce GM
into the UK food chain, despite the fact that the British public have voted
overwhelmingly against GM.
...
Based on our findings, we estimate that around 400,000 tonnes (290,000t
of GM maize gluten and 146,000t of GM soya) are imported each year to
produce manufactured feed for the dairy, pig and poultry sectors (out of
a total of 467,000t of maize gluten and 1,123,000t of soya used in
manufactured feed for these sectors). Note, the total amount of imported
soya and maize gluten that contains GM is far higher. If imported grain
used for 'home-mixing' of feed by farmers and the small amounts used
for fattening beef and sheep (but not wholly grass-fed animals) are
included, the total GM feed used would be higher. (See Chapter 4)

[2] The Soil Association is calling on the Government and European
Commission to introduce a legal requirement for GM labelling for
foods produced from GM-fed animals. This is supported by the public:

An NOP survey in 2006 found that 87% of the UK public believe food
from GM-fed animals should be labelled (up from a finding of 79% by
the National Consumer Council in 2001).

A European-wide petition for such labelling collected a million signatures
by February 2007. (See Chapter 6) NOP poll of 1000 UK adults carried
out 9-11 June 2006 and weighted to be nationally representative.
"One million EU citizens call for labelling of GM foods", by Helena
Spongenberg, 5 February 2007, EU Observer.
..
[4] Until 2005, studies which tried to detect GM DNA in milk, eggs and
tissues from GM-fed animals had only detected non-GM DNA from the
crops, indicating that GM DNA was also probably present in low quantities
even if it had not been detected (Chowdhury et al, 2004; Phipps et al, 2003;
Einspanier et al, 2001). On this basis, although it was not strictly supported
by the science, the FSA and biotechnology industry claimed consumers
would not be exposed to GM material by eating food from GM-fed animals.
Now, however, four studies by different scientific teams have detected GM
DNA in milk and pig and sheep tissues from GM-fed animals (Sharma et al,
2006; Agodi et al, 2006, Mazza et al, 2005; reports by Ralf Einspanier,
20 October and 20 December 2000). (See Chapter 5.1)

[5] The report includes a review of GM feeding trials (12 animal and 1 human)
that found negative health effects (all controlled against non-GM crops). Our
report also describes some of the ways in which these findings were dismissed
by the FSA / European Food Safety Authority and the biotechnology
companies, and lists seven scientific reasons why genetic engineering changes
the biology of plants, posing risks to health (See Chapter 5.2):

Russian rat trial of GM soya: very high mortality and stunted growth in the
offspring (Ermakova, 2005)

Italian mice trial of GM soya: metabolic effects on body organs (Malatesta et al,
2002 and 2003; Vecchio et al, 2004)

FSA-commissioned human trial of GM soya by Newcastle University: GM DNA
transfers out of food into the body's gut bacteria (Netherwood et al, 2004)

Monsanto rat trial of GM maize: changes in body organs indicating toxic effects
(report by Monsanto, 2002; review by Dr Pusztai, 2004; Séralini et al, 2007)

Aventis chicken trial of GM maize: mortality doubled and significant change in
composition of meat (reports for the Chardon LL hearing, 2002; review in
"Food safety - contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing, 2003)

Aventis rat trial of the novel protein of GM maize: reduced body weight and
metabolic effects (same references as for Aventis chicken trial)

UK study on sheep: in a few minutes, the genes in the GM maize move into
the bacteria in the mouth, changing their characteristics (Duggan et al, 2003)

Monsanto rat trials of GM oilseed rape: reduction in body weight and
increased liver weight (significant as the liver is the organ of detoxification)
(US FDA, 2002; Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified
Organisms, 2004)

Australian mice trial of GM peas: allergic reactions, including inflammation
of lungs (Prescott et al, 2005)

Calgene mice trials of GM tomatoes: gut lesions and 7 of 40 died within two
weeks (review in "Food safety - contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing,
2003)

UK Government-commissioned rat trial of GM potatoes by Rowett Research
Institute: gut lesions (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999)

NB: These studies were all designed to identify health impacts; the animal
trials often referred to by the biotechnology companies are largely irrelevant
as proof of safety, being mostly studies carried out for commercial purposes
on the efficacy of the feed, rather than 'toxicological' studies involving tissue
analysis.
...'
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/71216c30d62d9891802573950032f47b!OpenDocument

< http://tinyurl.com/354jd3 >
Old Codger
2008-03-23 11:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
Maybe it's time for a class action against the GM fans and bent
government officials bowing to the wallet of Monsanto!
At the *very least*...
"This GM stealth invasion of the UK food-chain is denying
consumers their right to make fully informed choices. ...."
'Public unaware that most milk, dairy products and pork from GM
Soil Association PRESS RELEASE 16/11/2007
..
Supermarkets have been trumpeting their non-GM food policies,
having removed all of their own-label foods made directly with GM
ingredients by October 2002 in response to consumer concerns.
However, unknown to most of the public supermarkets did not
prohibit the use of GM animal feed. Because of a legal loophole,
there is no requirement to label food produced from GM-fed animals
so shoppers will find it hard to avoid food produced from GM. [2]
Currently, the only food standard that guarantees the non-use of
GM feed is organic.
Looks like organic is rapidly becoming a minimum standard we should be
looking at. No wonder the lazy farmers don't approve of organic, it
means they'll need to work for a living and not just at the shortcuts.
Post by pearl
The basic food industry mark, the 'Little Red
Tractor', allows the use of GM feed. Even ethical labels like
'Freedom foods' allow animals to be fed GM crops. For non-organic
food, Marks & Spencer offers the only refuge in offering all its milk
and fresh meat from non-GM feed, but it does allow GM feed for its
frozen and processed foods.
Red tractor and freedom foods make a mockery of food standards and
animal welfare.
Post by pearl
This GM stealth invasion of the UK food-chain is denying consumers
their right to make fully informed choices. For years, the Food
Standards Agency has been assuring consumers they would not be
exposed to GM material by eating meat and dairy products from GM-
fed animals. Scientific studies have now found small amounts of GM
DNA in milk and animal tissues from GM-fed livestock. [4] And
studies on GM-fed livestock are finding horrendous effects, including
lesions on the gut, toxic effects in body organs, unexplained deaths
and stunted growth in their offspring. [5] This raises concerns about the
long-term health impacts on humans consuming products from GM-fed
animals.
"This amounts to deception on a large-scale. This is not just accidental
contamination, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of GM grain are being
used to produce our food each year. Biotechnology companies have
clearly used imported animal feed as a Trojan Horse to introduce GM
into the UK food chain, despite the fact that the British public have voted
overwhelmingly against GM.
...
Based on our findings, we estimate that around 400,000 tonnes (290,000t
of GM maize gluten and 146,000t of GM soya) are imported each year to
produce manufactured feed for the dairy, pig and poultry sectors (out of
a total of 467,000t of maize gluten and 1,123,000t of soya used in
manufactured feed for these sectors). Note, the total amount of imported
soya and maize gluten that contains GM is far higher. If imported grain
used for 'home-mixing' of feed by farmers and the small amounts used
for fattening beef and sheep (but not wholly grass-fed animals) are
included, the total GM feed used would be higher. (See Chapter 4)
[2] The Soil Association is calling on the Government and European
Commission to introduce a legal requirement for GM labelling for
An NOP survey in 2006 found that 87% of the UK public believe food
from GM-fed animals should be labelled (up from a finding of 79% by
the National Consumer Council in 2001).
A European-wide petition for such labelling collected a million signatures
by February 2007. (See Chapter 6) NOP poll of 1000 UK adults carried
out 9-11 June 2006 and weighted to be nationally representative.
"One million EU citizens call for labelling of GM foods", by Helena
Spongenberg, 5 February 2007, EU Observer.
..
[4] Until 2005, studies which tried to detect GM DNA in milk, eggs and
tissues from GM-fed animals had only detected non-GM DNA from the
crops, indicating that GM DNA was also probably present in low quantities
even if it had not been detected (Chowdhury et al, 2004; Phipps et al, 2003;
Einspanier et al, 2001). On this basis, although it was not strictly supported
by the science, the FSA and biotechnology industry claimed consumers
would not be exposed to GM material by eating food from GM-fed animals.
Now, however, four studies by different scientific teams have detected GM
DNA in milk and pig and sheep tissues from GM-fed animals (Sharma et al,
2006; Agodi et al, 2006, Mazza et al, 2005; reports by Ralf Einspanier,
20 October and 20 December 2000). (See Chapter 5.1)
[5] The report includes a review of GM feeding trials (12 animal and 1 human)
that found negative health effects (all controlled against non-GM crops). Our
report also describes some of the ways in which these findings were dismissed
by the FSA / European Food Safety Authority and the biotechnology
companies, and lists seven scientific reasons why genetic engineering changes
Russian rat trial of GM soya: very high mortality and stunted growth in the
offspring (Ermakova, 2005)
Italian mice trial of GM soya: metabolic effects on body organs (Malatesta et al,
2002 and 2003; Vecchio et al, 2004)
FSA-commissioned human trial of GM soya by Newcastle University: GM DNA
transfers out of food into the body's gut bacteria (Netherwood et al, 2004)
Monsanto rat trial of GM maize: changes in body organs indicating toxic effects
(report by Monsanto, 2002; review by Dr Pusztai, 2004; Séralini et al, 2007)
Aventis chicken trial of GM maize: mortality doubled and significant change in
composition of meat (reports for the Chardon LL hearing, 2002; review in
"Food safety - contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing, 2003)
Aventis rat trial of the novel protein of GM maize: reduced body weight and
metabolic effects (same references as for Aventis chicken trial)
UK study on sheep: in a few minutes, the genes in the GM maize move into
the bacteria in the mouth, changing their characteristics (Duggan et al, 2003)
Monsanto rat trials of GM oilseed rape: reduction in body weight and
increased liver weight (significant as the liver is the organ of detoxification)
(US FDA, 2002; Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified
Organisms, 2004)
Australian mice trial of GM peas: allergic reactions, including inflammation
of lungs (Prescott et al, 2005)
Calgene mice trials of GM tomatoes: gut lesions and 7 of 40 died within two
weeks (review in "Food safety - contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing,
2003)
UK Government-commissioned rat trial of GM potatoes by Rowett Research
Institute: gut lesions (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999)
NB: These studies were all designed to identify health impacts; the animal
trials often referred to by the biotechnology companies are largely irrelevant
as proof of safety, being mostly studies carried out for commercial purposes
on the efficacy of the feed, rather than 'toxicological' studies involving tissue
analysis.
...'
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/71216c30d62d9891802573950032f47b!OpenDocument
< http://tinyurl.com/354jd3 >
Looks like it really is time for Labour to go. Sadly the alternatives
can only be far worse.
pearl
2008-03-23 11:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Old Codger
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
Maybe it's time for a class action against the GM fans and bent
government officials bowing to the wallet of Monsanto!
At the *very least*...
"This GM stealth invasion of the UK food-chain is denying
consumers their right to make fully informed choices. ...."
'Public unaware that most milk, dairy products and pork from GM
Soil Association PRESS RELEASE 16/11/2007
..
Supermarkets have been trumpeting their non-GM food policies,
having removed all of their own-label foods made directly with GM
ingredients by October 2002 in response to consumer concerns.
However, unknown to most of the public supermarkets did not
prohibit the use of GM animal feed. Because of a legal loophole,
there is no requirement to label food produced from GM-fed animals
so shoppers will find it hard to avoid food produced from GM. [2]
Currently, the only food standard that guarantees the non-use of
GM feed is organic.
Looks like organic is rapidly becoming a minimum standard we should be
looking at. No wonder the lazy farmers don't approve of organic, it
means they'll need to work for a living and not just at the shortcuts.
Speaking of whom.... where's jim-in-a box? Faulty mechanism?
Post by Old Codger
Post by pearl
The basic food industry mark, the 'Little Red
Tractor', allows the use of GM feed. Even ethical labels like
'Freedom foods' allow animals to be fed GM crops. For non-organic
food, Marks & Spencer offers the only refuge in offering all its milk
and fresh meat from non-GM feed, but it does allow GM feed for its
frozen and processed foods.
Red tractor and freedom foods make a mockery of food standards and
animal welfare.
All we can expect from wilfully ignorant 'meat-on-a-stick' mentality.
Post by Old Codger
Post by pearl
This GM stealth invasion of the UK food-chain is denying consumers
their right to make fully informed choices. For years, the Food
Standards Agency has been assuring consumers they would not be
exposed to GM material by eating meat and dairy products from GM-
fed animals. Scientific studies have now found small amounts of GM
DNA in milk and animal tissues from GM-fed livestock. [4] And
studies on GM-fed livestock are finding horrendous effects, including
lesions on the gut, toxic effects in body organs, unexplained deaths
and stunted growth in their offspring. [5] This raises concerns about the
long-term health impacts on humans consuming products from GM-fed
animals.
"This amounts to deception on a large-scale. This is not just accidental
contamination, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of GM grain are being
used to produce our food each year. Biotechnology companies have
clearly used imported animal feed as a Trojan Horse to introduce GM
into the UK food chain, despite the fact that the British public have voted
overwhelmingly against GM.
...
Based on our findings, we estimate that around 400,000 tonnes (290,000t
of GM maize gluten and 146,000t of GM soya) are imported each year to
produce manufactured feed for the dairy, pig and poultry sectors (out of
a total of 467,000t of maize gluten and 1,123,000t of soya used in
manufactured feed for these sectors). Note, the total amount of imported
soya and maize gluten that contains GM is far higher. If imported grain
used for 'home-mixing' of feed by farmers and the small amounts used
for fattening beef and sheep (but not wholly grass-fed animals) are
included, the total GM feed used would be higher. (See Chapter 4)
[2] The Soil Association is calling on the Government and European
Commission to introduce a legal requirement for GM labelling for
An NOP survey in 2006 found that 87% of the UK public believe food
from GM-fed animals should be labelled (up from a finding of 79% by
the National Consumer Council in 2001).
A European-wide petition for such labelling collected a million signatures
by February 2007. (See Chapter 6)
NOP poll of 1000 UK adults carried out 9-11 June 2006 and weighted to
be nationally representative.
Post by Old Codger
Post by pearl
"One million EU citizens call for labelling of GM foods", by Helena
Spongenberg, 5 February 2007, EU Observer.
..
[4] Until 2005, studies which tried to detect GM DNA in milk, eggs and
tissues from GM-fed animals had only detected non-GM DNA from the
crops, indicating that GM DNA was also probably present in low quantities
even if it had not been detected (Chowdhury et al, 2004; Phipps et al, 2003;
Einspanier et al, 2001). On this basis, although it was not strictly supported
by the science, the FSA and biotechnology industry claimed consumers
would not be exposed to GM material by eating food from GM-fed animals.
Now, however, four studies by different scientific teams have detected GM
DNA in milk and pig and sheep tissues from GM-fed animals (Sharma et al,
2006; Agodi et al, 2006, Mazza et al, 2005; reports by Ralf Einspanier,
20 October and 20 December 2000). (See Chapter 5.1)
[5] The report includes a review of GM feeding trials (12 animal and 1 human)
that found negative health effects (all controlled against non-GM crops). Our
report also describes some of the ways in which these findings were dismissed
by the FSA / European Food Safety Authority and the biotechnology
companies, and lists seven scientific reasons why genetic engineering changes
Russian rat trial of GM soya: very high mortality and stunted growth in the
offspring (Ermakova, 2005)
Italian mice trial of GM soya: metabolic effects on body organs (Malatesta et al,
2002 and 2003; Vecchio et al, 2004)
FSA-commissioned human trial of GM soya by Newcastle University: GM DNA
transfers out of food into the body's gut bacteria (Netherwood et al, 2004)
Monsanto rat trial of GM maize: changes in body organs indicating toxic effects
(report by Monsanto, 2002; review by Dr Pusztai, 2004; Séralini et al, 2007)
Aventis chicken trial of GM maize: mortality doubled and significant change in
composition of meat (reports for the Chardon LL hearing, 2002; review in
"Food safety - contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing, 2003)
Aventis rat trial of the novel protein of GM maize: reduced body weight and
metabolic effects (same references as for Aventis chicken trial)
UK study on sheep: in a few minutes, the genes in the GM maize move into
the bacteria in the mouth, changing their characteristics (Duggan et al, 2003)
Monsanto rat trials of GM oilseed rape: reduction in body weight and
increased liver weight (significant as the liver is the organ of detoxification)
(US FDA, 2002; Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified
Organisms, 2004)
Australian mice trial of GM peas: allergic reactions, including inflammation
of lungs (Prescott et al, 2005)
Calgene mice trials of GM tomatoes: gut lesions and 7 of 40 died within two
weeks (review in "Food safety - contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing,
2003)
UK Government-commissioned rat trial of GM potatoes by Rowett Research
Institute: gut lesions (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999)
NB: These studies were all designed to identify health impacts; the animal
trials often referred to by the biotechnology companies are largely irrelevant
as proof of safety, being mostly studies carried out for commercial purposes
on the efficacy of the feed, rather than 'toxicological' studies involving tissue
analysis.
...'
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/71216c30d62d9891802573950032f47b!OpenDocument
< http://tinyurl.com/354jd3 >
Looks like it really is time for Labour to go. Sadly the alternatives
can only be far worse.
In spite of everything, I'm actually still optimistic about the future.
pearl
2008-03-23 12:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Old Codger
Looks like organic is rapidly becoming a minimum standard we should be
looking at. No wonder the lazy farmers don't approve of organic, it
means they'll need to work for a living and not just at the shortcuts.
'UK organic sales nudge £2bn - up 22 per cent - averaging £7 million
growth per week.
Sales through local, direct marketing schemes such as veg boxes soar
by 53 per cent.

Soil Association PRESS RELEASE 03/09/2007
..
Sales of free-range and organic outstripping eggs from caged birds
for the first time. Consumer concerns over animal welfare appear to
be driving changes in the poultry sector.
..
Households with children under the age of 15 tend to buy a wider
range of organic foods than those with no children.

Organic farmers are three times as likely to market their products
locally or directly as non-organic farmers in the UK.
..
Helen Browning, Soil Association Director of Food and Farming said:
"These figures are extremely encouraging, the year on year growth in
sales not just in food and drink, but also the newer booming clothing
and health and beauty sectors confirm organic has moved well beyond
a mere fad or niche.

"The staggering 53 per cent growth in sales through box schemes and
other direct routes confirms strong public support for local, seasonal
and organic food that provides a fair return to farmers and growers,
boosts the local economy, and also reduces your carbon footprint -
consumers are increasingly linking everyday food choice to
environmental action.
...'
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/efd75fcb51d9029c8025734800579da9!OpenDocument

< http://tinyurl.com/2r9asb >
Old Codger
2008-03-23 12:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
Looks like organic is rapidly becoming a minimum standard we should be
looking at. No wonder the lazy farmers don't approve of organic, it
means they'll need to work for a living and not just at the shortcuts.
'UK organic sales nudge £2bn - up 22 per cent - averaging £7 million
growth per week.
Sales through local, direct marketing schemes such as veg boxes soar
by 53 per cent.
Soil Association PRESS RELEASE 03/09/2007
..
Sales of free-range and organic outstripping eggs from caged birds
for the first time. Consumer concerns over animal welfare appear to
be driving changes in the poultry sector.
..
Households with children under the age of 15 tend to buy a wider
range of organic foods than those with no children.
Organic farmers are three times as likely to market their products
locally or directly as non-organic farmers in the UK.
..
"These figures are extremely encouraging, the year on year growth in
sales not just in food and drink, but also the newer booming clothing
and health and beauty sectors confirm organic has moved well beyond
a mere fad or niche.
"The staggering 53 per cent growth in sales through box schemes and
other direct routes confirms strong public support for local, seasonal
and organic food that provides a fair return to farmers and growers,
boosts the local economy, and also reduces your carbon footprint -
consumers are increasingly linking everyday food choice to
environmental action.
...'
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/efd75fcb51d9029c8025734800579da9!OpenDocument
< http://tinyurl.com/2r9asb >
Looks like old Jumbo will need to eat his hat!
pearl
2008-03-23 13:03:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
..
Post by Old Codger
Post by pearl
"The staggering 53 per cent growth in sales through box schemes and
other direct routes confirms strong public support for local, seasonal
and organic food that provides a fair return to farmers and growers,
boosts the local economy, and also reduces your carbon footprint -
consumers are increasingly linking everyday food choice to
environmental action.
...'
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/efd75fcb51d9029c8025734800579da9!OpenDocument
< http://tinyurl.com/2r9asb >
Looks like old Jumbo will need to eat his hat!
And with any luck, .....
Jim Webster
2008-03-23 13:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
..
Post by Old Codger
Post by pearl
"The staggering 53 per cent growth in sales through box schemes and
other direct routes confirms strong public support for local, seasonal
and organic food that provides a fair return to farmers and growers,
boosts the local economy, and also reduces your carbon footprint -
consumers are increasingly linking everyday food choice to
environmental action.
...'
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/efd75fcb51d9029c8025734800579da9!OpenDocument
< http://tinyurl.com/2r9asb >
Looks like old Jumbo will need to eat his hat!
And with any luck, .....
why, I'm perfectly happy to see people make good money selling food.The more
money that comes into the rural economy the better.
Indeed if the current generation was happy to spend the same proportion of
their income as their parents did then they could live entirely on organic.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7213462.stm

Jim Webster
buddenbrooks
2008-03-24 10:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim Webster
Indeed if the current generation was happy to spend the same proportion
of their income as their parents did then they could live entirely on
organic.
I am not sure that the current generation has that much left over after
paying mortgage and various non-optional taxes.
Old Codger
2008-03-24 09:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
Looks like organic is rapidly becoming a minimum standard we should be
looking at. No wonder the lazy farmers don't approve of organic, it
means they'll need to work for a living and not just at the shortcuts.
'UK organic sales nudge £2bn - up 22 per cent - averaging £7 million
growth per week.
Sales through local, direct marketing schemes such as veg boxes soar
by 53 per cent.
Soil Association PRESS RELEASE 03/09/2007
..
Sales of free-range and organic outstripping eggs from caged birds
for the first time. Consumer concerns over animal welfare appear to
be driving changes in the poultry sector.
..
Households with children under the age of 15 tend to buy a wider
range of organic foods than those with no children.
Organic farmers are three times as likely to market their products
locally or directly as non-organic farmers in the UK.
..
"These figures are extremely encouraging, the year on year growth in
sales not just in food and drink, but also the newer booming clothing
and health and beauty sectors confirm organic has moved well beyond
a mere fad or niche.
"The staggering 53 per cent growth in sales through box schemes and
other direct routes confirms strong public support for local, seasonal
and organic food that provides a fair return to farmers and growers,
boosts the local economy, and also reduces your carbon footprint -
consumers are increasingly linking everyday food choice to
environmental action.
...'
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/efd75fcb51d9029c8025734800579da9!OpenDocument
< http://tinyurl.com/2r9asb >
Looks like old Jumbo will need to eat his hat!
Old Codger
2008-03-24 09:09:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
Maybe it's time for a class action against the GM fans and bent
government officials bowing to the wallet of Monsanto!
At the *very least*...
"This GM stealth invasion of the UK food-chain is denying
consumers their right to make fully informed choices. ...."
'Public unaware that most milk, dairy products and pork from GM
Soil Association PRESS RELEASE 16/11/2007
..
Supermarkets have been trumpeting their non-GM food policies,
having removed all of their own-label foods made directly with GM
ingredients by October 2002 in response to consumer concerns.
However, unknown to most of the public supermarkets did not
prohibit the use of GM animal feed. Because of a legal loophole,
there is no requirement to label food produced from GM-fed animals
so shoppers will find it hard to avoid food produced from GM. [2]
Currently, the only food standard that guarantees the non-use of
GM feed is organic.
Looks like organic is rapidly becoming a minimum standard we should be
looking at. No wonder the lazy farmers don't approve of organic, it
means they'll need to work for a living and not just at the shortcuts.
Post by pearl
The basic food industry mark, the 'Little Red
Tractor', allows the use of GM feed. Even ethical labels like
'Freedom foods' allow animals to be fed GM crops. For non-organic
food, Marks & Spencer offers the only refuge in offering all its milk
and fresh meat from non-GM feed, but it does allow GM feed for its
frozen and processed foods.
Red tractor and freedom foods make a mockery of food standards and
animal welfare.
Post by pearl
This GM stealth invasion of the UK food-chain is denying consumers
their right to make fully informed choices. For years, the Food
Standards Agency has been assuring consumers they would not be
exposed to GM material by eating meat and dairy products from GM-
fed animals. Scientific studies have now found small amounts of GM
DNA in milk and animal tissues from GM-fed livestock. [4] And
studies on GM-fed livestock are finding horrendous effects, including
lesions on the gut, toxic effects in body organs, unexplained deaths
and stunted growth in their offspring. [5] This raises concerns about the
long-term health impacts on humans consuming products from GM-fed
animals.
"This amounts to deception on a large-scale. This is not just accidental
contamination, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of GM grain are being
used to produce our food each year. Biotechnology companies have
clearly used imported animal feed as a Trojan Horse to introduce GM
into the UK food chain, despite the fact that the British public have voted
overwhelmingly against GM.
...
Based on our findings, we estimate that around 400,000 tonnes (290,000t
of GM maize gluten and 146,000t of GM soya) are imported each year to
produce manufactured feed for the dairy, pig and poultry sectors (out of
a total of 467,000t of maize gluten and 1,123,000t of soya used in
manufactured feed for these sectors). Note, the total amount of imported
soya and maize gluten that contains GM is far higher. If imported grain
used for 'home-mixing' of feed by farmers and the small amounts used
for fattening beef and sheep (but not wholly grass-fed animals) are
included, the total GM feed used would be higher. (See Chapter 4)
[2] The Soil Association is calling on the Government and European
Commission to introduce a legal requirement for GM labelling for
An NOP survey in 2006 found that 87% of the UK public believe food
from GM-fed animals should be labelled (up from a finding of 79% by
the National Consumer Council in 2001).
A European-wide petition for such labelling collected a million signatures
by February 2007. (See Chapter 6) NOP poll of 1000 UK adults carried
out 9-11 June 2006 and weighted to be nationally representative.
"One million EU citizens call for labelling of GM foods", by Helena
Spongenberg, 5 February 2007, EU Observer.
..
[4] Until 2005, studies which tried to detect GM DNA in milk, eggs and
tissues from GM-fed animals had only detected non-GM DNA from the
crops, indicating that GM DNA was also probably present in low quantities
even if it had not been detected (Chowdhury et al, 2004; Phipps et al, 2003;
Einspanier et al, 2001). On this basis, although it was not strictly supported
by the science, the FSA and biotechnology industry claimed consumers
would not be exposed to GM material by eating food from GM-fed animals.
Now, however, four studies by different scientific teams have detected GM
DNA in milk and pig and sheep tissues from GM-fed animals (Sharma et al,
2006; Agodi et al, 2006, Mazza et al, 2005; reports by Ralf Einspanier,
20 October and 20 December 2000). (See Chapter 5.1)
[5] The report includes a review of GM feeding trials (12 animal and 1 human)
that found negative health effects (all controlled against non-GM crops). Our
report also describes some of the ways in which these findings were dismissed
by the FSA / European Food Safety Authority and the biotechnology
companies, and lists seven scientific reasons why genetic engineering changes
Russian rat trial of GM soya: very high mortality and stunted growth in the
offspring (Ermakova, 2005)
Italian mice trial of GM soya: metabolic effects on body organs (Malatesta et al,
2002 and 2003; Vecchio et al, 2004)
FSA-commissioned human trial of GM soya by Newcastle University: GM DNA
transfers out of food into the body's gut bacteria (Netherwood et al, 2004)
Monsanto rat trial of GM maize: changes in body organs indicating toxic effects
(report by Monsanto, 2002; review by Dr Pusztai, 2004; Séralini et al, 2007)
Aventis chicken trial of GM maize: mortality doubled and significant change in
composition of meat (reports for the Chardon LL hearing, 2002; review in
"Food safety - contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing, 2003)
Aventis rat trial of the novel protein of GM maize: reduced body weight and
metabolic effects (same references as for Aventis chicken trial)
UK study on sheep: in a few minutes, the genes in the GM maize move into
the bacteria in the mouth, changing their characteristics (Duggan et al, 2003)
Monsanto rat trials of GM oilseed rape: reduction in body weight and
increased liver weight (significant as the liver is the organ of detoxification)
(US FDA, 2002; Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified
Organisms, 2004)
Australian mice trial of GM peas: allergic reactions, including inflammation
of lungs (Prescott et al, 2005)
Calgene mice trials of GM tomatoes: gut lesions and 7 of 40 died within two
weeks (review in "Food safety - contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing,
2003)
UK Government-commissioned rat trial of GM potatoes by Rowett Research
Institute: gut lesions (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999)
NB: These studies were all designed to identify health impacts; the animal
trials often referred to by the biotechnology companies are largely irrelevant
as proof of safety, being mostly studies carried out for commercial purposes
on the efficacy of the feed, rather than 'toxicological' studies involving tissue
analysis.
...'
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/71216c30d62d9891802573950032f47b!OpenDocument
< http://tinyurl.com/354jd3 >
Looks like it really is time for Labour to go. Sadly the alternatives
can only be far worse.
Jim Webster
2008-03-23 12:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
/Really/.
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the fine
mountain pastures and is well worth tasting

Jim Webster
Old Codger
2008-03-23 12:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:37:10 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
Wales set to ban GM crops
Mar 18 2008 by Steve Dube, Western Mail
PROPOSALS by the Welsh Assembly Government will effectively ban
genetically modified crops from Wales.
New regulations, if adopted, will set Wales apart from England in
applying a strict "polluter pays" principle that will put an end even
to trial plantings.
GM companies have consistently resisted efforts to make them accept
responsibility for "leaks" of GM material and Defra's proposals for
England stop short of pinning liability on the operator or permit
holder in the event of environmental or economic damage.
But in Wales the WAG proposals make GM companies like Monsanto and
Bayer and the farmers who plant GM crops legally liable for
contamination or "genetic trespass" - even if they have a licence and
even if scientific knowledge at the time leads them to believe the
material was harmless.
The move puts clear water between the administrations in Cardiff Bay
and London and takes Welsh opposition to GM science to new levels.
"We have a particular commitment on GM," said Wales Rural Affairs
Minister Elin Jones.
"It was reinforced by the One Wales Government programme last year
where we have a commitment to ensure the maximum restriction of GM
crops in Wales.
"We are now consulting on implementing regulations that reflect our
aspirations and promoting the concept that the polluter pays."
The consultation period ends in mid-May, and Ms Jones said she did not
foresee any particular difficulties in taking a different course from
England, where GM crop farmers would become liable in the event of
contamination on the Welsh side of the border.
"Border issues will arise along any boundaries between EU countries,
but it's the right of this Assembly Government to exercise the powers
we have to pursue our political aspiration," she said.
"This is supported by a number of environmental groups and certain
farming interests also want us to retain our GM free status."
The supporters include the Farmers' Union of Wales, which is a member
of the GM Free Alliance - a group of environmental and countryside
organisations which includes the RSPB, Friends of the Earth Cymru and
GM Free Cymru.
Organic farmer and FUW vice-president Brian Walters said the threat of
cross-contamination was one of the major concerns that led the FUW to
oppose GM crops.
"Obviously it would be completely unfair if a non-GM farmer's income
suffered as a result of wind or insect-borne cross-pollination that
was beyond their control, and we welcome WAG's suggestion that a more
pragmatic approach be taken in Wales," said Mr Walters.
"The draft Welsh regulations provide security for Welsh farmers,
whereas Defra has left English farmers that are put at risk out in the
cold."
The GM Free Wales Alliance has written to Elin Jones to congratulate
her and the Assembly Government on what they describe as "the latest
step in the protection of Welsh farming and the Welsh environment".
Brian John of GM Free Cymru said he expected the other devolved
administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to follow the Welsh
lead.
"There is a degree of frustration that Westminster continues to vote
in favour of GM approval at EU level despite the reservations that the
other three authorities have," said Mr John.
"Westminster always pushes a pro-GM agenda in the EU, despite the fact
that it's not the majority view but a distinctly English line."
Mr John said anti-GM campaigners were delighted with the Welsh
approach
"The GM industry has always refused to accept liability on the basis
that if something is harmless, as they say it is, they can't be liable
if something goes wrong," said Mr John.
"The Welsh regulations say that neither the state-of-the-art nor the
legal permit defences can be used and is exactly what we and bodies
like the RSPB have been asking for."
A spokesman for Monsanto said the proposal was inconsistent with EU
guidelines on co-existence with conventional and organic crops.
"These specify that member state rules should respect the right of
both non-GM and GM farmers to grow the crops of their choice," he
said.
"Furthermore, since approximately 85% of compound animal feed
throughout the UK already contains imported GM ingredients, due to the
large shortage of home produced protein, we would have concern that in
the long run this proposal would put the majority of Welsh livestock
farmers at a serious competitive disadvantage, and merely drive
livestock production overseas."
He said the cultivation of GM crops is increasing world-wide, with
more than 100 million hectares grown every year by 10 million farmers.
"Most of the world is moving on from the tired old debate of 10 years
ago and accepting that biotechnology has a place to play alongside a
range of farming methods," he said.
/Really/.
'New Statesman
Environment
The secret GM invasion
Gundula Azeez
Published 20 November 2007
2 comments
A Soil Associaition study has found that many supermarkets are
selling products from animals fed on GM crops, despite having
'non-GM' policies
For over a decade, the public has rejected GM foods. Intuitive
concerns had been reinforced by the highly publicised findings
of the first Government sponsored animal trials, in which strange
lesions were found in the guts of GM-fed rats. To their credit, the
supermarkets adopted non-GM policies and, by October 2002,
they were using no GM (genetically modified) ingredients in their
own-brand products.
Yet, for some years the Soil Association and other organisations
have been concerned about the use of GM animal feed. Due to a
legal loop-hole, although foods or animal feeds that directly
contain GM ingredients must be labelled as 'GM', there is no such
requirement for meat and dairy foods produced from animals fed
on GM crops.
Any use of GM animal feed could thus be kept hidden from
consumers. Last year, in noticeably evasive replies to letters from
our supporters, the supermarkets admitted that their non-GM
policies did not cover animal feed. The Soil Association decided
to conduct an in-depth investigation.
Our findings - presented in our report, Silent invasion - the hidden
use of GM crops in livestock feed - are deeply concerning. By
testing animal feeds and reviewing the industry's sourcing policies,
we have found that high levels of GM animal feed are being used.
73% of the feeds we tested contained some GM soya and 75% were
labelled as 'GM'. Based on our findings, around 60% of the maize
and 30% of the soya in the dairy and pig sectors are GM.
What this means is that nearly all non-organic milk, dairy products
(such as cheese and yoghurt) and pork products sold in UK shops
and restaurants are produced from GM-fed animals. So, most
consumers are unwittingly eating foods produced from GM crops
every day.
We also reviewed progress on the science of the safety of GM crops,
since the early days of the debate when there was little to go on. The
Food Standards Agency had been assuring consumers that they
would not be exposed to GM material by eating foods from GM-fed
animals. However, four studies by different scientific teams have now
found that small amounts of GM DNA can be detected in milk and
tissues from GM-fed animals.
It also turns out that the first animal feeding trials were not flukes.
Very many of the animal trials carried out since then have found
deeply worrying effects. These include toxic effects in body organs,
allergic reactions, unexplained deaths and stunted growth in the
offspring. This raises serious questions about how GM-fed animals
can be considered suitable for producing human food.
In the view of the Soil Association, there has been a failure of both
the market and the scientific advisory process. The biotechnology
industry has managed to persuade many normally clear-minded people,
sadly including many scientists, that they should support GM crops if
they are 'pro-science'.
The important fact that the science has actually emerged against GM
crops has gone unnoticed. Perhaps it would help to point out that
genetic engineering is not a science, it is only a technique. Rejection
of GM does not mean a rejection of science.
Until the scientific community come to terms with the research and
supports a responsible - and genuinely science-based - approach,
the Soil Association strongly recommends that people try to avoid
foods produced from GM-fed animals. Among the supermarkets,
Marks-and-Spencer is far ahead of the others, with all of their milk
and fresh meat produced from non-GM feed. We urge other
supermarkets and catering companies to follow their lead and to
meanwhile to label any products from GM-fed animals so that at
least people can choose.
2 comments from readers
geoff.gibbins
20 November 2007
An interesting article, with some interesting implications. If the public
really has been mislead into eating GM crops for years, then surely
we would expect to see signs of this from a public health perspective?
Isn't there now a responsibility for the anti-GM lobby to produce
findings that this has had a deleterious effect on the health of the
meat-eating population? If we're going to extend the analogy,
shouldn't we all have strange lesions in our guts by now?
If not, maybe such 'intuitive concern' might be shown to be nothing
more than superstition... just a thought.
___________________________________________________
fran
20 November 2007
The Canadian government tried to do post market evaluation of the
health of people eating GM food but abandoned it as too difficult.
Part of the difficutly lies in the lack of labelling.
There has been a documented health disaster with a GM produced
food supplement, L-tryptophan. 100 people died and 5000 were
injured, some permanently. This was only picked up and traced to
the GM produced supplement because the symptoms came on
suddenly and were dramatic. They included pain, swelling, coughs,
rashes, physical weakness, visual problems, hardening of the skin
memory problems and paralysis. It still took several years for the
disease to be identified and the source traced.
If GM foods are causing symtoms such as allergic reactions, cancer,
diabetes, organ damage, high blood pressure how would we be able
to tell? Interestingly there has been a rise in food related illnesses in
the US. In the UK there was a 50% increase in soy allergies following
the introduction of GM soy.
The whole issue is that there has been no long term testing of GM
foods. There are very few feeding studies done and many of them
show very worrying out comes. I recommend that you read Jeffrey
Smith's book Genetic Roulette for details of the studies done to date.
He lists the documented health risks of GM foods. His website is at
http://www.GeneticRoulette.com
http://www.newstatesman.com/200711200004
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist.
That's a bit of a weird lie even for the Livestock Adviser of The CLA.

Welsh agricultural land consist of some 60% permanent grass. 11%
arable and crops consist of wheat, barley (winter/spring) Oats,Mixed
corn for threshing and triticale and Rye for threshing, Potatoes:
(Early,Main) Vegetables (other than potatoes) Orchards and small
fruit,Other horticulture grown in the open,Area under glass or plastic
covered structures, Maize for threshing or stockfeeding,Other crops
for stockfeeding,Rape grown for oilseed.

So not only have the CLA blatantly lied about the competency of Welsh
farming, you have also tried to suggest they are only capable of
producing lamb!!!

I wonder what people will make of this?
Post by Jim Webster
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the fine
mountain pastures and is well worth tasting
Jim Webster
pearl
2008-03-23 13:12:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Old Codger
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:37:10 -0000, "Jim Webster"
<...>
Post by Old Codger
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
If GM foods are causing symtoms such as allergic reactions, cancer,
diabetes, organ damage, high blood pressure how would we be able
to tell? Interestingly there has been a rise in food related illnesses in
the US. In the UK there was a 50% increase in soy allergies following
the introduction of GM soy.
The whole issue is that there has been no long term testing of GM
foods. There are very few feeding studies done and many of them
show very worrying out comes. I recommend that you read Jeffrey
Smith's book Genetic Roulette for details of the studies done to date.
He lists the documented health risks of GM foods. His website is at
http://www.GeneticRoulette.com
http://www.newstatesman.com/200711200004
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist.
That's a bit of a weird lie even for the Livestock Adviser of The CLA.
Welsh agricultural land consist of some 60% permanent grass. 11%
arable and crops consist of wheat, barley (winter/spring) Oats,Mixed
(Early,Main) Vegetables (other than potatoes) Orchards and small
fruit,Other horticulture grown in the open,Area under glass or plastic
covered structures, Maize for threshing or stockfeeding,Other crops
for stockfeeding,Rape grown for oilseed.
So not only have the CLA blatantly lied about the competency of Welsh
farming, you have also tried to suggest they are only capable of
producing lamb!!!
I wonder what people will make of this?
Thanks for that. We find several "major crops" listed which
could be targeted by the GM crowd for cultivation in Wales.

Jim's a reflexive liar, and a fool to imagine no one's noticing.
Jim Webster
2008-03-23 13:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
I wonder what people will make of this?
probably assume that pete hasn't a clue as usual?
Post by pearl
Thanks for that. We find several "major crops" listed which
could be targeted by the GM crowd for cultivation in Wales.
good, I would be grateful for the list of GM crops that could be grown in
Wales
Given that grain maize and soya aren't exactly common within the
principality
Post by pearl
Jim's a reflexive liar, and a fool to imagine no one's noticing.
insults but no evidence to back up your statements, come on, name the crops
and give us the areas grown in Wales that GM can replace

Jim Webster
Old Codger
2008-03-23 13:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:17:44 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
I wonder what people will make of this?
probably assume that pete hasn't a clue as usual?
Post by pearl
Thanks for that. We find several "major crops" listed which
could be targeted by the GM crowd for cultivation in Wales.
good, I would be grateful for the list of GM crops that could be grown in
Wales
Given that grain maize and soya aren't exactly common within the
principality
Post by pearl
Jim's a reflexive liar, and a fool to imagine no one's noticing.
insults but no evidence to back up your statements, come on, name the crops
and give us the areas grown in Wales that GM can replace
Jim Webster
Is that line dancing Jim or just wriggling?
Old Codger
2008-03-23 13:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:17:44 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
I wonder what people will make of this?
probably assume that pete hasn't a clue as usual?
Post by pearl
Thanks for that. We find several "major crops" listed which
could be targeted by the GM crowd for cultivation in Wales.
good, I would be grateful for the list of GM crops that could be grown in
Wales
Given that grain maize and soya aren't exactly common within the
principality
Post by pearl
Jim's a reflexive liar, and a fool to imagine no one's noticing.
insults but no evidence to back up your statements, come on, name the crops
and give us the areas grown in Wales that GM can replace
You want animal rights advocates to tell you your job? ha ha

That'll impress the CLA Jim.
Old Codger
2008-03-24 09:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:17:44 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
I wonder what people will make of this?
probably assume that pete hasn't a clue as usual?
Post by pearl
Thanks for that. We find several "major crops" listed which
could be targeted by the GM crowd for cultivation in Wales.
good, I would be grateful for the list of GM crops that could be grown in
Wales
Given that grain maize and soya aren't exactly common within the
principality
Post by pearl
Jim's a reflexive liar, and a fool to imagine no one's noticing.
insults but no evidence to back up your statements, come on, name the crops
and give us the areas grown in Wales that GM can replace
Jim Webster
Is that line dancing Jim or just wriggling?
Old Codger
2008-03-24 09:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:17:44 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
I wonder what people will make of this?
probably assume that pete hasn't a clue as usual?
Post by pearl
Thanks for that. We find several "major crops" listed which
could be targeted by the GM crowd for cultivation in Wales.
good, I would be grateful for the list of GM crops that could be grown in
Wales
Given that grain maize and soya aren't exactly common within the
principality
Post by pearl
Jim's a reflexive liar, and a fool to imagine no one's noticing.
insults but no evidence to back up your statements, come on, name the crops
and give us the areas grown in Wales that GM can replace
You want animal rights advocates to tell you your job? ha ha

That'll impress the CLA Jim.
Old Codger
2008-03-23 13:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:37:10 -0000, "Jim Webster"
<...>
Post by Old Codger
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
If GM foods are causing symtoms such as allergic reactions, cancer,
diabetes, organ damage, high blood pressure how would we be able
to tell? Interestingly there has been a rise in food related illnesses in
the US. In the UK there was a 50% increase in soy allergies following
the introduction of GM soy.
The whole issue is that there has been no long term testing of GM
foods. There are very few feeding studies done and many of them
show very worrying out comes. I recommend that you read Jeffrey
Smith's book Genetic Roulette for details of the studies done to date.
He lists the documented health risks of GM foods. His website is at
http://www.GeneticRoulette.com
http://www.newstatesman.com/200711200004
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist.
That's a bit of a weird lie even for the Livestock Adviser of The CLA.
Welsh agricultural land consist of some 60% permanent grass. 11%
arable and crops consist of wheat, barley (winter/spring) Oats,Mixed
(Early,Main) Vegetables (other than potatoes) Orchards and small
fruit,Other horticulture grown in the open,Area under glass or plastic
covered structures, Maize for threshing or stockfeeding,Other crops
for stockfeeding,Rape grown for oilseed.
So not only have the CLA blatantly lied about the competency of Welsh
farming, you have also tried to suggest they are only capable of
producing lamb!!!
I wonder what people will make of this?
Thanks for that. We find several "major crops" listed which
could be targeted by the GM crowd for cultivation in Wales.
Jim's a reflexive liar, and a fool to imagine no one's noticing.
Right about now he could do with dOZy telling him to put us in the
fantasy kill filters they use round here...lol
pearl
2008-03-23 13:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Old Codger
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:37:10 -0000, "Jim Webster"
<...>
Post by Old Codger
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
If GM foods are causing symtoms such as allergic reactions, cancer,
diabetes, organ damage, high blood pressure how would we be able
to tell? Interestingly there has been a rise in food related illnesses in
the US. In the UK there was a 50% increase in soy allergies following
the introduction of GM soy.
The whole issue is that there has been no long term testing of GM
foods. There are very few feeding studies done and many of them
show very worrying out comes. I recommend that you read Jeffrey
Smith's book Genetic Roulette for details of the studies done to date.
He lists the documented health risks of GM foods. His website is at
http://www.GeneticRoulette.com
http://www.newstatesman.com/200711200004
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist.
That's a bit of a weird lie even for the Livestock Adviser of The CLA.
Welsh agricultural land consist of some 60% permanent grass. 11%
arable and crops consist of wheat, barley (winter/spring) Oats,Mixed
(Early,Main) Vegetables (other than potatoes) Orchards and small
fruit,Other horticulture grown in the open,Area under glass or plastic
covered structures, Maize for threshing or stockfeeding,Other crops
for stockfeeding,Rape grown for oilseed.
So not only have the CLA blatantly lied about the competency of Welsh
farming, you have also tried to suggest they are only capable of
producing lamb!!!
I wonder what people will make of this?
Thanks for that. We find several "major crops" listed which
could be targeted by the GM crowd for cultivation in Wales.
Jim's a reflexive liar, and a fool to imagine no one's noticing.
Right about now he could do with dOZy telling him to put us in the
fantasy kill filters they use round here...lol
I did caution jim that he should maybe follow his wizard's call....
;)
Old Codger
2008-03-23 13:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:37:10 -0000, "Jim Webster"
<...>
Post by Old Codger
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
If GM foods are causing symtoms such as allergic reactions, cancer,
diabetes, organ damage, high blood pressure how would we be able
to tell? Interestingly there has been a rise in food related illnesses in
the US. In the UK there was a 50% increase in soy allergies following
the introduction of GM soy.
The whole issue is that there has been no long term testing of GM
foods. There are very few feeding studies done and many of them
show very worrying out comes. I recommend that you read Jeffrey
Smith's book Genetic Roulette for details of the studies done to date.
He lists the documented health risks of GM foods. His website is at
http://www.GeneticRoulette.com
http://www.newstatesman.com/200711200004
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist.
That's a bit of a weird lie even for the Livestock Adviser of The CLA.
Welsh agricultural land consist of some 60% permanent grass. 11%
arable and crops consist of wheat, barley (winter/spring) Oats,Mixed
(Early,Main) Vegetables (other than potatoes) Orchards and small
fruit,Other horticulture grown in the open,Area under glass or plastic
covered structures, Maize for threshing or stockfeeding,Other crops
for stockfeeding,Rape grown for oilseed.
So not only have the CLA blatantly lied about the competency of Welsh
farming, you have also tried to suggest they are only capable of
producing lamb!!!
I wonder what people will make of this?
Thanks for that. We find several "major crops" listed which
could be targeted by the GM crowd for cultivation in Wales.
Jim's a reflexive liar, and a fool to imagine no one's noticing.
Right about now he could do with dOZy telling him to put us in the
fantasy kill filters they use round here...lol
I did caution jim that he should maybe follow his wizard's call....
;)
Ah. Click....lol
Jim Webster
2008-03-23 15:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
I did caution jim that he should maybe follow his wizard's call....
;)
but you still haven't told us which GM varieties are mentioned and where
they can be grown
For example what varieties of GM Oats and vegetables are there available (to
mention just a couple of crops that seem to be worrying you and pete

Jim Webster
Old Codger
2008-03-24 09:09:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:37:10 -0000, "Jim Webster"
<...>
Post by Old Codger
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
If GM foods are causing symtoms such as allergic reactions, cancer,
diabetes, organ damage, high blood pressure how would we be able
to tell? Interestingly there has been a rise in food related illnesses in
the US. In the UK there was a 50% increase in soy allergies following
the introduction of GM soy.
The whole issue is that there has been no long term testing of GM
foods. There are very few feeding studies done and many of them
show very worrying out comes. I recommend that you read Jeffrey
Smith's book Genetic Roulette for details of the studies done to date.
He lists the documented health risks of GM foods. His website is at
http://www.GeneticRoulette.com
http://www.newstatesman.com/200711200004
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist.
That's a bit of a weird lie even for the Livestock Adviser of The CLA.
Welsh agricultural land consist of some 60% permanent grass. 11%
arable and crops consist of wheat, barley (winter/spring) Oats,Mixed
(Early,Main) Vegetables (other than potatoes) Orchards and small
fruit,Other horticulture grown in the open,Area under glass or plastic
covered structures, Maize for threshing or stockfeeding,Other crops
for stockfeeding,Rape grown for oilseed.
So not only have the CLA blatantly lied about the competency of Welsh
farming, you have also tried to suggest they are only capable of
producing lamb!!!
I wonder what people will make of this?
Thanks for that. We find several "major crops" listed which
could be targeted by the GM crowd for cultivation in Wales.
Jim's a reflexive liar, and a fool to imagine no one's noticing.
Right about now he could do with dOZy telling him to put us in the
fantasy kill filters they use round here...lol
I did caution jim that he should maybe follow his wizard's call....
;)
Ah. Click....lol
Old Codger
2008-03-24 09:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:37:10 -0000, "Jim Webster"
<...>
Post by Old Codger
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
If GM foods are causing symtoms such as allergic reactions, cancer,
diabetes, organ damage, high blood pressure how would we be able
to tell? Interestingly there has been a rise in food related illnesses in
the US. In the UK there was a 50% increase in soy allergies following
the introduction of GM soy.
The whole issue is that there has been no long term testing of GM
foods. There are very few feeding studies done and many of them
show very worrying out comes. I recommend that you read Jeffrey
Smith's book Genetic Roulette for details of the studies done to date.
He lists the documented health risks of GM foods. His website is at
http://www.GeneticRoulette.com
http://www.newstatesman.com/200711200004
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist.
That's a bit of a weird lie even for the Livestock Adviser of The CLA.
Welsh agricultural land consist of some 60% permanent grass. 11%
arable and crops consist of wheat, barley (winter/spring) Oats,Mixed
(Early,Main) Vegetables (other than potatoes) Orchards and small
fruit,Other horticulture grown in the open,Area under glass or plastic
covered structures, Maize for threshing or stockfeeding,Other crops
for stockfeeding,Rape grown for oilseed.
So not only have the CLA blatantly lied about the competency of Welsh
farming, you have also tried to suggest they are only capable of
producing lamb!!!
I wonder what people will make of this?
Thanks for that. We find several "major crops" listed which
could be targeted by the GM crowd for cultivation in Wales.
Jim's a reflexive liar, and a fool to imagine no one's noticing.
Right about now he could do with dOZy telling him to put us in the
fantasy kill filters they use round here...lol
Old Codger
2008-03-23 13:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:56:25 +0000, Old Codger
Post by Old Codger
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:37:10 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
Wales set to ban GM crops
Mar 18 2008 by Steve Dube, Western Mail
PROPOSALS by the Welsh Assembly Government will effectively ban
genetically modified crops from Wales.
New regulations, if adopted, will set Wales apart from England in
applying a strict "polluter pays" principle that will put an end even
to trial plantings.
GM companies have consistently resisted efforts to make them accept
responsibility for "leaks" of GM material and Defra's proposals for
England stop short of pinning liability on the operator or permit
holder in the event of environmental or economic damage.
But in Wales the WAG proposals make GM companies like Monsanto and
Bayer and the farmers who plant GM crops legally liable for
contamination or "genetic trespass" - even if they have a licence and
even if scientific knowledge at the time leads them to believe the
material was harmless.
The move puts clear water between the administrations in Cardiff Bay
and London and takes Welsh opposition to GM science to new levels.
"We have a particular commitment on GM," said Wales Rural Affairs
Minister Elin Jones.
"It was reinforced by the One Wales Government programme last year
where we have a commitment to ensure the maximum restriction of GM
crops in Wales.
"We are now consulting on implementing regulations that reflect our
aspirations and promoting the concept that the polluter pays."
The consultation period ends in mid-May, and Ms Jones said she did not
foresee any particular difficulties in taking a different course from
England, where GM crop farmers would become liable in the event of
contamination on the Welsh side of the border.
"Border issues will arise along any boundaries between EU countries,
but it's the right of this Assembly Government to exercise the powers
we have to pursue our political aspiration," she said.
"This is supported by a number of environmental groups and certain
farming interests also want us to retain our GM free status."
The supporters include the Farmers' Union of Wales, which is a member
of the GM Free Alliance - a group of environmental and countryside
organisations which includes the RSPB, Friends of the Earth Cymru and
GM Free Cymru.
Organic farmer and FUW vice-president Brian Walters said the threat of
cross-contamination was one of the major concerns that led the FUW to
oppose GM crops.
"Obviously it would be completely unfair if a non-GM farmer's income
suffered as a result of wind or insect-borne cross-pollination that
was beyond their control, and we welcome WAG's suggestion that a more
pragmatic approach be taken in Wales," said Mr Walters.
"The draft Welsh regulations provide security for Welsh farmers,
whereas Defra has left English farmers that are put at risk out in the
cold."
The GM Free Wales Alliance has written to Elin Jones to congratulate
her and the Assembly Government on what they describe as "the latest
step in the protection of Welsh farming and the Welsh environment".
Brian John of GM Free Cymru said he expected the other devolved
administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to follow the Welsh
lead.
"There is a degree of frustration that Westminster continues to vote
in favour of GM approval at EU level despite the reservations that the
other three authorities have," said Mr John.
"Westminster always pushes a pro-GM agenda in the EU, despite the fact
that it's not the majority view but a distinctly English line."
Mr John said anti-GM campaigners were delighted with the Welsh
approach
"The GM industry has always refused to accept liability on the basis
that if something is harmless, as they say it is, they can't be liable
if something goes wrong," said Mr John.
"The Welsh regulations say that neither the state-of-the-art nor the
legal permit defences can be used and is exactly what we and bodies
like the RSPB have been asking for."
A spokesman for Monsanto said the proposal was inconsistent with EU
guidelines on co-existence with conventional and organic crops.
"These specify that member state rules should respect the right of
both non-GM and GM farmers to grow the crops of their choice," he
said.
"Furthermore, since approximately 85% of compound animal feed
throughout the UK already contains imported GM ingredients, due to the
large shortage of home produced protein, we would have concern that in
the long run this proposal would put the majority of Welsh livestock
farmers at a serious competitive disadvantage, and merely drive
livestock production overseas."
He said the cultivation of GM crops is increasing world-wide, with
more than 100 million hectares grown every year by 10 million farmers.
"Most of the world is moving on from the tired old debate of 10 years
ago and accepting that biotechnology has a place to play alongside a
range of farming methods," he said.
/Really/.
'New Statesman
Environment
The secret GM invasion
Gundula Azeez
Published 20 November 2007
2 comments
A Soil Associaition study has found that many supermarkets are
selling products from animals fed on GM crops, despite having
'non-GM' policies
For over a decade, the public has rejected GM foods. Intuitive
concerns had been reinforced by the highly publicised findings
of the first Government sponsored animal trials, in which strange
lesions were found in the guts of GM-fed rats. To their credit, the
supermarkets adopted non-GM policies and, by October 2002,
they were using no GM (genetically modified) ingredients in their
own-brand products.
Yet, for some years the Soil Association and other organisations
have been concerned about the use of GM animal feed. Due to a
legal loop-hole, although foods or animal feeds that directly
contain GM ingredients must be labelled as 'GM', there is no such
requirement for meat and dairy foods produced from animals fed
on GM crops.
Any use of GM animal feed could thus be kept hidden from
consumers. Last year, in noticeably evasive replies to letters from
our supporters, the supermarkets admitted that their non-GM
policies did not cover animal feed. The Soil Association decided
to conduct an in-depth investigation.
Our findings - presented in our report, Silent invasion - the hidden
use of GM crops in livestock feed - are deeply concerning. By
testing animal feeds and reviewing the industry's sourcing policies,
we have found that high levels of GM animal feed are being used.
73% of the feeds we tested contained some GM soya and 75% were
labelled as 'GM'. Based on our findings, around 60% of the maize
and 30% of the soya in the dairy and pig sectors are GM.
What this means is that nearly all non-organic milk, dairy products
(such as cheese and yoghurt) and pork products sold in UK shops
and restaurants are produced from GM-fed animals. So, most
consumers are unwittingly eating foods produced from GM crops
every day.
We also reviewed progress on the science of the safety of GM crops,
since the early days of the debate when there was little to go on. The
Food Standards Agency had been assuring consumers that they
would not be exposed to GM material by eating foods from GM-fed
animals. However, four studies by different scientific teams have now
found that small amounts of GM DNA can be detected in milk and
tissues from GM-fed animals.
It also turns out that the first animal feeding trials were not flukes.
Very many of the animal trials carried out since then have found
deeply worrying effects. These include toxic effects in body organs,
allergic reactions, unexplained deaths and stunted growth in the
offspring. This raises serious questions about how GM-fed animals
can be considered suitable for producing human food.
In the view of the Soil Association, there has been a failure of both
the market and the scientific advisory process. The biotechnology
industry has managed to persuade many normally clear-minded people,
sadly including many scientists, that they should support GM crops if
they are 'pro-science'.
The important fact that the science has actually emerged against GM
crops has gone unnoticed. Perhaps it would help to point out that
genetic engineering is not a science, it is only a technique. Rejection
of GM does not mean a rejection of science.
Until the scientific community come to terms with the research and
supports a responsible - and genuinely science-based - approach,
the Soil Association strongly recommends that people try to avoid
foods produced from GM-fed animals. Among the supermarkets,
Marks-and-Spencer is far ahead of the others, with all of their milk
and fresh meat produced from non-GM feed. We urge other
supermarkets and catering companies to follow their lead and to
meanwhile to label any products from GM-fed animals so that at
least people can choose.
2 comments from readers
geoff.gibbins
20 November 2007
An interesting article, with some interesting implications. If the public
really has been mislead into eating GM crops for years, then surely
we would expect to see signs of this from a public health perspective?
Isn't there now a responsibility for the anti-GM lobby to produce
findings that this has had a deleterious effect on the health of the
meat-eating population? If we're going to extend the analogy,
shouldn't we all have strange lesions in our guts by now?
If not, maybe such 'intuitive concern' might be shown to be nothing
more than superstition... just a thought.
___________________________________________________
fran
20 November 2007
The Canadian government tried to do post market evaluation of the
health of people eating GM food but abandoned it as too difficult.
Part of the difficutly lies in the lack of labelling.
There has been a documented health disaster with a GM produced
food supplement, L-tryptophan. 100 people died and 5000 were
injured, some permanently. This was only picked up and traced to
the GM produced supplement because the symptoms came on
suddenly and were dramatic. They included pain, swelling, coughs,
rashes, physical weakness, visual problems, hardening of the skin
memory problems and paralysis. It still took several years for the
disease to be identified and the source traced.
If GM foods are causing symtoms such as allergic reactions, cancer,
diabetes, organ damage, high blood pressure how would we be able
to tell? Interestingly there has been a rise in food related illnesses in
the US. In the UK there was a 50% increase in soy allergies following
the introduction of GM soy.
The whole issue is that there has been no long term testing of GM
foods. There are very few feeding studies done and many of them
show very worrying out comes. I recommend that you read Jeffrey
Smith's book Genetic Roulette for details of the studies done to date.
He lists the documented health risks of GM foods. His website is at
http://www.GeneticRoulette.com
http://www.newstatesman.com/200711200004
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist.
That's a bit of a weird lie even for the Livestock Adviser of The CLA.
Welsh agricultural land consist of some 60% permanent grass. 11%
arable and crops consist of wheat, barley (winter/spring) Oats,Mixed
(Early,Main) Vegetables (other than potatoes) Orchards and small
fruit,Other horticulture grown in the open,Area under glass or plastic
covered structures, Maize for threshing or stockfeeding,Other crops
for stockfeeding,Rape grown for oilseed.
So not only have the CLA blatantly lied about the competency of Welsh
farming, you have also tried to suggest they are only capable of
producing lamb!!!
I wonder what people will make of this?
Post by Jim Webster
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the fine
mountain pastures and is well worth tasting
Jim Webster
What amazing is the fact we are supposed to have a farmer or two on
these groups and not one seems to know enough about farming to
comment. Perhaps they just don't have any balls?
Old Codger
2008-03-24 09:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:56:25 +0000, Old Codger
Post by Old Codger
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:37:10 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
Wales set to ban GM crops
Mar 18 2008 by Steve Dube, Western Mail
PROPOSALS by the Welsh Assembly Government will effectively ban
genetically modified crops from Wales.
New regulations, if adopted, will set Wales apart from England in
applying a strict "polluter pays" principle that will put an end even
to trial plantings.
GM companies have consistently resisted efforts to make them accept
responsibility for "leaks" of GM material and Defra's proposals for
England stop short of pinning liability on the operator or permit
holder in the event of environmental or economic damage.
But in Wales the WAG proposals make GM companies like Monsanto and
Bayer and the farmers who plant GM crops legally liable for
contamination or "genetic trespass" - even if they have a licence and
even if scientific knowledge at the time leads them to believe the
material was harmless.
The move puts clear water between the administrations in Cardiff Bay
and London and takes Welsh opposition to GM science to new levels.
"We have a particular commitment on GM," said Wales Rural Affairs
Minister Elin Jones.
"It was reinforced by the One Wales Government programme last year
where we have a commitment to ensure the maximum restriction of GM
crops in Wales.
"We are now consulting on implementing regulations that reflect our
aspirations and promoting the concept that the polluter pays."
The consultation period ends in mid-May, and Ms Jones said she did not
foresee any particular difficulties in taking a different course from
England, where GM crop farmers would become liable in the event of
contamination on the Welsh side of the border.
"Border issues will arise along any boundaries between EU countries,
but it's the right of this Assembly Government to exercise the powers
we have to pursue our political aspiration," she said.
"This is supported by a number of environmental groups and certain
farming interests also want us to retain our GM free status."
The supporters include the Farmers' Union of Wales, which is a member
of the GM Free Alliance - a group of environmental and countryside
organisations which includes the RSPB, Friends of the Earth Cymru and
GM Free Cymru.
Organic farmer and FUW vice-president Brian Walters said the threat of
cross-contamination was one of the major concerns that led the FUW to
oppose GM crops.
"Obviously it would be completely unfair if a non-GM farmer's income
suffered as a result of wind or insect-borne cross-pollination that
was beyond their control, and we welcome WAG's suggestion that a more
pragmatic approach be taken in Wales," said Mr Walters.
"The draft Welsh regulations provide security for Welsh farmers,
whereas Defra has left English farmers that are put at risk out in the
cold."
The GM Free Wales Alliance has written to Elin Jones to congratulate
her and the Assembly Government on what they describe as "the latest
step in the protection of Welsh farming and the Welsh environment".
Brian John of GM Free Cymru said he expected the other devolved
administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to follow the Welsh
lead.
"There is a degree of frustration that Westminster continues to vote
in favour of GM approval at EU level despite the reservations that the
other three authorities have," said Mr John.
"Westminster always pushes a pro-GM agenda in the EU, despite the fact
that it's not the majority view but a distinctly English line."
Mr John said anti-GM campaigners were delighted with the Welsh
approach
"The GM industry has always refused to accept liability on the basis
that if something is harmless, as they say it is, they can't be liable
if something goes wrong," said Mr John.
"The Welsh regulations say that neither the state-of-the-art nor the
legal permit defences can be used and is exactly what we and bodies
like the RSPB have been asking for."
A spokesman for Monsanto said the proposal was inconsistent with EU
guidelines on co-existence with conventional and organic crops.
"These specify that member state rules should respect the right of
both non-GM and GM farmers to grow the crops of their choice," he
said.
"Furthermore, since approximately 85% of compound animal feed
throughout the UK already contains imported GM ingredients, due to the
large shortage of home produced protein, we would have concern that in
the long run this proposal would put the majority of Welsh livestock
farmers at a serious competitive disadvantage, and merely drive
livestock production overseas."
He said the cultivation of GM crops is increasing world-wide, with
more than 100 million hectares grown every year by 10 million farmers.
"Most of the world is moving on from the tired old debate of 10 years
ago and accepting that biotechnology has a place to play alongside a
range of farming methods," he said.
/Really/.
'New Statesman
Environment
The secret GM invasion
Gundula Azeez
Published 20 November 2007
2 comments
A Soil Associaition study has found that many supermarkets are
selling products from animals fed on GM crops, despite having
'non-GM' policies
For over a decade, the public has rejected GM foods. Intuitive
concerns had been reinforced by the highly publicised findings
of the first Government sponsored animal trials, in which strange
lesions were found in the guts of GM-fed rats. To their credit, the
supermarkets adopted non-GM policies and, by October 2002,
they were using no GM (genetically modified) ingredients in their
own-brand products.
Yet, for some years the Soil Association and other organisations
have been concerned about the use of GM animal feed. Due to a
legal loop-hole, although foods or animal feeds that directly
contain GM ingredients must be labelled as 'GM', there is no such
requirement for meat and dairy foods produced from animals fed
on GM crops.
Any use of GM animal feed could thus be kept hidden from
consumers. Last year, in noticeably evasive replies to letters from
our supporters, the supermarkets admitted that their non-GM
policies did not cover animal feed. The Soil Association decided
to conduct an in-depth investigation.
Our findings - presented in our report, Silent invasion - the hidden
use of GM crops in livestock feed - are deeply concerning. By
testing animal feeds and reviewing the industry's sourcing policies,
we have found that high levels of GM animal feed are being used.
73% of the feeds we tested contained some GM soya and 75% were
labelled as 'GM'. Based on our findings, around 60% of the maize
and 30% of the soya in the dairy and pig sectors are GM.
What this means is that nearly all non-organic milk, dairy products
(such as cheese and yoghurt) and pork products sold in UK shops
and restaurants are produced from GM-fed animals. So, most
consumers are unwittingly eating foods produced from GM crops
every day.
We also reviewed progress on the science of the safety of GM crops,
since the early days of the debate when there was little to go on. The
Food Standards Agency had been assuring consumers that they
would not be exposed to GM material by eating foods from GM-fed
animals. However, four studies by different scientific teams have now
found that small amounts of GM DNA can be detected in milk and
tissues from GM-fed animals.
It also turns out that the first animal feeding trials were not flukes.
Very many of the animal trials carried out since then have found
deeply worrying effects. These include toxic effects in body organs,
allergic reactions, unexplained deaths and stunted growth in the
offspring. This raises serious questions about how GM-fed animals
can be considered suitable for producing human food.
In the view of the Soil Association, there has been a failure of both
the market and the scientific advisory process. The biotechnology
industry has managed to persuade many normally clear-minded people,
sadly including many scientists, that they should support GM crops if
they are 'pro-science'.
The important fact that the science has actually emerged against GM
crops has gone unnoticed. Perhaps it would help to point out that
genetic engineering is not a science, it is only a technique. Rejection
of GM does not mean a rejection of science.
Until the scientific community come to terms with the research and
supports a responsible - and genuinely science-based - approach,
the Soil Association strongly recommends that people try to avoid
foods produced from GM-fed animals. Among the supermarkets,
Marks-and-Spencer is far ahead of the others, with all of their milk
and fresh meat produced from non-GM feed. We urge other
supermarkets and catering companies to follow their lead and to
meanwhile to label any products from GM-fed animals so that at
least people can choose.
2 comments from readers
geoff.gibbins
20 November 2007
An interesting article, with some interesting implications. If the public
really has been mislead into eating GM crops for years, then surely
we would expect to see signs of this from a public health perspective?
Isn't there now a responsibility for the anti-GM lobby to produce
findings that this has had a deleterious effect on the health of the
meat-eating population? If we're going to extend the analogy,
shouldn't we all have strange lesions in our guts by now?
If not, maybe such 'intuitive concern' might be shown to be nothing
more than superstition... just a thought.
___________________________________________________
fran
20 November 2007
The Canadian government tried to do post market evaluation of the
health of people eating GM food but abandoned it as too difficult.
Part of the difficutly lies in the lack of labelling.
There has been a documented health disaster with a GM produced
food supplement, L-tryptophan. 100 people died and 5000 were
injured, some permanently. This was only picked up and traced to
the GM produced supplement because the symptoms came on
suddenly and were dramatic. They included pain, swelling, coughs,
rashes, physical weakness, visual problems, hardening of the skin
memory problems and paralysis. It still took several years for the
disease to be identified and the source traced.
If GM foods are causing symtoms such as allergic reactions, cancer,
diabetes, organ damage, high blood pressure how would we be able
to tell? Interestingly there has been a rise in food related illnesses in
the US. In the UK there was a 50% increase in soy allergies following
the introduction of GM soy.
The whole issue is that there has been no long term testing of GM
foods. There are very few feeding studies done and many of them
show very worrying out comes. I recommend that you read Jeffrey
Smith's book Genetic Roulette for details of the studies done to date.
He lists the documented health risks of GM foods. His website is at
http://www.GeneticRoulette.com
http://www.newstatesman.com/200711200004
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist.
That's a bit of a weird lie even for the Livestock Adviser of The CLA.
Welsh agricultural land consist of some 60% permanent grass. 11%
arable and crops consist of wheat, barley (winter/spring) Oats,Mixed
(Early,Main) Vegetables (other than potatoes) Orchards and small
fruit,Other horticulture grown in the open,Area under glass or plastic
covered structures, Maize for threshing or stockfeeding,Other crops
for stockfeeding,Rape grown for oilseed.
So not only have the CLA blatantly lied about the competency of Welsh
farming, you have also tried to suggest they are only capable of
producing lamb!!!
I wonder what people will make of this?
Post by Jim Webster
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the fine
mountain pastures and is well worth tasting
Jim Webster
What amazing is the fact we are supposed to have a farmer or two on
these groups and not one seems to know enough about farming to
comment. Perhaps they just don't have any balls?
pearl
2008-03-23 13:03:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
/Really/.
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist
Major crops, huh. Of note again is your evasion of the major issues.
Post by Jim Webster
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the fine
mountain pastures and is well worth tasting
Doubtless producing plump, succulent welsh children..... right, troll?
Jim Webster
2008-03-23 13:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
/Really/.
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist
Major crops, huh. Of note again is your evasion of the major issues.
what major issue, what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the fine
mountain pastures and is well worth tasting
Doubtless producing plump, succulent welsh children..... right, troll?
why do you eat children?

Jim Webster
Old Codger
2008-03-23 13:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:06:13 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
/Really/.
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist
Major crops, huh. Of note again is your evasion of the major issues.
what major issue, what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the fine
mountain pastures and is well worth tasting
Doubtless producing plump, succulent welsh children..... right, troll?
why do you eat children?
Jim Webster
pearl
2008-03-23 13:22:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
/Really/.
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist
Major crops, huh. Of note again is your evasion of the major issues.
what major issue,
Like... "GM feeding trials (12 animal and 1 human) ...... found
negative health effects (all controlled against non-GM crops)."?
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Maize? Wheat? Rape? Potatoes? And why stop there...?
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the fine
mountain pastures and is well worth tasting
Doubtless producing plump, succulent welsh children..... right, troll?
why do you eat children?
I don't.
Old Codger
2008-03-23 14:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
/Really/.
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist
Major crops, huh. Of note again is your evasion of the major issues.
what major issue,
Like... "GM feeding trials (12 animal and 1 human) ...... found
negative health effects (all controlled against non-GM crops)."?
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Maize? Wheat? Rape? Potatoes? And why stop there...?
Did I mention sugar beet, flax, linseed, peas and beans?
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the fine
mountain pastures and is well worth tasting
Doubtless producing plump, succulent welsh children..... right, troll?
why do you eat children?
I don't.
Jim Webster
2008-03-23 15:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Maize? Wheat? Rape? Potatoes? And why stop there...?
why not start by telling us which varieties of Maize, wheat and rape are GM,
and the growing conditions they need plus the acreages of grain maize and
wheat grown in Wales (as opposed to grown for fodder)
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the fine
mountain pastures and is well worth tasting
Doubtless producing plump, succulent welsh children..... right, troll?
why do you eat children?
I don't.
then why introduce the topic? And as for trolling, you are the one who is
cross posting to UBA, if you don't like the responses, cut the x post

Jim Webster
Old Codger
2008-03-23 15:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:01:34 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Maize? Wheat? Rape? Potatoes? And why stop there...?
why not start by telling us which varieties of Maize, wheat and rape are GM,
and the growing conditions they need plus the acreages of grain maize and
wheat grown in Wales (as opposed to grown for fodder)
Stop wriggling JimBob you're making yourself look a real silly Billy.
If you keep digging that hole you'll disappear.
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the fine
mountain pastures and is well worth tasting
Doubtless producing plump, succulent welsh children..... right, troll?
why do you eat children?
I don't.
then why introduce the topic? And as for trolling, you are the one who is
cross posting to UBA, if you don't like the responses, cut the x post
Now now Jim. That's no way to treat a lady.
pearl
2008-03-23 23:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Maize? Wheat? Rape? Potatoes? And why stop there...?
why not start by telling us which varieties of Maize, wheat and rape are GM,
and the growing conditions they need plus the acreages of grain maize and
wheat grown in Wales (as opposed to grown for fodder)
Are you really trying to deny that those crops could be grown in Wales?

'The row followed the possibility that GM oilseed rape may have already
been sold and grown in Wales.
..'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/752770.stm

'HomeCountry & Farming
Monsanto's deferral of GM wheat welcomed
May 18 2004 Steve Dube, The Western Mail

THE Farmers' Union of Wales has described the decision by the US
agri-chemical company Monsanto to defer marketing genetically modified
wheat as a further boost to its anti-GM stand.

Union president Gareth Vaughan said it was a welcome announcement,
coming only one month after German biotech firm Bayer's decision to
shelve plans to commercialise GM maize Chardon LL.

"It represents a double boost to our long-running campaign of opposition
to the introduction of GM crops into Wales," said Mr Vaughan.

"We believe GM-modified wheat would have been closely associated by
the general public with the consumption of bread and would have been
strongly resisted by concerned consumers."

Last month the FUW maintained that major environmental problems
currently facing Argentine farmers who enthusiastically embraced GM
technology prove the National Assembly was correct in taking a
cautious approach to the growing of GM crops in Wales.

And Bayer's decision to shelve plans to commercialise Chardon LL in
the UK was hailed by campaigners as a classic illustration of the value
of devolution when Wales Countryside Minister Carwyn Jones made it
clear he could not agree to the product being grown in Wales.

"It is now vital that the Westminster Government adopts the same
cautious approach as the Assembly as we are fully aware there is
considerable resistance to GM crops throughout the UK, especially
within Wales," said Mr Vaughan.

"A survey carried out by Greenpeace campaigners at the FUW Pavilion
during last year's Royal Welsh Show confirmed that overwhelming
opposition to GM crops indicated there would be huge support for a
GM-free Wales."

The survey of 500 showgoers showed that more than 96% of those
who responded to the survey wanted their food to be free of all GM
ingredients.

"That underlines the FUW's firm belief that GM products are unpopular
with customers," said Mr Vaughan.

"The FUW calls for a ban on the growing of GM crops until scientific
trials in closed laboratory conditions have proven beyond doubt that
there is absolutely no risk of cross pollination with organic species.

"The union has consistently argued that GM products are unpopular
with consumers and the Greenpeace survey certainly confirmed this.
Welsh farmers are proud of their clean, green methods of food
production and want to protect that image.

"Allowing large-scale production of GM crops in Wales would ruin
that image and throw away any commercial advantage that it brings."

Liberal Democrat rural affairs spokesman Andrew George said the
decision could mark a turning point in the onward march of GM
companies across the globe.

"Public anxiety about the impact of GM on the environment and failure
of those companies who push this technology to reassure them is
resulting in increased scepticism of the benefits of GM," Mr George
said.

"Recent research in northern America, which seriously questions the
environmental benefits of genetically modified soya, is undermining
public and farmer confidence in this technology.

"Even one of the biggest biotech giants now recognises that GM crops
are not all what they cut up to be."

Nick Bourne, the Leader of the Welsh Conservatives in the National
Assembly and AM for Mid and West Wales, also welcomed the
announcement.

"It clearly demonstrates the failure of the Government to convince the
public of the safety of GM crops," Mr Bourne said.

"If there is no demand for GM produce then there is no point in the
Government accepting applications to grow GM crops in this country.

"It is time the Government listened to the people on this issue."

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/countryside-farming-news/tm_objectid=14250574&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=monsanto-s-deferral-o
f-gm-wheat-welcomed-name_page.html

< http://tinyurl.com/26f3sp >
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the
fine mountain pastures and is well worth tasting
Doubtless producing plump, succulent welsh children..... right, troll?
why do you eat children?
I don't.
then why introduce the topic?
Did I?
Post by Jim Webster
And as for trolling, you are the one who is
cross posting to UBA, if you don't like the responses, cut the x post
'On the Internet, troll is a slang term used to describe:

1. Statements presented by an Internet user to others that are solely intended
to incite controversy or conflict or cause annoyance or offense.

2. A person who posts these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_trolling
Jim Webster
2008-03-24 07:05:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Maize? Wheat? Rape? Potatoes? And why stop there...?
why not start by telling us which varieties of Maize, wheat and rape are GM,
and the growing conditions they need plus the acreages of grain maize and
wheat grown in Wales (as opposed to grown for fodder)
Are you really trying to deny that those crops could be grown in Wales?
legally yes, what GM crops are licenced ?
Post by pearl
'The row followed the possibility that GM oilseed rape may have already
been sold and grown in Wales.
then it is purely a legal matter, the welsh banning GM crops is about as
meaningless as them banning theft, it is already illegal, and GM crops are
only legal is they are passed by the EU. Perhaps you will tell me which GM
crops suitable for welsh conditions have been passed for growing by the EU

and is well worth tasting
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Doubtless producing plump, succulent welsh children..... right, troll?
why do you eat children?
I don't.
then why introduce the topic?
Did I?
yes, you are the first person introducing succulent children
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
And as for trolling, you are the one who is
cross posting to UBA, if you don't like the responses, cut the x post
1. Statements presented by an Internet user to others that are solely intended
to incite controversy or conflict or cause annoyance or offense.
you mean like slagging off meat production on a farming group

Jim Webster
Old Codger
2008-03-24 07:49:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:05:18 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Maize? Wheat? Rape? Potatoes? And why stop there...?
why not start by telling us which varieties of Maize, wheat and rape are GM,
and the growing conditions they need plus the acreages of grain maize and
wheat grown in Wales (as opposed to grown for fodder)
Are you really trying to deny that those crops could be grown in Wales?
legally yes, what GM crops are licenced ?
Stop wriggling Jim. You blurted out "the utter irrelevance of the
Welsh decision is mind boggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist"

Which was quite a prejudicial thing for the CLA to say about the Welsh
farming community. When pulled up on it instead of confessing you were
wrong AND sorry, you started to huff, puff & wriggle some more, though
you might call it line dancing, by moving the goalposts "what GM crop
can be grown economically in Wales?" now we're looking at yet another
rapid diversion in" legally yes, what GM crops are licenced ?" So you
see Jim you're just digging a rather large hole.

I shall be contacting The CLA on Tuesday and also Welsh Farming bodies
to see what they think about this. So you best start coming up with
something better than goalpost juggling.
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
'The row followed the possibility that GM oilseed rape may have already
been sold and grown in Wales.
then it is purely a legal matter, the welsh banning GM crops is about as
meaningless as them banning theft, it is already illegal, and GM crops are
only legal is they are passed by the EU. Perhaps you will tell me which GM
crops suitable for welsh conditions have been passed for growing by the EU
Astounding ignorance!
Old Codger
2008-03-24 08:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:49:45 +0000, Old Codger
Post by Old Codger
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:05:18 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Maize? Wheat? Rape? Potatoes? And why stop there...?
why not start by telling us which varieties of Maize, wheat and rape are GM,
and the growing conditions they need plus the acreages of grain maize and
wheat grown in Wales (as opposed to grown for fodder)
Are you really trying to deny that those crops could be grown in Wales?
legally yes, what GM crops are licenced ?
Stop wriggling Jim. You blurted out "the utter irrelevance of the
Welsh decision is mind boggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist"
Which was quite a prejudicial thing for the CLA to say about the Welsh
farming community. When pulled up on it instead of confessing you were
wrong AND sorry, you started to huff, puff & wriggle some more, though
you might call it line dancing, by moving the goalposts "what GM crop
can be grown economically in Wales?" now we're looking at yet another
rapid diversion in" legally yes, what GM crops are licenced ?" So you
see Jim you're just digging a rather large hole.
I shall be contacting The CLA on Tuesday and also Welsh Farming bodies
to see what they think about this. So you best start coming up with
something better than goalpost juggling.
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
'The row followed the possibility that GM oilseed rape may have already
been sold and grown in Wales.
then it is purely a legal matter, the welsh banning GM crops is about as
meaningless as them banning theft, it is already illegal, and GM crops are
only legal is they are passed by the EU. Perhaps you will tell me which GM
crops suitable for welsh conditions have been passed for growing by the EU
Astounding ignorance!
pearl
2008-03-24 12:48:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Maize? Wheat? Rape? Potatoes? And why stop there...?
why not start by telling us which varieties of Maize, wheat and rape are GM,
and the growing conditions they need plus the acreages of grain maize and
wheat grown in Wales (as opposed to grown for fodder)
Are you really trying to deny that those crops could be grown in Wales?
legally yes,
As "Pete" puts it...

" Stop wriggling Jim. You blurted out "the utter irrelevance of the
Welsh decision is mind boggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist"

Which was quite a prejudicial thing for the CLA to say about the Welsh
farming community. When pulled up on it instead of confessing you were
wrong AND sorry, you started to huff, puff & wriggle some more, though
you might call it line dancing, by moving the goalposts "what GM crop
can be grown economically in Wales?" now we're looking at yet another
rapid diversion in" legally yes, what GM crops are licenced ?" So you
see Jim you're just digging a rather large hole.

I shall be contacting The CLA on Tuesday and also Welsh Farming bodies
to see what they think about this. So you best start coming up with
something better than goalpost juggling."

Spot on.
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crops are licenced ?
'September 8 2004

EU Allows Monsanto GM Maize - Move Called 'A Disaster'

US biotechnology industry giant Monsanto, has successfully
pressured the European Commission into officially accepting 17
of its genetically engineered varieties of Maize to be cultivated in
Europe. Monsanto enlisted the help of the Bush administration,
which complained
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1431_A_951489_1_A,00.html
to the WTO over European 'intrasigence' on the question of
GM in agriculture.

One would think that the disastrous GM experience in Argentina http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1192869,00.html
and more recently in Mexico
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4112 should have
taught us something, but it appears that "free trade" mechanisms
are powerful enough to ride roughshod over both public preference
and government - in this case even European regional - resistance.

It would appear that the EU is giving up the fight, pushing that
responsibility further down to the member countries - and even
to the public - to sustain. In this connection the words of Health
Commissioner David Byrne, who also oversaw the passing of a
controversial ban on high dose and advanced formulation food
supplements http://tinyurl.com/74qxj , are revealing. Byrne, in a
leaked memo available to Friends of the Earth, stated that "any
Member State may object to the marketing on their territory of
any such GM variety if they consider there is a risk for human
health, the environment or agronomic reasons." One might be
tempted to ask whether Byrne is keeping his options open for
lucrative employment with big business after his stint at the EU
Commission, which is drawing to a close...

From: GM WATCH http://www.gmwatch.org

Friends of the Earth Europe
September 2004
GM CROPS: RECIPE FOR DISASTER
Friends of the Earth urges Governments to ban GM seeds

Brussels, 8 September - Friends of the Earth has condemned
today's decision by the European Commission to allow farmers
to commercially grow up to 17 different types of genetically
modified (GM) maize seeds in fields across the whole of Europe.
..'
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/09/08/eu_allows_monsanto_gm_maize_move_called_a_disaster.htm

< http://tinyurl.com/2pmtej >

'EU Commission caves in to biotech industry - again! (13/1/2006)
EU Commission caves in to biotech industry, Monsanto GM
maize authorized

Friends of the Earth Europe
Press release

Brussels, January 13th, 2006 " The European Commission today
ignored environmental and health concerns of Member States and
approved the import and use of three Monsanto genetically modified
(GM) maize (1).

This authorization comes despite studies showing that farmers in the
US and elsewhere are not seeing the reduced pesticide use and higher
profits promised by the biotech industry.

Helen Holder, GMO campaign coordinator at Friends of the Earth
Europe, said: "In whose interests is the EU commission acting?
GM crops have failed, yet the Commission continues to authorize
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the EU despite there
being no EU law protecting conventional and organic farming from
genetic pollution."

"The EU Commission is going against the wish of European citizens,
and does not have the required majority support from Member States
for GMO approvals", she added

Since August, three other GMOs have been authorized by the
Commission (2). "In all six cases, Member States' concerns were
ignored because of the undemocratic EU system allowing the
Commission to take a decision despite there not being a qualified
majority in favour of GMOs in food and animal feed", Holder said.

All GMOs commercialized in the EU and worldwide have the same
two traits: insect resistance and herbicide tolerance, which have no
benefits for consumers. This is a poor result for 30 years of research
and public money spending. With 70% of EU citizens opposed to
GMOs, and a growing number of EU Regions stating their wish to be
GM-free (3), the EU Commission is caving in to the biotech industry
lobby and to US pressure.

Earlier this week, a report by Friends of the Earth made public
Monsanto'Ts aim to genetically modify all of the European
continent's maize production between now and 2010. However, the
number of EU countries and regions banning GM products has
increased over recent years (4).

NOTES
(1) Monsanto maize GA21 (food and food ingredients); Monsanto
maize MON 863 (food and food ingredients); Monsanto maize
MON863x810 (import and processing)

(2) See list:
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/pending/approvals_timetable_Nov05.pdf

(3) 175 Regions throughout the EU have now declared themselves
GMO free. See: www.gmofree-europe.org

(4) http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/who_benefits_from_gm_crops_Jan_2006.pdf,
page 15

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6130
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
'The row followed the possibility that GM oilseed rape may have already
been sold and grown in Wales.
then it is purely a legal matter,
You can say that again!
Post by Jim Webster
the welsh banning GM crops is about as
meaningless as them banning theft, it is already illegal, and GM crops are
only legal is they are passed by the EU. Perhaps you will tell me which GM
crops suitable for welsh conditions have been passed for growing by the EU
See above.

'Under EU decision-making rules, the European Commission makes
the final decision whether the GM crop will be authorised. Friends of
the Earth Europe has expressed concern because in previous cases,
the pro-biotech Commission has systematically authorised genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) regardless of the general voting pattern
by national Ministers.[2]
..
2] For example, in August 2005, the European Commission approved
the import of a controversial genetically modified (GM) maize, MON863,
for use as animal feed, even though the majority of member states had
either abstained or voted against import.
..'
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7043
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by Jim Webster
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the
fine mountain pastures
and is well worth tasting
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by Jim Webster
Doubtless producing plump, succulent welsh children..... right, troll?
why do you eat children?
I don't.
then why introduce the topic?
Did I?
yes, you are the first person introducing succulent children
I've restored what you snipped. Why did you snip that jim?
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
And as for trolling, you are the one who is
cross posting to UBA, if you don't like the responses, cut the x post
1. Statements presented by an Internet user to others that are solely intended
to incite controversy or conflict or cause annoyance or offense.
you mean like slagging off meat production on a farming group
Rational discussion of relevant issues. You can't help yourself.
Old Codger
2008-03-24 12:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Maize? Wheat? Rape? Potatoes? And why stop there...?
why not start by telling us which varieties of Maize, wheat and rape are GM,
and the growing conditions they need plus the acreages of grain maize and
wheat grown in Wales (as opposed to grown for fodder)
Are you really trying to deny that those crops could be grown in Wales?
legally yes,
As "Pete" puts it...
" Stop wriggling Jim. You blurted out "the utter irrelevance of the
Welsh decision is mind boggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist"
Which was quite a prejudicial thing for the CLA to say about the Welsh
farming community. When pulled up on it instead of confessing you were
wrong AND sorry, you started to huff, puff & wriggle some more, though
you might call it line dancing, by moving the goalposts "what GM crop
can be grown economically in Wales?" now we're looking at yet another
rapid diversion in" legally yes, what GM crops are licenced ?" So you
see Jim you're just digging a rather large hole.
I shall be contacting The CLA on Tuesday and also Welsh Farming bodies
to see what they think about this. So you best start coming up with
something better than goalpost juggling."
Spot on.
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crops are licenced ?
'September 8 2004
EU Allows Monsanto GM Maize - Move Called 'A Disaster'
US biotechnology industry giant Monsanto, has successfully
pressured the European Commission into officially accepting 17
of its genetically engineered varieties of Maize to be cultivated in
Europe. Monsanto enlisted the help of the Bush administration,
which complained
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1431_A_951489_1_A,00.html
to the WTO over European 'intrasigence' on the question of
GM in agriculture.
One would think that the disastrous GM experience in Argentina http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1192869,00.html
and more recently in Mexico
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4112 should have
taught us something, but it appears that "free trade" mechanisms
are powerful enough to ride roughshod over both public preference
and government - in this case even European regional - resistance.
It would appear that the EU is giving up the fight, pushing that
responsibility further down to the member countries - and even
to the public - to sustain. In this connection the words of Health
Commissioner David Byrne, who also oversaw the passing of a
controversial ban on high dose and advanced formulation food
supplements http://tinyurl.com/74qxj , are revealing. Byrne, in a
leaked memo available to Friends of the Earth, stated that "any
Member State may object to the marketing on their territory of
any such GM variety if they consider there is a risk for human
health, the environment or agronomic reasons." One might be
tempted to ask whether Byrne is keeping his options open for
lucrative employment with big business after his stint at the EU
Commission, which is drawing to a close...
From: GM WATCH http://www.gmwatch.org
Friends of the Earth Europe
September 2004
GM CROPS: RECIPE FOR DISASTER
Friends of the Earth urges Governments to ban GM seeds
Brussels, 8 September - Friends of the Earth has condemned
today's decision by the European Commission to allow farmers
to commercially grow up to 17 different types of genetically
modified (GM) maize seeds in fields across the whole of Europe.
..'
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/09/08/eu_allows_monsanto_gm_maize_move_called_a_disaster.htm
< http://tinyurl.com/2pmtej >
'EU Commission caves in to biotech industry - again! (13/1/2006)
EU Commission caves in to biotech industry, Monsanto GM
maize authorized
Friends of the Earth Europe
Press release
Brussels, January 13th, 2006 " The European Commission today
ignored environmental and health concerns of Member States and
approved the import and use of three Monsanto genetically modified
(GM) maize (1).
This authorization comes despite studies showing that farmers in the
US and elsewhere are not seeing the reduced pesticide use and higher
profits promised by the biotech industry.
Helen Holder, GMO campaign coordinator at Friends of the Earth
Europe, said: "In whose interests is the EU commission acting?
GM crops have failed, yet the Commission continues to authorize
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the EU despite there
being no EU law protecting conventional and organic farming from
genetic pollution."
"The EU Commission is going against the wish of European citizens,
and does not have the required majority support from Member States
for GMO approvals", she added
Since August, three other GMOs have been authorized by the
Commission (2). "In all six cases, Member States' concerns were
ignored because of the undemocratic EU system allowing the
Commission to take a decision despite there not being a qualified
majority in favour of GMOs in food and animal feed", Holder said.
All GMOs commercialized in the EU and worldwide have the same
two traits: insect resistance and herbicide tolerance, which have no
benefits for consumers. This is a poor result for 30 years of research
and public money spending. With 70% of EU citizens opposed to
GMOs, and a growing number of EU Regions stating their wish to be
GM-free (3), the EU Commission is caving in to the biotech industry
lobby and to US pressure.
Earlier this week, a report by Friends of the Earth made public
Monsanto'Ts aim to genetically modify all of the European
continent's maize production between now and 2010. However, the
number of EU countries and regions banning GM products has
increased over recent years (4).
NOTES
(1) Monsanto maize GA21 (food and food ingredients); Monsanto
maize MON 863 (food and food ingredients); Monsanto maize
MON863x810 (import and processing)
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/pending/approvals_timetable_Nov05.pdf
(3) 175 Regions throughout the EU have now declared themselves
GMO free. See: www.gmofree-europe.org
(4) http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/who_benefits_from_gm_crops_Jan_2006.pdf,
page 15
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6130
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
'The row followed the possibility that GM oilseed rape may have already
been sold and grown in Wales.
then it is purely a legal matter,
You can say that again!
Post by Jim Webster
the welsh banning GM crops is about as
meaningless as them banning theft, it is already illegal, and GM crops are
only legal is they are passed by the EU. Perhaps you will tell me which GM
crops suitable for welsh conditions have been passed for growing by the EU
See above.
'Under EU decision-making rules, the European Commission makes
the final decision whether the GM crop will be authorised. Friends of
the Earth Europe has expressed concern because in previous cases,
the pro-biotech Commission has systematically authorised genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) regardless of the general voting pattern
by national Ministers.[2]
..
2] For example, in August 2005, the European Commission approved
the import of a controversial genetically modified (GM) maize, MON863,
for use as animal feed, even though the majority of member states had
either abstained or voted against import.
..'
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7043
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by Jim Webster
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the
fine mountain pastures
and is well worth tasting
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by Jim Webster
Doubtless producing plump, succulent welsh children..... right, troll?
why do you eat children?
I don't.
then why introduce the topic?
Did I?
yes, you are the first person introducing succulent children
I've restored what you snipped. Why did you snip that jim?
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
And as for trolling, you are the one who is
cross posting to UBA, if you don't like the responses, cut the x post
1. Statements presented by an Internet user to others that are solely intended
to incite controversy or conflict or cause annoyance or offense.
you mean like slagging off meat production on a farming group
Rational discussion of relevant issues. You can't help yourself.
Over to you Jim. Hope you don't mind if we sing along?

Grab your partner by the hand lets go dancing to the band

With my saddle all shedded and the cattle all bedded
Nothing wild seems to be wrong;
Make my bed 'neath the skies, I look up at the stars,
And then I can sing you this call.

Grab your partner by the hand lets go dancing to the band.

You dance real good Jim.
pearl
2008-03-24 13:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
:)
Post by Old Codger
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Maize? Wheat? Rape? Potatoes? And why stop there...?
why not start by telling us which varieties of Maize, wheat and rape are GM,
and the growing conditions they need plus the acreages of grain maize and
wheat grown in Wales (as opposed to grown for fodder)
Are you really trying to deny that those crops could be grown in Wales?
legally yes,
As "Pete" puts it...
" Stop wriggling Jim. You blurted out "the utter irrelevance of the
Welsh decision is mind boggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist"
Which was quite a prejudicial thing for the CLA to say about the Welsh
farming community. When pulled up on it instead of confessing you were
wrong AND sorry, you started to huff, puff & wriggle some more, though
you might call it line dancing, by moving the goalposts "what GM crop
can be grown economically in Wales?" now we're looking at yet another
rapid diversion in" legally yes, what GM crops are licenced ?" So you
see Jim you're just digging a rather large hole.
I shall be contacting The CLA on Tuesday and also Welsh Farming bodies
to see what they think about this. So you best start coming up with
something better than goalpost juggling."
Spot on.
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crops are licenced ?
'September 8 2004
EU Allows Monsanto GM Maize - Move Called 'A Disaster'
US biotechnology industry giant Monsanto, has successfully
pressured the European Commission into officially accepting 17
of its genetically engineered varieties of Maize to be cultivated in
Europe. Monsanto enlisted the help of the Bush administration,
which complained
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1431_A_951489_1_A,00.html
to the WTO over European 'intrasigence' on the question of
GM in agriculture.
One would think that the disastrous GM experience in Argentina http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1192869,00.html
and more recently in Mexico
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4112 should have
taught us something, but it appears that "free trade" mechanisms
are powerful enough to ride roughshod over both public preference
and government - in this case even European regional - resistance.
It would appear that the EU is giving up the fight, pushing that
responsibility further down to the member countries - and even
to the public - to sustain. In this connection the words of Health
Commissioner David Byrne, who also oversaw the passing of a
controversial ban on high dose and advanced formulation food
supplements http://tinyurl.com/74qxj , are revealing. Byrne, in a
leaked memo available to Friends of the Earth, stated that "any
Member State may object to the marketing on their territory of
any such GM variety if they consider there is a risk for human
health, the environment or agronomic reasons." One might be
tempted to ask whether Byrne is keeping his options open for
lucrative employment with big business after his stint at the EU
Commission, which is drawing to a close...
From: GM WATCH http://www.gmwatch.org
Friends of the Earth Europe
September 2004
GM CROPS: RECIPE FOR DISASTER
Friends of the Earth urges Governments to ban GM seeds
Brussels, 8 September - Friends of the Earth has condemned
today's decision by the European Commission to allow farmers
to commercially grow up to 17 different types of genetically
modified (GM) maize seeds in fields across the whole of Europe.
..'
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/09/08/eu_allows_monsanto_gm_maize_move_called_a_disaster.htm
< http://tinyurl.com/2pmtej >
'EU Commission caves in to biotech industry - again! (13/1/2006)
EU Commission caves in to biotech industry, Monsanto GM
maize authorized
Friends of the Earth Europe
Press release
Brussels, January 13th, 2006 " The European Commission today
ignored environmental and health concerns of Member States and
approved the import and use of three Monsanto genetically modified
(GM) maize (1).
This authorization comes despite studies showing that farmers in the
US and elsewhere are not seeing the reduced pesticide use and higher
profits promised by the biotech industry.
Helen Holder, GMO campaign coordinator at Friends of the Earth
Europe, said: "In whose interests is the EU commission acting?
GM crops have failed, yet the Commission continues to authorize
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the EU despite there
being no EU law protecting conventional and organic farming from
genetic pollution."
"The EU Commission is going against the wish of European citizens,
and does not have the required majority support from Member States
for GMO approvals", she added
Since August, three other GMOs have been authorized by the
Commission (2). "In all six cases, Member States' concerns were
ignored because of the undemocratic EU system allowing the
Commission to take a decision despite there not being a qualified
majority in favour of GMOs in food and animal feed", Holder said.
All GMOs commercialized in the EU and worldwide have the same
two traits: insect resistance and herbicide tolerance, which have no
benefits for consumers. This is a poor result for 30 years of research
and public money spending. With 70% of EU citizens opposed to
GMOs, and a growing number of EU Regions stating their wish to be
GM-free (3), the EU Commission is caving in to the biotech industry
lobby and to US pressure.
Earlier this week, a report by Friends of the Earth made public
Monsanto'Ts aim to genetically modify all of the European
continent's maize production between now and 2010. However, the
number of EU countries and regions banning GM products has
increased over recent years (4).
NOTES
(1) Monsanto maize GA21 (food and food ingredients); Monsanto
maize MON 863 (food and food ingredients); Monsanto maize
MON863x810 (import and processing)
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/pending/approvals_timetable_Nov05.pdf
(3) 175 Regions throughout the EU have now declared themselves
GMO free. See: www.gmofree-europe.org
(4) http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/who_benefits_from_gm_crops_Jan_2006.pdf,
page 15
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6130
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
'The row followed the possibility that GM oilseed rape may have already
been sold and grown in Wales.
then it is purely a legal matter,
You can say that again!
Post by Jim Webster
the welsh banning GM crops is about as
meaningless as them banning theft, it is already illegal, and GM crops are
only legal is they are passed by the EU. Perhaps you will tell me which GM
crops suitable for welsh conditions have been passed for growing by the EU
See above.
'Under EU decision-making rules, the European Commission makes
the final decision whether the GM crop will be authorised. Friends of
the Earth Europe has expressed concern because in previous cases,
the pro-biotech Commission has systematically authorised genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) regardless of the general voting pattern
by national Ministers.[2]
..
2] For example, in August 2005, the European Commission approved
the import of a controversial genetically modified (GM) maize, MON863,
for use as animal feed, even though the majority of member states had
either abstained or voted against import.
..'
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7043
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by Jim Webster
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the
fine mountain pastures
and is well worth tasting
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by Jim Webster
Doubtless producing plump, succulent welsh children..... right,
troll?
why do you eat children?
I don't.
then why introduce the topic?
Did I?
yes, you are the first person introducing succulent children
I've restored what you snipped. Why did you snip that jim?
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
And as for trolling, you are the one who is
cross posting to UBA, if you don't like the responses, cut the x post
1. Statements presented by an Internet user to others that are solely intended
to incite controversy or conflict or cause annoyance or offense.
you mean like slagging off meat production on a farming group
Rational discussion of relevant issues. You can't help yourself.
Over to you Jim. Hope you don't mind if we sing along?
Grab your partner by the hand lets go dancing to the band
With my saddle all shedded and the cattle all bedded
Nothing wild seems to be wrong;
Make my bed 'neath the skies, I look up at the stars,
And then I can sing you this call.
Grab your partner by the hand lets go dancing to the band.
You dance real good Jim.
Jim Webster
2008-03-24 18:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Maize? Wheat? Rape? Potatoes? And why stop there...?
why not start by telling us which varieties of Maize, wheat and rape
are
GM,
and the growing conditions they need plus the acreages of grain maize and
wheat grown in Wales (as opposed to grown for fodder)
Are you really trying to deny that those crops could be grown in Wales?
legally yes,
As "Pete" puts it...
" Stop wriggling Jim. You blurted out "the utter irrelevance of the
Welsh decision is mind boggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist"
and you have produced a list of the GM varieties they can grow,

and also that are legal

obviously not

Jim Webster
Old Codger
2008-03-24 18:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:22:31 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Maize? Wheat? Rape? Potatoes? And why stop there...?
why not start by telling us which varieties of Maize, wheat and rape
are
GM,
and the growing conditions they need plus the acreages of grain maize and
wheat grown in Wales (as opposed to grown for fodder)
Are you really trying to deny that those crops could be grown in Wales?
legally yes,
As "Pete" puts it...
" Stop wriggling Jim. You blurted out "the utter irrelevance of the
Welsh decision is mind boggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist"
and you have produced a list of the GM varieties they can grow,
Which you, the CLA, claimed was not possible in Wales and at the same
time undermining Welsh agriculture in it's entirety apart from
admitting it knew how to produce lamb!!

Stop digging Jim.
pearl
2008-03-25 01:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Maize? Wheat? Rape? Potatoes? And why stop there...?
why not start by telling us which varieties of Maize, wheat and rape
are
GM,
and the growing conditions they need plus the acreages of grain maize and
wheat grown in Wales (as opposed to grown for fodder)
Are you really trying to deny that those crops could be grown in Wales?
legally yes,
As "Pete" puts it...
" Stop wriggling Jim. You blurted out "the utter irrelevance of the
Welsh decision is mind boggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist"
and you have produced a list of the GM varieties they can grow,
and also that are legal
obviously not
You snipped this..

'And Bayer's decision to shelve plans to commercialise Chardon LL in
the UK was hailed by campaigners as a classic illustration of the value
of devolution when Wales Countryside Minister Carwyn Jones made it
clear he could not agree to the product being grown in Wales.
..'
http://tinyurl.com/26f3sp

'Wales blocks go-ahead for Britain's first GM crop
The Guardian,
Monday February 9 2004

The government has been forced to postpone plans to announce today
the go-ahead for GM crops in Britain after Wales and Scotland refused
to cooperate.

The announcement was supposed to allow, in principle, the first GM
crop in Britain, a strain of GM maize called Chardon LL or T25 and
patented by Bayer. The crop came out well in the three-year crop trials.

The Welsh executive, which is keen to foster organic farming, was
eager to safeguard farmers and declined to give permission for the crop.

Scottish opposition to Chardon LL was more muted because maize is
a warm weather crop, so none would be grown north of the border.
But the Scottish executive has also refused permission.

The government was considering giving the green light for maize to be
grown in England alone. But the Welsh executive pointed out that UK
regulations stipulate that a particular crop can be grown in one country
only if the other two agree.
..'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/feb/09/gm.food

Excellent.
Jim Webster
2008-03-25 06:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
You snipped this..
yes because it had nothing to do with the question
If you want to believe it is a great leap forward then that is fine, I'm not
going to waste my life trying to convince you, I've just flagged up the
issue to those people smart enough to know gesture politics when they see it
have their suspicions confirmed

so bye for now

Jim Webster
pearl
2008-03-25 10:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
You snipped this..
yes because it had nothing to do with the question
and you have produced a list of the GM varieties they can grow,
and also that are legal
obviously not
pearl:

You snipped this..

'And Bayer's decision to shelve plans to commercialise Chardon LL in
the UK was hailed by campaigners as a classic illustration of the value
of devolution when Wales Countryside Minister Carwyn Jones made it
clear he could not agree to the product being grown in Wales.
..'
http://tinyurl.com/26f3sp

So there's at least one EU-authorized GM variety they could grow.
Post by Jim Webster
If you want to believe it
?
Post by Jim Webster
is a great leap forward then that is fine, I'm not
going to waste my life trying to convince you, I've just flagged up the
issue
?
Post by Jim Webster
to those people
?
Post by Jim Webster
smart enough to know gesture politics
when they see it
?
Post by Jim Webster
have their suspicions confirmed
LOL!
Post by Jim Webster
so bye for now
Jim Webster
Thanks for the laughs, jim. (I really do mean it :).
Dead Paul
2008-04-13 11:38:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Wales set to ban GM crops. Good!

The more places that ban that poisonous rubbish the better.
--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/
Old Codger
2008-03-24 07:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Maize? Wheat? Rape? Potatoes? And why stop there...?
why not start by telling us which varieties of Maize, wheat and rape are GM,
and the growing conditions they need plus the acreages of grain maize and
wheat grown in Wales (as opposed to grown for fodder)
Are you really trying to deny that those crops could be grown in Wales?
He already has and often.
Post by pearl
'The row followed the possibility that GM oilseed rape may have already
been sold and grown in Wales.
..'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/752770.stm
'HomeCountry & Farming
Monsanto's deferral of GM wheat welcomed
May 18 2004 Steve Dube, The Western Mail
THE Farmers' Union of Wales has described the decision by the US
agri-chemical company Monsanto to defer marketing genetically modified
wheat as a further boost to its anti-GM stand.
Union president Gareth Vaughan said it was a welcome announcement,
coming only one month after German biotech firm Bayer's decision to
shelve plans to commercialise GM maize Chardon LL.
"It represents a double boost to our long-running campaign of opposition
to the introduction of GM crops into Wales," said Mr Vaughan.
"We believe GM-modified wheat would have been closely associated by
the general public with the consumption of bread and would have been
strongly resisted by concerned consumers."
Last month the FUW maintained that major environmental problems
currently facing Argentine farmers who enthusiastically embraced GM
technology prove the National Assembly was correct in taking a
cautious approach to the growing of GM crops in Wales.
And Bayer's decision to shelve plans to commercialise Chardon LL in
the UK was hailed by campaigners as a classic illustration of the value
of devolution when Wales Countryside Minister Carwyn Jones made it
clear he could not agree to the product being grown in Wales.
"It is now vital that the Westminster Government adopts the same
cautious approach as the Assembly as we are fully aware there is
considerable resistance to GM crops throughout the UK, especially
within Wales," said Mr Vaughan.
"A survey carried out by Greenpeace campaigners at the FUW Pavilion
during last year's Royal Welsh Show confirmed that overwhelming
opposition to GM crops indicated there would be huge support for a
GM-free Wales."
The survey of 500 showgoers showed that more than 96% of those
who responded to the survey wanted their food to be free of all GM
ingredients.
"That underlines the FUW's firm belief that GM products are unpopular
with customers," said Mr Vaughan.
"The FUW calls for a ban on the growing of GM crops until scientific
trials in closed laboratory conditions have proven beyond doubt that
there is absolutely no risk of cross pollination with organic species.
"The union has consistently argued that GM products are unpopular
with consumers and the Greenpeace survey certainly confirmed this.
Welsh farmers are proud of their clean, green methods of food
production and want to protect that image.
"Allowing large-scale production of GM crops in Wales would ruin
that image and throw away any commercial advantage that it brings."
Liberal Democrat rural affairs spokesman Andrew George said the
decision could mark a turning point in the onward march of GM
companies across the globe.
"Public anxiety about the impact of GM on the environment and failure
of those companies who push this technology to reassure them is
resulting in increased scepticism of the benefits of GM," Mr George
said.
"Recent research in northern America, which seriously questions the
environmental benefits of genetically modified soya, is undermining
public and farmer confidence in this technology.
"Even one of the biggest biotech giants now recognises that GM crops
are not all what they cut up to be."
Nick Bourne, the Leader of the Welsh Conservatives in the National
Assembly and AM for Mid and West Wales, also welcomed the
announcement.
"It clearly demonstrates the failure of the Government to convince the
public of the safety of GM crops," Mr Bourne said.
"If there is no demand for GM produce then there is no point in the
Government accepting applications to grow GM crops in this country.
"It is time the Government listened to the people on this issue."
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/countryside-farming-news/tm_objectid=14250574&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=monsanto-s-deferral-o
f-gm-wheat-welcomed-name_page.html
< http://tinyurl.com/26f3sp >
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the
fine mountain pastures and is well worth tasting
Doubtless producing plump, succulent welsh children..... right, troll?
why do you eat children?
I don't.
then why introduce the topic?
Did I?
Post by Jim Webster
And as for trolling, you are the one who is
cross posting to UBA, if you don't like the responses, cut the x post
1. Statements presented by an Internet user to others that are solely intended
to incite controversy or conflict or cause annoyance or offense.
2. A person who posts these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_trolling
Old Codger
2008-03-24 09:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:01:34 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Maize? Wheat? Rape? Potatoes? And why stop there...?
why not start by telling us which varieties of Maize, wheat and rape are GM,
and the growing conditions they need plus the acreages of grain maize and
wheat grown in Wales (as opposed to grown for fodder)
Stop wriggling JimBob you're making yourself look a real silly Billy.
If you keep digging that hole you'll disappear.
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the fine
mountain pastures and is well worth tasting
Doubtless producing plump, succulent welsh children..... right, troll?
why do you eat children?
I don't.
then why introduce the topic? And as for trolling, you are the one who is
cross posting to UBA, if you don't like the responses, cut the x post
Now now Jim. That's no way to treat a lady.
Old Codger
2008-03-24 09:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
/Really/.
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist
Major crops, huh. Of note again is your evasion of the major issues.
what major issue,
Like... "GM feeding trials (12 animal and 1 human) ...... found
negative health effects (all controlled against non-GM crops)."?
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Maize? Wheat? Rape? Potatoes? And why stop there...?
Did I mention sugar beet, flax, linseed, peas and beans?
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the fine
mountain pastures and is well worth tasting
Doubtless producing plump, succulent welsh children..... right, troll?
why do you eat children?
I don't.
pearl
2008-03-24 13:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Old Codger
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
/Really/.
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist
Major crops, huh. Of note again is your evasion of the major issues.
what major issue,
Like... "GM feeding trials (12 animal and 1 human) ...... found
negative health effects (all controlled against non-GM crops)."?
... snipped.
Post by Old Codger
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Maize? Wheat? Rape? Potatoes? And why stop there...?
Did I mention sugar beet, flax, linseed, peas and beans?
They won't plant trees for fear of what might be happening in
twenty-odd years (certainly no trees .. apples .. damsons, ...)
but are hoping for the GM genie to fulfil all of their wishes..

Talk about mind-boggling.
Jim Webster
2008-03-24 18:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
/Really/.
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as
they
don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist
Major crops, huh. Of note again is your evasion of the major issues.
what major issue,
Like... "GM feeding trials (12 animal and 1 human) ...... found
negative health effects (all controlled against non-GM crops)."?
... snipped.
Post by Old Codger
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Maize? Wheat? Rape? Potatoes? And why stop there...?
Did I mention sugar beet, flax, linseed, peas and beans?
how much commerical flax and linseed production is there in wales,
also how much commercial sugar beet, pea and bean production is there in
wales,

and of course what varieties of GM are legally available to grow in wales?

It is obvious when pearl finds she cannot answer questions, she switches to
personal insult

Jim Webster
Jim Webster
2008-03-24 18:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
They won't plant trees for fear of what might be happening in
twenty-odd years (certainly no trees .. apples .. damsons, ...)
but are hoping for the GM genie to fulfil all of their wishes..
sorry, but you know anything about commerical timber production, Note we
were not discussing top fruit production

Jim Webster
Old Codger
2008-03-24 18:32:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:26:02 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
They won't plant trees for fear of what might be happening in
twenty-odd years (certainly no trees .. apples .. damsons, ...)
but are hoping for the GM genie to fulfil all of their wishes..
sorry, but you know anything about commerical timber production, Note we
were not discussing top fruit production
You apparently know nothing about farming in general, which is
astounding given your working for the CLA.
pearl
2008-03-25 01:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
They won't plant trees for fear of what might be happening in
twenty-odd years (certainly no trees .. apples .. damsons, ...)
but are hoping for the GM genie to fulfil all of their wishes..
sorry, but you know anything about commerical timber production, Note we
were not discussing top fruit production
So not interested if it isn't financial gain from death and destruction.

Your grandkids won't be thanking you for a yearly bounty of fruit.
Jim Webster
2008-03-25 06:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
They won't plant trees for fear of what might be happening in
twenty-odd years (certainly no trees .. apples .. damsons, ...)
but are hoping for the GM genie to fulfil all of their wishes..
sorry, but you know anything about commerical timber production, Note we
were not discussing top fruit production
So not interested if it isn't financial gain from death and destruction.
so vegans never use timber based products such as paper?
Post by pearl
Your grandkids won't be thanking you for a yearly bounty of fruit.
duh, what has top fruit got to do with timber production?

Jim Webster
pearl
2008-03-25 10:40:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
They won't plant trees for fear of what might be happening in
twenty-odd years (certainly no trees .. apples .. damsons, ...)
but are hoping for the GM genie to fulfil all of their wishes..
sorry, but you know anything about commerical timber production, Note we
were not discussing top fruit production
So not interested if it isn't financial gain from death and destruction.
so vegans never use timber based products such as paper?
Ethically-minded people minimize usage, recycle, and choose
recycled. Eco-friendly hemp would be the preferred option.

'Farming

*A Hemp crop produces nearly 4 times as much raw fibre as
an equivalent-sized tree plantation

*Hemp needs no pesticides because it is unpalatable to insects

*Hemp needs no herbicides because it grows too quickly for
any weed to compete

*Hemp grows very close together which helps prevent weeds
from growing in the crop

*For more than a thousand years Cannabis/Hemp was our planet's
largest agricultural crop. It produced the majority of earth's fibre,
fabric, lighting oil, paper, incense and medicines, as well as being
a primary source of protein for humans and animals

*Hemp uses the sun more efficiently than virtually any other plant
on the planet

*Hemp can grow in virtually any climate and soil condition. It is
excellent for reclaiming otherwise-unusable land
..
Paper

*Until 1883, more than three quarters of the world's paper was
made from Hemp fibre

*80% of English wood pulp is imported, destroying the forests
and their delicate eco-systems in Canada and Scandinavia

*Trees take approximately 20 years to mature. Hemp takes 4 months

*Environmentally-sound Hemp paper is stronger, finer and longer-
lasting than wood-based papers

*Hemp paper is used for bank notes and archives

*Hemp paper does not need chlorine bleach, which heavily pollutes
rivers near wood-pulp paper mills

*Much of the world's paper was made from Hemp until about 1850.
Since the 1900s, all newspapers and most books and magazines
were printed on wood-pulp paper

*Our forests, what is left of them, are being cut down 3 times as
fast as they can grow
..'
http://www.hempfabric.co.uk/hempresource.asp
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Your grandkids won't be thanking you for a yearly bounty of fruit.
duh, what has top fruit got to do with timber production?
16 March 2008 07:43
Post by Jim Webster
I'm not overly familiar with the legislation of which you speak. Are you
saying that by making laws against cutting down trees, the government is
putting people off planting them?
Oz:

Absolutely. Plant a tree and once its above a certain (quite small) size
you need permission to fell, and even if you get such you are invariably
obliged to replant. As an example we planted a small group (about 100
trees) in a corner between two (dirt) tracks. One track fell into disuse
and it would be nice to pull out the small trees and simplify the field
but this is not possible. Equally we would like to plant about 2500 in
various other places but since one cannot see even a few decades into
the future, let alone centuries, we decided not to. This is now typical,
fossilising what was once a dynamic countryside.

On the upside ALL the woods on our downland were planted for shooting,

----
Where do you see explicit mention of "timber production" there?
Post by Jim Webster
As I have stated, rules have never hindered our trust to my knowledge,
either felling or plating where we have wanted to.
jim:
are you commercial? that is the issue. If I plant trees I use our families
money and have to get that money back over the years.
Old Codger
2008-03-24 09:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:06:13 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
/Really/.
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist
Major crops, huh. Of note again is your evasion of the major issues.
what major issue, what GM crop can be grown economically in Wales?
Post by pearl
Post by Jim Webster
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the fine
mountain pastures and is well worth tasting
Doubtless producing plump, succulent welsh children..... right, troll?
why do you eat children?
Jim Webster
Old Codger
2008-03-24 09:09:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:37:10 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Post by Jim Webster
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
Wales set to ban GM crops
Mar 18 2008 by Steve Dube, Western Mail
PROPOSALS by the Welsh Assembly Government will effectively ban
genetically modified crops from Wales.
New regulations, if adopted, will set Wales apart from England in
applying a strict "polluter pays" principle that will put an end even
to trial plantings.
GM companies have consistently resisted efforts to make them accept
responsibility for "leaks" of GM material and Defra's proposals for
England stop short of pinning liability on the operator or permit
holder in the event of environmental or economic damage.
But in Wales the WAG proposals make GM companies like Monsanto and
Bayer and the farmers who plant GM crops legally liable for
contamination or "genetic trespass" - even if they have a licence and
even if scientific knowledge at the time leads them to believe the
material was harmless.
The move puts clear water between the administrations in Cardiff Bay
and London and takes Welsh opposition to GM science to new levels.
"We have a particular commitment on GM," said Wales Rural Affairs
Minister Elin Jones.
"It was reinforced by the One Wales Government programme last year
where we have a commitment to ensure the maximum restriction of GM
crops in Wales.
"We are now consulting on implementing regulations that reflect our
aspirations and promoting the concept that the polluter pays."
The consultation period ends in mid-May, and Ms Jones said she did not
foresee any particular difficulties in taking a different course from
England, where GM crop farmers would become liable in the event of
contamination on the Welsh side of the border.
"Border issues will arise along any boundaries between EU countries,
but it's the right of this Assembly Government to exercise the powers
we have to pursue our political aspiration," she said.
"This is supported by a number of environmental groups and certain
farming interests also want us to retain our GM free status."
The supporters include the Farmers' Union of Wales, which is a member
of the GM Free Alliance - a group of environmental and countryside
organisations which includes the RSPB, Friends of the Earth Cymru and
GM Free Cymru.
Organic farmer and FUW vice-president Brian Walters said the threat of
cross-contamination was one of the major concerns that led the FUW to
oppose GM crops.
"Obviously it would be completely unfair if a non-GM farmer's income
suffered as a result of wind or insect-borne cross-pollination that
was beyond their control, and we welcome WAG's suggestion that a more
pragmatic approach be taken in Wales," said Mr Walters.
"The draft Welsh regulations provide security for Welsh farmers,
whereas Defra has left English farmers that are put at risk out in the
cold."
The GM Free Wales Alliance has written to Elin Jones to congratulate
her and the Assembly Government on what they describe as "the latest
step in the protection of Welsh farming and the Welsh environment".
Brian John of GM Free Cymru said he expected the other devolved
administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to follow the Welsh
lead.
"There is a degree of frustration that Westminster continues to vote
in favour of GM approval at EU level despite the reservations that the
other three authorities have," said Mr John.
"Westminster always pushes a pro-GM agenda in the EU, despite the fact
that it's not the majority view but a distinctly English line."
Mr John said anti-GM campaigners were delighted with the Welsh
approach
"The GM industry has always refused to accept liability on the basis
that if something is harmless, as they say it is, they can't be liable
if something goes wrong," said Mr John.
"The Welsh regulations say that neither the state-of-the-art nor the
legal permit defences can be used and is exactly what we and bodies
like the RSPB have been asking for."
A spokesman for Monsanto said the proposal was inconsistent with EU
guidelines on co-existence with conventional and organic crops.
"These specify that member state rules should respect the right of
both non-GM and GM farmers to grow the crops of their choice," he
said.
"Furthermore, since approximately 85% of compound animal feed
throughout the UK already contains imported GM ingredients, due to the
large shortage of home produced protein, we would have concern that in
the long run this proposal would put the majority of Welsh livestock
farmers at a serious competitive disadvantage, and merely drive
livestock production overseas."
He said the cultivation of GM crops is increasing world-wide, with
more than 100 million hectares grown every year by 10 million farmers.
"Most of the world is moving on from the tired old debate of 10 years
ago and accepting that biotechnology has a place to play alongside a
range of farming methods," he said.
/Really/.
'New Statesman
Environment
The secret GM invasion
Gundula Azeez
Published 20 November 2007
2 comments
A Soil Associaition study has found that many supermarkets are
selling products from animals fed on GM crops, despite having
'non-GM' policies
For over a decade, the public has rejected GM foods. Intuitive
concerns had been reinforced by the highly publicised findings
of the first Government sponsored animal trials, in which strange
lesions were found in the guts of GM-fed rats. To their credit, the
supermarkets adopted non-GM policies and, by October 2002,
they were using no GM (genetically modified) ingredients in their
own-brand products.
Yet, for some years the Soil Association and other organisations
have been concerned about the use of GM animal feed. Due to a
legal loop-hole, although foods or animal feeds that directly
contain GM ingredients must be labelled as 'GM', there is no such
requirement for meat and dairy foods produced from animals fed
on GM crops.
Any use of GM animal feed could thus be kept hidden from
consumers. Last year, in noticeably evasive replies to letters from
our supporters, the supermarkets admitted that their non-GM
policies did not cover animal feed. The Soil Association decided
to conduct an in-depth investigation.
Our findings - presented in our report, Silent invasion - the hidden
use of GM crops in livestock feed - are deeply concerning. By
testing animal feeds and reviewing the industry's sourcing policies,
we have found that high levels of GM animal feed are being used.
73% of the feeds we tested contained some GM soya and 75% were
labelled as 'GM'. Based on our findings, around 60% of the maize
and 30% of the soya in the dairy and pig sectors are GM.
What this means is that nearly all non-organic milk, dairy products
(such as cheese and yoghurt) and pork products sold in UK shops
and restaurants are produced from GM-fed animals. So, most
consumers are unwittingly eating foods produced from GM crops
every day.
We also reviewed progress on the science of the safety of GM crops,
since the early days of the debate when there was little to go on. The
Food Standards Agency had been assuring consumers that they
would not be exposed to GM material by eating foods from GM-fed
animals. However, four studies by different scientific teams have now
found that small amounts of GM DNA can be detected in milk and
tissues from GM-fed animals.
It also turns out that the first animal feeding trials were not flukes.
Very many of the animal trials carried out since then have found
deeply worrying effects. These include toxic effects in body organs,
allergic reactions, unexplained deaths and stunted growth in the
offspring. This raises serious questions about how GM-fed animals
can be considered suitable for producing human food.
In the view of the Soil Association, there has been a failure of both
the market and the scientific advisory process. The biotechnology
industry has managed to persuade many normally clear-minded people,
sadly including many scientists, that they should support GM crops if
they are 'pro-science'.
The important fact that the science has actually emerged against GM
crops has gone unnoticed. Perhaps it would help to point out that
genetic engineering is not a science, it is only a technique. Rejection
of GM does not mean a rejection of science.
Until the scientific community come to terms with the research and
supports a responsible - and genuinely science-based - approach,
the Soil Association strongly recommends that people try to avoid
foods produced from GM-fed animals. Among the supermarkets,
Marks-and-Spencer is far ahead of the others, with all of their milk
and fresh meat produced from non-GM feed. We urge other
supermarkets and catering companies to follow their lead and to
meanwhile to label any products from GM-fed animals so that at
least people can choose.
2 comments from readers
geoff.gibbins
20 November 2007
An interesting article, with some interesting implications. If the public
really has been mislead into eating GM crops for years, then surely
we would expect to see signs of this from a public health perspective?
Isn't there now a responsibility for the anti-GM lobby to produce
findings that this has had a deleterious effect on the health of the
meat-eating population? If we're going to extend the analogy,
shouldn't we all have strange lesions in our guts by now?
If not, maybe such 'intuitive concern' might be shown to be nothing
more than superstition... just a thought.
___________________________________________________
fran
20 November 2007
The Canadian government tried to do post market evaluation of the
health of people eating GM food but abandoned it as too difficult.
Part of the difficutly lies in the lack of labelling.
There has been a documented health disaster with a GM produced
food supplement, L-tryptophan. 100 people died and 5000 were
injured, some permanently. This was only picked up and traced to
the GM produced supplement because the symptoms came on
suddenly and were dramatic. They included pain, swelling, coughs,
rashes, physical weakness, visual problems, hardening of the skin
memory problems and paralysis. It still took several years for the
disease to be identified and the source traced.
If GM foods are causing symtoms such as allergic reactions, cancer,
diabetes, organ damage, high blood pressure how would we be able
to tell? Interestingly there has been a rise in food related illnesses in
the US. In the UK there was a 50% increase in soy allergies following
the introduction of GM soy.
The whole issue is that there has been no long term testing of GM
foods. There are very few feeding studies done and many of them
show very worrying out comes. I recommend that you read Jeffrey
Smith's book Genetic Roulette for details of the studies done to date.
He lists the documented health risks of GM foods. His website is at
http://www.GeneticRoulette.com
http://www.newstatesman.com/200711200004
the utter irrelevence of the Welsh decision is mindboggling, as they don't
actually grow any of the major crops for which GM varieties exist.
That's a bit of a weird lie even for the Livestock Adviser of The CLA.

Welsh agricultural land consist of some 60% permanent grass. 11%
arable and crops consist of wheat, barley (winter/spring) Oats,Mixed
corn for threshing and triticale and Rye for threshing, Potatoes:
(Early,Main) Vegetables (other than potatoes) Orchards and small
fruit,Other horticulture grown in the open,Area under glass or plastic
covered structures, Maize for threshing or stockfeeding,Other crops
for stockfeeding,Rape grown for oilseed.

So not only have the CLA blatantly lied about the competency of Welsh
farming, you have also tried to suggest they are only capable of
producing lamb!!!

I wonder what people will make of this?
Post by Jim Webster
They do however produce excellent lamb which grows superbly on the fine
mountain pastures and is well worth tasting
Jim Webster
Old Codger
2008-03-24 09:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pearl
Post by Old Codger
Wales set to ban GM crops
Mar 18 2008 by Steve Dube, Western Mail
PROPOSALS by the Welsh Assembly Government will effectively ban
genetically modified crops from Wales.
New regulations, if adopted, will set Wales apart from England in
applying a strict "polluter pays" principle that will put an end even
to trial plantings.
GM companies have consistently resisted efforts to make them accept
responsibility for "leaks" of GM material and Defra's proposals for
England stop short of pinning liability on the operator or permit
holder in the event of environmental or economic damage.
But in Wales the WAG proposals make GM companies like Monsanto and
Bayer and the farmers who plant GM crops legally liable for
contamination or "genetic trespass" - even if they have a licence and
even if scientific knowledge at the time leads them to believe the
material was harmless.
The move puts clear water between the administrations in Cardiff Bay
and London and takes Welsh opposition to GM science to new levels.
"We have a particular commitment on GM," said Wales Rural Affairs
Minister Elin Jones.
"It was reinforced by the One Wales Government programme last year
where we have a commitment to ensure the maximum restriction of GM
crops in Wales.
"We are now consulting on implementing regulations that reflect our
aspirations and promoting the concept that the polluter pays."
The consultation period ends in mid-May, and Ms Jones said she did not
foresee any particular difficulties in taking a different course from
England, where GM crop farmers would become liable in the event of
contamination on the Welsh side of the border.
"Border issues will arise along any boundaries between EU countries,
but it's the right of this Assembly Government to exercise the powers
we have to pursue our political aspiration," she said.
"This is supported by a number of environmental groups and certain
farming interests also want us to retain our GM free status."
The supporters include the Farmers' Union of Wales, which is a member
of the GM Free Alliance - a group of environmental and countryside
organisations which includes the RSPB, Friends of the Earth Cymru and
GM Free Cymru.
Organic farmer and FUW vice-president Brian Walters said the threat of
cross-contamination was one of the major concerns that led the FUW to
oppose GM crops.
"Obviously it would be completely unfair if a non-GM farmer's income
suffered as a result of wind or insect-borne cross-pollination that
was beyond their control, and we welcome WAG's suggestion that a more
pragmatic approach be taken in Wales," said Mr Walters.
"The draft Welsh regulations provide security for Welsh farmers,
whereas Defra has left English farmers that are put at risk out in the
cold."
The GM Free Wales Alliance has written to Elin Jones to congratulate
her and the Assembly Government on what they describe as "the latest
step in the protection of Welsh farming and the Welsh environment".
Brian John of GM Free Cymru said he expected the other devolved
administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to follow the Welsh
lead.
"There is a degree of frustration that Westminster continues to vote
in favour of GM approval at EU level despite the reservations that the
other three authorities have," said Mr John.
"Westminster always pushes a pro-GM agenda in the EU, despite the fact
that it's not the majority view but a distinctly English line."
Mr John said anti-GM campaigners were delighted with the Welsh
approach
"The GM industry has always refused to accept liability on the basis
that if something is harmless, as they say it is, they can't be liable
if something goes wrong," said Mr John.
"The Welsh regulations say that neither the state-of-the-art nor the
legal permit defences can be used and is exactly what we and bodies
like the RSPB have been asking for."
A spokesman for Monsanto said the proposal was inconsistent with EU
guidelines on co-existence with conventional and organic crops.
"These specify that member state rules should respect the right of
both non-GM and GM farmers to grow the crops of their choice," he
said.
"Furthermore, since approximately 85% of compound animal feed
throughout the UK already contains imported GM ingredients, due to the
large shortage of home produced protein, we would have concern that in
the long run this proposal would put the majority of Welsh livestock
farmers at a serious competitive disadvantage, and merely drive
livestock production overseas."
He said the cultivation of GM crops is increasing world-wide, with
more than 100 million hectares grown every year by 10 million farmers.
"Most of the world is moving on from the tired old debate of 10 years
ago and accepting that biotechnology has a place to play alongside a
range of farming methods," he said.
/Really/.
'New Statesman
Environment
The secret GM invasion
Gundula Azeez
Published 20 November 2007
2 comments
A Soil Associaition study has found that many supermarkets are
selling products from animals fed on GM crops, despite having
'non-GM' policies
For over a decade, the public has rejected GM foods. Intuitive
concerns had been reinforced by the highly publicised findings
of the first Government sponsored animal trials, in which strange
lesions were found in the guts of GM-fed rats. To their credit, the
supermarkets adopted non-GM policies and, by October 2002,
they were using no GM (genetically modified) ingredients in their
own-brand products.
Yet, for some years the Soil Association and other organisations
have been concerned about the use of GM animal feed. Due to a
legal loop-hole, although foods or animal feeds that directly
contain GM ingredients must be labelled as 'GM', there is no such
requirement for meat and dairy foods produced from animals fed
on GM crops.
Any use of GM animal feed could thus be kept hidden from
consumers. Last year, in noticeably evasive replies to letters from
our supporters, the supermarkets admitted that their non-GM
policies did not cover animal feed. The Soil Association decided
to conduct an in-depth investigation.
Our findings - presented in our report, Silent invasion - the hidden
use of GM crops in livestock feed - are deeply concerning. By
testing animal feeds and reviewing the industry's sourcing policies,
we have found that high levels of GM animal feed are being used.
73% of the feeds we tested contained some GM soya and 75% were
labelled as 'GM'. Based on our findings, around 60% of the maize
and 30% of the soya in the dairy and pig sectors are GM.
What this means is that nearly all non-organic milk, dairy products
(such as cheese and yoghurt) and pork products sold in UK shops
and restaurants are produced from GM-fed animals. So, most
consumers are unwittingly eating foods produced from GM crops
every day.
We also reviewed progress on the science of the safety of GM crops,
since the early days of the debate when there was little to go on. The
Food Standards Agency had been assuring consumers that they
would not be exposed to GM material by eating foods from GM-fed
animals. However, four studies by different scientific teams have now
found that small amounts of GM DNA can be detected in milk and
tissues from GM-fed animals.
It also turns out that the first animal feeding trials were not flukes.
Very many of the animal trials carried out since then have found
deeply worrying effects. These include toxic effects in body organs,
allergic reactions, unexplained deaths and stunted growth in the
offspring. This raises serious questions about how GM-fed animals
can be considered suitable for producing human food.
In the view of the Soil Association, there has been a failure of both
the market and the scientific advisory process. The biotechnology
industry has managed to persuade many normally clear-minded people,
sadly including many scientists, that they should support GM crops if
they are 'pro-science'.
The important fact that the science has actually emerged against GM
crops has gone unnoticed. Perhaps it would help to point out that
genetic engineering is not a science, it is only a technique. Rejection
of GM does not mean a rejection of science.
Until the scientific community come to terms with the research and
supports a responsible - and genuinely science-based - approach,
the Soil Association strongly recommends that people try to avoid
foods produced from GM-fed animals. Among the supermarkets,
Marks-and-Spencer is far ahead of the others, with all of their milk
and fresh meat produced from non-GM feed. We urge other
supermarkets and catering companies to follow their lead and to
meanwhile to label any products from GM-fed animals so that at
least people can choose.
2 comments from readers
geoff.gibbins
20 November 2007
An interesting article, with some interesting implications. If the public
really has been mislead into eating GM crops for years, then surely
we would expect to see signs of this from a public health perspective?
Isn't there now a responsibility for the anti-GM lobby to produce
findings that this has had a deleterious effect on the health of the
meat-eating population? If we're going to extend the analogy,
shouldn't we all have strange lesions in our guts by now?
If not, maybe such 'intuitive concern' might be shown to be nothing
more than superstition... just a thought.
___________________________________________________
fran
20 November 2007
The Canadian government tried to do post market evaluation of the
health of people eating GM food but abandoned it as too difficult.
Part of the difficutly lies in the lack of labelling.
There has been a documented health disaster with a GM produced
food supplement, L-tryptophan. 100 people died and 5000 were
injured, some permanently. This was only picked up and traced to
the GM produced supplement because the symptoms came on
suddenly and were dramatic. They included pain, swelling, coughs,
rashes, physical weakness, visual problems, hardening of the skin
memory problems and paralysis. It still took several years for the
disease to be identified and the source traced.
If GM foods are causing symtoms such as allergic reactions, cancer,
diabetes, organ damage, high blood pressure how would we be able
to tell? Interestingly there has been a rise in food related illnesses in
the US. In the UK there was a 50% increase in soy allergies following
the introduction of GM soy.
The whole issue is that there has been no long term testing of GM
foods. There are very few feeding studies done and many of them
show very worrying out comes. I recommend that you read Jeffrey
Smith's book Genetic Roulette for details of the studies done to date.
He lists the documented health risks of GM foods. His website is at
http://www.GeneticRoulette.com
http://www.newstatesman.com/200711200004
Maybe it's time for a class action against the GM fans and bent
government officials bowing to the wallet of Monsanto!
pearl
2008-03-23 12:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Old Codger
Wales set to ban GM crops
Mar 18 2008 by Steve Dube, Western Mail
PROPOSALS by the Welsh Assembly Government will effectively ban
genetically modified crops from Wales.
New regulations, if adopted, will set Wales apart from England in
applying a strict "polluter pays" principle that will put an end even
to trial plantings.
GM companies have consistently resisted efforts to make them accept
responsibility for "leaks" of GM material and Defra's proposals for
England stop short of pinning liability on the operator or permit
holder in the event of environmental or economic damage.
'Brits say 'No' to GM as the Soil Association asks Government:
'keep your promise'

Soil Association PRESS RELEASE 09/11/2007

The Soil Association welcomes the fact that the overwhelming majority
of the 11,700 responses to Defra's proposals to control the contamination
of GM crops, have opposed them according to a summary of the results
of the consultation published by Defra yesterday.

Defra had planned to allow surrounding non-GM crops to be contaminated
up to 0.9%, and for the locations of GM crops to be kept secret from the
public, which would prevent the production of GM-free food by both
organic and non-organic farmers in the UK.[1]

Back in 1998 Jeff Rooker MP, as Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food, made the following statement on GM: "I want to make it
absolutely clear that my Ministry.will be working.to ensure that the
expansion of organic farming is not compromised by the introduction of
genetically modified crops... that is the most important sentence that I shall
say this evening. I genuinely mean that - those are not words to be put in
Hansard and forgotten about; I shall follow through." [2]

The Soil Association believes that, so far, Defra is working in the opposite
direction to what the Government has promised, and what the public are
demanding.

Defra's summary showed that more than 95% of the public responses were
opposed to Defra's proposals. In particular, the responses supported the
Soil Association's position that contamination of organic crops should be
kept below the 0.1% limit of detection, through measures undertaken by
GM farmers, and the GM sector should be fully economically liable for
any costs or loss of market if contamination occurs. [3]

Soil Association policy manager Gundula Azeez said:
"It would be totally unacceptable situation if GM-free food can no longer
be grown in the UK. This is an extremely important issue for organic
farmers and businesses, because their customers do not wish to have
organic food contaminated by GM material. [4] Strict measures to control
contamination are absolutely essential to avoid negative impacts on the
organic sector, as many examples from around the world show. [5] Defra
must totally revise their proposals."

The Soil Association also welcomes the fact that the Goverment will wait
until European limits for maximum GM contamination levels in certified
seed have been set. As the start of the food chain it's essential
contamination levels of seed are set at 0%.
....'
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/89d058cc4dbeb16d80256a73005a2866/a4cf879f83e55e9b8025738e004ed849!OpenDocument

< http://tinyurl.com/38rkot >
Old Codger
2008-03-23 22:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Old Codger wrote:

No I didn't, in fact this is my first, and probably only, post in this
thread. Pete the troll is playing with headers again to cover his
copyright violations.
Post by Old Codger
Wales set to ban GM crops
Mar 18 2008 by Steve Dube, Western Mail
As Pete never reads what he posts and desires only to provoke
argument it is safest to assume that anything he espouses is
at least unsafe and probably malicious.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Loading...