Science and Technology news... :: View topic - US firms 'tried to lie' over GM crops, says EU

Jim Webster · Guest

"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message > >> >did the teachers who taught my mother that the atom was the
smallest
[quote]thing
that existed and was indivisible lie? Remember she was at school in
the
late
30s early 40s

Depends ... did they know that what they said was wrong when they
said it ?
look at the dates. She was taught before the splitting of the atom was
known.

.. tho some had theorised that it was possible. Perhaps ..... "the
atom is currently the smallest thing known" would have been closer ?
Seems to me that anyone teaching science ought to say "this is the
current theory" and/or "we currently believe this to be true".
Uncertainty should be part of science from the start.
[/quote]
Cling to the uncertainty should be part of science.
What was it you said about GM v Conventional crops?

Jim Webster

Bruce Sinclair · Guest

In article <bn70ij$nak$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message > >> >did the teachers who taught my mother that the atom was the
smallest
thing
that existed and was indivisible lie? Remember she was at school in
the
late
30s early 40s

Depends ... did they know that what they said was wrong when they
said it ?
look at the dates. She was taught before the splitting of the atom was
known.

.. tho some had theorised that it was possible. Perhaps ..... "the
atom is currently the smallest thing known" would have been closer ?
Seems to me that anyone teaching science ought to say "this is the
current theory" and/or "we currently believe this to be true".
Uncertainty should be part of science from the start.

Cling to the uncertainty should be part of science.
[/quote]
Uncertainty has alwyas been a part of science ... done properly. If a
scientist ever tells you "this is how it is" they obviously don>t know
what they are talking about (or they are talking to a reporter ... or
both :) ).

[quote]What was it you said about GM v Conventional crops?
[/quote]
Basically that the uncertainty is being ignored by those that want to
sell it ? Something like that. At least, that>s what I was trying to
say ... inject a little healthy doubt into the "this is how it is"
statements :)

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

Jim Webster · Guest

"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:7lIlb.2601$ws.249565@news02.tsnz.net...
[quote]In article <bn70ij$nak$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:[/quote]

[quote]
.. tho some had theorised that it was possible. Perhaps ..... "the
atom is currently the smallest thing known" would have been closer ?
Seems to me that anyone teaching science ought to say "this is the
current theory" and/or "we currently believe this to be true".
Uncertainty should be part of science from the start.

Cling to the uncertainty should be part of science.

Uncertainty has alwyas been a part of science ... done properly. If a
scientist ever tells you "this is how it is" they obviously don>t know
what they are talking about (or they are talking to a reporter ... or
both :) ).
[/quote]
So you would regard anyone asking for GM crops to be proved to be safe, or
conventional crops proved to be safe as being mendacious as they should know
that this cannot be achieved?

[quote]
What was it you said about GM v Conventional crops?

Basically that the uncertainty is being ignored by those that want to
sell it ? Something like that. At least, that>s what I was trying to
say ... inject a little healthy doubt into the "this is how it is"
statements :)
[/quote]
but I would suggest that no one in agriculture has anything but healthy
doubts about ANY new crop or crop variety.

Jim Webster

Jim Webster · Guest

"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:7lIlb.2601$ws.249565@news02.tsnz.net...
[quote]In article <bn70ij$nak$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:[/quote]

[quote]
.. tho some had theorised that it was possible. Perhaps ..... "the
atom is currently the smallest thing known" would have been closer ?
Seems to me that anyone teaching science ought to say "this is the
current theory" and/or "we currently believe this to be true".
Uncertainty should be part of science from the start.

Cling to the uncertainty should be part of science.

Uncertainty has alwyas been a part of science ... done properly. If a
scientist ever tells you "this is how it is" they obviously don>t know
what they are talking about (or they are talking to a reporter ... or
both :) ).
[/quote]
So you would regard anyone asking for GM crops to be proved to be safe, or
conventional crops proved to be safe as being mendacious as they should know
that this cannot be achieved?

[quote]
What was it you said about GM v Conventional crops?

Basically that the uncertainty is being ignored by those that want to
sell it ? Something like that. At least, that>s what I was trying to
say ... inject a little healthy doubt into the "this is how it is"
statements :)
[/quote]
but I would suggest that no one in agriculture has anything but healthy
doubts about ANY new crop or crop variety.

Jim Webster

Oz · Guest

Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes

[quote]Uncertainty has alwyas been a part of science ... done properly. If a
scientist ever tells you "this is how it is" they obviously don>t know
what they are talking about (or they are talking to a reporter ... or
both :) ).
[/quote]
That>s rather naive.

For example if a 'scientist' says there are atoms, with such and such
properties then this is so to a very high level of probability indeed,
in fact what most people would consider 'truth'.

Equally a well understood quantum mechanical system will behave as
predicted to such a high level of accuracy that most people would
consider it 'truth'.

OTOH nobody (with any sense) would say current M-theory is the theory
that combines gravity and QM.

[quote]What was it you said about GM v Conventional crops?

Basically that the uncertainty is being ignored by those that want to
sell it ? Something like that. At least, that>s what I was trying to
say ... inject a little healthy do
[/quote]
You have a situation where for millennia we have been taking mutants
from the field and using them as food plants. Many food plants are known
to be toxic, yet we use them as food. There is no reason to believe that
approved gene additions, which have been tested, are any more toxic, and
more probably less toxic than existing plant foods. The trial going on
in the US and many other parts of the world, on both humans and farmed
animals, strongly confirms that position. Remember that pigs and poultry
are fed most of their diet with GM products in these parts of the world.
These animals are very heavily recorded and even very tiny changes will
show up and I haven>t heard of any adverse comment. In the UK for
example, they can tell differences between some varieties of wheat and
price accordingly. To me that is a truth with rather high probability,
and if you don>t like it, you can always eat organic produce which has
very low levels of GM produce.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Bruce Sinclair · Guest

In article <bn7rql$b26$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]
"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:7lIlb.2601$ws.249565@news02.tsnz.net...
In article <bn70ij$nak$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
.. tho some had theorised that it was possible. Perhaps ..... "the
atom is currently the smallest thing known" would have been closer ?
Seems to me that anyone teaching science ought to say "this is the
current theory" and/or "we currently believe this to be true".
Uncertainty should be part of science from the start.

Cling to the uncertainty should be part of science.

Uncertainty has alwyas been a part of science ... done properly. If a
scientist ever tells you "this is how it is" they obviously don>t know
what they are talking about (or they are talking to a reporter ... or
both :) ).
So you would regard anyone asking for GM crops to be proved to be safe, or
conventional crops proved to be safe as being mendacious as they should know
that this cannot be achieved?
[/quote]
Yep. It>s al about risks and rewards isn>t it.

[quote]What was it you said about GM v Conventional crops?
Basically that the uncertainty is being ignored by those that want to
sell it ? Something like that. At least, that>s what I was trying to
say ... inject a little healthy doubt into the "this is how it is"
statements :)

but I would suggest that no one in agriculture has anything but healthy
doubts about ANY new crop or crop variety.
[/quote]
Would that it were so ... at least from the users point of view :)

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

Bruce Sinclair · Guest

In article <0royiNC8V4l$EwJ$@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:
[quote]Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes
Uncertainty has alwyas been a part of science ... done properly. If a
scientist ever tells you "this is how it is" they obviously don>t know
what they are talking about (or they are talking to a reporter ... or
both :) ).

That>s rather naive.
[/quote]
Not really. It is accurate. (True, if you like :) ). You ignore the
fact of uncertainty at your peril ... and you ignore the fact that we
are constantly revising what we "know" at your peril.

[quote]For example if a 'scientist' says there are atoms, with such and such
properties then this is so to a very high level of probability indeed,
in fact what most people would consider 'truth'.
[/quote]
To you it might be. To a reporter it might be. To me it>s a fib. They
should say something like ... this explanation is close enuff for
practical purposes.

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

Jim Webster · Guest

"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:enlnb.3478$ws.337566@news02.tsnz.net...
[quote]In article <bn7rql$b26$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:

"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:7lIlb.2601$ws.249565@news02.tsnz.net...
In article <bn70ij$nak$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
.. tho some had theorised that it was possible. Perhaps ..... "the
atom is currently the smallest thing known" would have been closer ?
Seems to me that anyone teaching science ought to say "this is the
current theory" and/or "we currently believe this to be true".
Uncertainty should be part of science from the start.

Cling to the uncertainty should be part of science.

Uncertainty has alwyas been a part of science ... done properly. If a
scientist ever tells you "this is how it is" they obviously don>t know
what they are talking about (or they are talking to a reporter ... or
both :) ).
So you would regard anyone asking for GM crops to be proved to be safe,
or
conventional crops proved to be safe as being mendacious as they should
know
that this cannot be achieved?

Yep. It>s al about risks and rewards isn>t it.
[/quote]
yes, but the rewards may come in the form of an inconvenient commercial
competitor put out of the way

[quote]
What was it you said about GM v Conventional crops?
Basically that the uncertainty is being ignored by those that want to
sell it ? Something like that. At least, that>s what I was trying to
say ... inject a little healthy doubt into the "this is how it is"
statements :)

but I would suggest that no one in agriculture has anything but healthy
doubts about ANY new crop or crop variety.

Would that it were so ... at least from the users point of view :)
[/quote]
it is. Remember if the crop doesn>t work, I lose money. I am the one who can
end up bankrupt.

Jim Webster

[quote]
Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.[/quote]

Oz · Guest

Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes

[quote]For example if a 'scientist' says there are atoms, with such and such
properties then this is so to a very high level of probability indeed,
in fact what most people would consider 'truth'.

To you it might be. To a reporter it might be. To me it>s a fib. They
should say something like ... this explanation is close enuff for
practical purposes.
[/quote]
Ah, so you really don>t know much science at all.

That explains your viewpoint,
based upon an ignorance you seem to be proud of.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Dean Hoffman · Guest

On 10/27/03 10:28 PM, in article enlnb.3478$ws.337566@news02.tsnz.net,
"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote:

[quote]Would that it were so ... at least from the users point of view :)

Bruce
[/quote]

Farmers buy most of their food at grocery stores just like city people
do. It>s a long indirect route from the farm back to the table but the
result is farmers grow GM stuff and end up eating GM stuff.
One home grown thing on farmer>s plates might be an occasional steer or
hog that ends up in the freezer instead of going to market. A lot of
farmers in my area raise grain only. They can>t compete with the commercial
feedlots or don>t want the hassle of raising livestock. Many farm women in
my area hold full time off farm jobs and don>t have a lot of time for the
gardening thing.
Your discussion here is with fellow end users.

Dean

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Bruce Sinclair · Guest

In article <bnl30d$5tn$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:enlnb.3478$ws.337566@news02.tsnz.net...
In article <bn7rql$b26$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:

"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:7lIlb.2601$ws.249565@news02.tsnz.net...
In article <bn70ij$nak$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
.. tho some had theorised that it was possible. Perhaps ..... "the
atom is currently the smallest thing known" would have been closer ?
Seems to me that anyone teaching science ought to say "this is the
current theory" and/or "we currently believe this to be true".
Uncertainty should be part of science from the start.

Cling to the uncertainty should be part of science.

Uncertainty has alwyas been a part of science ... done properly. If a
scientist ever tells you "this is how it is" they obviously don>t know
what they are talking about (or they are talking to a reporter ... or
both :) ).
So you would regard anyone asking for GM crops to be proved to be safe,
or
conventional crops proved to be safe as being mendacious as they should
know
that this cannot be achieved?

Yep. It>s al about risks and rewards isn>t it.
yes, but the rewards may come in the form of an inconvenient commercial
competitor put out of the way
[/quote]
Indeed. I would suggest this is actually a negative for me the
consumer. :)

[quote]What was it you said about GM v Conventional crops?
Basically that the uncertainty is being ignored by those that want to
sell it ? Something like that. At least, that>s what I was trying to
say ... inject a little healthy doubt into the "this is how it is"
statements :)

but I would suggest that no one in agriculture has anything but healthy
doubts about ANY new crop or crop variety.
Would that it were so ... at least from the users point of view :)
it is. Remember if the crop doesn>t work, I lose money. I am the one who can
end up bankrupt.
[/quote]
Short or long term ? ... there are many cases where short term
something is terrific. Only later, when long term effects have been
found, is the original decision seen to make no sense at all. :)

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

Bruce Sinclair · Guest

In article <5j6xA1H9Ghn$Ewo7@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:
[quote]Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes
For example if a 'scientist' says there are atoms, with such and such
properties then this is so to a very high level of probability indeed,
in fact what most people would consider 'truth'.

To you it might be. To a reporter it might be. To me it>s a fib. They
should say something like ... this explanation is close enuff for
practical purposes.

Ah, so you really don>t know much science at all.
[/quote]
Obviously a deal more than you ... by their words shall ye know them
:)

[quote]That explains your viewpoint,
based upon an ignorance you seem to be proud of.
[/quote]
YMMV. My perspective obviously does :)

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

Jim Webster · Guest

"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:t5Dnb.3680$ws.357528@news02.tsnz.net...
[quote]but I would suggest that no one in agriculture has anything but
healthy
doubts about ANY new crop or crop variety.
Would that it were so ... at least from the users point of view :)
it is. Remember if the crop doesn>t work, I lose money. I am the one who
can
end up bankrupt.

Short or long term ? ... there are many cases where short term
something is terrific. Only later, when long term effects have been
found, is the original decision seen to make no sense at all. :)
[/quote]
In agriculture, short term tends to be about twenty years, long term is a
couple of generations because you are setting things up for your children
and grandchildren to follow on

Jim Webster
[quote]
Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.[/quote]

Bruce Sinclair · Guest

In article <bnnt0n$k48$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]
"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:t5Dnb.3680$ws.357528@news02.tsnz.net...
but I would suggest that no one in agriculture has anything but
healthy
doubts about ANY new crop or crop variety.
Would that it were so ... at least from the users point of view :)
it is. Remember if the crop doesn>t work, I lose money. I am the one who
can
end up bankrupt.

Short or long term ? ... there are many cases where short term
something is terrific. Only later, when long term effects have been
found, is the original decision seen to make no sense at all. :)

In agriculture, short term tends to be about twenty years, long term is a
couple of generations because you are setting things up for your children
and grandchildren to follow on
[/quote]
Total agreement here. Problem that I see is most places only have
unltra short term planning. Ask em to look even 10 years into the
future and their eyes lose focus :) :)

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

Gordon Couger · Guest

"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bnnt0n$k48$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
[quote]
"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:t5Dnb.3680$ws.357528@news02.tsnz.net...
but I would suggest that no one in agriculture has anything but
healthy
doubts about ANY new crop or crop variety.
Would that it were so ... at least from the users point of view :)
it is. Remember if the crop doesn>t work, I lose money. I am the one
who
can
end up bankrupt.

Short or long term ? ... there are many cases where short term
something is terrific. Only later, when long term effects have been
found, is the original decision seen to make no sense at all. :)

In agriculture, short term tends to be about twenty years, long term is a
couple of generations because you are setting things up for your children
and grandchildren to follow on

Jim,[/quote]

I have been away for a while and catching up. I was going though some papers
after mom>s funeral and came across the original land patent for the ranch
in 1873, my dad home place goes back to 1918, my wife>s 1916 and her
holdings in Texas to 1940 when they broke up the XIT Ranch that Texas leased
to some Brits to raise funds to build their state capital.

I am trying to convince my brother to invest in drip irrigation in Oklahoma
but having a kid that started college this year gives him a different
outlook than me.

The ranch is just passed into full control the hands of forth generation.
That means we get full control about the time we turn 60. My brother and I
don>t have control of the home place yet at 95 dad is still calling the
shots through us.

Twenty years is not a long time at all on anything I have. Almost any
decision has some kind of effect for 2 or 3 years. Just picking the place to
plant seed wheat takes at least a season to have ground that has not had
wheat on it for 3 years rotated out of another crop. If you are going to the
expense of buying good wheat to raise seed you might as well do it right and
sell it as certified seed and make an extra $40 or $50 and acre.

My son was asking when he was here thanksgiving about how to learn how to
mange the farms when time comes. I guess it is time to start including him
and his wife in on things. At least he knows how a farm works.

Gordon


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Agriculture Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2