Bob What are you trying to tell us?

gfarm@ns.waymark.net
Wed, 01 Jan 1997 16:59:35 -0500

Bob MacGregor wrote:
>
> 1. Monsanto won't make money if the products don't work -- or fail too
> soon after introduction (rBGH, Bollgard, etc.). It costs millions to develop
> these products and the payback period is, I suspect, a lot more than just
> a year or two.

WORK! What do you mean work? They make money only if they "WORK".

>
> 2. Any chemical means we use to control pests and pathogens
> (including the purely synthetic chemicals and Bt and the other approved
> "organic" controls) accelerates evolution of resistant populations. The
> more widespread the use, the more rapid will be appearance of
> resistance. If Bt were sprayed on ALL the cotton and corn acreage in
> the US, resistance would appear pretty fast, I bet. Unfortunately, foliar
> application of Bt isn't very effective against bollworms or corn ear
> worms.

What is your background writer? Do you think the spray of a Readymill on
tobacco causes a slow, methodical response by the fungi?
>
> 3. The history of agriculture -- particularly in the past couple of
> centuries -- is one of wholesale tinkering with genomes. It is true that
> relatively little genetic material has been moved between crop or
> livestock species (since the technology to do so was limiting). However,
> introduction of old world crop (and non-crop) species to the new world
> -- and vice versa -- have had pretty profound ecological effects in some
> areas (tumbleweeds, gypsy moths, nutria, potato, wheat, rye, oats,
> soybeans, rabbits, cattle, sheep -- the list goes on and on). Do we
> expend the energy on verifying that new crop introductions are locally
> benign that we do in assessing the risks of GE organisms?

Can you give us some examples of these non-genetic species transfer and their
affect?

> 4. Bio-chemical engineering has created a lot of health problems. Or, at
> least health problems for a lot more people. Many sources have
> credited, in large measure, the tremendous surge in population growth
> after WWII to development of antibiotics and vaccines, coupled with
> mosquito control agents (starting with DDT). As these tools become
> ineffective in the face of evolution of the organisms they are designed to
> control, the human population can expect to be forcibly re-integrated
> into natural systems. Sustainability will become a necessity of life, not
> just a goal or distant dream.

I wonder why girl now start their menstrual cycle at 12 when it used to be 16-7.
I wonder why people have changed in size so dramatically? I wonder why cancer
is so prevalent today?
>
> 5. Genetic engineering technology can create miracles or monsters.
> The challenge -- and the risk -- is to tell which is which before turning it
> loose! Just as we have with introduction of species into new
> non-native continents, we will have to take some chances. Sometimes
> we'll be unlucky -- failure is the best outcome in this situation;
> catastrophe a less-likely but possible outcome. How tight will the
> controls and safeguards be? Obviously, many participants are
> convinced that USDA is the fox guarding the henhouse.

Read Living Energies by Viktor Schauberger brilliant work with natural energy
explained. By Callum Coats

Many things, including cancer, amoral television, depletion of natural resources
all happen slowly over time. Cancer now occurs in 1/3 in 1996. In 1945 it was
1/33. Why.

If showed the television today back in 1970 the television studios would be
burned down. Why do we accept it today?

The answer is in nature but it is hard to make money on "Mother" or is it?

I know of products that will stop nematode problems successfully that do not
have any genetic manipulation. I know of products that support crops without
the ability to measure discernible nitrogen capable of being measured, that has
no genetic manipulation.

>
> Thanks for the hearing,
> BOB