Brief descriptions, too.
http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/

I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
--

modom

"modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote in message
...
> Brief descriptions, too.
> http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
>
> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.


Clever photoshoppery.
They used to sell Grapples, though, in one of the local markets. They were
not a cross between grapes and apples. They are apples infused with grape
flavoring and water.
Tangelos are real, anyway.

dejablues wrote:


> Tangelos are real, anyway.

And can be quite tasty too. I have some minneola tangelos at home
(those are the ones shown on the site). They often have that
distinctive knob on top, and are sometimes called honeybells.




Brian

--
Day 35 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

dejablues wrote:
> "modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Brief descriptions, too.
>> http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
>>
>> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
>
>
> Clever photoshoppery.

Some may be for sure sort of April 1 type story .
However, the folks at Negev Uni and other parts
of Israel have been conducting some of what is mentioned within the link


I mean I have even seen gold fish bred for Neurological research
that get the optic and brain pathways convoluted
and end up swimming about upside down (poor little buggers)

On Mar 10, 6:03 pm, "modom (palindrome guy)" >
wrote:
> Brief descriptions, too.http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
>
> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
> --
>
> modom

Yeah to the lemato.

But what? No Tomacco?

B

modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> Brief descriptions, too.
> http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
>
> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
> --
>
> modom

So would I! As someone else points out, the Grapples that I used
to see were apples injected with grape flavor. I wonder whether
there is a new, er. breed with that name now?

--
Jean B.

Arri London wrote:
>
> "modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>> Brief descriptions, too.
>> http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
>>
>> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
>> --
>>
>> modom
>
>
> Interesting page.
> All the foodstuffs we eat are genetically modified. Sometimes that
> modification took place centuries ago. Other modifications are more
> modern.
> Simple hybridisation (pollen transfer by insects, wind or humans) is
> genetic modification. The insulin gene put into the lettuce required
> more than pollen transfer
> Carrots naturally come in many colours; the orange sort has become the
> most common in parts of the world.

Arri I am still personally a NON GM sort of person
in some areas but not all I have profound issues with the manner and
corporate behaviour of the likes of Monsanto just to name one .
Consider the following

Concern about the creation of ‘superweeds’ is based on the possibility
that genetically modified crops could transfer a gene for herbicide
resistance to surrounding weeds. Herbicide-tolerant crops (crops able to
survive applications of weedkiller) have been produced so that a farmer
can spray a crop, killing all the weeds but leaving the crop plant
unaffected by the herbicide.

If a weed is closely related to the outcrossing crop — and some of the
more serious weeds are very similar to crops — then cross-pollination
with a herbicide tolerant crop could carry the gene into the weed
population. Howerever, cross-pollination isn't just an issue for GM
crops; this is also a risk with conventionally-bred (non-GM) herbicide
tolerant canola, which is currently in widespread use in Australia.

Some crop plants, like corn and canola, cross-breed readily with other
individuals of the same species. In Canada, there is at least one
example where a variety of canola already tolerant to one herbicide
appears to have acquired tolerances to other herbicides, because of such
cross-pollination among the different canola varieties. This gene
transfer between cultivars represents a crop management problem which
can occur in an ‘outcrossing’ crop like canola. This problem is less of
a concern in ‘self-pollinating’ crops like wheat, barley, cotton or
peas, which do not transfer pollen between plants.

The question of resistance to agricultural chemicals has a long history.
Herbicide tolerant weed species appeared long before the adoption of
agricultural biotechnology, mainly due to inappropriate farming
practices. The number of herbicide tolerant weeds has increased from a
single report in 1978 to the 188 herbicide tolerant weed types in 42
countries reported in a 1997 international survey.

Therefore herbicide tolerance (whether genetically modified or
conventionally bred) in an outcrossing crop must be carefully managed to
avoid the risk of gene transfer between varieties within the crop, or
from the crop to a related weed. However, even if such a transfer were
to occur, a herbicide tolerant weed would not be a ‘superweed’. A weed
with a gene for herbicide tolerance has no advantage outside the
environment in which the herbicide is used.

In fact, a recent 10-year long study, funded in part by industry groups
in Australia, *has shown that genetically modified crops are less likely
to survive in the wild than their conventionally-bred counterparts.*
Even if a weed acquires one or more resistance genes it could still be
controlled by other herbicide chemicals, or by traditional methods such
as tillage. Also, the transferred gene would not make the plant grow
more vigorously.

The question of how readily a crop gene will transfer to a weed species
is being actively researched. In trials at Adelaide University’s Waite
campus, in which herbicide tolerant canola plants were grown closely
alongside wild radish, only two out of 75 million plants
cross-pollinated. For more information on cross-pollination research go
to the CRC for Australian Weed Management
website.http://www.weedscrc.org.au/index_noflash.html

Despite these figures, regulators and scientists have insisted on
reducing the risk still further, by designing ‘exclusion zones’ around
some GM crops, and by careful licensing so that herbicide-resistant
crops are not allowed to be grown in areas in which closely-related
weeds occur. Continuing work is also investigating the likelihood of
transfer of herbicide tolerance genes from genetically modified crops to
non-genetically modified crops.

The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) has the authority to
apply conditions to both field trials and commercial releases of GMOs to
stop the GMO and its genetic material from entering the broader
environment. This includes limiting the geographic area and size of such
crops areas, requiring isolation zones to separate the GM crop from
similar crops and requiring monitoring of the area to ensure that the
GMO hasn't spread beyond the site upon which it is grown, and post trial
monitoring to ensure that the GMO does not persist in the environment
beyond the trial period.

In the future it may become possible to prevent added genes from
entering the pollen of a GM plant by ensuring that such genes are only
present in the chloroplasts of plants (because chloroplasts, a component
of green plant cells, are not found in pollen cells). In this case,
there would be no chance of the added gene moving to another plant via
for example, pollen.

Other issues may fall into the worry factor

Many people are worried that gene technology is very risky, and it's
certainly sensible to consider any hazards that this new technology may
bring. By recognising its potential risks, we can ensure that
appropriate safety measures are in place. In this way, gene technology
is like many other technologies we currently use; for example,
electricity. Electricity is delivered to our homes, schools and offices
in a form that is easily lethal — and yet we accept the risk because
great care is taken to minimise its dangers and because we appreciate
the benefits that this technology has brought us.

In Australia, gene technology is carefully regulated so that any risks
are managed and contained, while allowing its benefits to be realised.

The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator was established by the
Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2001 (GT Act), and is responsible for
regulating genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The object of the GT
Act is to “protect the health and safety of people, and protect the
environment, by identifying risks posed by or as a result of gene
technology, and by managing those risks through regulating certain
dealings with GMOs”. ‘Dealings’ with GMOs include contained laboratory
research, field trials and commercial release of GM crops.

The GT Act establishes offences for unauthorised dealings with
genetically modified organisms. If such dealings occur, offenders are
subject to penalties of up $1.1 million, or 5 years imprisonment. These
penalties are described in more detail in Part 4, Division 2 of the Gene
Technology Act.

For more information about the OGTR and the GT Act contact the OGTR on
1800 181 030, or visit their website.

The Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) protects public health
by ensuring that GM foods are safe for consumption. FSANZ assesses the
safety of GM foods, and all GM foods must be assessed as safe before
they are allowed to be sold in Australia.

The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code provides a common set of
food regulations in Australia and New Zealand, including standards for
GM foods.

Food standards have the force of law. It's a criminal offence in
Australia to supply food that doesn't comply with relevant food standards


Long Post but weight was put upon the fact that this group
is said to be interested in food .

One lives in constant hope that one day the truth will come out
of how arrogant and downright dangerous the likes of Monsanto have
been in not only agriculture but other areas as well
What you eat today walks and talks tomorrow .
Perhaps GW Bush got a lot of Monsanto chems when he was a kid

Steps of soap box
However, if any on here require further detail just ask and happy to
send off Ng
P

In article >,
"phil..c" > wrote:


> I mean I have even seen gold fish bred for Neurological research
> that get the optic and brain pathways convoluted
> and end up swimming about upside down (poor little buggers)

Makes no sense. Are you sure you weren't just looking at a picture
upside down?

The image that is focused on the retina of our eyes is upside down and
reversed right to left. It's the brain that reverses these around.
I've had several eye surgeries, and when there's a problem in the back
of your eye on the left side, it's the vision on the right that is lost.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote:

> Brief descriptions, too.
> http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
>
> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.

You can't grow or genetically modify raisins. You can do that with
grapes, though.

Grapples I've eaten before. They only smell like grapes. They
taste like apples (and not very good ones).

Pluots and tangelos have been around for decades.

-sw

"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>
> Brief descriptions, too.
> http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
>
> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
> --
>
> modom


Interesting page.
All the foodstuffs we eat are genetically modified. Sometimes that
modification took place centuries ago. Other modifications are more
modern.
Simple hybridisation (pollen transfer by insects, wind or humans) is
genetic modification. The insulin gene put into the lettuce required
more than pollen transfer
Carrots naturally come in many colours; the orange sort has become the
most common in parts of the world.

On Mar 10, 7:03*pm, "modom (palindrome guy)" >
wrote:
> Brief descriptions, too.http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
>
> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.

I've heard of pluots, tangelos, and grapples. I could understand
someone modifying grapes to be huge. But the lemato looked like yet
another Photoshopped item. So I goodsearched it and found enough
articles not dated 1 April to convince me it is a real ...something.

What really caught my eye was the lettuce that makes insulin when it's
eaten.

maxine in ri

In article >,
"modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote:

> Brief descriptions, too.
> http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
>
> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
> --
>
> modom

Ok, that was interesting. :-) Thanks!
--
Peace! Om

I find hope in the darkest of days, and focus in the brightest. I do not judge the universe. -- Dalai Lama

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:14:28 -0700, Arri London >
wrote:

>
>
>"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>>
>> Brief descriptions, too.
>> http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
>>
>> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
>> --
>>
>> modom
>
>
>Interesting page.
>All the foodstuffs we eat are genetically modified. Sometimes that
>modification took place centuries ago. Other modifications are more
>modern.
>Simple hybridisation (pollen transfer by insects, wind or humans) is
>genetic modification. The insulin gene put into the lettuce required
>more than pollen transfer
>Carrots naturally come in many colours; the orange sort has become the
>most common in parts of the world.

I had a protracted (and rather boring) argument on this topic with
Michel Boucher a while back. But here goes...

In my estimation, breeding hybrids isn't in the same class as
injecting genetic material from one organism into another. Pollen
from one variety of corn can fertilize the seeds of another, to be
sure. But injecting genes from the insecticidal microbe Bacillus
thuringiensis into food crops like corn and potatoes -- which has been
done -- is not of a kind with breeding. Bacteria do not breed with
tubers or grains.

There is a difference in kind between the two practices.
--

modom

In article
>,
bulka > wrote:

> On Mar 10, 6:03 pm, "modom (palindrome guy)" >
> wrote:
> > Brief descriptions,
> > too.http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
> >
> > I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
> > --
> >
> > modom
>
> Yeah to the lemato.
>
> But what? No Tomacco?
>
> B

I read somewhere once that one genetic engineer produced a tomato that
had a high THC content. ;-)

Growing tomatoes is legal. Growing pot is not... so it was quite
amusing.
--
Peace! Om

I find hope in the darkest of days, and focus in the brightest. I do not judge the universe. -- Dalai Lama

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:01:49 +0900, "phil..c" >
wrote:

>Arri London wrote:
>>
>> "modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>>> Brief descriptions, too.
>>> http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
>>>
>>> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
>>> --
>>>
>>> modom

>> Interesting page.
>> All the foodstuffs we eat are genetically modified. Sometimes that
>> modification took place centuries ago. Other modifications are more
>> modern.
>> Simple hybridisation (pollen transfer by insects, wind or humans) is
>> genetic modification. The insulin gene put into the lettuce required
>> more than pollen transfer
>> Carrots naturally come in many colours; the orange sort has become the
>> most common in parts of the world.
>
>Arri I am still personally a NON GM sort of person
>in some areas but not all I have profound issues with the manner and
>corporate behaviour of the likes of Monsanto just to name one .
>Consider the following
>
snippage
>Steps of soap box
>However, if any on here require further detail just ask and happy to
>send off Ng
>P

Good post, Phil. I linked to the site because the pictures were fun,
but you make important observations about unintended consequences and
Big Ag's effects on our food supply in general.
--

modom

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:03:18 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> "phil..c" > wrote:
>
>> I mean I have even seen gold fish bred for Neurological research
>> that get the optic and brain pathways convoluted
>> and end up swimming about upside down (poor little buggers)
>
> Makes no sense. Are you sure you weren't just looking at a picture
> upside down?
>
> The image that is focused on the retina of our eyes is upside down and
> reversed right to left. It's the brain that reverses these around.
> I've had several eye surgeries, and when there's a problem in the back
> of your eye on the left side, it's the vision on the right that is lost.

i was going to say something similar - that if the fish swam upside down
all its life, that would necessarily seem natural to it.

your pal,
blake

modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> Brief descriptions, too.
> http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
>
> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
> --
>
> modom


Looks like part hoax and some photoshopping to me.

Tangelos and pluots are hybrids, not "genetically engineered".
The huge raisins and lemato look like photoshop.
As far as the insulin-carrying lettuce, who knows?

gloria p

"phil..c" wrote:
>
> Arri London wrote:
> >
> > "modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
> >> Brief descriptions, too.
> >> http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
> >>
> >> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
> >> --
> >>
> >> modom
> >
> >
> > Interesting page.
> > All the foodstuffs we eat are genetically modified. Sometimes that
> > modification took place centuries ago. Other modifications are more
> > modern.
> > Simple hybridisation (pollen transfer by insects, wind or humans) is
> > genetic modification. The insulin gene put into the lettuce required
> > more than pollen transfer
> > Carrots naturally come in many colours; the orange sort has become the
> > most common in parts of the world.
>
> Arri I am still personally a NON GM sort of person
> in some areas but not all I have profound issues with the manner and
> corporate behaviour of the likes of Monsanto just to name one .
> Consider the following:

<snip very good considerations>

BTDT, my PhD is in biotechnology/genetic engineering The work
concerned medical/pharmaceutical uses.

Never did any work with modifiying agricultural products for just those
reasons, but had to attend lectures/read up on those topics. What people
generally miss about agbiotech is that the seeds are *licenced* by the
user rather than being bought outright. That makes them unsuitable for
third-world/poor farmers, who would be at the mercy of brokers who could
actually read and understand the licencing agreements. It is illegal to
save seeds resulting from biotech crops, contrary to practices that have
worked well for millenia. Monsanto and other agbiotech companies have a
bad track record for trying to prosecute farmers whose crops turn out to
be engineered, when no such seed was deliberately planted. The seeds
were 'contaminated' in transit, which is another major issue.

Could also go on at great length but won't

"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:14:28 -0700, Arri London >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
> >>
> >> Brief descriptions, too.
> >> http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
> >>
> >> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
> >> --
> >>
> >> modom
> >
> >
> >Interesting page.
> >All the foodstuffs we eat are genetically modified. Sometimes that
> >modification took place centuries ago. Other modifications are more
> >modern.
> >Simple hybridisation (pollen transfer by insects, wind or humans) is
> >genetic modification. The insulin gene put into the lettuce required
> >more than pollen transfer
> >Carrots naturally come in many colours; the orange sort has become the
> >most common in parts of the world.
>
> I had a protracted (and rather boring) argument on this topic with
> Michel Boucher a while back. But here goes...
>
> In my estimation, breeding hybrids isn't in the same class as
> injecting genetic material from one organism into another. Pollen
> from one variety of corn can fertilize the seeds of another, to be
> sure. But injecting genes from the insecticidal microbe Bacillus
> thuringiensis into food crops like corn and potatoes -- which has been
> done -- is not of a kind with breeding. Bacteria do not breed with
> tubers or grains.
>
> There is a difference in kind between the two practices.
> --
>
> modom

Of course there is. Most of the pics on that site are of produce
resulting from traditional hybridisation work. Only the lettuce seems to
be true biotech (placing of 'foreign' genes). Just trying to clarify
that traditional breeding practices are still a form of genetic
modification.

Arri London wrote:
> <snip very good considerations>
>
> BTDT, my PhD is in biotechnology/genetic engineering The work
> concerned medical/pharmaceutical uses.
>
> Never did any work with modifiying agricultural products for just those
> reasons, but had to attend lectures/read up on those topics. What people
> generally miss about agbiotech is that the seeds are *licenced* by the
> user rather than being bought outright. That makes them unsuitable for
> third-world/poor farmers, who would be at the mercy of brokers who could
> actually read and understand the licencing agreements. It is illegal to
> save seeds resulting from biotech crops, contrary to practices that have
> worked well for millenia. Monsanto and other agbiotech companies have a
> bad track record for trying to prosecute farmers whose crops turn out to
> be engineered, when no such seed was deliberately planted. The seeds
> were 'contaminated' in transit, which is another major issue.
>
> Could also go on at great length but won't
>

Aw shucks, just when it was getting good. :-) Feel free to elaborate
any time, I was enjoying it.


Becca

Right now, there are laboratories full of Frankenstein's who are
conjuring up a union of freak show fruits and vegetables that we will
some day be cooking. Awesome.


Becca

Arri London wrote:
>
> "phil..c" wrote:
>> Arri London wrote:
>>> "modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>>>> Brief descriptions, too.
>>>> http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> modom
>>>
>>> Interesting page.
>>> All the foodstuffs we eat are genetically modified. Sometimes that
>>> modification took place centuries ago. Other modifications are more
>>> modern.
>>> Simple hybridisation (pollen transfer by insects, wind or humans) is
>>> genetic modification. The insulin gene put into the lettuce required
>>> more than pollen transfer
>>> Carrots naturally come in many colours; the orange sort has become the
>>> most common in parts of the world.
>> Arri I am still personally a NON GM sort of person
>> in some areas but not all I have profound issues with the manner and
>> corporate behaviour of the likes of Monsanto just to name one .
>> Consider the following:
>
> <snip very good considerations>
>
> BTDT, my PhD is in biotechnology/genetic engineering The work
> concerned medical/pharmaceutical uses.

Arri wonderful discipline (off Ng we should perhaps speak again)
Some delightful stuff happening here by Natural cross pollination

We have been Trialing Indian mustard seed varieties, Lupins Tritacali
and wheat barely
and x breeding a sea grass with wheat and have had up/down success
with salt tolerant strains fighting our galloping soil salinity .

Also mucking about with result various peptides and breeding strains
again via assisted ( camera blow brush is a handy tool )
of cereals that lead to less acidosis .

There has been some truly elegant science emerge as a result .


>
> Never did any work with modifiying agricultural products for just those
> reasons, but had to attend lectures/read up on those topics. What people
> generally miss about agbiotech is that the seeds are *licenced* by the
> user rather than being bought outright. That makes them unsuitable for
> third-world/poor farmers, who would be at the mercy of brokers who could
> actually read and understand the licencing agreements. It is illegal to
> save seeds resulting from biotech crops, contrary to practices that have
> worked well for millenia. Monsanto and other agbiotech companies have a
> bad track record for trying to prosecute farmers whose crops turn out to
> be engineered, when no such seed was deliberately planted. The seeds
> were 'contaminated' in transit, which is another major issue.
>
> Could also go on at great length but won't

Same here but there have been some dreadful decisions handed down by
the courts because of certain querks in our laws .

Majority are going through the appeals process
but the big guns have far more money than farmers who have also had a
bashing due to weather .

Here under our Joint Economic Development cells as well as the other
hats I have to wear we are working with Unesco & others to address
what you & I have similar issues with .

Also touches on stock & human feeds a HUGE area
and getting the supply chain to comply is a nightmare in itself

Cheers we should swap papers <grin>

One of our Partners is also Negev University
ranging from Solar and renewable research to
dry land broad acre farming .

Food security is also a national security issue.
I better stop now as far beyond the charter of this group

Take care
Phil

Becca wrote:
>
> Arri London wrote:
> > <snip very good considerations>
> >
> > BTDT, my PhD is in biotechnology/genetic engineering The work
> > concerned medical/pharmaceutical uses.
> >
> > Never did any work with modifiying agricultural products for just those
> > reasons, but had to attend lectures/read up on those topics. What people
> > generally miss about agbiotech is that the seeds are *licenced* by the
> > user rather than being bought outright. That makes them unsuitable for
> > third-world/poor farmers, who would be at the mercy of brokers who could
> > actually read and understand the licencing agreements. It is illegal to
> > save seeds resulting from biotech crops, contrary to practices that have
> > worked well for millenia. Monsanto and other agbiotech companies have a
> > bad track record for trying to prosecute farmers whose crops turn out to
> > be engineered, when no such seed was deliberately planted. The seeds
> > were 'contaminated' in transit, which is another major issue.
> >
> > Could also go on at great length but won't
> >
>
> Aw shucks, just when it was getting good. :-) Feel free to elaborate
> any time, I was enjoying it.
>
> Becca

LOL. Nah...have had enough soapbox time.
What it does come down to is consumer preference. Other biotech crops
(such as tomatoes) have failed in the marketplace simply because people
didn't want to buy them. The FDA is making life difficult by refusing to
require growers and manufacturers to label products as containing GMOs
(direct DNA-manipulated, that is). Labelling is done in other countries.
American farmers who choose *not* to grow GMOs can get a premium for
their crops overseas.

"Arri London" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "phil..c" wrote:
>>
>> Arri London wrote:
>> >
>> > "phil..c" wrote:
>> >> Arri London wrote:
>> >>> "modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>> >>>> Brief descriptions, too.
>> >>>> http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
>> >>>> --
>> >>>>
>> >>>> modom
>> >>>
>> >>> Interesting page.
>> >>> All the foodstuffs we eat are genetically modified. Sometimes that
>> >>> modification took place centuries ago. Other modifications are more
>> >>> modern.
>> >>> Simple hybridisation (pollen transfer by insects, wind or humans) is
>> >>> genetic modification. The insulin gene put into the lettuce required
>> >>> more than pollen transfer
>> >>> Carrots naturally come in many colours; the orange sort has become
>> >>> the
>> >>> most common in parts of the world.
>> >> Arri I am still personally a NON GM sort of person
>> >> in some areas but not all I have profound issues with the manner and
>> >> corporate behaviour of the likes of Monsanto just to name one .
>> >> Consider the following:
>> >
>> > <snip very good considerations>
>> >
>> > BTDT, my PhD is in biotechnology/genetic engineering The work
>> > concerned medical/pharmaceutical uses.
>>
>> Arri wonderful discipline (off Ng we should perhaps speak again)
>> Some delightful stuff happening here by Natural cross pollination
>
> Yes of course. It is a form of naturally-occurring genetic modification
> but the term has been hijacked by the biotech people :P
>
>
>>
>> We have been Trialing Indian mustard seed varieties, Lupins Tritacali
>> and wheat barely
>> and x breeding a sea grass with wheat and have had up/down success
>> with salt tolerant strains fighting our galloping soil salinity .
>
> Should work fine in the long run. Plenty of salt-tolerant plants around
> to play with.
>
>>
>> Also mucking about with result various peptides and breeding strains
>> again via assisted ( camera blow brush is a handy tool )
>> of cereals that lead to less acidosis .
>
> Also sounds good. Have been known to pollinate plants with a tiny
> paintbrush. Works fine if one isn't dealing with hectares.
>
>>
>> There has been some truly elegant science emerge as a result .
>
> Of course. More than one way to breed a plant or animal.
>
>><snippage>
>
>> >
>> > Could also go on at great length but won't
>>
>> Same here but there have been some dreadful decisions handed down by
>> the courts because of certain querks in our laws .
>
>>
>> Majority are going through the appeals process
>> but the big guns have far more money than farmers who have also had a
>> bashing due to weather .
>
> Precisely. Those with the most legal staff win.
>
>>
>> Here under our Joint Economic Development cells as well as the other
>> hats I have to wear we are working with Unesco & others to address
>> what you & I have similar issues with .
>>
>> Also touches on stock & human feeds a HUGE area
>> and getting the supply chain to comply is a nightmare in itself
>
> The agbiotech industry likes to tout their work as the solution to world
> hunger. Not going to happen that way. There is more than enough food
> around the world to feed everyone. Wars, politics and lack of
> infrastructure cause famine more than 'traditional' forms of
> agriculture.
>
>>
>> Cheers we should swap papers <grin>
>
> LOL. My work (plant cloning among other things) is vastly out of date.
> Most recent publication along those lines was several years ago and
> didn't involve original research.
>
>>
>> One of our Partners is also Negev University
>> ranging from Solar and renewable research to
>> dry land broad acre farming .
>>
>> Food security is also a national security issue.
>> I better stop now as far beyond the charter of this group
>>
>> Take care
>> Phil
>
> Still needs to be discussed. With lack of consumer labelling in the US
> it's difficult to avoid biotech foods if one chooses not to buy them.
> Something labelled 'non GMO containing' shouldn't contain such things.
> Something that has no such labelling may or may not contain biotech
> foods.
>
> TC yourself and keep up the good work!

There is something fraudulent about that giant raisin, raisins are not grown
as raisins... grapes are grown, then picked, and then dried into raisins.
Only certain types of grapes can be dried. Grapes need to be a variety that
contains sufficient sugar to act as a preservative while being dehydrated or
it will rot. That giant raisin looks more like a type of dried plum, making
it a prune.

"phil..c" wrote:
>
> Arri London wrote:
> >
> > "phil..c" wrote:
> >> Arri London wrote:
> >>> "modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
> >>>> Brief descriptions, too.
> >>>> http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> modom
> >>>
> >>> Interesting page.
> >>> All the foodstuffs we eat are genetically modified. Sometimes that
> >>> modification took place centuries ago. Other modifications are more
> >>> modern.
> >>> Simple hybridisation (pollen transfer by insects, wind or humans) is
> >>> genetic modification. The insulin gene put into the lettuce required
> >>> more than pollen transfer
> >>> Carrots naturally come in many colours; the orange sort has become the
> >>> most common in parts of the world.
> >> Arri I am still personally a NON GM sort of person
> >> in some areas but not all I have profound issues with the manner and
> >> corporate behaviour of the likes of Monsanto just to name one .
> >> Consider the following:
> >
> > <snip very good considerations>
> >
> > BTDT, my PhD is in biotechnology/genetic engineering The work
> > concerned medical/pharmaceutical uses.
>
> Arri wonderful discipline (off Ng we should perhaps speak again)
> Some delightful stuff happening here by Natural cross pollination

Yes of course. It is a form of naturally-occurring genetic modification
but the term has been hijacked by the biotech people :P


>
> We have been Trialing Indian mustard seed varieties, Lupins Tritacali
> and wheat barely
> and x breeding a sea grass with wheat and have had up/down success
> with salt tolerant strains fighting our galloping soil salinity .

Should work fine in the long run. Plenty of salt-tolerant plants around
to play with.

>
> Also mucking about with result various peptides and breeding strains
> again via assisted ( camera blow brush is a handy tool )
> of cereals that lead to less acidosis .

Also sounds good. Have been known to pollinate plants with a tiny
paintbrush. Works fine if one isn't dealing with hectares.

>
> There has been some truly elegant science emerge as a result .

Of course. More than one way to breed a plant or animal.

><snippage>

> >
> > Could also go on at great length but won't
>
> Same here but there have been some dreadful decisions handed down by
> the courts because of certain querks in our laws .

>
> Majority are going through the appeals process
> but the big guns have far more money than farmers who have also had a
> bashing due to weather .

Precisely. Those with the most legal staff win.

>
> Here under our Joint Economic Development cells as well as the other
> hats I have to wear we are working with Unesco & others to address
> what you & I have similar issues with .
>
> Also touches on stock & human feeds a HUGE area
> and getting the supply chain to comply is a nightmare in itself

The agbiotech industry likes to tout their work as the solution to world
hunger. Not going to happen that way. There is more than enough food
around the world to feed everyone. Wars, politics and lack of
infrastructure cause famine more than 'traditional' forms of
agriculture.

>
> Cheers we should swap papers <grin>

LOL. My work (plant cloning among other things) is vastly out of date.
Most recent publication along those lines was several years ago and
didn't involve original research.

>
> One of our Partners is also Negev University
> ranging from Solar and renewable research to
> dry land broad acre farming .
>
> Food security is also a national security issue.
> I better stop now as far beyond the charter of this group
>
> Take care
> Phil

Still needs to be discussed. With lack of consumer labelling in the US
it's difficult to avoid biotech foods if one chooses not to buy them.
Something labelled 'non GMO containing' shouldn't contain such things.
Something that has no such labelling may or may not contain biotech
foods.

TC yourself and keep up the good work!

"modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote in message
...
> Brief descriptions, too.
> http://webecoist.com/2009/02/19/gene...ts-vegetables/
>
> I'd like to taste a lemato, I think.
> --
>
> modom

I've tried the Grapple. I was unimpressed.