🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:52:24 +1200, Steve <steve@nospam.org.nz> wrote:

>It's obvious,really.
>
>If you want to be certain there are no GE seeds....thendon't import any.
>
>No tests required. No margin of error.
>
>No problem.
>
>We might even create a new export industry - selling seed stock to the
>reast of the world that is known to be GE free....because we don't have any.
>
>This could put organics in the shade in years ahead.
>
>Why join everyone else selling Franken-seeds? We may end up being the
>only place on Earth left where you can buy the original, untouched, for
>real deal.
>
>Now THERE is competitive advantage!!!

Very well, but lets' turn this one right round.

How would our overseas customers be able, with zero possiblity of
error, to have the confidence that NZ seed would be 100% G-free?

What tests could they be able to make to ensure this without
destroying 100% of every consignment?

Official and scientific assurance is one thing but verifiable and
incontrovertible proof is another, which is exactly the argument
that's been currently  running in New Zealand.

So, why should these export markets trust New Zealand any more than
any other exporter of (claimed) 100% GE-free product?

On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:52:24 +1200, Steve <steve@nospam.org.nz> wrote:

>It's obvious,really.
>
>If you want to be certain there are no GE seeds....thendon't import any.
>
>No tests required. No margin of error.
>
>No problem.
>
>We might even create a new export industry - selling seed stock to the
>reast of the world that is known to be GE free....because we don't have any.

But the rest of the world accepts GE.  So where's the market?


>This could put organics in the shade in years ahead.

>
>Why join everyone else selling Franken-seeds? We may end up being the
>only place on Earth left where you can buy the original, untouched, for
>real deal.
>
>Now THERE is competitive advantage!!!

Steve this emotional clap trap really is.....well emotional claptrap


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But we now seem to have a media that is not intellectually equipped
to ask questions about any issues other than populist issues.
Not that 'paintergate' or GM are really populist issues; they are
populist issues manufactured by a media that prefers populist
issues, personality issues,and cover-ups to intelligent analysis.

Keith Rankin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:04:00 GMT, news-man@parydise.not.nx (Newsman)
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:52:24 +1200, Steve <steve@nospam.org.nz> wrote:
>
>>It's obvious,really.
>>
>>If you want to be certain there are no GE seeds....thendon't import any.
>>
>>No tests required. No margin of error.
>>
>>No problem.
>>
>>We might even create a new export industry - selling seed stock to the
>>reast of the world that is known to be GE free....because we don't have any.
>>
>>This could put organics in the shade in years ahead.
>>
>>Why join everyone else selling Franken-seeds? We may end up being the
>>only place on Earth left where you can buy the original, untouched, for
>>real deal.
>>
>>Now THERE is competitive advantage!!!
>
>Very well, but lets' turn this one right round.
>
>How would our overseas customers be able, with zero possiblity of
>error, to have the confidence that NZ seed would be 100% G-free?

They wouldn't!

>
>What tests could they be able to make to ensure this without
>destroying 100% of every consignment?

They'd have to start their own GE free seed industry to be sure....

And so it goes

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But we now seem to have a media that is not intellectually equipped
to ask questions about any issues other than populist issues.
Not that 'paintergate' or GM are really populist issues; they are
populist issues manufactured by a media that prefers populist
issues, personality issues,and cover-ups to intelligent analysis.

Keith Rankin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 01:39:52 GMT, kerryd@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz
(Kerry) wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:04:00 GMT, news-man@parydise.not.nx (Newsman)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:52:24 +1200, Steve <steve@nospam.org.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>It's obvious,really.
>>>
>>>If you want to be certain there are no GE seeds....thendon't import any.
>>>
>>>No tests required. No margin of error.
>>>
>>>No problem.
>>>
>>>We might even create a new export industry - selling seed stock to the
>>>reast of the world that is known to be GE free....because we don't have any.
>>>
>>>This could put organics in the shade in years ahead.
>>>
>>>Why join everyone else selling Franken-seeds? We may end up being the
>>>only place on Earth left where you can buy the original, untouched, for
>>>real deal.
>>>
>>>Now THERE is competitive advantage!!!
>>
>>Very well, but lets' turn this one right round.
>>
>>How would our overseas customers be able, with zero possiblity of
>>error, to have the confidence that NZ seed would be 100% G-free?
>
>They wouldn't!
>
>>
>>What tests could they be able to make to ensure this without
>>destroying 100% of every consignment?
>
>They'd have to start their own GE free seed industry to be sure....
>
>And so it goes

Precisely.

Thankyou.

I'm surprised that some of those contributing to the debate on this
issue seem to have left the wit they were born with somewhere out
there in the onion patch.

Seems extraordinary to me.

"Newsman" <news-man@parydise.not.nx> wrote in message
news:3d2f6ca0.7151688@news.paradise.net.nz...
>
> So, why should these export markets trust New Zealand any more than
> any other exporter of (claimed) 100% GE-free product?

Because the Greenies say so?

On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 15:27:49 +1200, Steve <steve@nospam.org.nz> wrote:

>Kerry wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:52:24 +1200, Steve <steve@nospam.org.nz> wrote:

>>>Why join everyone else selling Franken-seeds? We may end up being the
>>>only place on Earth left where you can buy the original, untouched, for
>>>real deal.
>>>
>>>Now THERE is competitive advantage!!!
>>
>> Steve this emotional clap trap really is.....well emotional claptrap
>
>It is not emotional claptrap...though that saves you having to engage in
>a real and detailed debate about the merits of GE for us in agriculture.
>
>Labels sure save time...and avoid having to inform oneself...or think.
>
>I never had you figured as a labeller, Kerry.

Franken-seeds?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But we now seem to have a media that is not intellectually equipped
to ask questions about any issues other than populist issues.
Not that 'paintergate' or GM are really populist issues; they are
populist issues manufactured by a media that prefers populist
issues, personality issues,and cover-ups to intelligent analysis.

Keith Rankin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:52:24 +1200, Steve <steve@nospam.org.nz> had
this to say:

>It's obvious,really.
>
>If you want to be certain there are no GE seeds....thendon't import any.
>
>No tests required. No margin of error.
>
>No problem.
>
>We might even create a new export industry - selling seed stock to the
>reast of the world that is known to be GE free....because we don't have any.
>
>This could put organics in the shade in years ahead.
>
>Why join everyone else selling Franken-seeds? We may end up being the
>only place on Earth left where you can buy the original, untouched, for
>real deal.
>
>Now THERE is competitive advantage!!!

Your whole argument falls over, as we cannot be any more surer that
our existing seeds are GE-free than those now infamous corn seeds.

You don't understand statistics. The only way to be 100% sure, is to
test (and destroy) 100% of the seeds, which could prove to be very
expensive indeed!

And as far as Organics go, recent evidence showing that organic foods
are both less "good for you" and don't taste as good (based on blind
tests, rather than organic propoganda) will undoubtedly be demoting
organic farming to a small niche market of uneducated hippies anyway
(ie. the "feel good" factor). Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that
all hippies are uneducated, but you cannot deny that they are
over-represented in this category.

GE is a technological advancement, allowing the same modification as
has been happening since the dawn of time itself. Except now we have
the technology to perfect our food at the molecular level.

GE is not the crime against nature and God that you seem to think it
is, and no worse than grafting apples onto a pear tree.

Newsman wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:52:24 +1200, Steve <steve@nospam.org.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>It's obvious,really.
>>
>>If you want to be certain there are no GE seeds....thendon't import any.
>>
>>No tests required. No margin of error.
>>
>>No problem.
>>
>>We might even create a new export industry - selling seed stock to the
>>reast of the world that is known to be GE free....because we don't have any.
>>
>>This could put organics in the shade in years ahead.
>>
>>Why join everyone else selling Franken-seeds? We may end up being the
>>only place on Earth left where you can buy the original, untouched, for
>>real deal.
>>
>>Now THERE is competitive advantage!!!
>
>
> Very well, but lets' turn this one right round.
>
> How would our overseas customers be able, with zero possiblity of
> error, to have the confidence that NZ seed would be 100% G-free?

Because we don't have any released into the environment here.

The problem with overseas seed companies is they do deal in GE
seeds....and the container that had our corn in it back at the seed
store might have previously had GE wheat in it....or some other thing.

If we don't grow or sell or import GE crops or seed....then we can make
a very strong case that we don't have any. Of course each day that goes
by with the present government's "None...um.....maybe none" approach
places such a strategy in danger....

Like breaking bones or losing limbs......let's think before we do
something irrevocable.

The Greens are trying to make people think about this thourgh the Gren
stance on GE. It is notoriously difficult to get people to think....I
can assure you from first hand experience. They can do it...but they
don't like it and will avoid it if possible..including attacking whoever
it is trying to make them do it. Government's come up against the same
problem.....and are often voted out for doing so.

> What tests could they be able to make to ensure this without
> destroying 100% of every consignment?

When did you stop beating your wife? If there isn't any....there isn't any.

> Official and scientific assurance is one thing but verifiable and
> incontrovertible proof is another, which is exactly the argument
> that's been currently  running in New Zealand.

No...it isn't. If we don't grow GE crops here and don't import seeds
from overseas...then we can put our hands on our hearts and make the
truthful claim there is no GE growing here.

> So, why should these export markets trust New Zealand any more than
> any other exporter of (claimed) 100% GE-free product?

Because we don't deal in it.....and their local suppliers do.

Obvious....when you think about it.

John Smith wrote:
> "Newsman" <news-man@parydise.not.nx> wrote in message
> news:3d2f6ca0.7151688@news.paradise.net.nz...
>
>>So, why should these export markets trust New Zealand any more than
>>any other exporter of (claimed) 100% GE-free product?
>
>
> Because the Greenies say so?

John....add a genuine thought every once in a while...just for variety.

Kerry wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:04:00 GMT, news-man@parydise.not.nx (Newsman)
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:52:24 +1200, Steve <steve@nospam.org.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's obvious,really.
>>>
>>>If you want to be certain there are no GE seeds....thendon't import any.
>>>
>>>No tests required. No margin of error.
>>>
>>>No problem.
>>>
>>>We might even create a new export industry - selling seed stock to the
>>>reast of the world that is known to be GE free....because we don't have any.
>>>
>>>This could put organics in the shade in years ahead.
>>>
>>>Why join everyone else selling Franken-seeds? We may end up being the
>>>only place on Earth left where you can buy the original, untouched, for
>>>real deal.
>>>
>>>Now THERE is competitive advantage!!!
>>
>>Very well, but lets' turn this one right round.
>>
>>How would our overseas customers be able, with zero possiblity of
>>error, to have the confidence that NZ seed would be 100% G-free?
>
>
> They wouldn't!
>
>
>>What tests could they be able to make to ensure this without
>>destroying 100% of every consignment?
>
>
> They'd have to start their own GE free seed industry to be sure....
>
> And so it goes

But thye can't.....becasue they already have GE plants growing there.

We can.....because we (probably) don't. All the more important to look
at the corn more closely.

But as has been noted elsewhere....whether the corn was GE or
not....what HAPPENED around the corn issue is newsworthy by itself.

Kerry wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:52:24 +1200, Steve <steve@nospam.org.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>It's obvious,really.
>>
>>If you want to be certain there are no GE seeds....thendon't import any.
>>
>>No tests required. No margin of error.
>>
>>No problem.
>>
>>We might even create a new export industry - selling seed stock to the
>>reast of the world that is known to be GE free....because we don't have any.
>
> But the rest of the world accepts GE.  So where's the market?

You know you are wrong in saying that...so why say it?

GE may be permitted by many countries....but that does not mean that the
citizenry of those countries is in any way unanimously in support...and
in most cases they weren't even asked.

Do we want to emulate such un-democratic imposition of what may be
profound change? You might...I don't.

See? Not unanimous.

>>This could put organics in the shade in years ahead.
>
>>Why join everyone else selling Franken-seeds? We may end up being the
>>only place on Earth left where you can buy the original, untouched, for
>>real deal.
>>
>>Now THERE is competitive advantage!!!
>
> Steve this emotional clap trap really is.....well emotional claptrap

It is not emotional claptrap...though that saves you having to engage in
a real and detailed debate about the merits of GE for us in agriculture.

Labels sure save time...and avoid having to inform oneself...or think.

I never had you figured as a labeller, Kerry.

Gurble wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:52:24 +1200, Steve <steve@nospam.org.nz> had
> this to say:
>
>
>>It's obvious,really.
>>
>>If you want to be certain there are no GE seeds....thendon't import any.
>>
>>No tests required. No margin of error.
>>
>>No problem.
>>
>>We might even create a new export industry - selling seed stock to the
>>reast of the world that is known to be GE free....because we don't have any.
>>
>>This could put organics in the shade in years ahead.
>>
>>Why join everyone else selling Franken-seeds? We may end up being the
>>only place on Earth left where you can buy the original, untouched, for
>>real deal.
>>
>>Now THERE is competitive advantage!!!
>
>
> Your whole argument falls over, as we cannot be any more surer that
> our existing seeds are GE-free than those now infamous corn seeds.

Why not? Who did this? Our law makes such a thing illegal.

Let's enforce the law,then.....a key campaign issue for many parties
this year...law enforcement.

> You don't understand statistics. The only way to be 100% sure, is to
> test (and destroy) 100% of the seeds, which could prove to be very
> expensive indeed!

I understand stats just fine, Gurble....rest assured.

That is why I say we avoid the whole statistical fog being deliberately
thrown over the testing issue by avoiding having anything to test.

You now want to say maybe there is GE already here....OK....so let's
look at that. Can you provide an example? There should be none as it is
against the lawas it stands.

We had several tests showing the corn was GE to a very tiny percentage.
That highlighted gaps in the processes for handling such an eventuality.
  Steps appear to have been taken to ensure it won't happen again.

Good....so why weren't we told? It's a hot issue.

> And as far as Organics go, recent evidence showing that organic foods
> are both less "good for you" and don't taste as good (based on blind
> tests, rather than organic propoganda) will undoubtedly be demoting
> organic farming to a small niche market of uneducated hippies anyway
> (ie. the "feel good" factor). Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that
> all hippies are uneducated, but you cannot deny that they are
> over-represented in this category.

I don't know any hippies....sorry. What's a hippy?

Organics are an ideal solution for people who want to be sure their food
is free of agricultural chemicals and pesticides and artificial growth
hormones fed to cattle and other animals tom ake the grow faster.

All food used to be organic....until a few decades ago....so "studies"
showing organics as "deficient" are dubious at best.

> GE is a technological advancement, allowing the same modification as
> has been happening since the dawn of time itself. Except now we have
> the technology to perfect our food at the molecular level.

Frog have not been seen successfully reproducing with corn.Nor have
toads successfully mated with potatoes.

Your simple asumption that any gene can be mixed with any other
gene...and it's all the same....is not correct. Sugar, butter and flour
give you shortbread....while sugar, butter,flour and eggs give you
cake....and cake ain't shortbread.

Differences DO matter. What genes you put where...and the timing of
their activiation....all matter a great deal.

You will be aware that our genes are poretty much the same as
chimpanzees....but the TIMING of the activation of many of our genes -
the same genes - during gestation produces very different results.

The size of our skulls is in the same proportion as very young chimps in
relation to the rest of our bodies....so what we are is sexually mature
juvenile forms of apes.

Same genes, mostly....but different timing and sequencing.

As I say...differences matter a lot.

> GE is not the crime against nature and God that you seem to think it
> is, and no worse than grafting apples onto a pear tree.

Who mentioed God? I didn't. I dont believe in ghosts....I'm an atheist.

Moreover, there is no such thing as a crime against nature.....and that
is not a phrase I would ever use.  It personaifies something that can't
be personified...and assumes an order that doesn't exist.

At the same time, I don't want people making changes to the global
genome without asking me, the *consequences* of which are NOT known.

and the consequences are NOT known....using all the same statistical
information bandied about here....there are likelihoods...but not
certainties....so the effects of smashing toad and potatoe genes (or
whatever) together are NOT known.

That is dumb....and I oppose it....because we don't know.

This is an exaqmple of something we should know before it is done to
us.....and we get the "OOOPPSS!!!" down the track.

What if Enron or Worldcom were biotech companies on the edge?

You would trust them?

I don't.

Newsman wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:52:24 +1200, Steve <steve@nospam.org.nz> wrote:
>
> >It's obvious,really.
> >
> >If you want to be certain there are no GE seeds....thendon't import any.
> >
> >No tests required. No margin of error.
> >
> >No problem.
> >
> >We might even create a new export industry - selling seed stock to the
> >reast of the world that is known to be GE free....because we don't have any.
> >
> >This could put organics in the shade in years ahead.
> >
> >Why join everyone else selling Franken-seeds? We may end up being the
> >only place on Earth left where you can buy the original, untouched, for
> >real deal.
> >
> >Now THERE is competitive advantage!!!
>
> Very well, but lets' turn this one right round.
>
> How would our overseas customers be able, with zero possiblity of
> error, to have the confidence that NZ seed would be 100% G-free?
>
> What tests could they be able to make to ensure this without
> destroying 100% of every consignment?
>
> Official and scientific assurance is one thing but verifiable and
> incontrovertible proof is another, which is exactly the argument
> that's been currently  running in New Zealand.
>
> So, why should these export markets trust New Zealand any more than
> any other exporter of (claimed) 100% GE-free product?

Ms Clark will personally autograph each batch.

JC

On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 15:21:53 +1200, Steve <steve@nospam.org.nz> wrote:

>
>> Official and scientific assurance is one thing but verifiable and
>> incontrovertible proof is another, which is exactly the argument
>> that's been currently  running in New Zealand.
>
>No...it isn't. If we don't grow GE crops here and don't import seeds
>from overseas...then we can put our hands on our hearts and make the
>truthful claim there is no GE growing here.

You better stop all Tourism as well then. And all imports of any
variety. There is no way you can guarantee 100% no seed has or will
come into the country.

The problem with your (and thr Greens) position is that it is not risk
competent.

..tom

Steve wrote:

> It's obvious,really.
>
> If you want to be certain there are no GE seeds....thendon't import any.

There is a problem with that tactic though, don't you think?

> No tests required. No margin of error.
>
> No problem.

Not with worrying about GE seeds there isn't, but it does of course create other
problems

"Steve" <steve@nospam.org.nz> wrote in message
news:3D2F9CF8.6030403@nospam.org.nz...
> John Smith wrote:
> > "Newsman" <news-man@parydise.not.nx> wrote in message
> > news:3d2f6ca0.7151688@news.paradise.net.nz...
> >
> >>So, why should these export markets trust New Zealand any more than
> >>any other exporter of (claimed) 100% GE-free product?
> >
> >
> > Because the Greenies say so?
>
> John....add a genuine thought every once in a while...just for variety.
>

Try taking your own advice.

On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 01:39:06 GMT, kerryd@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz
(Kerry) wrote:
>>
>>We might even create a new export industry - selling seed stock to the
>>reast of the world that is known to be GE free....because we don't have any.
>
>But the rest of the world accepts GE.  So where's the market?

But all the rest of the world do NOT accept GE. There's the market.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

"Steve" <steve@nospam.org.nz> wrote in message
news:3D2FA2DF.3050400@nospam.org.nz...
> Gurble wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:52:24 +1200, Steve <steve@nospam.org.nz> had
> > this to say:
> >
> >
> >>It's obvious,really.
> >>
> >>If you want to be certain there are no GE seeds....thendon't import any.
> >>
> >>No tests required. No margin of error.
> >>
> >>No problem.
> >>
> >>We might even create a new export industry - selling seed stock to the
> >>reast of the world that is known to be GE free....because we don't have
any.
> >>
> >>This could put organics in the shade in years ahead.
> >>
> >>Why join everyone else selling Franken-seeds? We may end up being the
> >>only place on Earth left where you can buy the original, untouched, for
> >>real deal.
> >>
> >>Now THERE is competitive advantage!!!
> >
> >
> > Your whole argument falls over, as we cannot be any more surer that
> > our existing seeds are GE-free than those now infamous corn seeds.
>
> Why not? Who did this? Our law makes such a thing illegal.
>
> Let's enforce the law,then.....a key campaign issue for many parties
> this year...law enforcement.
>
> > You don't understand statistics. The only way to be 100% sure, is to
> > test (and destroy) 100% of the seeds, which could prove to be very
> > expensive indeed!
>
> I understand stats just fine, Gurble....rest assured.
>
> That is why I say we avoid the whole statistical fog being deliberately
> thrown over the testing issue by avoiding having anything to test.

That is exactly the point people countering your simple proposition here are
making. In order for other countries to "avoid the statistical fog" over
whether seed they import from GE Free NZ is 100% GE Free, they would have to
avoid having anything to test first - there goes the market you speak of.

Regardless of whether or not we say we are GE Free or not - in order to be
sure, a country would have to test all the seed it imports from us - how do
they know that we are 100% sure we are GE Free? Regardless of whether it is
against the law as you point out - that does not actually mean we can
guarantee 100% that we are GE Free - as the only TEST would be DESTROYING
all the seed to TEST it for 100% accuracy. Remember, your post is entitled
"GE Certainty"

I know its hard Steve, but if you try really hard, and not be so arrogant as
you always are, you might just see that you are wrong.

On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 13:03:24 +1200, "Sue Bilstein"
<sue_bilstein@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>When the people at Lincoln tested a control sample of local-grown maize from
>Canterbury, they got positive results for GE.  (I heard this interview with
>a scientist on NatRad 9-to-noon, the day the row blew up - I expect plenty
>of people have mentioned this here, but I haven't been reading all posts).
>
>Green response, possibly? - "GE corn is all through our local seed stock -
>we're screwed now!"
>
>Alternative response - "Their test was producing false positives."


Sweetcorn GM testing results
11 july, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crop & Food Research today explained why some uncertainty surrounded
the test results they obtained in November 2000.

The testing system is carefully designed to control for false positive
and false negative results. However, in November 2000 when the testing
was undertaken, European Commission Standard negative controls in the
testing system were occasionally producing low level false positive
results. The presence of these false positives raised the
uncertainties about the interpretation of low level positive test
results. On 18 March 2002, we were notified by the suppliers of our
negative control, the zero percent Reference EU Standard, that the
product supplied did not meet specifications.

For the tests being discussed we used two gene sequences used in GM
corn, the nos sequence and the 35S sequence. The test results for
Jubilee NC9114, the sample at issue, were positive for the nos
sequence. Despite what we now know about the Reference Standard for
this test, the negative and positive controls reacted as expected.

The sample that tested positive (Jubilee NC9114) was one of eight
samples submitted for testing. Only the Jubilee sample returned
positive PCR tests. Subsequently the origin of this sample was found
to include a bag of seed which had been returned by a farmer. The bag
had talcum powder added to it, to make the seed flow better through
the drill. The presence of the talcum powder indicated that seed had
been removed from the bag, therefore introducing the opportunity for
soil and soil bacteria to contaminate the sample. This meant that the
positive test could have arisen from several sources of sample
contamination while the seed was outside the bag. Contamination with
soil and soil bacteria could account for the positive nos sequence
result.
---------------------------------------------------------------

The only positive sequence was found in a bag of seed that had been
tipped out and talced for sewing.  This was not done under
experimental conditions, but tipped out in uncontrolled farm
situation.


So one positive test of the two necessary for GE sequences, in 1 of 8
samples of seed.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But we now seem to have a media that is not intellectually equipped
to ask questions about any issues other than populist issues.
Not that 'paintergate' or GM are really populist issues; they are
populist issues manufactured by a media that prefers populist
issues, personality issues,and cover-ups to intelligent analysis.

Keith Rankin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Kerry" <kerryd@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3d303199.46595250@news.wlg.ihug.co.nz...
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 15:27:49 +1200, Steve <steve@nospam.org.nz> wrote:
>
> >Kerry wrote:
> >> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:52:24 +1200, Steve <steve@nospam.org.nz> wrote:
>
> >>>Why join everyone else selling Franken-seeds? We may end up being the
> >>>only place on Earth left where you can buy the original, untouched, for
> >>>real deal.
> >>>
> >>>Now THERE is competitive advantage!!!
> >>
> >> Steve this emotional clap trap really is.....well emotional claptrap
> >
> >It is not emotional claptrap...though that saves you having to engage in
> >a real and detailed debate about the merits of GE for us in agriculture.
> >
> >Labels sure save time...and avoid having to inform oneself...or think.
> >
> >I never had you figured as a labeller, Kerry.
>
> Franken-seeds?

LOL

"William J. Ewing" <ewing941@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3d30914d.2155415@news.netaccess.co.nz...
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 01:39:06 GMT, kerryd@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz
> (Kerry) wrote:
> >>
> >>We might even create a new export industry - selling seed stock to the
> >>reast of the world that is known to be GE free....because we don't have
any.
> >
> >But the rest of the world accepts GE.  So where's the market?
>
> But all the rest of the world do NOT accept GE. There's the market.
>
> There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Yeah, but how will you prove to your buyers that your seeds are 100 %
pure?...!

"Steve" <steve@nospam.org.nz> wrote in message
news:3D2F9D54.5040508@nospam.org.nz...
> Kerry wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:04:00 GMT, news-man@parydise.not.nx (Newsman)
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>How would our overseas customers be able, with zero possiblity of
> >>error, to have the confidence that NZ seed would be 100% G-free?
> >
> >
> > They wouldn't!
> >
> >
> >>What tests could they be able to make to ensure this without
> >>destroying 100% of every consignment?
> >
> >
> > They'd have to start their own GE free seed industry to be sure....
> >
> > And so it goes
>
> But thye can't.....becasue they already have GE plants growing there.
>
> We can.....because we (probably) don't. All the more important to look
> at the corn more closely.
>
> But as has been noted elsewhere....whether the corn was GE or
> not....what HAPPENED around the corn issue is newsworthy by itself.
>

When the people at Lincoln tested a control sample of local-grown maize from
Canterbury, they got positive results for GE.  (I heard this interview with
a scientist on NatRad 9-to-noon, the day the row blew up - I expect plenty
of people have mentioned this here, but I haven't been reading all posts).

Green response, possibly? - "GE corn is all through our local seed stock -
we're screwed now!"

Alternative response - "Their test was producing false positives."