Australia says EU comes first in trade deals

[MM]

"Australia’s PM Malcolm Turnbull says his country won’t ‘muck around’
but first wants free trade agreement with bloc

"Australia will be ready for a trade deal with the UK soon after
Brexit, but will try to do one with the EU first, said Malcolm
Turnbull, the country’s prime minister, after talks with Theresa May
in Downing Street.

"In a joint press conference, the UK and Australian leaders expressed
enthusiasm for an ambitious deal as soon as possible after the UK
leaves the EU.

"Speaking alongside May in Downing Street, Turnbull said Australians
'do not muck around' when it comes to free trade, which he said was
responsible for the nation’s prosperity.

" 'As Britain moves to completing its exit from the EU, we stand ready
to enter into a free trade agreement with the UK as soon as the UK is
able to do so,' he said. 'Once Brexit is achieved, we look forward to
speedily concluding a free trade agreement. At the same time, we are
looking forward to the early conclusion of a free trade agreement with
the EU.'"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/10/australia-ready-to-do-post-brexit-trade-deal-but-eu-comes-first

I reckon this will the case with America, too. All those warm words
from The Donald are worth about as much as one of his tweets.

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[James Harris]

"Australia’s PM Malcolm Turnbull says his country won’t ‘muck around’
but first wants free trade agreement with bloc
"Australia will be ready for a trade deal with the UK soon after
Brexit, but will try to do one with the EU first, said Malcolm
Turnbull, the country’s prime minister, after talks with Theresa May
in Downing Street.
"In a joint press conference, the UK and Australian leaders expressed
enthusiasm for an ambitious deal as soon as possible after the UK
leaves the EU.
"Speaking alongside May in Downing Street, Turnbull said Australians
'do not muck around' when it comes to free trade, which he said was
responsible for the nation’s prosperity.
" 'As Britain moves to completing its exit from the EU, we stand ready
to enter into a free trade agreement with the UK as soon as the UK is
able to do so,' he said. 'Once Brexit is achieved, we look forward to
speedily concluding a free trade agreement. At the same time, we are
looking forward to the early conclusion of a free trade agreement with
the EU.'"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/10/australia-ready-to-do-post-brexit-trade-deal-but-eu-comes-first
I reckon this will the case with America, too. All those warm words
from The Donald are worth about as much as one of his tweets.

That all sounds like the Guardian putting its own spin on what Turnbull
said.

By the way, what's with the EU's sudden interest in trade deals? It's
never shown much zeal to conclude them before. Could it be that Brexit
has shown it up?

[The Todal]

Post by James Harris

"Australia’s PM Malcolm Turnbull says his country won’t ‘muck around’
but first wants free trade agreement with bloc
"Australia will be ready for a trade deal with the UK soon after
Brexit, but will try to do one with the EU first, said Malcolm
Turnbull, the country’s prime minister, after talks with Theresa May
in Downing Street.
"In a joint press conference, the UK and Australian leaders expressed
enthusiasm for an ambitious deal as soon as possible after the UK
leaves the EU.
"Speaking alongside May in Downing Street, Turnbull said Australians
'do not muck around' when it comes to free trade, which he said was
responsible for the nation’s prosperity.
" 'As Britain moves to completing its exit from the EU, we stand ready
to enter into a free trade agreement with the UK as soon as the UK is
able to do so,' he said. 'Once Brexit is achieved, we look forward to
speedily concluding a free trade agreement. At the same time, we are
looking forward to the early conclusion of a free trade agreement with
the EU.'"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/10/australia-ready-to-do-post-brexit-trade-deal-but-eu-comes-first
I reckon this will the case with America, too. All those warm words
from The Donald are worth about as much as one of his tweets.

That all sounds like the Guardian putting its own spin on what Turnbull
said.
By the way, what's with the EU's sudden interest in trade deals? It's
never shown much zeal to conclude them before. Could it be that Brexit
has shown it up?

Downing Street has proudly announced that Donald Trump is keen to make a
trade deal with us. Isn't that rather naive and pathetic?

Of course a rapacious greedy businessman would want to make deals with
the UK in its hour of need, but that doesn't mean he'll be doing us any
favours at all.

Does anyone in the UK government actually understand business and the
art of making deals? Do we need our own Donald Trump?

[Paul Pot]

Post by The Todal

Post by James Harris

"Australia’s PM Malcolm Turnbull says his country won’t ‘muck around’
but first wants free trade agreement with bloc
"Australia will be ready for a trade deal with the UK soon after
Brexit, but will try to do one with the EU first, said Malcolm
Turnbull, the country’s prime minister, after talks with Theresa May
in Downing Street.
"In a joint press conference, the UK and Australian leaders
expressed
enthusiasm for an ambitious deal as soon as possible after the UK
leaves the EU.
"Speaking alongside May in Downing Street, Turnbull said
Australians
'do not muck around' when it comes to free trade, which he said was
responsible for the nation’s prosperity.
" 'As Britain moves to completing its exit from the EU, we stand ready
to enter into a free trade agreement with the UK as soon as the UK is
able to do so,' he said. 'Once Brexit is achieved, we look forward to
speedily concluding a free trade agreement. At the same time, we are
looking forward to the early conclusion of a free trade agreement with
the EU.'"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/10/australia-ready-to-do-post-brexit-trade-deal-but-eu-comes-first
I reckon this will the case with America, too. All those warm words
from The Donald are worth about as much as one of his tweets.

That all sounds like the Guardian putting its own spin on what
Turnbull said.
By the way, what's with the EU's sudden interest in trade deals?
It's never shown much zeal to conclude them before. Could it be
that Brexit has shown it up?

Downing Street has proudly announced that Donald Trump is keen to
make a trade deal with us. Isn't that rather naive and pathetic?
Of course a rapacious greedy businessman would want to make deals
with the UK in its hour of need, but that doesn't mean he'll be doing
us any favours at all.
Does anyone in the UK government actually understand business and the
art of making deals? Do we need our own Donald Trump?

Trump will push Monsanto's patentated poisonous gmo garbage our way as
part of any deal.

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by Paul Pot

Post by The Todal

Post by James Harris

"Australia’s PM Malcolm Turnbull says his country won’t ‘muck around’
but first wants free trade agreement with bloc
"Australia will be ready for a trade deal with the UK soon after
Brexit, but will try to do one with the EU first, said Malcolm
Turnbull, the country’s prime minister, after talks with Theresa May
in Downing Street.
"In a joint press conference, the UK and Australian leaders expressed
enthusiasm for an ambitious deal as soon as possible after the UK
leaves the EU.
"Speaking alongside May in Downing Street, Turnbull said
Australians
'do not muck around' when it comes to free trade, which he said was
responsible for the nation’s prosperity.
" 'As Britain moves to completing its exit from the EU, we stand ready
to enter into a free trade agreement with the UK as soon as the UK is
able to do so,' he said. 'Once Brexit is achieved, we look forward to
speedily concluding a free trade agreement. At the same time, we are
looking forward to the early conclusion of a free trade agreement with
the EU.'"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/10/australia-ready-to-do-post-brexit-trade-deal-but-eu-comes-first
I reckon this will the case with America, too. All those warm words
from The Donald are worth about as much as one of his tweets.

That all sounds like the Guardian putting its own spin on what
Turnbull said.
By the way, what's with the EU's sudden interest in trade deals?
It's never shown much zeal to conclude them before. Could it be
that Brexit has shown it up?

Downing Street has proudly announced that Donald Trump is keen to
make a trade deal with us. Isn't that rather naive and pathetic?
Of course a rapacious greedy businessman would want to make deals
with the UK in its hour of need, but that doesn't mean he'll be doing
us any favours at all.
Does anyone in the UK government actually understand business and the
art of making deals? Do we need our own Donald Trump?

Trump will push Monsanto's patentated poisonous gmo garbage our way as
part of any deal.

It's amazing to find that poisonous geneticall modified food can be fed to other mammals with no ill effects yet feed the meat form these same animals to humans and somehow, all hell breaks loose. Your arguments do not follow any system of logic.

You have been eating genetically modified food nearly since you were born as did your forefathers.

Why do cereals like wheat, oats, barley, rice not grow wild as did and do their wild predecessors? Why do the cows, sheep, pigs in our fields and farms bear only superficial resemblance to their mild ancestors?

The answer of course lies selective breeding by farmers and growers over the generations. Straining (selective breeding) is simply a technique of genetically modifying organisms that takes advantage of mutations that happen anyway under various environmental stimuli which includes radiation from the sun and other sources.

If we are to feed the ever growing populations of this world, then we have to find more imaginative ways of doing it which includes giving nature a hand or a push.

We gave up hunter gatherer styles of living millennia ago.

[James Harris]

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by Paul Pot

Post by The Todal

Post by James Harris

"Australia’s PM Malcolm Turnbull says his country won’t ‘muck around’
but first wants free trade agreement with bloc
"Australia will be ready for a trade deal with the UK soon after
Brexit, but will try to do one with the EU first, said Malcolm
Turnbull, the country’s prime minister, after talks with Theresa May
in Downing Street.
"In a joint press conference, the UK and Australian leaders expressed
enthusiasm for an ambitious deal as soon as possible after the UK
leaves the EU.
"Speaking alongside May in Downing Street, Turnbull said
Australians
'do not muck around' when it comes to free trade, which he said was
responsible for the nation’s prosperity.
" 'As Britain moves to completing its exit from the EU, we stand ready
to enter into a free trade agreement with the UK as soon as the UK is
able to do so,' he said. 'Once Brexit is achieved, we look forward to
speedily concluding a free trade agreement. At the same time, we are
looking forward to the early conclusion of a free trade agreement with
the EU.'"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/10/australia-ready-to-do-post-brexit-trade-deal-but-eu-comes-first
I reckon this will the case with America, too. All those warm words
from The Donald are worth about as much as one of his tweets.

That all sounds like the Guardian putting its own spin on what
Turnbull said.
By the way, what's with the EU's sudden interest in trade deals?
It's never shown much zeal to conclude them before. Could it be
that Brexit has shown it up?

Downing Street has proudly announced that Donald Trump is keen to
make a trade deal with us. Isn't that rather naive and pathetic?
Of course a rapacious greedy businessman would want to make deals
with the UK in its hour of need, but that doesn't mean he'll be doing
us any favours at all.
Does anyone in the UK government actually understand business and the
art of making deals? Do we need our own Donald Trump?

Trump will push Monsanto's patentated poisonous gmo garbage our way as
part of any deal.

It's amazing to find that poisonous geneticall modified food can be fed to other mammals with no ill effects yet feed the meat form these same animals to humans and somehow, all hell breaks loose. Your arguments do not follow any system of logic.
You have been eating genetically modified food nearly since you were born as did your forefathers.
Why do cereals like wheat, oats, barley, rice not grow wild as did and do their wild predecessors? Why do the cows, sheep, pigs in our fields and farms bear only superficial resemblance to their mild ancestors?

Isn't there a difference between selective breeding and tinkering with
DNA, and isn't the latter what you would call GM?

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The answer of course lies selective breeding by farmers and growers over the generations. Straining (selective breeding) is simply a technique of genetically modifying organisms that takes advantage of mutations that happen anyway under various environmental stimuli which includes radiation from the sun and other sources.
If we are to feed the ever growing populations of this world, then we have to find more imaginative ways of doing it which includes giving nature a hand or a push.
We gave up hunter gatherer styles of living millennia ago.

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by James Harris
Isn't there a difference between selective breeding and tinkering with
DNA, and isn't the latter what you would call GM?

No there is not.

DNA mutates quite naturally anyway under various environmental stimulants. The vast majority of mutations are benign in that they have no consequences whatsoever. Where there are consequences and these provide the organism with a competitive advantage within their environment (rarely in the wild) then the organism will thrive. otherwise it will succumb to other competitors and its non compatible gene will die with it.

In the agricultural/horticultural/domestic setting, it is a human being who creates these environments as well as decides which individuals will win the contest for life and hence perpetuity.

Compare the grains of wheat, oats, Barley rice maize, peas, beans all packed with carbohydrate. Why are they so much bigger than their wild counterparts?

Because man willed it!

What would happen if Armageddon removed man? They would not be able to compete and so would disappear within a few generations. A wheat field left uncut and fallow will grow little or no wheat the following year.

[James Harris]

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris
Isn't there a difference between selective breeding and tinkering with
DNA, and isn't the latter what you would call GM?

No there is not.

I strongly disagree. Variations produced by natural processes
(interbreding) are very different from those induced by gene tampering.

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
DNA mutates quite naturally anyway under various environmental stimulants. The vast majority of mutations are benign in that they have no consequences whatsoever. Where there are consequences and these provide the organism with a competitive advantage within their environment (rarely in the wild) then the organism will thrive. otherwise it will succumb to other competitors and its non compatible gene will die with it.
In the agricultural/horticultural/domestic setting, it is a human being who creates these environments as well as decides which individuals will win the contest for life and hence perpetuity.
Compare the grains of wheat, oats, Barley rice maize, peas, beans all packed with carbohydrate. Why are they so much bigger than their wild counterparts?
Because man willed it!
What would happen if Armageddon removed man? They would not be able to compete and so would disappear within a few generations. A wheat field left uncut and fallow will grow little or no wheat the following year.

Cultivars might die out but edible crops were around for thousands of
years before man arrived.

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by James Harris

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris
Isn't there a difference between selective breeding and tinkering with
DNA, and isn't the latter what you would call GM?

No there is not.

I strongly disagree. Variations produced by natural processes
(interbreding) are very different from those induced by gene tampering.

In what way?

In *every* case a gene is a section of DNA present on a chromosome whether this gene is produced by sunlight or background radiation (natural) or an artificial source of radiation or a chemical.

There are a number of forms of ionising radiations these all cause DNA aberrations. All of them can be produced artificially and are present in the environment. The most common natural form is sunlight. Likewise there are hundreds or thousands of chemicals that have similar effects that have natural and artificial sources.

Aberrations produced are random in their nature and distribution otherwise the technique would be pointless.

Post by James Harris

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
DNA mutates quite naturally anyway under various environmental stimulants. The vast majority of mutations are benign in that they have no consequences whatsoever. Where there are consequences and these provide the organism with a competitive advantage within their environment (rarely in the wild) then the organism will thrive. otherwise it will succumb to other competitors and its non compatible gene will die with it.
In the agricultural/horticultural/domestic setting, it is a human being who creates these environments as well as decides which individuals will win the contest for life and hence perpetuity.
Compare the grains of wheat, oats, Barley rice maize, peas, beans all packed with carbohydrate. Why are they so much bigger than their wild counterparts?
Because man willed it!
What would happen if Armageddon removed man? They would not be able to compete and so would disappear within a few generations. A wheat field left uncut and fallow will grow little or no wheat the following year.

Cultivars might die out but edible crops were around for thousands of
years before man arrived.

And still are in the form of the wild ancestors of the cultivars we are familiar with today. Take for example the wild strawberry and wile raspberry (both grow in my garden and are turfed out as weeds.) rye grass, wild oats wild einkorn wheat, the wild pea, the wild potato (An Andean plant)

One upon a day our primitive ancestors no doubt gathered these plants from the wild as food just as they hunted wild animals for their meat (and in places, and on occasions still do)

This way of life (the hunter gatherer society) has no largely disappeared of course and we depend primarily on strained cultivars and domestically bred animals for our food.

[James Harris]

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris
Isn't there a difference between selective breeding and tinkering with
DNA, and isn't the latter what you would call GM?

No there is not.

I strongly disagree. Variations produced by natural processes
(interbreding) are very different from those induced by gene tampering.

In what way?

While selective breeding tends to produce offspring which are a meld of
the characteristics of known, _safe_, existing organisms a GM strain
could introduce completely new organisms with attributes that would be
impossible in nature and have undesirable effects on human health.

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
In *every* case a gene is a section of DNA present on a chromosome whether this gene is produced by sunlight or background radiation (natural) or an artificial source of radiation or a chemical.
There are a number of forms of ionising radiations these all cause DNA aberrations. All of them can be produced artificially and are present in the environment. The most common natural form is sunlight. Likewise there are hundreds or thousands of chemicals that have similar effects that have natural and artificial sources.
Aberrations produced are random in their nature and distribution otherwise the technique would be pointless.

Post by James Harris

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
DNA mutates quite naturally anyway under various environmental stimulants. The vast majority of mutations are benign in that they have no consequences whatsoever. Where there are consequences and these provide the organism with a competitive advantage within their environment (rarely in the wild) then the organism will thrive. otherwise it will succumb to other competitors and its non compatible gene will die with it.
In the agricultural/horticultural/domestic setting, it is a human being who creates these environments as well as decides which individuals will win the contest for life and hence perpetuity.
Compare the grains of wheat, oats, Barley rice maize, peas, beans all packed with carbohydrate. Why are they so much bigger than their wild counterparts?
Because man willed it!
What would happen if Armageddon removed man? They would not be able to compete and so would disappear within a few generations. A wheat field left uncut and fallow will grow little or no wheat the following year.

Cultivars might die out but edible crops were around for thousands of
years before man arrived.

And still are in the form of the wild ancestors of the cultivars we are familiar with today. Take for example the wild strawberry and wile raspberry (both grow in my garden and are turfed out as weeds.) rye grass, wild oats wild einkorn wheat, the wild pea, the wild potato (An Andean plant)
One upon a day our primitive ancestors no doubt gathered these plants from the wild as food just as they hunted wild animals for their meat (and in places, and on occasions still do)
This way of life (the hunter gatherer society) has no largely disappeared of course and we depend primarily on strained cultivars and domestically bred animals for our food.

Just one nightmare scenario is that a strain of a crop is produced,
tested, found to be safe, becomes commercially successful and displaces
natural strains. Then, years later, we find it has a long-term
detrimental effect on human health. But by then, going back to
known-safe strains has become extremely difficult. The patent owners
would refuse to accept responsibility, would tell us the problems were
not caused by their product. The lawyers would fight in the courts of
one country after another. The technocrats would claim that, while not
accepting the criticism of their product they could re-engineer the
strain to remove the part people were afraid of and replace it with
something new. But then what would they produce? How long would it take
to be tested? What would we consume in the meantime? How long would it
take for it to produce in sufficient volume? And what long-term effects
would that new strain have on us?

Selective breeding of known strains is one thing. Being clever enough to
produce new life forms by direct manipulation of generic codes is quite
another.

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by James Harris

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris
I strongly disagree. Variations produced by natural processes
(interbreding) are very different from those induced by gene tampering.

In what way?

While selective breeding tends to produce offspring which are a meld of
the characteristics of known, _safe_, existing organisms a GM strain
could introduce completely new organisms with attributes that would be
impossible in nature and have undesirable effects on human health.

NExcept that it doesn't work that way.

Nobody can predict the outcome of any mutation no matter howsoever it is generated whether by natural or artificial means except that the vast majority of mutations are totally benign and have no effect whatsoever. The zygote formed is simply unviable and its characteristics cannot be transmitted on to the next and subsequent generations.

Should this not be the case then an undesired characteristic could only be passed down the generations provided it conferred upon its host a pronounced advantage within a particular environment. For instance in a field of grass, there will be a wide range of variation both in the species found there and between individuals of the same species. No two individuals will be identical.

This is because even a seemingly flat field contains a huge number of different environments like aspect (different angles to the sun) variations in soil composition, water content, influence of other plant species not including seasonal variations etc. etc. No variety will predominate.

'T is similar in all environments. The Little shop of horrors was pure fiction.

Added to that of course, all products of plants or animals can be easily tested for nasty's and analysed before being released onto the general public. It is in no producers interest to cut corners in this respect. It could cost him his business.

[James Harris]

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris
I strongly disagree. Variations produced by natural processes
(interbreding) are very different from those induced by gene tampering.

In what way?

While selective breeding tends to produce offspring which are a meld of
the characteristics of known, _safe_, existing organisms a GM strain
could introduce completely new organisms with attributes that would be
impossible in nature and have undesirable effects on human health.

NExcept that it doesn't work that way.
Nobody can predict the outcome of any mutation no matter howsoever it is generated whether by natural or artificial means except that the vast majority of mutations are totally benign and have no effect whatsoever. The zygote formed is simply unviable and its characteristics cannot be transmitted on to the next and subsequent generations.

I agree about unviability in selected breeding. Strains can only be
pushed so far before sterile versions appear. But unless you are going
to limit the changes engineers can make to an existing form - and how
could you? - that does not need to be the case for genetically modified
forms of life. GM allows unlimited changes to the mechanisms which make
organisms work.

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Should this not be the case then an undesired characteristic could only be passed down the generations provided it conferred upon its host a pronounced advantage within a particular environment. For instance in a field of grass, there will be a wide range of variation both in the species found there and between individuals of the same species. No two individuals will be identical.
This is because even a seemingly flat field contains a huge number of different environments like aspect (different angles to the sun) variations in soil composition, water content, influence of other plant species not including seasonal variations etc. etc. No variety will predominate.
'T is similar in all environments. The Little shop of horrors was pure fiction.
Added to that of course, all products of plants or animals can be easily tested for nasty's and analysed before being released onto the general public. It is in no producers interest to cut corners in this respect. It could cost him his business.

How many products have been released to the public and only later have
we found out the harm they can cause...? How many producers have denied
responsibility and fought legal actions taken against their products...?

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by James Harris

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris
I strongly disagree. Variations produced by natural processes
(interbreding) are very different from those induced by gene tampering.

In what way?

While selective breeding tends to produce offspring which are a meld of
the characteristics of known, _safe_, existing organisms a GM strain
could introduce completely new organisms with attributes that would be
impossible in nature and have undesirable effects on human health.

NExcept that it doesn't work that way.
Nobody can predict the outcome of any mutation no matter howsoever it is generated whether by natural or artificial means except that the vast majority of mutations are totally benign and have no effect whatsoever. The zygote formed is simply unviable and its characteristics cannot be transmitted on to the next and subsequent generations.

I agree about unviability in selected breeding. Strains can only be
pushed so far before sterile versions appear. But unless you are going
to limit the changes engineers can make to an existing form - and how
could you? - that does not need to be the case for genetically modified
forms of life. GM allows unlimited changes to the mechanisms which make
organisms work.

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Should this not be the case then an undesired characteristic could only be passed down the generations provided it conferred upon its host a pronounced advantage within a particular environment. For instance in a field of grass, there will be a wide range of variation both in the species found there and between individuals of the same species. No two individuals will be identical.
This is because even a seemingly flat field contains a huge number of different environments like aspect (different angles to the sun) variations in soil composition, water content, influence of other plant species not including seasonal variations etc. etc. No variety will predominate.
'T is similar in all environments. The Little shop of horrors was pure fiction.
Added to that of course, all products of plants or animals can be easily tested for nasty's and analysed before being released onto the general public. It is in no producers interest to cut corners in this respect. It could cost him his business.

How many products have been released to the public and only later have
we found out the harm they can cause...? How many producers have denied
responsibility and fought legal actions taken against their products...?

We are talking about GM products, can yo name me one?

[James Harris]

...

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Added to that of course, all products of plants or animals can be easily tested for nasty's and analysed before being released onto the general public. It is in no producers interest to cut corners in this respect. It could cost him his business.

How many products have been released to the public and only later have
we found out the harm they can cause...? How many producers have denied
responsibility and fought legal actions taken against their products...?

We are talking about GM products, can yo name me one?

If you mean what products were released but only /later/ viewed as
harmful, try: DDT, Ractopamine, Thalidomide, plastic microbeads,
possibly POEA, lead, asbestos etc. The point is that they were initially
thought to be safe; only over time did their true effects become
apparent. Exactly the same could happen with any GM product.

[Incubus]

Post by James Harris
...

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Added to that of course, all products of plants or animals can be
easily tested for nasty's and analysed before being released onto
the general public. It is in no producers interest to cut corners in
this respect. It could cost him his business.

How many products have been released to the public and only later have
we found out the harm they can cause...? How many producers have denied
responsibility and fought legal actions taken against their products...?

We are talking about GM products, can yo name me one?

If you mean what products were released but only /later/ viewed as
harmful, try: DDT, Ractopamine, Thalidomide, plastic microbeads,
possibly POEA, lead, asbestos etc. The point is that they were initially
thought to be safe; only over time did their true effects become
apparent. Exactly the same could happen with any GM product.

I believe that is already the case. See the links I gave elsewhere in
this thread.

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by James Harris
...

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Added to that of course, all products of plants or animals can be easily tested for nasty's and analysed before being released onto the general public. It is in no producers interest to cut corners in this respect. It could cost him his business.

How many products have been released to the public and only later have
we found out the harm they can cause...? How many producers have denied
responsibility and fought legal actions taken against their products...?

We are talking about GM products, can yo name me one?

If you mean what products were released but only /later/ viewed as
harmful, try: DDT, Ractopamine, Thalidomide, plastic microbeads,
possibly POEA, lead, asbestos etc. The point is that they were initially
thought to be safe; only over time did their true effects become
apparent. Exactly the same could happen with any GM product.

Except that it hasn't!

what exactly is the nature of your fear?

[James Harris]

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris
...

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Added to that of course, all products of plants or animals can be easily tested for nasty's and analysed before being released onto the general public. It is in no producers interest to cut corners in this respect. It could cost him his business.

How many products have been released to the public and only later have
we found out the harm they can cause...? How many producers have denied
responsibility and fought legal actions taken against their products...?

We are talking about GM products, can yo name me one?

If you mean what products were released but only /later/ viewed as
harmful, try: DDT, Ractopamine, Thalidomide, plastic microbeads,
possibly POEA, lead, asbestos etc. The point is that they were initially
thought to be safe; only over time did their true effects become
apparent. Exactly the same could happen with any GM product.

Except that it hasn't!

There were no problems with most substances released to the public, either.

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
what exactly is the nature of your fear?

Fears, plural. I thought I'd been clear about some of them. For example,
we cannot in any commercially reasonable length of time know the
long-term effects of new GM "products". If producers had to prove their
products over 70 or 100 years they would not produce them. History has
shown - in spades - that products once deemed safe have hurt people.

[Ned Latham]

Post by James Harris

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris
...

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Added to that of course, all products of plants or animals
can be easily tested for nasty's

That's "nasties", moron.

Post by James Harris

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
and analysed before being released onto the general public.
It is in no producers interest to cut corners in this respect.
It could cost him his business.

How many products have been released to the public and only
later have we found out the harm they can cause...? How many
producers have denied responsibility and fought legal actions
taken against their products...?

We are talking about GM products, can yo name me one?

If you mean what products were released but only /later/ viewed as
harmful, try: DDT, Ractopamine, Thalidomide, plastic microbeads,
possibly POEA, lead, asbestos etc. The point is that they were
initially thought to be safe; only over time did their true effects
become apparent. Exactly the same could happen with any GM product.

Except that it hasn't!

There were no problems with most substances released to the public, either.

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
what exactly is the nature of your fear?

Fears, plural. I thought I'd been clear about some of them. For example,
we cannot in any commercially reasonable length of time know the
long-term effects of new GM "products". If producers had to prove their
products over 70 or 100 years they would not produce them. History has
shown - in spades - that products once deemed safe have hurt people.

I seem to remember that there was a GM food product that had been
modified by the insertion of peanut genes and triggered peanut
allergies in susceptible people.

But I don't recall any followup/ That's typical of the MSM... it could
mean that the manufacturer had enough clout to hush it up, or it could
mean that some idiot journo went off half-cocked.

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by Ned Latham
I seem to remember that there was a GM food product that had been
modified by the insertion of peanut genes and triggered peanut
allergies in susceptible people.
But I don't recall any followup/ That's typical of the MSM... it could
mean that the manufacturer had enough clout to hush it up, or it could
mean that some idiot journo went off half-cocked.

Then you remember wrongly for someone with such obvious genius..

Those who suffer peanut allergy are allergic to *all* peanuts and indeed susceptible to contamination of other foods by equipment previously used for peanut preparations.

An airline sized packet of peanuts would be fatal to some of them.

They must avoid peanuts, peanut residues and peanut products like the plague literally regardless of whether the peanuts are GM or not. Once upon a day, those with a severe allergy would have died in childhood but of course these days the problem is understood and the adrenaline antidote is available

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by James Harris

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris
...

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Harris

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Added to that of course, all products of plants or animals can be easily tested for nasty's and analysed before being released onto the general public. It is in no producers interest to cut corners in this respect. It could cost him his business.

How many products have been released to the public and only later have
we found out the harm they can cause...? How many producers have denied
responsibility and fought legal actions taken against their products...?

We are talking about GM products, can yo name me one?

If you mean what products were released but only /later/ viewed as
harmful, try: DDT, Ractopamine, Thalidomide, plastic microbeads,
possibly POEA, lead, asbestos etc. The point is that they were initially
thought to be safe; only over time did their true effects become
apparent. Exactly the same could happen with any GM product.

Except that it hasn't!

There were no problems with most substances released to the public, either.

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
what exactly is the nature of your fear?

Fears, plural. I thought I'd been clear about some of them. For example,
we cannot in any commercially reasonable length of time know the
long-term effects of new GM "products". If producers had to prove their
products over 70 or 100 years they would not produce them. History has
shown - in spades - that products once deemed safe have hurt people.

So you can't name for us any product produced from GM plants of animals that has proved to be in any way noxious to humans or even animals.

[Incubus]

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by Paul Pot

Post by The Todal

Post by James Harris

"Australia’s PM Malcolm Turnbull says his country won’t
‘muck around’ but first wants free trade agreement with bloc
"Australia will be ready for a trade deal with the UK soon
after Brexit, but will try to do one with the EU first, said
Malcolm Turnbull, the country’s prime minister, after talks
with Theresa May in Downing Street.
"In a joint press conference, the UK and Australian leaders
expressed enthusiasm for an ambitious deal as soon as
possible after the UK leaves the EU.
"Speaking alongside May in Downing Street, Turnbull said
Australians 'do not muck around' when it comes to free trade,
which he said was responsible for the nation’s prosperity.
" 'As Britain moves to completing its exit from the EU, we
stand ready to enter into a free trade agreement with the UK
as soon as the UK is able to do so,' he said. 'Once Brexit is
achieved, we look forward to speedily concluding a free trade
agreement. At the same time, we are looking forward to the
early conclusion of a free trade agreement with the EU.'"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/10/australia-ready-to-do-post-brexit-trade-deal-but-eu-comes-first

I reckon this will the case with America, too. All those warm

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by Paul Pot

Post by The Todal

Post by James Harris

words from The Donald are worth about as much as one of his
tweets.

That all sounds like the Guardian putting its own spin on what
Turnbull said.
By the way, what's with the EU's sudden interest in trade
deals? It's never shown much zeal to conclude them before.
Could it be that Brexit has shown it up?

Downing Street has proudly announced that Donald Trump is keen
to make a trade deal with us. Isn't that rather naive and
pathetic?
Of course a rapacious greedy businessman would want to make
deals with the UK in its hour of need, but that doesn't mean
he'll be doing us any favours at all.
Does anyone in the UK government actually understand business and
the art of making deals? Do we need our own Donald Trump?

Trump will push Monsanto's patentated poisonous gmo garbage our way
as part of any deal.

It's amazing to find that poisonous geneticall modified food can be
fed to other mammals with no ill effects yet feed the meat form these
same animals to humans and somehow, all hell breaks loose. Your
arguments do not follow any system of logic.
You have been eating genetically modified food nearly since you were
born as did your forefathers.
Why do cereals like wheat, oats, barley, rice not grow wild as did
and do their wild predecessors? Why do the cows, sheep, pigs in our
fields and farms bear only superficial resemblance to their mild
ancestors?
The answer of course lies selective breeding by farmers and growers
over the generations. Straining (selective breeding) is simply a
technique of genetically modifying organisms that takes advantage of
mutations that happen anyway under various environmental stimuli
which includes radiation from the sun and other sources.

It's not the same thing at all. Selective breeding favours genes that
already exist within an organism. Genetic modification involves
inserting genes that were not there originally.

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by MM

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by Paul Pot

Post by The Todal

Post by James Harris

"Australia’s PM Malcolm Turnbull says his country won’t
‘muck around’ but first wants free trade agreement with bloc
"Australia will be ready for a trade deal with the UK soon
after Brexit, but will try to do one with the EU first, said
Malcolm Turnbull, the country’s prime minister, after talks
with Theresa May in Downing Street.
"In a joint press conference, the UK and Australian leaders
expressed enthusiasm for an ambitious deal as soon as
possible after the UK leaves the EU.
"Speaking alongside May in Downing Street, Turnbull said
Australians 'do not muck around' when it comes to free trade,
which he said was responsible for the nation’s prosperity.
" 'As Britain moves to completing its exit from the EU, we
stand ready to enter into a free trade agreement with the UK
as soon as the UK is able to do so,' he said. 'Once Brexit is
achieved, we look forward to speedily concluding a free trade
agreement. At the same time, we are looking forward to the
early conclusion of a free trade agreement with the EU.'"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/10/australia-ready-to-do-post-brexit-trade-deal-but-eu-comes-first

I reckon this will the case with America, too. All those warm

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by Paul Pot

Post by The Todal

Post by James Harris

words from The Donald are worth about as much as one of his
tweets.

That all sounds like the Guardian putting its own spin on what
Turnbull said.
By the way, what's with the EU's sudden interest in trade
deals? It's never shown much zeal to conclude them before.
Could it be that Brexit has shown it up?

Downing Street has proudly announced that Donald Trump is keen
to make a trade deal with us. Isn't that rather naive and
pathetic?
Of course a rapacious greedy businessman would want to make
deals with the UK in its hour of need, but that doesn't mean
he'll be doing us any favours at all.
Does anyone in the UK government actually understand business and
the art of making deals? Do we need our own Donald Trump?

Trump will push Monsanto's patentated poisonous gmo garbage our way
as part of any deal.

It's amazing to find that poisonous geneticall modified food can be
fed to other mammals with no ill effects yet feed the meat form these
same animals to humans and somehow, all hell breaks loose. Your
arguments do not follow any system of logic.
You have been eating genetically modified food nearly since you were
born as did your forefathers.
Why do cereals like wheat, oats, barley, rice not grow wild as did
and do their wild predecessors? Why do the cows, sheep, pigs in our
fields and farms bear only superficial resemblance to their mild
ancestors?
The answer of course lies selective breeding by farmers and growers
over the generations. Straining (selective breeding) is simply a
technique of genetically modifying organisms that takes advantage of
mutations that happen anyway under various environmental stimuli
which includes radiation from the sun and other sources.

It's not the same thing at all. Selective breeding favours genes that
already exist within an organism. Genetic modification involves
inserting genes that were not there originally.

Or are created though mutations. So?

[Incubus]

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by Incubus

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It's amazing to find that poisonous geneticall modified food can be
fed to other mammals with no ill effects yet feed the meat form these
same animals to humans and somehow, all hell breaks loose. Your
arguments do not follow any system of logic.
You have been eating genetically modified food nearly since you were
born as did your forefathers.
Why do cereals like wheat, oats, barley, rice not grow wild as did
and do their wild predecessors? Why do the cows, sheep, pigs in our
fields and farms bear only superficial resemblance to their mild
ancestors?
The answer of course lies selective breeding by farmers and growers
over the generations. Straining (selective breeding) is simply a
technique of genetically modifying organisms that takes advantage of
mutations that happen anyway under various environmental stimuli
which includes radiation from the sun and other sources.

It's not the same thing at all. Selective breeding favours genes that
already exist within an organism. Genetic modification involves
inserting genes that were not there originally.

Or are created though mutations. So?

So to my knowledge, selective breeding and nature has never resulted in
foodstuffs that produced insecticides that we in turn ingest:

'Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of
bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM
corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses...'

http://responsibletechnology.org/10-reasons-to-avoid-gmos/

In America, the standards of testing that GM crops must undergo are
woefully lax yet companies like Monsanto tell us they are safe.

I'd recommend reading this article from someone who worked in the field:

http://nutritionstudies.org/gmo-dangers-facts-you-need-to-know/

[Incubus]

Post by Incubus

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by Incubus

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It's amazing to find that poisonous geneticall modified food can be
fed to other mammals with no ill effects yet feed the meat form these
same animals to humans and somehow, all hell breaks loose. Your
arguments do not follow any system of logic.
You have been eating genetically modified food nearly since you were
born as did your forefathers.
Why do cereals like wheat, oats, barley, rice not grow wild as did
and do their wild predecessors? Why do the cows, sheep, pigs in our
fields and farms bear only superficial resemblance to their mild
ancestors?
The answer of course lies selective breeding by farmers and growers
over the generations. Straining (selective breeding) is simply a
technique of genetically modifying organisms that takes advantage of
mutations that happen anyway under various environmental stimuli
which includes radiation from the sun and other sources.

It's not the same thing at all. Selective breeding favours genes that
already exist within an organism. Genetic modification involves
inserting genes that were not there originally.

Or are created though mutations. So?

So to my knowledge, selective breeding and nature has never resulted in
'Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of
bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM
corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses...'
http://responsibletechnology.org/10-reasons-to-avoid-gmos/
In America, the standards of testing that GM crops must undergo are
woefully lax yet companies like Monsanto tell us they are safe.
http://nutritionstudies.org/gmo-dangers-facts-you-need-to-know/

This is also a must-read for those who are pro-GMO:

https://foodrevolution.org/blog/former-pro-gmo-scientist/

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by Incubus

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Or are created though mutations. So?

So to my knowledge, selective breeding and nature has never resulted in

In terms of biomass, insects are the most successful group within the animal kingdom.

They, and in particular their larvae, consume prodigious amounts of vegetation every year.

This means that if the food producer is to stand a chance of producing all the food that us demanded (and again don't forget the expanding human population) then he must resort to insecticides. Most insecticides are synthetic is origin and are based on oil.

Of course plants have had this problem for millions of years. It's hardly surprising therefore that over this time, plants have evolved their own counter measures and produce what, in the plant kingdom, amounts to 10's of 1000's of various chemicals that act as insecticides or repellents. So plants containing insecticide are nothing unusual.

The efficacy of any poison is dependent upon the mass of the subject. Now think of the mass of the typical insect and compare it to a human. this means that the microscopic amount of insecticide that would kill an insect has no measurable or noticeable effect on a human.

The poison Solanine occurs naturally in many species of the genus Solanum, including the potato (Solanum tuberosum), tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), eggplant (Solanum melongena), and bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara).

[Wiki]

Further to that these 'plant insecticides', have short half lives. This means that once the plant die, theses chemicals tend to quickly deteriorate and decompose. However, we are talking about poisons and some are accumulative. We can't be too careful

So, putting all the above to one side, it think it very naïve to suppose that in a rich and sophisticated country like the US blessed with so many universities and other research institutions that such a possibility has been overlooked many times.

After a cop has been harvested it is parts like roots, tubers and seeds are the only living parts that remain. These will be killed off by the processing. Stuff like Soya bean is not eaten raw but is subjected to milling, and various heat processes like boiling and baking. Nothing is going to survive all that.

In fact it seems to me that the most expedient way of investigating this possibility would be to use the GM food as intended and then attempt to detect these noxious substances in the fully processed food.

I simply cannot accept Campbells assertion that "Science is not the only grounds on which GMOs should be judged. The commercial purpose of GMOs is not to feed the world or improve farming. Rather, they exist to gain intellectual property (i.e. patent rights) over seeds and plant breeding and to drive agriculture in directions that benefit agribusiness."

which is the baldest of all statements.

Patents are essential to the development of new technologies since its through patents that the investment in various projects can be protected. Somebody has to gamble the money needed to produce innovation.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Paul Pot
Trump will push Monsanto's patentated poisonous gmo garbage our way as
part of any deal.

I do hope so. It's about time decisions were evidence-based and not
dictated by the Greenies in Berlin.

By the way, the gmo products we'd use are neither 'patentated', whatever
that is, nor poisonous. If they were, Americans would be dying in their
millions, and we'd probably have heard about it.

[tim...]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Paul Pot
Trump will push Monsanto's patentated poisonous gmo garbage our way as
part of any deal.

I do hope so. It's about time decisions were evidence-based and not
dictated by the Greenies in Berlin.
By the way, the gmo products we'd use are neither 'patentated', whatever
that is,

patented is patented

it means that farmers can only buy their seed supply from one supplier who
can charge what the hell they like

and they are also barred from harvesting next year's seeds from this year's
crop

something which farming has done for centuries

tim

[Norman Wells]

Post by tim...

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Paul Pot
Trump will push Monsanto's patentated poisonous gmo garbage our way
as part of any deal.

I do hope so. It's about time decisions were evidence-based and not
dictated by the Greenies in Berlin.
By the way, the gmo products we'd use are neither 'patentated',
whatever that is,

patented is patented
it means that farmers can only buy their seed supply from one supplier
who can charge what the hell they like

They're free to buy whatever other seed they like from wherever they
like. They're not forced to pay a premium price. It's their choice to
do so if they want a premium product.

Post by tim...
and they are also barred from harvesting next year's seeds from this
year's crop
something which farming has done for centuries

They don't have to buy Monsanto's seed if they don't want to. It's a
commercial decision whether to or not. Farmers won't do so unless
there's an advantage in it for them.

[Paul Pot]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by tim...

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Paul Pot
Trump will push Monsanto's patentated poisonous gmo garbage our
way as part of any deal.

I do hope so. It's about time decisions were evidence-based and
not dictated by the Greenies in Berlin.
By the way, the gmo products we'd use are neither 'patentated',
whatever that is,

patented is patented
it means that farmers can only buy their seed supply from one
supplier who can charge what the hell they like

They're free to buy whatever other seed they like from wherever they
like. They're not forced to pay a premium price. It's their choice
to do so if they want a premium product.

Post by tim...
and they are also barred from harvesting next year's seeds from
this year's crop
something which farming has done for centuries

They don't have to buy Monsanto's seed if they don't want to. It's a
commercial decision whether to or not. Farmers won't do so unless
there's an advantage in it for them.

And how long before every conventional crop is contaminated and there's
no choice? Monsanto will own the whole food supply chain and that is
its intention.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Paul Pot

Post by Norman Wells

Post by tim...

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Paul Pot
Trump will push Monsanto's patentated poisonous gmo garbage our way
as part of any deal.

I do hope so. It's about time decisions were evidence-based and not
dictated by the Greenies in Berlin.
By the way, the gmo products we'd use are neither 'patentated',
whatever that is,

patented is patented
it means that farmers can only buy their seed supply from one
supplier who can charge what the hell they like

They're free to buy whatever other seed they like from wherever they
like. They're not forced to pay a premium price. It's their choice
to do so if they want a premium product.

Post by tim...
and they are also barred from harvesting next year's seeds from this
year's crop
something which farming has done for centuries

They don't have to buy Monsanto's seed if they don't want to. It's a
commercial decision whether to or not. Farmers won't do so unless
there's an advantage in it for them.

And how long before every conventional crop is contaminated and there's
no choice? Monsanto will own the whole food supply chain and that is its
intention.

There's always a choice. You can only patent and thus monopolise
anything that's new. You are always free to use whatever is old.

[Paul Pot]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Paul Pot

Post by Norman Wells

Post by tim...

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Paul Pot
Trump will push Monsanto's patentated poisonous gmo garbage our
way as part of any deal.

I do hope so. It's about time decisions were evidence-based and
not dictated by the Greenies in Berlin.
By the way, the gmo products we'd use are neither 'patentated',
whatever that is,

patented is patented
it means that farmers can only buy their seed supply from one
supplier who can charge what the hell they like

They're free to buy whatever other seed they like from wherever
they like. They're not forced to pay a premium price. It's their
choice to do so if they want a premium product.

Post by tim...
and they are also barred from harvesting next year's seeds from
this year's crop
something which farming has done for centuries

They don't have to buy Monsanto's seed if they don't want to.
It's a commercial decision whether to or not. Farmers won't do so
unless there's an advantage in it for them.

And how long before every conventional crop is contaminated and
there's no choice? Monsanto will own the whole food supply chain
and that is its intention.

There's always a choice. You can only patent and thus monopolise
anything that's new. You are always free to use whatever is old.

When your land has a patented product growing on it through
geographical contamination, they sue you because you haven't paid for
it.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Paul Pot

Post by Norman Wells

Post by tim...

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Paul Pot
Trump will push Monsanto's patentated poisonous gmo garbage our
way as part of any deal.

I do hope so. It's about time decisions were evidence-based and
not dictated by the Greenies in Berlin.
By the way, the gmo products we'd use are neither 'patentated',
whatever that is,

patented is patented
it means that farmers can only buy their seed supply from one
supplier who can charge what the hell they like

They're free to buy whatever other seed they like from wherever they
like. They're not forced to pay a premium price. It's their choice
to do so if they want a premium product.

Post by tim...
and they are also barred from harvesting next year's seeds from
this year's crop
something which farming has done for centuries

They don't have to buy Monsanto's seed if they don't want to. It's a
commercial decision whether to or not. Farmers won't do so unless
there's an advantage in it for them.

And how long before every conventional crop is contaminated and
there's no choice? Monsanto will own the whole food supply chain and
that is its intention.

There's always a choice. You can only patent and thus monopolise
anything that's new. You are always free to use whatever is old.

When your land has a patented product growing on it through geographical
contamination, they sue you because you haven't paid for it.

Only if the farmer has deliberately engineered it. Which some have in
order to gain the benefits without paying for it. And then they bleat
when they're caught out, making any excuse under the sun, just like any
other scrotes.

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by tim...

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Paul Pot
Trump will push Monsanto's patentated poisonous gmo garbage our way as
part of any deal.

I do hope so. It's about time decisions were evidence-based and not
dictated by the Greenies in Berlin.
By the way, the gmo products we'd use are neither 'patentated', whatever
that is,

patented is patented
it means that farmers can only buy their seed supply from one supplier who
can charge what the hell they like

Thy can source their seeds from anywhere they choose. A farmer is unlikely to grow unprofitable crops.

Post by tim...
and they are also barred from harvesting next year's seeds from this year's
crop
something which farming has done for centuries

Any farmer can grow seed from his previous crop It's known in the trade as 'once grown' The problem is that individual seeds are small and hence difficult to sort. Raw seed from the field will contain a much wider variety of genetic material and the characteristics which are the basis of the strain will come will become diluted.

Such a farmer would be destined for the poor house.

It former years farmers would walk the ripened fields selecting by hand the best ears which would become the basis of the seed which was sown the following year and the sown seed would be a mixture of the selected seed and seed taken from the general crop.

It takes a lot of seed to sow a 10 acre field and so it would take a lot of years to develop a new strain stock. You see the same with regard to animals where of course reproductive rates are mush slower. A good herd of cows or pigs for instance could represent a lifetime's work.

Seed growers on the other hand use modern techniques to separate out these seeds which include inside growing (to reduce cross pollination) usually in the development of brand new strains usually used to reinforce existing strains. and differential sieving to select the best seeds from existing strains. Non cereal crops of course can be selected by eye.

[Paul Pot]

Post by tim...

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Paul Pot
Trump will push Monsanto's patentated poisonous gmo garbage our
way as part of any deal.

I do hope so. It's about time decisions were evidence-based and
not dictated by the Greenies in Berlin.
By the way, the gmo products we'd use are neither 'patentated',
whatever that is,

patented is patented
it means that farmers can only buy their seed supply from one
supplier who can charge what the hell they like

I wrote "patentated" so Norman could dine out on a spelling lame.

Post by tim...
and they are also barred from harvesting next year's seeds from this
year's crop

They aren't barred, the seed is 'coded' not to reproduce so that
farmers have to buy it again next year, bankrupting them.

Post by tim...
something which farming has done for centuries
tim

[Norman Wells]

Post by Paul Pot

Post by tim...

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Paul Pot
Trump will push Monsanto's patentated poisonous gmo garbage our way
as part of any deal.

I do hope so. It's about time decisions were evidence-based and not
dictated by the Greenies in Berlin.
By the way, the gmo products we'd use are neither 'patentated',
whatever that is,

patented is patented
it means that farmers can only buy their seed supply from one supplier
who can charge what the hell they like

I wrote "patentated" so Norman could dine out on a spelling lame.

Yeah, yeah.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Norman Wells

[quoted text muted]

I do hope so. It's about time decisions were evidence-based and not
dictated by the Greenies in Berlin.

The UK doesn't do evidence based policy. Never has, and unlikely it ever
will.

[tim...]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Norman Wells

[quoted text muted]

I do hope so. It's about time decisions were evidence-based and not
dictated by the Greenies in Berlin.

The UK doesn't do evidence based policy. Never has, and unlikely it ever
will.

in this case it's probably right

if the MITS doesn't want to buy GM modified stuff (which it appears is the
case). No amount of law changes to make it legal will change that

tim

[James Harris]

Post by The Todal

Post by James Harris

"Australia’s PM Malcolm Turnbull says his country won’t ‘muck around’
but first wants free trade agreement with bloc
"Australia will be ready for a trade deal with the UK soon after
Brexit, but will try to do one with the EU first, said Malcolm
Turnbull, the country’s prime minister, after talks with Theresa May
in Downing Street.
"In a joint press conference, the UK and Australian leaders expressed
enthusiasm for an ambitious deal as soon as possible after the UK
leaves the EU.
"Speaking alongside May in Downing Street, Turnbull said Australians
'do not muck around' when it comes to free trade, which he said was
responsible for the nation’s prosperity.
" 'As Britain moves to completing its exit from the EU, we stand ready
to enter into a free trade agreement with the UK as soon as the UK is
able to do so,' he said. 'Once Brexit is achieved, we look forward to
speedily concluding a free trade agreement. At the same time, we are
looking forward to the early conclusion of a free trade agreement with
the EU.'"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/10/australia-ready-to-do-post-brexit-trade-deal-but-eu-comes-first
I reckon this will the case with America, too. All those warm words
from The Donald are worth about as much as one of his tweets.

That all sounds like the Guardian putting its own spin on what
Turnbull said.
By the way, what's with the EU's sudden interest in trade deals? It's
never shown much zeal to conclude them before. Could it be that Brexit
has shown it up?

Downing Street has proudly announced that Donald Trump is keen to make a
trade deal with us. Isn't that rather naive and pathetic?

I don't know or care about the emotions behind it but the EU has been
trying to cut a US trade deal for years, and has failed to do so.
Brexit, rather than putting us at the "back of the queue" may well see
us ending up with a US trade deal before the EU gets one.

Post by The Todal
Of course a rapacious greedy businessman would want to make deals with
the UK in its hour of need, but that doesn't mean he'll be doing us any
favours at all.

Who needs favours? They have markets we want. We have markets they want.
And we both have opportunities to work together. IMO the Americans have
long been far more in tune with us than have our European neighbours.

Post by The Todal
Does anyone in the UK government actually understand business and the
art of making deals? Do we need our own Donald Trump?

Please, no!

[James Harris]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:26:20 +0100, James Harris

Post by James Harris
Who needs favours? They have markets we want.

For our *services*? Remember, 80% of Britain's exports are in
services, not goods. What, excatly, do we have to sell to the
Americans?

Among other things, incredibly, Americans allegedly buy UK beef! A trade
deal would just make it more competitive.

Post by James Harris
We have markets they want.

Chlorinated chicken? Hormone-fed beef? We want that?

I don't know how this works. If they want to sell chicken into our
market why would it not be as produced to our standards? I would have
thought that any seller into market X would have to comply with market
X's requirements.

And if market X made an exception for one seller, what would happen (to
other sellers into the same market) to avoid the first getting an unfair
and non-sensical advantage?

[tim...]

Post by James Harris

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:26:20 +0100, James Harris

Post by James Harris
Who needs favours? They have markets we want.

For our *services*? Remember, 80% of Britain's exports are in
services, not goods. What, excatly, do we have to sell to the
Americans?

Among other things, incredibly, Americans allegedly buy UK beef! A trade
deal would just make it more competitive.

Post by James Harris
We have markets they want.

Chlorinated chicken? Hormone-fed beef? We want that?

I don't know how this works. If they want to sell chicken into our market
why would it not be as produced to our standards? I would have thought
that any seller into market X would have to comply with market X's
requirements.

no

that's why trade deals take so long

they are arguments about how each side will reduce their rules so that
currently forbidden products can be sold in future.

No one needs to enter into an an agreement to sell under current rules, they
can do that now.

and agreements to mutually move tariffs towards zero only takes months to
formulate.

Post by James Harris
And if market X made an exception for one seller, what would happen (to
other sellers into the same market) to avoid the first getting an unfair
and non-sensical advantage?

but getting an unfair advantage is what making a trade deal is all about.

tim

[Norman Wells]

Post by tim...

Post by James Harris
And if market X made an exception for one seller, what would happen
(to other sellers into the same market) to avoid the first getting an
unfair and non-sensical advantage?

but getting an unfair advantage is what making a trade deal is all about.

No, that's self-defeating. The disadvantaged party will just minimise
trade. After all, you can't make them trade, and if the conditions are
unfavourable, they won't.

Trade deals are all about mutual benefit.

[tim...]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by tim...

Post by James Harris
And if market X made an exception for one seller, what would happen (to
other sellers into the same market) to avoid the first getting an unfair
and non-sensical advantage?

but getting an unfair advantage is what making a trade deal is all about.

No, that's self-defeating. The disadvantaged party will just minimise
trade. After all, you can't make them trade, and if the conditions are
unfavourable, they won't.

to be clear, the people being disadvantages is ROW, not either of the
parties involved.

but it wont make it any more difficult for them than it is already

and people don't usually cut their nose off to spite their face

but if they really do think that the disadvantage is so great they should
discontinue trade, they are are liberty to strike up a deal with us, in
return for giving us something that we want

Post by Norman Wells
Trade deals are all about mutual benefit.

of the two signing the deal

but not everybody else

[James Harris]

Post by tim...

Post by James Harris

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:26:20 +0100, James Harris

Post by James Harris
Who needs favours? They have markets we want.

For our *services*? Remember, 80% of Britain's exports are in
services, not goods. What, excatly, do we have to sell to the
Americans?

Among other things, incredibly, Americans allegedly buy UK beef! A
trade deal would just make it more competitive.

Post by James Harris
We have markets they want.

Chlorinated chicken? Hormone-fed beef? We want that?

I don't know how this works. If they want to sell chicken into our
market why would it not be as produced to our standards? I would have
thought that any seller into market X would have to comply with market
X's requirements.

no
that's why trade deals take so long
they are arguments about how each side will reduce their rules so that
currently forbidden products can be sold in future.
No one needs to enter into an an agreement to sell under current rules,
they can do that now.
and agreements to mutually move tariffs towards zero only takes months
to formulate.

Post by James Harris
And if market X made an exception for one seller, what would happen
(to other sellers into the same market) to avoid the first getting an
unfair and non-sensical advantage?

but getting an unfair advantage is what making a trade deal is all about.

I don't see the sense in that. If the UK allows chlorine-washed chicken
from the US why would it not also accept chlorine-washed chicken from
Mexico, and The Congo, and China, etc? And what's to stop the UK, as
part of a trade deal, simply reducing tariffs on imports of chicken from
the US as long as their producers sell UK-legal meat.

[tim...]

Post by James Harris

Post by tim...

Post by James Harris

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:26:20 +0100, James Harris

Post by James Harris
Who needs favours? They have markets we want.

For our *services*? Remember, 80% of Britain's exports are in
services, not goods. What, excatly, do we have to sell to the
Americans?

Among other things, incredibly, Americans allegedly buy UK beef! A trade
deal would just make it more competitive.

Post by James Harris
We have markets they want.

Chlorinated chicken? Hormone-fed beef? We want that?

I don't know how this works. If they want to sell chicken into our
market why would it not be as produced to our standards? I would have
thought that any seller into market X would have to comply with market
X's requirements.

no
that's why trade deals take so long
they are arguments about how each side will reduce their rules so that
currently forbidden products can be sold in future.
No one needs to enter into an an agreement to sell under current rules,
they can do that now.
and agreements to mutually move tariffs towards zero only takes months to
formulate.

Post by James Harris
And if market X made an exception for one seller, what would happen (to
other sellers into the same market) to avoid the first getting an unfair
and non-sensical advantage?

but getting an unfair advantage is what making a trade deal is all about.

I don't see the sense in that. If the UK allows chlorine-washed chicken
from the US why would it not also accept chlorine-washed chicken from
Mexico, and The Congo, and China, etc?

well yes it would

I was just trying to reply simply

because there will be some cases where the rule can be changed that will
only be useful to that one other party

Post by James Harris
And what's to stop the UK, as part of a trade deal, simply reducing tariffs
on imports of chicken from the US as long as their producers sell UK-legal
meat.

nothing at all

but the parties usually want more concessions than that

tim

[abelard]

Chlorinated chicken? Hormone-fed beef? We want that?

what? they washed it under the tap?...outraageous

[Norman Wells]

Post by abelard

Chlorinated chicken? Hormone-fed beef? We want that?

what? they washed it under the tap?...outraageous

Well, the NHS warns against it!

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/homehygiene/Pages/Washing-chicken-can-cause-campylobacter-food-poisoning.aspx

[tim...]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by abelard

Chlorinated chicken? Hormone-fed beef? We want that?

what? they washed it under the tap?...outraageous

Well, the NHS warns against it!
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/homehygiene/Pages/Washing-chicken-can-cause-campylobacter-food-poisoning.aspx

that's because when you wash it under the tap at home it will spread the
micro particles around the kitchen (and they will settle on other food.

I doubt that that is a problem washing under the tap in a "factory"
environment

tim

[Fredxxx]

Post by James Harris

"Australia’s PM Malcolm Turnbull says his country won’t ‘muck around’
but first wants free trade agreement with bloc
"Australia will be ready for a trade deal with the UK soon after
Brexit, but will try to do one with the EU first, said Malcolm
Turnbull, the country’s prime minister, after talks with Theresa May
in Downing Street.
"In a joint press conference, the UK and Australian leaders expressed
enthusiasm for an ambitious deal as soon as possible after the UK
leaves the EU.
"Speaking alongside May in Downing Street, Turnbull said Australians
'do not muck around' when it comes to free trade, which he said was
responsible for the nation’s prosperity.
" 'As Britain moves to completing its exit from the EU, we stand ready
to enter into a free trade agreement with the UK as soon as the UK is
able to do so,' he said. 'Once Brexit is achieved, we look forward to
speedily concluding a free trade agreement. At the same time, we are
looking forward to the early conclusion of a free trade agreement with
the EU.'"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/10/australia-ready-to-do-post-brexit-trade-deal-but-eu-comes-first
I reckon this will the case with America, too. All those warm words
from The Donald are worth about as much as one of his tweets.

That all sounds like the Guardian putting its own spin on what Turnbull
said.
By the way, what's with the EU's sudden interest in trade deals? It's
never shown much zeal to conclude them before. Could it be that Brexit
has shown it up?

Given the Canadian trade agreement took years to setup and was initially
vetoed by a small province in Belgium, it does make one wonder!

[James Harris]

...

Post by Fredxxx

Post by James Harris
By the way, what's with the EU's sudden interest in trade deals? It's
never shown much zeal to conclude them before. Could it be that Brexit
has shown it up?

Given the Canadian trade agreement took years to setup and was initially
vetoed by a small province in Belgium, it does make one wonder!

Quite! Did the EU not know that Wallonia would have to approve the CETA
deal? Or did it not think about ensuring they were on board as
negotiations progressed? If the former, the EU was negligent. If the
latter then the EU was incompetent.

Either way, we should be better off doing our own FTAs.

[Handsome Jack]

"Australia’s PM Malcolm Turnbull says his country won’t ‘muck around’
but first wants free trade agreement with bloc
"Australia will be ready for a trade deal with the UK soon after
Brexit, but will try to do one with the EU first, said Malcolm
Turnbull, the country’s prime minister, after talks with Theresa May
in Downing Street.

The article contains no direct quotes from Turnbull saying that he wants
to make a trade agreement with the EU first, before making one with the
UK.

It is simply a pack of lies.

"In a joint press conference, the UK and Australian leaders expressed
enthusiasm for an ambitious deal as soon as possible after the UK
leaves the EU.
"Speaking alongside May in Downing Street, Turnbull said Australians
'do not muck around' when it comes to free trade, which he said was
responsible for the nation’s prosperity.
" 'As Britain moves to completing its exit from the EU, we stand ready
to enter into a free trade agreement with the UK as soon as the UK is
able to do so,' he said. 'Once Brexit is achieved, we look forward to
speedily concluding a free trade agreement. At the same time, we are
looking forward to the early conclusion of a free trade agreement with
the EU.'"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/10/australia-ready-to-do-p
ost-brexit-trade-deal-but-eu-comes-first

[Altroy1]

Post by Handsome Jack
The article contains no direct quotes from Turnbull saying that he wants
to make a trade agreement with the EU first, before making one with the UK.
It is simply a pack of lies.

Brexiteers need to open their eyes and draw badly needed breath into their
oxygen-starved bodies.


Never mind Malcolm Turnbull, Australia's Deputy PM barnaby Joyce is clear:

http://www.farmonline.com.au/story/4771322/joyce-nobody-opposed-to-post-brexit-trade-deal/

"But the good thing about it is, I didn't meet one person
who said they don't want to do it."

Mr Joyce said due to Brexit, he spoke to leaders from both
the EU and UK about FTAs and agricultural aspects of any
deal.

"If you did a free trade deal with the EU now you'd be
doing one with England but you won't be shortly," he said.

"Things seem to be progressing well and it's low hanging
fruit as far as trade deals go because the EU want to do a
trade deal and have done the scoping study already.


Australia have sussed out how to play the EU and UK off one another.
Fortunately, unlike the Yanks, Australia might not insist on the
EU and UK accepting USA type chlorinated chicken and dirty
GM crop fed (or should that be crap fed?) beef.

[saracene]

"Australia’s PM Malcolm Turnbull says his country won’t ‘muck around’
but first wants free trade agreement with bloc

Not all Aussies like us, some of them call us pommy bastards.

[Basil Jet]

Maybe they should start negotiations for trade deals with Britain and
the EU at the same time? That way the deal with Britain will be signed
only 17 years before the deal with Europe.

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by Basil Jet
Maybe they should start negotiations for trade deals with Britain and
the EU at the same time? That way the deal with Britain will be signed
only 17 years before the deal with Europe.

Do you imagine that such negotiations have not yet started? So long as they are kept private, nobody need be any the wiser. Come Brexit, these understandings already agreed will be rolled out and agreement, already made in outline will be quickly set in concrete.

That's how a commercial entity would overcome such and obstacle and I would assume the diplomatic service are not averse to such practices.

You must not assume that we are kept informed of everything done in our name. We don't even know half and shouldn't do!

[Incubus]

"Australia’s PM Malcolm Turnbull says his country won’t ‘muck around’
but first wants free trade agreement with bloc

Only he didn't say that and as usual, the Guardian is dishonest.