RR Alfalfa gets non reg status

[parsley]

<p></p>
<p><strong>[URL="http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/factsheets/factsheet_011332.htm"](And since we're into legislation, I guess I'd better be thorough and state Canola oil is registered as a pesticide in the US. But at the same time it's also regarded as safe for humans to eat. Isn't that quaint?)[/URL]</strong></p>

[parsley]

@18:56
Your question was very specific: "unsafe for human consumption?"

I provided you with a very specific reply. In your world, you rely on peer review for legitimacy. In the case of babies, the legislation very specifically used the word 'baby'.

There was, in their view, legitimacy for the legislated exemption.

Therefore, my reason for saying canola oil is unsafe, according to YOUR stated peer review requirement benchmark, is legitimate. Pars

[parsley]

20:36 Let's examine what a scientist states in public Starlink hearings about truth:

"For example, in the early days of nuclear technology, the rush to commercialize led to the sale of radium tipped wands designed to remove facial hair. Nine months later the cancers came.

Similarly, the failure to comprehend the full range of risks and to proceed with prudence has led to many disasters in the nuclear power industry.

In the case of genetic engineering, even greater caution is called for: a nuclear disaster only lasts 10,000 years, whereas gene pollution is forever--self-perpetuating and irreversible.

The irresponsible behavior that permitted the marketing of bioengineered foods has not been limited to the scientific community, but includes the executive branch of the federal government.

The FDA's internal records reveal that its own experts clearly recognized the potential for gene-splicing to induce production of unpredicted toxins and carcinogens in the resultant food.

These same records reveal that these warnings were covered up by FDA political appointees operating under a White House directive to promote the biotech industry.

It is unconscionable that the FDA claimed itself unaware of any information showing that bioengineered foods differ from others, when its own files are filled with such information from its scientific staff.

And it is unconscionable that it permits such novel foods to be marketed based on the claim they are recognized as safe by an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community, when it knows such a consensus does not exist."<p></p>
<p><strong>[URL="http://www.mindfully.org/GE/StarLink-Testimony-John-Hagelin.htm"](Read the rest)[/URL]</strong></p>

[parsley]

"Theatrics plus half-truths," is probably closer to the truth than a naive farm boy realizes when it pertains to biotech's Scientists' Puppet Theatre's ongoing script: 'Yes they can see that one, oops, not that one'<p></p>
<p><strong>[URL="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research"](Scientists require permission to publish biotech findings,... read it yourself)[/URL]</strong></p>

[parsley]

@21:57 "qualified health claim"

You actually WANT to eat radioactive food, wd?

"****seed plants of B. napus bearing pods, which were judged to be at the stage of half maturity based on oil content, were selected from a field stand. Sixty seven pods were excised from the branches of the plants and placed base down in a beaker containing
sufficient distilled water to cover the pedicle of the pods. At the base of each pod, 10 ~1 aqueous solution
of radioactive sodium acetate (0.2 ,c methyl labelled) was injected with a Hamilton micro-syringe. A branch from a ****seed plant bearing 15 pods was
excised below the lowest pod, the pods were similarly injected and the cut end of the branch placed in a beaker partially filled with distilled water.

All cutting operations were carried out under water to prevent air entrapment. Samples were kept in an
artificially lighted chamber maintained at 25C for 24 hr. Oil obtained from the 67 excised pods had
an activity of 4,650 c.p.m, at infinite thickness, whereas the oil from the 15 pods attached to the
branch showed an activity of 4,800 c.p.m. Since the uptake of radioactive acetate was similar, the oil
samples were bulked for further analysis."


"....the radioactive methyl esters and the marked increase in activity found in eicosenoic and erucic acids
(Tables II, III and IV) strongly supports the assumption that the radioactive acetate had been incorporated into these molecules."<p></p>
<p><strong>[URL="http://healthwyze.org/archive/canola_genetic_control.pdf"](Canola Genetics:Scientist Dr. Downey from Saskatoon. And yes, darling, radioactive sodium acetate actually becomes part of the food chain,how quaint.)[/URL]</strong></p>

[FarmRanger]

LOL
Read that last paper again Pars, it doesn't say
what you seem to think it does.

The only radioactivity in that canola was injected
into that small sample for testing.

In laymen terms, it's like a person ingesting
radioactive barium so a doctor can take an x-ray
of your digestive system. It doesn't mean
humanity has been genetically modified to be
radioactive.

That's how misinformation gets out there. We as
farmers probably shouldn't be contributing to
rumours that can only harm our industry.

[wd9]

OMG parsely. "This hypothesis was supported by data obtained from the injection of radioactive sodium acetate into immature ****seed pods."

Injecting radioactive sodium acetate into the pod to track synthesis and quantities of the different types of acid to prove a hypothesis is a lab process. What the bleep are you talking about eating radioactive sodium acetate?

This is ridiculous! Sell your organics to the naive and uninformed, but do it without stepping on the rest of agriculture with this kind of garbage.

[parsley]

Sorry for being slow this morning. I was setting up barrels. lol

And I regret that a part of my late night post, you know, the one that predictably precipitates your righteous ire, must have fragmented when I posted.

I'll repost in it's entirety.

I persistin discussing ideas, ranger, as you might have guessed, soley to sell wd organic food,(tic) with the idea that if Monsanto's CEO eats organic, wd, too, will eventually fall into line. lol When he can afford it. LOL

And btw, wd, when the question was narrowed, the baby food/piggy flu thingy was predictably a perfect segue for a hearty discussion, wasn't it. Pars

[parsley]

@21:57 "qualified health claim"

You actually WANT to eat radioactive food, wd?
That should elicit TWO exclamation marks.LOL
<p></p>
<p><strong>[URL="http://dprogram.net/2009/05/11/youve-been-lied-to-about-canola-oil/"](This article will )[/URL]</strong></p>
But more importantly, imagine what Canola Genetics Scientist Dr. Downey from Saskatoon would say about his and all research (read some below) if he sat down, one on one, with <p></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.mindfully.org/GE/StarLink-Testimony-John-Hagelin.htm">(Dr. John)</a></strong></p>

"****seed plants of B. napus bearing pods, which were judged to be at the stage of half maturity based on oil content, were selected from a field stand. Sixty seven pods were excised from the branches of the plants and placed base down in a beaker containing sufficient distilled water to cover the pedicle of the pods. At the base of each pod, 10 ~1 aqueous solution of radioactive sodium acetate (0.2 ,c methyl labelled) was injected with a Hamilton micro-syringe. A branch from a ****seed plant bearing 15 pods was excised below the lowest pod, the pods were similarly injected and the cut end of the branch placed in a beaker partially filled with distilled water.

All cutting operations were carried out under water to prevent air entrapment. Samples were kept in an
artificially lighted chamber maintained at 25C for 24 hr. Oil obtained from the 67 excised pods had
an activity of 4,650 c.p.m, at infinite thickness, whereas the oil from the 15 pods attached to the
branch showed an activity of 4,800 c.p.m. Since the uptake of radioactive acetate was similar, the oil
samples were bulked for further analysis."


"....the radioactive methyl esters and the marked increase in activity found in eicosenoic and erucic acids
(Tables II, III and IV) strongly supports the assumption that the radioactive acetate had been incorporated into these molecules."
<p></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://healthwyze.org/archive/canola_genetic_control.pdf">(Canola Genetics:Scientist Dr. Downey from Saskatoon. And yes, darling, radioactive sodium acetate actually becomes part of the food chain,how quaint.)</a></strong></p>

[parsley]

No farmer should be disparaged for asking questions, or for wanting to discuss. For wanting to understand processes. For wanting to know how the food he grows is processed/changed/modified/contaminated/poisoned/fortified/radiated.

Information we pay for the development OF, IS our business.

Every bloody question, no matter how stupid someone might think it is, is valid, is a good one.

I was once reproached for speaking about commercial business that "I knew nothing about it", and was scolded that even if I did, where did I get the experience to comment on commercial business.

Context that in the GM issue. Or flax issue. Or the CWB issue. Or cattle growth hormone issues.

Farmers know EXACTLY how we are effected.

Simply put,I have decades of skin in farming game, as do all farmers. Farmers are in it for the long haul.

And if the commercials/university/government/specialist elitist pukes don't like being questioned, get used to it, because farmers have every right to ask/comment if their funding money is being spent wisely,if the policies are puke, if regulations are puke.

Farmers have every right to question and participate in the direction of agriculture.

Asking questions brings answers to each individual farmer that helps him make up his own mind.

Every question is an important question for that individual farmer. Pars

[parsley]

This was the link I provided above. Not my words

You've Been Lied To About Canola Oil
May 11th, 2009

The truth about canola will shock many health conscience people, especially when they realize how much they have been lied to by the people who have been giving them alternative health advice. This report will be a bomb shell for many such people.
Much of the information contained herein comes from, “Genetic Control of Fatty Acid Biosynthesis in ****seed” – The Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society (1964), so this report is based upon verifiable scientific facts, and not mere rumors.

Back in the 1960′s and 70′s, the food industry was in search of an oil that they could produce cheaply, but market toward health conscious consumers. While olive oil was preferred among those who cared about their health, it was never easy or cheap for manufacturers to mass produce. As a result, they began using ****seed oil, and attempted to reduce ****seed’s poisonous erucic acid content. Serious problems were found with the erucic acid in unmodified ****seeds, like the fact that it directly attacked the heart muscles to cause problematic lesions in the heart itself. In fact, ****seed is so poisonous that insects will not eat it, but manufacturers decided to use it in our foods anyway, at least until they realized the liability that they were placing themselves in. Thus began their research and development of a less toxic version of ****seed oil. Their less toxic version of ****seed would eventually come to be known as canola.

Since then, the origins of canola oil have been hotly contested in an information (public relations) war across the Internet. The manufacturers of canola, and the sellers of its seeds say that ****seed plants were naturally refined into a new species called canola through a process of controlled cross-pollination. The resultant plant from this work was originally called L.E.A.R. (Low Erucic Acid ****seed), before being renamed to canola for marketing reasons, because no company wanted to market a plant known for its toxicity (****seed), and few companies wish to be associated with a product having “****” in its name. The people who promote canola admit that its name was changed for marketing purposes only: to deceive us about its true linage in other words; yet they expect us to trust their integrity about canola’s supposedly all natural genetic history.

While they lie about it, they matter-of-factly boast about their genetic engineering amongst their partners in industry. For instance, this comes from the official Canola Council of Canada:

“Here are some key facts on growing genetically modified (GM) canola in Canada.”GM or transgenic canola varieties have been modified to be resistant to specific herbicides. They are called herbicide-resistant varieties. The plants are modified, but the oil is not modified. It is identical to canola oil from non-modified or conventional canola.

“Herbicide-resistant GM [Genetically Modified] canola is grown on about 80% of the acres in western Canada. GM canola was first introduced in 1995.”

In the U.S.A., at least 55% of the canola is admitted to be genetically engineered, and that number was for 2004. They are actually proud of it, while we are told lies about canola not being genetically modified. What follows cites the process that was used to chemically engineer canola oil, for those who still believe the industry spin-doctors about canola oil being natural.

Here’s how ‘canola oil’ (L.E.A.R.) began life:

“Self-pollinated seed harvested from each plant was oven-dried, weighed and crushed with a glass rod in a 50-ml Erlenmeyer flask containing 10 ml solution of methanol, acetyl chloride and benzene in the ratio of 20:1:4. The mixture was refluxed under an air condenser for 1 hr to extract and esterify the seed oil. A known wt of internal standard (dibutyl sebacate dissolved in carbon tetrachloride) was added and 0.2-0.4 ~1 of the sample injected into an F and M model 500 gas chromatograph operated at 208c with a helium flow rate of 75 ml / min and using an 8 ft • 3/16 in.”

This is just the beginning of the natural process through which canola oil was first made. The equally deceptive claim that high fructose corn syrup is natural has been made by many from the food industry, and canola oil is created through a much more complex engineering process that carries even more long-term health implications. Alas, let us return to the natural process of creating Low Erucic Acid ****seed canola oil.

“At the base of each pod, 10 ~1 aqueous solution of radioactive sodium acetate (0.2,c methyl labelled) was injected with a Hamilton micro-syringe. A branch from a ****seed plant bearing 15 pods was excised below the lowest pod, the pods were similarly injected and the cut end of the branch placed in a beaker partially filled with distilled water.

All cutting operations were carried out under water to prevent air entrapment. The seeds were dried in a vacuum oven, at 85c for 2 hr, and the oil extracted in a Swedish tube (10) using a chloroform-methanol (2:1) solvent system. The solvent was removed under reduced pressure and residue extracted with diethyl ether which also was removed under reduced pressure. The sample was saponified, and unsaponifiable material was separated by extracting the soaps in aqueous ethanol with ethyl ether. The soaps were converted to free fatty acids and esterified with methanol using boron trifluoride-etherate complex as a catalyst (8).”

This goes on and on, until the desired affect is achieved; low erucic acid, while not affecting the overall oil content. I do not believe that any sane person could see this process as one that is in any way natural. What is noticeably absent from the actual procedure is any mention whatsoever of the controlled pollination, which the canola marketers have been swearing was at the core of the process. Instead, what we can clearly see is the use of industrial chemistry to alter the canola oil just as practically all of the canola plants being used are themselves admittedly genetically engineered. What is described here is by any standard genetic engineering and chemo-genetic modifications. Could any sane and honest person refer to anything in this process as natural selective breeding? More importantly, would you feel secure having radioactive sodium acetate being a key part of your food chain?

When we eat foods that have been genetically modified, what sort of assurance do we have that they will not affect our own genes; and how long will it be before we see the long-term effects? Will we first see them in our mutant grandchildren?

If you would like to see the entire study for yourself, you can find it here: Genetic Control of Fatty Acid Biosynthesis in ****seed. I do warn you, that it has a tendency to make one’s head spin. We expect this official scientific report to disappear as our’s becomes popular, so we are keeping a back-up copy of it. In case they attempt to edit the file, the MD5 checksum (digital fingerprint) for it is: 724fe221c54fea4bdb16a41e0a1ffc83. We recommend you download and archive a copy for yourself, because industry has a tendency to make such documents disappear when it realizes they have been exposed." Unquote

[parsley]

A PhD who spoke clearly. And scientifically. Posted in it's entirely. A link above. Not my words.



Dr. John Hagelin Stuns EPA with Stirring "StarLink" Testimony

Hagelin News 28nov00

Providence Journal 9nov00 (below)

On Tuesday, November 28, Dr. John Hagelin presented a powerful statement about the hazards of genetically engineered foods to an open meeting of an Environmental Protection Agency panel in Arlington, Virginia. The Scientific Advisory Panel for the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) held the meeting to consider the possible allergenic effects of StarLink corn on human health. Starlink, a variety of genetically engineered corn that has not been approved by the EPA for human consumption, was recently discovered to have contaminated corn products being sold at supermarkets around the country. Dr. Hagelin' s testimony created an explosion of concern among the largely pro-genetic engineering audience at the open meeting and created a fresh wave of scientific scrutiny about the hazards of GE foods. His testimony is reprinted below, along with an editorial from the Providence Journal about his leadership in the effort to protect our food supply.

Statement for FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Open Meeting on StarLink Corn

Arlington VA 28nov00 John Hagelin, Ph D - Director, Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy

I speak to you as a scientist who is striving to ensure that our best scientific knowledge be applied for the solution-- and prevention--of society's problems. I am a nuclear physicist who has published extensively in super-string theory and, during the last three elections, I have been the Presidential candidate of the Natural Law Party. I want to address an issue much deeper than whether the CRY9C protein in StarLink corn is likely to be allergenic. I want to address the assumptions that underlie the entire agricultural bioengineering enterprise. I am deeply concerned that life scientists are implementing bioengineering technologies without adequately understanding the lessons we have learned from the physical sciences. One of the key revelations of modern physics is that phenomena unfold in a far less linear and predictable fashion than eighteenth and nineteenth century thinkers assumed. Today we know that there are inherent limitations on our ability to make precise predictions about the behavior of a system, especially for microscopic systems and nonlinear systems of great complexity.

Numerous eminent molecular biologists recognize that DNA is a complex nonlinear system and that splicing foreign genes into the DNA of a food-yielding organism can cause unpredictable side effects that could harm the health of the human consumer. Yet, the genetic engineering of our food--and the widespread presence of genetically altered foods in American supermarkets --is based on the premise that the effects of gene-splicing are so predictable that all bioengineered foods can be presumed safe unless proven otherwise. This refusal to recognize the risks of unintended and essentially unpredictable negative side effects is just plain bad science. It is astounding that so many biologists are attempting to impose a paradigm of precise, linear, billiard-ball predictably onto the behavior of DNA, when physics has long since dislodged such a paradigm from the microscopic realm and molecular biological research increasingly confirms its inapplicability to the dynamics of genomes. Moreover, the premise of predictability is not just scientifically unsound; it is morally irresponsible. The safety of our food is being put at risk in a cavalier, if not callous, fashion, not only in disregard of scientific knowledge, but in disregard of recent technological history. Here, too, lessons should have been learned from the physical sciences. Time and again, the overhasty application of nuclear technologies led to numerous health and environmental disasters. For example, in the early days of nuclear technology, the rush to commercialize led to the sale of radium tipped wands designed to remove facial hair. Nine months later the cancers came. Similarly, the failure to comprehend the full range of risks and to proceed with prudence has led to many disasters in the nuclear power industry. In the case of genetic engineering, even greater caution is called for: a nuclear disaster only lasts 10,000 years, whereas gene pollution is forever--self-perpetuating and irreversible. The irresponsible behavior that permitted the marketing of bioengineered foods has not been limited to the scientific community, but includes the executive branch of the federal government. The FDA's internal records reveal that its own experts clearly recognized the potential for gene-splicing to induce production of unpredicted toxins and carcinogens in the resultant food. These same records reveal that these warnings were covered up by FDA political appointees operating under a White House directive to promote the biotech industry. It is unconscionable that the FDA claimed itself unaware of any information showing that bioengineered foods differ from others, when its own files are filled with such information from its scientific staff. And it is unconscionable that it permits such novel foods to be marketed based on the claim they are recognized as safe by an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community, when it knows such a consensus does not exist. The StarLink fiasco further demonstrates the shoddiness of the government's regulation, since the system failed to keep even an unapproved bioengineered crop out of our food. Indeed, the contamination was discovered not by the government, but by public interest groups. The FDA had no clue and had taken no measures to monitor. This incident also demonstrates how difficult it will be to remove a bioengineered product from our food supply if it is eventually found to be harmful and, therefore, how important it is to prevent the introduction of new ones and to phase out those currently in use. It is high time that science and the truth be respected, and that the false pretenses enabling the commercialization of bioengineered foods be acknowledged and abolished. I call upon the members of this panel to uphold sound science so that you can hold your own heads up as the facts about the hazards of bioengineered food become increasingly well known. I call upon you not only to resist the pressures to approve the pesticidal protein in StarLink Corn; I call upon you to honestly acknowledge the inherent risks of genetic engineering and to affirm that, due to these risks, neither StarLink nor any other bioengineered food can be presumed safe at the present stage of our knowledge." Unquote