<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
That is the basis of roundup resistant crops.<br>
One chemical replaces many and in this case is so innocuous a compound
that the surfactant/carrier is actually<br>
more of a health hazard than the herbicide.<br>
<br>
Roundup was a bit of a fluke though. It was just a simple, cheap to
make compound that could be sold for a shitload of money<br>
because it was one of a kind. Then as luck had it nature already had
resistant genes in the backwoods and cooincidentally<br>
the gene was easy to work with and actually worked when transferred
into a whole whack of unrelated plants. <br>
In 34 years we have not seen anything with those attributes come along
again.<br>
<br>
Now in the GMO world the only thing rivalling roundup that could be
created would be a singel gene for perennialism and<br>
environmental ruggedness that would make numerous annuals into high
performing perennials.<br>
That would revolutionize the energy in VS energy out agricultureal
production equation.<br>
Making ethanol and oil based biodiesel from high input annual crops is
a disaster of the highest magnitude in the making.<br>
If the energy equation could be shifted by one decimal point ag biotech
would replace conventional biomaterial sources<br>
and would change world economics as much as the microchip changed
computation.<br>
<br>
We live in Saskatchewan where I am told there is in the works a
nuclear reactor or 2 to put the tar sands into full<br>
production as well as one of the world's most plentyful sources of
uranium , but still we have to plan for what to do once<br>
that is all extracted and we are left with declining production from
ever more marginal energy reserves.<br>
<br>
When I sit down to give our government advice that is where my thoughts
come from.<br>
<br>
Morris<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dirk Bruere wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="midc0a791b40512061335x585a3401mf42734978c8e018c@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/6/05, <b
class="gmail_sendername">Samantha Atkins</b> <<a
href="mailto:sjatkins@mac.com">sjatkins@mac.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
On Dec 6, 2005, at 6:19 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, The Avantguardian wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
>> What about pest-resistant crops that reduce<br>
>> the amount of toxic pesticides used on the crops?
<br>
>><br>
><br>
> I've seen more of the opposite - GM crops that are modified<br>
> specifically to tolerate a higher level of pesticides and<br>
> herbicides, so the producers can spray all the poisons they
<br>
> want without worrying about the plants.<br>
><br>
<br>
These sprayings cost money. So even by your own biases this is<br>
unlikely.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
Not if the cost of extra spraying is offset by greater yield.<br>
Screw the rest of Nature.<br>
<br>
Dirk<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>