Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Monsanto Co. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Edscharp who wrote (1414)	3/1/1999 12:31:00 AM
From: Dan Spillane	Respond to of 2539

Roundup Ready soy reduces the amount of herbicide needed by 10-40 percent. Prince Charles doesn't know what he is talking about. "Herbicide-resistant soya beans need less spraying. Instead of applying weedkiller before sowing a crop, which requires heavy doses to kill weeds and seeds, farmers spray after germination, when the weeds are more vulnerable. This reduces the amount of nasty chemicals by between 10-40 percent." (Economist magazine, extremely reliable) By the way, Roundup is completely biodegradable, unlike some other products in this category. Prince Charles states: "I suspect that planting herbicide resistant crops will lead to more chemicals being used on our fields, not fewer. But this isn't the whole story. Such sterile fields..."

To: Edscharp who wrote (1414)	3/1/1999 2:35:00 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

Interesting discussion by me from Yahoo, as a response to another message, concerning herbicide, alternatives, and GM. Note especially number 3, below. 1) Planting hemp as an alternative to a main crop is not a quick solution, and it involves foregoing the planting of a main crop, so there is a tradeoff. And then there is the issue of the extra costs of logistics. And while hemp produces marketable fiber, if everyone planted help, the price of hemp would collapse (would farmers then spray Roundup to clear hemp from fields?). So the wonderful reality you paint doesn't look at all the variables we already know about, in a realistic way. 2) There are varieties of hemp that have low THC (drug) effects, but the drug is still there. Would you object to a genetically modified version of hemp which had the drug trait removed, if this furthered the acceptance of hemp? Also, if this drug is produced in the field and the plant material is left there -- assuming everyone doesn't run to the fields and smoke it first -- wouldn't you be concerned about traces of the drug making it into the food supply? 3) Back to the topic of genetic modification. Are you aware that for perhaps the last 10-15 years, there have been varieties of agricultural products available that have been genetically modified via irradiation? If you are familiar at all with irradiation, it is the opposite of the precise gene modification techniques employed today. Specifically, irradiation modifies many genes in unknown ways; conversely, GM modifies specific genes in known ways. I believe one type of plant this has been done with is squash; unless I am mistaken, squash also has large cross-pollination potential…and likely many wild cousins. So I have two questions: a) After all these years, why aren't giant squash knocking at my door? b) If an extreme, "unnatural" random case of genetic modification has been around for so many years, why aren't environmental groups talking about this? (Warning: this issue has not come up in the debate yet -- as far as I know, I am the first to inject it -- so I need to do more research on this subject to support my statements.)