sorry for late answer, i was been cut off from sanet for 3 days (a
mailer problem at ncsu?)
>> and no matter how WTO would decide, they simply would not be
>> able to use such batches because they would upset their clients.
>> and that would also be valid for corn meal (they also do
produce).
>
>Yes, this is clearly the issue of the day (year?).
and certainly that of the next century. (don't worry about
millenium changes - if you've seen one, you've seen'em all).
>The technical GMO issues in milling grain have to do with
tolerances,
>sampling, and testing.
the tolerances ARE for sampling and analysing (and they exist for
the legal aspects against the lab). the rest is homogenity and
that's the problem of the seller.
>Most forms of these
>tests simply give a yes-or-no answer. With discrete seeds or
grains,
>sensitivity is limited by the number of kernels taken to be ground
in the
>sample. If you grind together 10,000 grains, then the sensitivity
is on the
>order of 1 in 10,000, or 0.01%. But when grain is sampled AFTER
milling,
>the sensitivity may be excessive (that is, in terms of percent GMO
grain
>needed to produce a positive reaction). It would not be
surprising to mill
>grain that tested negative, then find that the flour tests
positive, due to
>the presence of a minute percentage of GMO kernels in the bulk.
that's what the tolerances are for (error 2nd grade).
but: today we have ABSOLUTELY NO problem to test not only in
qualitative, but also in quantitative terms by pcr. pcr CAN
measure down to about 10 molecules in a sample, but the
reasonable detection limit is 0.1% (reasonable means a balance of
price and result). and pcr can be adjusted to ANY level of
impurity (example: reduction of thermo-cycle-passes or dilution
of the sample). and even more exact is "competetive pcr", which
can measure *quantitative* amounts (down from those roughly 10
molecules up to any percentage) and it can even be used in corn
meals, flour or other mixtures. immunoflourescence would
be another very exact option (only problem would be the price of
about 150000$ per machine, which makes it only interesting for
serial testing). if i would do the analyses, i would first do a
cheap rough scan for widely used and medium-strong acting promotors
(like CaMV) and if found, one could dig a bit deeper (although that
would not be really necessary, from a certain amount upward someone
HAD meddled with the genes in the lab, it's the same chance as if
someone won 1st price in the national lottery, two would mean two
times immediately one after another, even the fed tax won't
believe you, that you got your money like that) and find the
exact sequence for a cheaper primer (i would have to do that,
because you would not tell it to me and save me the 3 months of
work ;-)))
>The practical matter is that European public officials must decide
on
>tolerances. Trying to stick to zero will paralyze the system. I
have heard
>that the officials are dithering on this issue because of
conflicting
>political pressures.
they HAVE decided : 2 %! that's far more than zero and esp. MUCH
more than exactly measurable by analysis. so a increase from
today's level of undesired impurities seems to be a NO-NO,
as they would slowly but constantly increase and some day you will
have reached the 2% (+ tolerance;-]) and i would take even
more intensive care in my breeding gardens than today and select my
multipliers and the regions very carefully.
and i'm sure: it doesn't matter, what and how WHO or MAI will
decide. the consumer knows up to now, what can be analysed and
the mills will live under the same boycott fears like today - in
the moment they guarantee a maximum of 0.1% (that's what the ceo
said, i'm not quite sure, if he knew the behinds - probably not)
and they will do so in the future. consumers do not see it as a
physical thread, but more as an economic one: who will decide,
what kind of nutrition they will eat. in any case people have
strange ideas of numbers: usually the explanation of residue
analysis is done by explaining, that something like the molecules
in a glass of water can be measured, if poured in the whole lake
erie - the famous needle in the haystick. maybe i can explain it
in a better way: humans have about 10 mg of molybden in their body.
(1/100 of a gramm, you will have some difficulties to see that
amount by visual inspection. and with today's analytical tools
they can be exactly measured down the first decimal in a small
sample taken from 1000 tons of human blood. well, that is a very!
practical example ;-))) that's one side of the game: even very low
numbers are seen as a thread to one's health. and people are
unlogic:
the EU has lost its battle before the jury of the WTO about
the import stop of north american beef. the facts: steaks from
bulls, which grew on american pastures even with a hormone depot
behind their ears (estrogen), has lower hormone residues than
bull's meat from european mass-production farms...
now the other side of the coin: how much atoms of this ridiculous
amount of molybden are there in EACH cell of your body?? just guess
- solution at the end of the mail
there's another problem: opponents are very thankful for your
"honorable" mr. rightwing jesse helms and the burton-helms act,
which is still legal today. people here know this trading-blocade
for european countries with cuba and esp. their subsidiaries in
the usa very well. it was one of the worst thing america could do
for it's bad image in the last 40 years, as it is seen as a fight
of goliath against david, and you know: people tend to take the
much weaker side of david. so you should not wonder, that german
workers in siemens, basf, bayer, daimler, db, mannesmann or
schering have their own opinion, of what american government
understands under the term "free trade". yes - ONE reason for the
blocking of gmos might very well be some kind of revenche and
neither fear nor reasoning.
klaus
----
10 mg molybden = about 5 x 10^19 atoms;
number of cells in a human: 10^14.
which results in half a million!! of these highly catalytic
particles in EACH human cell. and that's why i ask for "slow
motion" in genetic modification of food. it's NOT my main
argument (that one is the FREE decision pro or against for
everyone -> labeling. may the market decide, i'll expect the next
step of the gmo industry to be modified "value-added" plants and
food and THEN and only then we will see a real split in public
opinions, provided the value can be proven. herbicide resistance
as the starting point was a BAD idea)
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail