Cookies & Privacy
in

news

Last post Wed, Feb 26 2003 23:08 by anonymous. 11 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (12 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • Wed, Feb 26 2003 23:08

    news

    I LOG ON TO FWi HOMEPAGE DAILY, ALL WE EVER GET IS BAD NEWS FOR US FARMERS, AFTER LOGGING ON I ALWAYS FEEL TOTALLY PISSED OFF.
  • Wed, Feb 26 2003 23:13

    news

    And we could do with more wit and humour in the forum too.
  • Wed, Feb 26 2003 23:48

    news

    It could be worse, the war has not started yet. Better to light a candle than curse the darkness. Contacts for an appeal to the UN from www.warmwell.com ------------------------ An appeal to the UN The UN is probably the last hope we have to stop the war Here are e-addresses and fax numbers of all the UN ambassadors, and a text to copy/adapt. Whatever you send send should be sent this week if possible. The French UN office are begging us to flood their offices and the other UN offices with emails to stop the war. France needs to know that American and British nationals are with them on this. Please forward this to everyone you can. The UN email addresses are below for the Security Council. Contact info for members of the Security Council (Ambassador, email and fax) H.E. Ambassador M. Jean-marc de la Sabliere, France mailto:France-presse@un.int France-presse@un.int Fax (212 207-9765 H.E. Ambassador Mr. Sergei Lavrov, Russia: mailto:rusun@un.int rusun@un.int (212) 628-0252 H.E. Ambassador Wang Yingfam, China. mailto:chinamission_un@fmprc.gov.cn chinamission_un@fmprc.gov.cn (212) 634-7626 H.E. Ambassador Dr. Guner Pleuger, Germany. mailto:contact@germany-un.org contact@germany-un.org (212)940-0402 H.E. Ambassador Inocencio F. Arias, Spain. mailto:spain@spainun.org spain@spainun.org (212) 682-4460 H.E. Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock: Britain: mailto:uk@un.int uk@un.int (212) 745-9316 H.E. Ambassador Mr. Stefan Tafrov, Bulgaria: mailto:Bulgaria@un.int Bulgaria@un.int (212) 472-9865 H.E. Ambassador Martin Belinda Eboutou, Cameroon: mailto:info@cameroonmission.org info@cameroonmission.org (212) 249-0533 H.E. Ambassador M. Francois Lonseny Fall, Guinea: mailto:guinea@un.int guinea@un.int (212) 687-8248 H.E. Ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zizer, Mexico: mailto:mexico@un.int mexico@un.int (212) 688-8862 H.E. Ambassador Dr. Mikha'il Wahbi, Syria: mailto:Syria@un.int Syria@un.int (212) 983-4439 H.E. Ambassador Dr. Ismael Gaspar Martins, mailto:ginasensi@yahoo.com ginasensi@yahoo.com (temporary email) (212) 861-9295 H.E. Ambassazdor Juan Gabriel Valdes, Chile: mailto:chile@un.int chile@un.int (212) 832-0236 H.E. Ambassador Munir Akram, Pakistan: mailto:Pakistan@un.int Pakistan@un.int (212) 744-7348 Suggested message: Dear Ambassador, I hope you will hold firm in your opposition to the reckless determination of the government of my country to rush headlong into war, a war which would have disastrous results for the people of Iraq, the people of the United Kingdom, the people of..... , and for all humanity. I and many others stand with you for sanity. signed
  • Thu, Feb 27 2003 8:57 In reply to

    news

    Tom, You are the best ally Sadam has got! Jack Caley. PS, Heard anything from Michael Meacher yet?
  • Thu, Feb 27 2003 11:27 In reply to

    news

    Jack I was hoping to quetion Michael Meacher on Questiontime tonight but I have been unable to get a ticket. I hope to catch up with him soon. In the meantime here is a bit of good news from Canada, at least one NFU takes it job seriously. --------------------------------------- National Farmers Union [Canada] National Office2717 Wentz Ave.Saskatoon, Sask., S7K 4B6 Tel (306) 652-9465 Fax (306) 664-6226 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FEBRUARY 24, 2003 FARMERS SHOULD USE MARKET POWER TO STOP GM WHEAT SASKATOON, Sask.-At a new conference in Saskatoon today, the NFU urged farmers: IF YOU DON'T WANT GM WHEAT DON'T BUY ROUNDUP Monsanto wants government approval to introduce its genetically-modified (GM) wheat. Monsanto's GM wheat is glyphosate resistant or "Roundup Ready"-designed to be used with Monsanto's Roundup or another glyphosate herbicide. The international customers that buy 82% of Canada's wheat crop have said that they will stop buying if Canada introduces GM wheat. In December 2002, Monsanto pushed ahead with regulatory approval for GM wheat in Canada. The vast majority of farmers do not want Monsanto to introduce GM wheat. To stop GM wheat, the NFU is urging farmers to utilize a commercial communications strategy. "Buying glyphosate from another company will send a powerful market signal to Monsanto," said NFU President Stewart Wells. "Farmers should rise to this challenge and use their market power to change Monsanto's decision to force GM wheat onto the market." "Farmers can't trust government to regulate the introduction of GM wheat-governments are too busy promoting the GM food industry. If farmers want to keep GM wheat out of our fields, if we want to protect our foreign markets, we need to take direct action" said Wells. RoundupT is Monsanto's brand-name for the herbicide glyphosate. Farmers have choices when purchasing glyphosate-many companies sell a glyphosate herbicide (see backgrounder). "Because there are alternative products, farmers can easily switch brands," said Wells. Monsanto lost over $2.5 billion [Cdn.$] in 2002. It attributed a significant portion of that loss to reduced Roundup sales. "Monsanto is sensitive to changes in Roundup sales. If farmers affect Monsanto's bottom line and shareholders' profits, farmers can reverse Monsanto's decision to force GM wheat onto the market," said Wells. NFU member and Lancer-area farmer Ron Watson and NFU member and Swift Current-area farmer Lyle Simonson joined Wells at the news conference today in Saskatoon. The NFU and other organizations will hold 11 town-hall meetings across western Canada beginning February 26. At those meetings, experts will explain the costs of GM wheat to farmers. As part of a multi-pronged strategy to stop GM wheat, the NFU will urge farmers to consider their own self-interests when making glyphosate purchase decisions. - 30 - For More Information: Stewart Wells, President: (306) 773-6852 or 741-7694 Ron Watson, NFU member: (306) 689-2633 Lyle Simonson, NFU member: (306) 553-2307 Darrin Qualman, Exec. Sec.: (306) 652-9465 BACKGROUNDER TO THE NFU'S FEBRUARY 24 NEWS RELEASE What are the alternatives to Roundup? In addition to Monsanto's Roundup, six companies make glyphosate products registered for use in Canada. These products include: Credit (Nufarm), Factor (IPCO), Glyfos (Cheminova), Maverick (Dow), Touchdown (Syngenta), Vantage (Dow), Victor (Bayer) Dow's Vantage products and Syngenta's Touchdown product are registered for use "incrop" on Monsanto's Roundup Ready canola and other Roundup Ready crops. What are the costs of genetically-modified (GM) wheat? Numerous costs will result from the introduction of GM wheat, including: . Market loss Many of Canada's highest-paying foreign customers have said they will stop buying Canadian wheat if we introduce GM varieties. . Agronomic costs To control GM Roundup Ready wheat in GM Roundup Ready canola (and vice versa) will require additional chemical applications totalling up to $400 million per year for Canada's 20 million direct-seeded acres. . Segregation costs A segregation system based on a 1% tolerance (about the level that some European countries are contemplating) may cost up to $40/tonne (See below). . Segregation-failure costs If a segregation system is tried and fails (if key customers receive contaminated wheat), farmers could permanently lose market premiums worth hundreds-of-millions of dollars per year. . Seed and technology costs Monsanto charges farmers a $15 per acre "technology use fee" for GM Roundup Ready canola. GM wheat will come with similar costs. Cost/benefit analyses by independent economists Furtan, Gray, and Holzman of the University of Saskatchewan show that farmers' net incomes will fall if Monsanto introduces GM Roundup Ready wheat: the costs far outweigh the benefits. Can we segregate GM wheat from non-GM? Monsanto and others advocate a segregation system to deal with market rejection. Segregation systems will not work, however, because the wheat seed supply will quickly become contaminated and unreliable, and because our bulk handling system is ill-equipped to segregate GM and non-GM wheat. Tests on canola shows that most "non-GM" certified seed is contaminated by GM varieties. The wheat seed supply will become similarly contaminated. With contaminated seed, it becomes very difficult to run a segregation system. If Monsanto introduces GM wheat, there will be no such thing as non-GM wheat, merely wheat with varying levels of contamination. Our grain handling system is ill-suited to segregate GM wheat from non-GM. Our system is increasingly designed for bulk handling, high-throughput, and 100-railcar shipping. It currently has thousands of points of entry where grain could be mis-represented, mixed, contaminated, mis-labelled, or mis-directed. Just one or two mistakes-just one or two instances of delivering contaminated wheat to customers who demand GM-free wheat-could cost Canada its reputation for grain quality and, thus, reduce all wheat farmers' incomes by hundreds-of-millions of dollars per year. Further, many customers have said that if Canada introduces GM varieties, they will stop buying Canadian wheat, regardless of whether we try to segregate or not.
  • Thu, Feb 27 2003 19:01 In reply to

    news

    Tom, Sorry you did not get a ticket to Questiontime. I did about 3 weeks since when it came to Hull. I really enjoyed the experience of the making of the programme. It is not easy to get actually involved in the questions, time absolutely flies. Wonder if Canadian NFU has one man one vote! One can understand their concern about market share. It is a huge problem after all the distortion of markets due to misinformation by pressure groups. It will be a tragedy if all the environmental benefits offered by GM are lost because of mistruths. One thing I do question in that report is that they say it would cost a further $400 in extra spray. Our experience here would be just the opposite. Roundup would have reduced weed levels especially blackgrass and wicks, thereby saving expensive possibly less benign sprays. All other weeds and volunteers would be controlled as a normal course of events in a proper rotation. Keep trying, you might find Michael Meacher in a woolly hat with some ramblers sometime. Doubt it will be beside a trials field though, Jack
  • Thu, Feb 27 2003 19:27

    news

    Wurzel,Friday evenings used to be enjoyable sit down read the FW,the last few years it just has a miserable read,it usally drives me to the pub to cheer my self up
  • Thu, Feb 27 2003 20:30 In reply to

    news

    Still, I expect Tom cheered you up a bit there? [:S] [;)]
  • Thu, Feb 27 2003 21:49 In reply to

    news

    http://www.agri0013926.agriplus.net/error/ Just ripped this off! Click on the icon in the top left of the page. http://www.agri0013926.agriplus.net/error/information.gif
  • Thu, Feb 27 2003 22:26 In reply to

    news

    [b]WAAAH!![/b]Love it ....thanks Blue...Flash! http://mamarocks.com/flasherhi.gif
  • Fri, Feb 28 2003 1:09 In reply to

    news

    Regarding the Canadian version of the NFU - we laughed when we saw the adverts in the farming press over here, offering a new and "älternative" (to the huge OFA & CFFO) farmers union, supporting the smaller and the organic farms. they blabbed on and on, urging us that union is strength, and all that jazz, but guess what? Nobody could join even if they wanted to - they forgot to print any contact details! Regarding Roundup-ready soya beans, don't be too hopeful, just about all our neighbours swear by it, and we're going to give it a try this year! GM crops are not viewed by the Canadian public in the same light as by the English, due to the farming press getting their positive side of the tale out to the media first. Agriculture does enjoy a much better relationship with the general public here, at least the farmers'unions, govt. etc. are very proactive. Hopefully it will not be necessary to spend big bucks on a PR exercise in Ontario, which, let's face it, is going to be happening rather too late in the UK, don't you think? Be honest now!
  • Fri, Feb 28 2003 9:04 In reply to

    news

    Sue, Thank you for that contribution. It is not easy to get a balanced view of the truth here. As you say the PR on GM in this country was abysmal. Two main reasons really. We have a very influential BBC Radio programme called Today, put out at breakfast time. One of the presenters is a failed organic farmer called John Humphrys who has a great deal of misplaced power. The anti brigade have direct and easy access to the programme, but is very difficult to put the opposite view. When trials of GM were introduced here publicly( they had been going on for years before secretly) Greenpeace latched on to it as they were having a financial problem and saw it as a good method of attracting subscriptions. They put out all sorts of scare stories in amongst our neighbours which bore little relation to the truth, although I am fairly sure it would generate a good lot of income. Thankfully a lot of the hooha has died down now as people realise it was all about nothing. Thanks again for the info. I hope to visit Alberta this year, my mother was raised on a farm near Edmonton and I have never been there, I have a lot of fond memories of writing to my great uncle during the war when our farm was a billet for Canadian soldiers on leave. They used to bring me candy! Jack Caley
Page 1 of 1 (12 items)
© RBI 2001-2010
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems