Actually the price and supply haven't changed much in five years...actually, someone else already posted another and later story debunking the gm properties of the new coca strain.

Well, Marshall, I think it was you who "debunked" Chucky and the story linked below. The escapade story is near the bottom of the page.

Here is a link that might be useful: cocoa gm

True enough. OTOH I still await an independent analysis for a marker genetic material unique to the to transgenic material or process.

I read that thread, but it was talking more about glysophate resistant varieties of coca. Of course, the next step is to make the coca plant bigger and more potent.

I also would like to see an independent verification and am especially interested in where they received their help to modify their plant.

There are many hundreds of labs and thousands of technicians capable to doing the work. The science and techniques have been around for more than 15 years; and it ain't nuclear science and technology either, in other words not very difficult with the right equipment and time to generate a successful transgenic ge event from existing RR crop plants.

Here's the latest from Reuters:

"Fertilizer May Be Root of Big Colombia Coca Plants
Tue Dec 7, 2004 12:25 PM ET

BOGOTA, Colombia (Reuters) - Giant coca plants said to resist herbicides and yield eight times more cocaine may be due to extra fertilizer, not a drug cartel's genetic modification program, a scientist said on Tuesday.

A Colombian police intelligence dossier quoted in the Financial Times said smugglers apparently received help from foreign scientists to develop a herbicide-resistant tree that yields eight times more cocaine than normal shrubs.

But a toxicologist who studied the plants for the police said he knew of no evidence that showed whether the plants were genetically modified or merely grew big because they received an unusually large amount of fertilizer.

"Up to now there is no scientific evidence, at least in our country, which shows this is the consequence of genetic manipulation," said toxicologist Camilo Uribe.

"They could simply be the result of an excess of fertilizer," he said."

Here is a link that might be useful: That must be some fertilizer

Sounds like apples and oranges to me. Reports of survival under glyphosate spraying does not lead to the conclusion that additional fertilizing is behind the new plants. I wonder how much of flurry of reporting is meant to be misdirection?

I have the same questions Marshall. It is pretty amazing that a story would come out 10 hours later trying to refute the first story. One was based on an intelligence dossier and the other by a toxicology report done for the police.

There seems to be something amiss.

The story gets curiouser & curiouser doesn't it?

This from the BBC should settle it:

"A spokesman for the US embassy in Bogota said there was "no scientific proof" that "transgenic coca" had been developed, although rumour of its existence were rife."

Now we need to ask why hasn't anyone hasn't bothered to test and find out conclusively if the plants have been genetically modified to resist glyphosate.

Here is a link that might be useful: bbc news

This one is refuted by a member of the US Embassy. That may actually add credence to the intelligence dossier. Our policy down there has been a sore point with many people here and down there. Any sign of weakness would be a boon to the drug lords.

With all of the billions these guys make, it shouldn't come as a surprise that someone used GM to modify the coca plant. There are probably others in Afghanistan trying to improve the yields of poppy for opium as we speak.

From MacBeth "There is something rotten in the state of Denmark"

Az, I didn't read it as refuting the toxicologist, only stating there is no scientific proof. In essence, the statement is meaningless. Had tests actually been done to discover if it was gm coca and found not to be, it would be a meaningful statement.

AzDesertRat (is there something else I can call you?),

That was Hamlet, not Macbeth. Act 1, Scene 4, Line 9

Ryan

Yeah, MacBeth was a thane of Scotland, not a Dane. Ryan, good catch.

I recently did a paper on it. Too fresh in my memory to miss.

I did a paper on that in 1954. Not fresh at all; funny the things we remember long after.

Brain fart of monumental proportions. I have (had to) read a lot of Shakespeare and I should have know with a name stating with "Mac" it couldn't have been from Denmark.

Let's see

"Then the liars and swearers are fools; for there are liars and swearers now to beat the honest men and hang up them."
--MacBeth

Hopefully that's right but that almost nothing with my original point, but it is one of the few lines I remember from it.

Althea, I didn't read as refuting the toxicologist either. The only statement I was making even if the evidence were uncovered that the GM coca existed, the embassy spokesperson would have still have probably refuted it. The only way I see that they would have admitted to it is if it were proven by a private lab and news became public.

My thoughts anyway (lowering my head in shame for misquoting Macbeth)

Hey, I remember "Ettu, Brutus" or something like that from Julius Caesar.......also "Cassius...lean and dangerous..."

Anyway Julius had his eye on the wrong man.

So Az, now that the issues of this thread have been resovled, how about telling us why you think Monte & I are extemists? I didn't think your answer on the other thread was complete.

Althea, I never said either of you were extremists. The only thing I said was that you had different often polar views on the issue. I may be wrong as I don't know each of you in person, but your view on the topic was that the chemicals should not have been there in the first place and Monte's was more of a "wait and let's get more evidence and see how much is bad first". To me, they appeared to be opposites.

My point was that no matter which view you took (which again, appeared to be polar opposites to me), the parties responsible should clean it up to the condition that they inherited it, no more. My beliefs are more imbedded in personal and corporate responsibility rather than taking sides. If someone pollutes groundwater or the soil, they should be responsible for cleaning it up, no matter the cost or who the work was done for. Nothing more.

Does that clarify it enough?

No, not really, because I never said the chems shouldn't have been there in the first place. Taking such a stance doesn't provide a good starting point for problem solving. I think the problem should be addressed as soon as the nature of the problem is realized. I advocated seeking facts instead of opinions that are heavily polarized when attempting to understand the issue. I agree that the responsibility for clean-up lies with those who caused the problem in the first place.

I apologize for misrepresenting your position. Like I said, I wasn't taking sides nor calling you or anyone else an extremist. All I want is for people, corporations and government to take responsibility for their actions. If you make a mess, clean it up. That's it.

I think it is a more pragmatic approach to things. No name calling, no opinions on how much is bad for you, just clean up your own mess. It should be a cost of doing business anyway.

Wonderful idea; however, if denial is first response, continuing response, and final position...?

Thanks Az.

Marshall says, "Wonderful idea; however, if denial is first response, continuing response, and final position...?"

continuing response: denial
final response: "No comment.....lawyers orders