Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Should Ireland welcome gentically modified food?

1235

Comments

  • #202
    dyer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 598 ✭✭✭dyer


    would it be so difficult for people to grow some of their own food? or maybe just change their diet and not depend so heavily on meat etc..?


  • #203
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Ill post a full reply later when Im less busy guys but feeding the poor is not the only purpose of gm foods.


  • #204
    Somnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Somnus


    dyer wrote: »
    the funny thing is.. we don't need GM crops to feed the poor.. we already have enough surplus food in the world to feed starving countries many times over, but we don't. why aren't we addressing this question for what it is instead of trying to plaster it with the holy grail of supermarket science? and i may be wrong here, but i really doubt we're going to solve world hunger with GM food.
    .

    There's plenty of food available in first world countries. But there is GM aimed at enabling crops to grow in regions where it is hard for them to be cultivated. For example, drought prone regions. It would allow local farmers in these regions to cultivate their own crops, and not have to rely on imported foodstuffs.
    dyer wrote: »
    i strongly oppose GM food, not just for moral and ethical reasons, but also because of the dangers to human health and the eco system

    Can you actually give me any evidence of these dangers other than speculation?


  • #205
    Somnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Somnus


    dyer wrote: »
    would it be so difficult for people to grow some of their own food? or maybe just change their diet and not depend so heavily on meat etc..?

    What has this got to do with GM :confused:


  • #206
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    I have two major reservations.
    1: Is the art of genetic engineering perfected enough that we can be sure no horrific mutations will occur which could either ruin the food or even make it dangerous to eat?

    2: I've heard of companies which sell genetically modified food that cannot reproduce on its own, thereby trapping their customers in an endless loop of being forced to buy overpriced crops from them... It would have to be heavily policed.


  • #207
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    I have two major reservations.
    1: Is the art of genetic engineering perfected enough that we can be sure no horrific mutations will occur which could either ruin the food or even make it dangerous to eat?

    2: I've heard of companies which sell genetically modified food that cannot reproduce on its own, thereby trapping their customers in an endless loop of being forced to buy overpriced crops from them... It would have to be heavily policed.

    On point 2 it would have to be heavily policed. On point it would be very unlikely that a harmless crops develops toxicity as a side effect from genetic modification.


  • #208
    Somnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Somnus


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    I have two major reservations.
    1: Is the art of genetic engineering perfected enough that we can be sure no horrific mutations will occur which could either ruin the food or even make it dangerous to eat?

    Chances of this happening are about as likely as any crop developing a random mutation that would ruin it. Genetic engineering can be achieved very cleanly. And the genes can be precisely inserted. Random recombination events can happen to any organism.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    2: I've heard of companies which sell genetically modified food that cannot reproduce on its own, thereby trapping their customers in an endless loop of being forced to buy overpriced crops from them... It would have to be heavily policed.

    If the crops could reproduce people would complain about danger of cross-pollination. Making the plant unable to reproduce stops this, but creates the problem you describe. More competetion from other GM companies would lower prices, IF people weren't so anti GM


  • #209
    bleg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    Dr.Poca wrote: »
    There's plenty of food available in first world countries. But there is GM aimed at enabling crops to grow in regions where it is hard for them to be cultivated. For example, drought prone regions. It would allow local farmers in these regions to cultivate their own crops, and not have to rely on imported foodstuffs.



    Exactly. A new strain of rice was recently created which combines the resilience of traditional African rice with the increased bounty that comes from the Asian strain. With this new strain, African farmers can significantly increase their yields. We should be researching strains like these, providing jobs for Irish researchers.


  • #210
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    A lot of the genetically modified crops are designed with genetic DRM built in that kills their ability to produce seeds or multiple generations. It is also an industry that is heavily monopolised and exploited. Organic food does the job now and has done for millennia, GM crops are not better because it doesn't make business sense to make them better, they are better in some marketable ways, and crippled in terms of seed yield and multiple generations of plants.

    Be aware of the guys selling the GM crops and a potential future dependence on them, its not the fatter tomato you have to be worried about.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    bleg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    Just wondering what the anti GMO people have to say about genetically modified micro-organisms which are used to produce medicines. Would you be comfortable getting treated with these?


    Is it Ok to inject their products directly into your bloodstream, bypassing your immune system?


  • #212
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    bleg wrote: »
    Just wondering what the anti GMO people have to say about genetically modified micro-organisms which are used to produce medicines. Would you be comfortable getting treated with these?


    Is it Ok to inject their products directly into your bloodstream, bypassing your immune system?

    Or drugs which act on receptor sites within the cell. These arent native to the body either.


  • #213
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    bleg wrote: »
    Just wondering what the anti GMO people have to say about genetically modified micro-organisms which are used to produce medicines. Would you be comfortable getting treated with these?


    Is it Ok to inject their products directly into your bloodstream, bypassing your immune system?

    The issue is that the organism will be patented and sold by one monopolistic entity and cost a fortune.
    Very few people are afraid of fat tomatoes with crippled genes or medicine, it is everything to do with the cost and monopolisation of these things that are worrying. Medicine may operate this way, but food hasn't until recently.


  • #214
    Somnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Somnus


    Stercus Accidit wrote: »
    A lot of the genetically modified crops are designed with genetic DRM built in that kills their ability to produce seeds or multiple generations. It is also an industry that is heavily monopolised and exploited. Organic food does the job now and has done for millennia, GM crops are not better because it doesn't make business sense to make them better, they are better in some marketable ways, and crippled in terms of seed yield and multiple generations of plants.

    Be aware of the guys selling the GM crops and a potential future dependence on them, its not the fatter tomato you have to be worried about.

    Did you actually read any of my previous posts regarding the reproduction issue? If they could reproduce, people would complain of cross pollination. And anti-GM attitudes will reduce the amount of GM companies. If there were more GM companies, there wouldn't be a monopoly.

    And what do you mean organic crops have done the job for millenia? Ever hear of mass starvation due to failing crops throughout history? I'm sure you're familiar with a certain potato failure that happened in this country....

    Not to mention that most crops aren't "Organic". Organic crops (which is a ridiculous misnomer anyway) are required to have no chemical/pesticide aids at all. It's a niche market that is very expensive and cannot produce crops on large scale.


  • #215
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Stercus Accidit wrote: »
    The issue is that the organism will be patented and sold by one monopolistic entity and cost a fortune.
    Very few people are afraid of fat tomatoes with crippled genes or medicine, it is everything to do with the cost and monopolisation of these things that are worrying. Medicine may operate this way, but food hasn't until recently.

    So once this is policed you wouldnt have a problem?


  • #216
    bleg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    Stercus Accidit wrote: »
    The issue is that the organism will be patented and sold by one monopolistic entity and cost a fortune.
    Very few people are afraid of fat tomatoes with crippled genes or medicine, it is everything to do with the cost and monopolisation of these things that are worrying. Medicine may operate this way, but food hasn't until recently.



    So you have a problem with patent law and not GMO? Me too, but they're separate issues.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    GLaDOS
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,233 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


    bleg wrote: »
    Just wondering what the anti GMO people have to say about genetically modified micro-organisms which are used to produce medicines. Would you be comfortable getting treated with these?
    If you're against genetic modification, I hop you never develop diabetes, because guess where all that insulin is coming from.

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • #218
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    Dr.Poca wrote: »
    Did you actually read any of my previous posts regarding the reproduction issue? If they could reproduce, people would complain of cross pollination. And anti-GM attitudes will reduce the amount of GM companies. If there were more GM companies, there wouldn't be a monopoly.
    I have worked on this exact topic for the last year while designing farming solutions for the third world, I don't need to read the rest of this thread.
    The current GM market is heavily monopolized, it also works in its own interests, examples of cross pollination have happened and law suits have arisen from them. The industry is also working on crippled crops that do not produce seeds, resulting in dependant customers on yearly seed purchases.
    And what do you mean organic crops have done the job for millenia? Ever hear of mass starvation due to failing crops throughout history? I'm sure you're familiar with a certain potato failure that happened in this country....
    Improved farming methods increase food yields dramatically in any of the modern famine regions we studied as part of our work. Yes, organic food has succeeded for millennia, we are alive aren't we?
    Not to mention that most crops aren't "Organic". Organic crops (which is a ridiculous misnomer anyway) are required to have no chemical/pesticide aids at all. It's a niche market that is very expensive and cannot produce crops on large scale.
    I'm not talking wishy washy soggy carrots, I am mentioning the real worry here, not the 'organicness' or not of some food, but the business models that are possible and being explored with GM tailored foods.

    Read my post, understand it, I am pointing out future exploitation potential from this tech.


  • #219
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    bleg wrote: »
    So you have a problem with patent law and not GMO? Me too, but they're separate issues.

    It's a very pertinent issue here as this industry is one rife with monopolization and shady practices. I am only adding my point of view.


  • #220
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Stercus Accidit wrote: »
    I have worked on this exact topic for the last year while designing farming solutions for the third world, I don't need to read the rest of this thread.
    The current GM market is heavily monopolized, it also works in its own interests, examples of cross pollination have happened and law suits have arisen from them. The industry is also working on crippled crops that do not produce seeds, resulting in dependant customers on yearly seed purchases.


    Improved farming methods increase food yields dramatically in any of the modern famine regions we studied as part of our work. Yes, organic food has succeeded for millennia, we are alive aren't we?


    I'm not talking wishy washy soggy carrots, I am mentioning the real worry here, not the 'organicness' or not of some food, but the business models that are possible and being explored with GM tailored foods.

    Read my post, understand it, I am pointing out future exploitation potential from this tech.

    In terms of scientific progression "we are alive" doesnt cut it for the standard.


  • #221
    Somnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Somnus


    Stercus Accidit wrote: »
    It's a very pertinent issue here as this industry is one rife with monopolization and shady practices. I am only adding my point of view.

    If this is your only problem then that's fine with me. It definitely needs to be regulated. But the more companies involved the better though.
    My arguement is more with people against the actual GM food, not the business plan.

    You said yourself, that it's the current GM market that is monopolised. Teagasc getting involved helps disperse this. If there's a chance for exploitation I'd imagine it's at the beginning when there are not many companies involved in the business. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    Stercus Accidit wrote: »
    The issue is that the organism will be patented and sold by one monopolistic entity and cost a fortune.
    Very few people are afraid of fat tomatoes with crippled genes or medicine, it is everything to do with the cost and monopolisation of these things that are worrying. Medicine may operate this way, but food hasn't until recently.

    That is a worry, BUT a patent only last 10 years and then the generics are rolled out, the farmer will always have a choice and the seed must always be cost effective and why would the farmer not go for the more productive and profitable seed. So really this is a very very good thing, look at the advances in drug treatment that patented medicine has driven. Imagine that same business model going into food, we can't imagine how productive and what agriculture will look like 20 years from now. But I can be certain it will be amazing. The deserts of the world may bloom.


  • #223
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    Dr.Poca wrote: »
    If this is your only problem then that's fine with me. It definitely needs to be regulated. But the more companies involved the better though.
    My arguement is more with people against the actual GM food, not the business plan.

    You said yourself, that it's the current GM market that is monopolised. Teagasc getting involved helps disperse this. If there's a chance for exploitation I'd imagine it's at the beginning when there are not many companies involved in the business. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

    My worry is that farming and food are very fragile in many countries. As part of our research one major problem that became evident was farmers understandable reluctance to try new methods or crops.
    People who subsistence farm are one bad harvest away from starvation, they have been hungry their whole lives, it is hard to make them change their methods. What that tells me is that if GM versions of local staple crops were gradually introduced, people would become dependant on them, and in future the crippled crops could be rolled out, people would end up dependant on those and exploited, unable to change their methods due to fear and a lack of options.

    Improved irrigation, crops and rotation were our primary focal points and prove to be very successful, but are hard to implement. GM comes along and offers a better version of a local staple, that is easier to achieve, in future then you get the move towards more restrictive and expensive crops, various legal tie ins and so on.

    With checks and balances, diversity of providers and awareness that can be avoided, but in vulnerable regions that may not happen. I suppose remaining aware and informing people is the answer, GM is here to stay, I just hope it doesn't turn out badly for the most vulnerable farmers.


  • #224
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    In terms of scientific progression "we are alive" doesnt cut it for the standard.

    What is your point, that current foods haven't fed people for thousands of years?


  • #225
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Stercus Accidit wrote: »
    What is your point, that current foods haven't fed people for thousands of years?

    Gm foods have more potential than solving world hunger. Anyway even if they had that limited potential people are starving to death in developing countries so it would certainly serve a purpose.


  • #226
    Somnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Somnus


    Stercus Accidit wrote: »
    My worry is that farming and food are very fragile in many countries. As part of our research one major problem that became evident was farmers understandable reluctance to try new methods or crops.
    People who subsistence farm are one bad harvest away from starvation, they have been hungry their whole lives, it is hard to make them change their methods. What that tells me is that if GM versions of local staple crops were gradually introduced, people would become dependant on them, and in future the crippled crops could be rolled out, people would end up dependant on those and exploited, unable to change their methods due to fear and a lack of options.

    Improved irrigation, crops and rotation were our primary focal points and prove to be very successful, but are hard to implement. GM comes along and offers a better version of a local staple, that is easier to achieve, in future then you get the move towards more restrictive and expensive crops, various legal tie ins and so on.

    With checks and balances, diversity of providers and awareness that can be avoided, but in vulnerable regions that may not happen. I suppose remaining aware and informing people is the answer, GM is here to stay, I just hope it doesn't turn out badly for the most vulnerable farmers.

    Good post. I see where you're coming from and agree that farmers in disadvantaged regions are definitely more likely to be exploited. That is definitely something to be looked at. Of course I would like to see farmers in these regions given the best choice possible. They should be able to choose between GM and their traditional crops.

    But in terms of the situation here in Ireland. I don't see it being an issue. Farmers in first world countries will always have a choice. And the more companies involved in GM crops, the more choice.


  • #227
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Gm foods have more potential than solving world hunger. Anyway even if they had that limited potential people are starving to death in developing countries so it would certainly serve a purpose.

    A lot of hunger stems from crap farming methods and storage, improved irrigation, techniques, rotation of crops and crop choice lead to substantially increased yields. GM can be used to cripple crops as well as improve them, don't presume that all genetically introduced modifications are beneficial to the farmer.


  • #228
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    GM does not mean "not green".
    In the eyes of the general public GM is seen as not 'green' - right or wrong.
    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Our aproach to biodiversity is not green anyway. Why shouldnt we move forward in science just because some people think its controversial?
    Marketing. If the customers for our food are wary of GM or they associate GM with not being green, then we need to listen to them.


  • #229
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    dvpower wrote: »
    In the eyes of the general public GM is seen as not 'green' - right or wrong.


    Marketing. If the customers for our food are wary of GM or they associate GM with not being green, then we need to listen to them.

    I would put those people in with creationists to be honest. Market policy shouldnt be dictated by them.


  • #230
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I would put those people in with creationists to be honest. Market policy shouldnt be dictated by them.
    Market policy needs to be dictated by the market. If consumers are wary of GM, we can't just ignore that because their concerns are unfounded.


  • #231
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    Originally Posted by Stercus Accidit viewpost.gif
    What is your point, that current foods haven't fed people for thousands of years?

    Production methods have not fed the amount of people they feed now and we still do not produce enough food, someone in the world dies every second from malnutrition. This will get worse as food becomes more expensive, food like energy is becoming inevitably inflationary. They are looking for alternative energy with millions in research dollars. For food it has to be GM there is nothing else.

    People opposed to GM, it's almost seems superstition to me, first you have to convince them that what we eat is not natural and mainly man made produce, then you have to convince them that the Earth is just a planet an enaminate object and not a living entity. That GM is not abhorant to nature because there is no such thing as an abhorrence in nature.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    whelpy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 111 ✭✭whelpy


    blatantrereg wrote: »
    Because GM foodstuffs are associated with bad practices.

    Monsanto crops are genetically modified to make them resistant to the herbicide that Monsanto manufactures. This herbicide is routinely sprayed all over the crops which eleiminates all other plants growing there. There are serious concerns about the impact of the herbicide on the health of consumers as well as ecological effects. Some of the more alarming effects shown in studies include miscarriages and birth defects, interference in reproductive development of pubescents, interference with oestrogen and testosterone production, genetic damage. Direct consumption of as little as 85ml of it has caused human death.

    Monsanto also use gene modifications to interfere with the ability of the crops to reproduce. They are genetically modified so that the next generation will be sterile. Farmers can't sow the seeds from their own crops in other words, but rather have to continually buy new seed from Monsanto.

    The combination of these things offers a dangerous level of control to Monsanto over farms which use their products.

    This is the association in my mind with GM food. Similar associations would exist for plenty of people, especially the types of consumers who would care about Ireland having a green image in the first place, when it comes to selecting produce. There are plenty of valid concerns about GM technology when it is used with benign intentions also.

    Some really good points made here, but you have pointed out issues that occur in arable farming in general whether the crops are gm or not.


  • #233
    starlit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,349 ✭✭✭✭starlit


    I thought they already have?


  • #234
    Porkpie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 717 ✭✭✭Porkpie


    No harm in consuming gm food - if you don't mind having a third ball.


  • #235
    Taloolah
    Registered Users Posts: 10 ✭Taloolah


    Wow. Some of the pro-gm posts on here are frightening. I feel sick after reading them. I never knew so many people had such a disregard for nature. I can only assume that these posters don't have much regard for their own bodies, or even know all that much about how their bodies work.
    Everything that nature provides us with works in perfect harmony with our bodies. Veg and fruit grown from pure, clean soil provides us with all the vitamins and minerals we need to be healthy and strong.

    GM food is completely alien to nature. It is not the same as selective breeding.Our bodies are not designed to deal with GM food. How could they be? You can apply the same logic to processed/junk food - you eat too much: you get sick.

    But if only it was just our bodies we had to worry about. Allowing GMOs to flourish in nature may result in cross-pollination with normal crops, like a plague across this tiny country.
    And then what? An end to native plant species?

    This GM invasion has nothing to do with "progress", as so many posters have mentioned here, it is simply a matter of multi-nationals pushing their products on country after country, all in the name of profit.

    And as for this theory that GM food would eradicate world starvation? Ha! That is HILARIOUS! The seeds are genetically designed to only produce one harvest a year! Do you honestly think that multi-nationals have global welfare in mind when developing these seeds?


  • #236
    Gbear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Taloolah wrote: »
    Wow. Some of the pro-gm posts on here are frightening. I feel sick after reading them. I never knew so many people had such a disregard for nature. I can only assume that these posters don't have much regard for their own bodies, or even know all that much about how their bodies work.
    Everything that nature provides us with works in perfect harmony with our bodies. Veg and fruit grown from pure, clean soil provides us with all the vitamins and minerals we need to be healthy and strong.

    GM food is completely alien to nature. It is not the same as selective breeding.Our bodies are not designed to deal with GM food. How could they be? You can apply the same logic to processed/junk food - you eat too much: you get sick.

    But if only it was just our bodies we had to worry about. Allowing GMOs to flourish in nature may result in cross-pollination with normal crops, like a plague across this tiny country.
    And then what? An end to native plant species?

    This GM invasion has nothing to do with "progress", as so many posters have mentioned here, it is simply a matter of multi-nationals pushing their products on country after country, all in the name of profit.

    And as for this theory that GM food would eradicate world starvation? Ha! That is HILARIOUS! The seeds are genetically designed to only produce one harvest a year! Do you honestly think that multi-nationals have global welfare in mind when developing these seeds?

    Oh dear... all I can say is that i'm disappointed there's no "rofl" emoticon.

    This particular gem is a true lesson in irony:
    "I can only assume that these posters don't have much regard for their own bodies, or even know all that much about how their bodies work."


  • #237
    Somnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Somnus


    Taloolah wrote: »
    Everything that nature provides us with works in perfect harmony with our bodies. Veg and fruit grown from pure, clean soil provides us with all the vitamins and minerals we need to be healthy and strong.

    This is a ridiculously naive statement.
    The earth is not some benevolent God looking out for human kind. Plants are organisms, they evolve to take care of themselves, they don't give a sh*t how good for us they are. Think of all the lethally poisonous plants/fungi that exist. I'm sure you're not rushing to prove they work "in perfect harmony with our bodies".
    Many people in Asia suffer from vitamin A deficiency because the "natural" crops that consist of their diet do not produce enough. So that pretty much invalidates you statement of all crops providing everything we need.
    Taloolah wrote: »
    GM food is completely alien to nature.

    So are computers,planes, technology in general. Do you refuse to accept these things?

    Nature is not this perfect example of the way things should be. It has faults, just like people, which can be improved. I respect the biodiversity of the planet, but that doesn't mean I think it's perfect. Human kind has shaped the resources of the planet to our will for a long time, and I think we've done all right out of that. We live longer lives, with a better standard of living.
    GM foods are just another step in improving things for ourselves.


  • #238
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Taloolah wrote: »
    Wow. Some of the pro-gm posts on here are frightening. I feel sick after reading them. I never knew so many people had such a disregard for nature. I can only assume that these posters don't have much regard for their own bodies, or even know all that much about how their bodies work.

    This is a frightening post to be honest. First of all I have to address this "respect for nature thing" You will find no one with more respect for nature than me. Secondly Ireland has a terrible record of respect for nature so I dont buy the whole gm foods will ruin that thing. We are using unscientific and pointless way to eradicate bovine tb by culling badgers. We are killing the reintroduced birds of prey In ireland by the same method they were made extinct one hundred years ago. We see any non livestock animal as vermin. Talk to any conservationist outside of Ireland and youll hear about our reputation first hand.

    I know how the body works quite well thanks (at a cellular level anyway).



    Everything that nature provides us with works in perfect harmony with our bodies. Veg and fruit grown from pure, clean soil provides us with all the vitamins and minerals we need to be healthy and strong.

    As Dr.Poca says some nutirents are lacking in certain crops. These deficiencies can lead to blindness and a host of other problems. If nature works in perfect harmony with our bodies why do we bother pasteurizing milk or selecting certian crops endowed with particular traits? You cant believe nature revolves around how well it works for us can you?
    GM food is completely alien to nature. It is not the same as selective breeding.Our bodies are not designed to deal with GM food. How could they be? You can apply the same logic to processed/junk food - you eat too much: you get sick.

    There are four types of DNA pairs found in the body (Five if you count uracil) they code for twenty amino acids. Selectively breeding for plants changes the occurence of certain genes in a gene pool. With genetic modification you use a more sophisticated method to change the occurence of certain genes in the gene pool. All the additions result in a change in the amino acids expressed by a gene. Apart from technique whats the difference?



    But if only it was just our bodies we had to worry about. Allowing GMOs to flourish in nature may result in cross-pollination with normal crops, like a plague across this tiny country.
    And then what? An end to native plant species?
    This GM invasion has nothing to do with "progress", as so many posters have mentioned here, it is simply a matter of multi-nationals pushing their products on country after country, all in the name of profit.
    Once its policed this wont be a problem. In theory anyone with a lab can make GM crops.

    [/QUOTE]And as for this theory that GM food would eradicate world starvation? Ha! That is HILARIOUS! The seeds are genetically designed to only produce one harvest a year! Do you honestly think that multi-nationals have global welfare in mind when developing these seeds?[/QUOTE]

    Sorry some seeds are designed to harvest once a year to prevent cross pollination. Some seeds and heres the whole point of gm foods in a nutshell, we can genetically engineer a crop to do anything. A scientist in UCD engineered a crop to have a nutrient it was deficient in. The resulting modification prevented thousands from going blind. Its a bit insulting the way you state that global welfare isnt important to some people.

    I take it your also against Insulin and gene therapy, anti cancer drugs, anti aids drugs, blood transfusions and all the other ways we meddled with nature?


  • #239
    Dude111
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,771 ✭✭✭Dude111


    GMO is BAD NEWS and should be avoided @ all costs!!!

    EVERYONE IN IRELAND SHOULD TAKE A STAND ON THIS!!

    You dont want GMO stuff!


  • #240
    Somnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Somnus


    Dude111 wrote: »
    GMO is BAD NEWS and should be avoided @ all costs!!!

    EVERYONE IN IRELAND SHOULD TAKE A STAND ON THIS!!

    You dont want GMO stuff!

    What an insightful and educational post....

    Edit: Unless this is sarcasm, but it's hard to tell...


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    bleg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    Dude111 wrote: »
    GMO is BAD NEWS and should be avoided @ all costs!!!

    EVERYONE IN IRELAND SHOULD TAKE A STAND ON THIS!!

    You dont want GMO stuff!




    Grand. No anti cancer drugs for you so.


  • #242
    Channel Zero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 333 ✭✭Channel Zero


    Here's the view of GM-Free Ireland on the proposed experiment for anyone interested:

    http://www.gmfreeireland.org/potato/index.php


  • #243
    Taloolah
    Registered Users Posts: 10 ✭Taloolah


    Dr.Poca wrote: »
    Human kind has shaped the resources of the planet to our will for a long time, and I think we've done all right out of that.

    To quote a wise man "what a ridiculously naive statment".
    You think that mankind has done a good job in shaping the resources of the planet to his will? I suppose you think global warming is being blown completely out of proportion too? Who needs rainforests anyway? We need the land for ranches dammit! More cows to supply the MacDonald's masses!
    Perhaps an example of how 'we've done alright' might have been a good idea here.
    Dr.Poca wrote: »
    GM foods are just another step in improving things for ourselves.
    Again, can you give an example? Economically? Ireland had a lot going for it with its green image. Believe it or not, most people want to eat organic food, why take this resource away from us unnecessarily?

    Health wise? Can you prove that GM foods are just as healthy as non-GM? The overwhelming evidence shows that they are not. The citizens of America are campaigning at the moment to get GM food labelled as such. Why do you think that is?


  • #244
    Taloolah
    Registered Users Posts: 10 ✭Taloolah


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Secondly Ireland has a terrible record of respect for nature so I dont buy the whole gm foods will ruin that thing. We are using unscientific and pointless way to eradicate bovine tb by culling badgers. We are killing the reintroduced birds of prey In ireland by the same method they were made extinct one hundred years ago. We see any non livestock animal as vermin. Talk to any conservationist outside of Ireland and youll hear about our reputation first hand.

    With all due respect, I understand that Ireland's track record is not very good when it comes to respecting nature, but the GM line is the one line we haven't crossed yet, but are about to. A ban on GM would be one less insult to nature.
    steddyeddy wrote: »
    If nature works in perfect harmony with our bodies why do we bother pasteurizing milk

    Well, let me explain to you shall I? Milk was first pasteurized in the 1800s, because cheap and dirty milk was making people ill. Not milk from farms, but milk from cramped, industrial warehouses. The pasteurization process kills virtually all the bad bacteria, but also the good bacteria.
    Pasteurization also allows for a longer shelf life the supermarket.
    So nothing to do with scary nature - just man's inability to keep things sanitized.

    steddyeddy wrote: »
    With genetic modification you use a more sophisticated method to change the occurence of certain genes in the gene pool. All the additions result in a change in the amino acids expressed by a gene. Apart from technique whats the difference?

    But the problem lies with the technique. If nature could take genes from here there and everywhere, and insert them into organisms that are genetically completely different, wouldn't it have done so already?
    No, because nature doesn't have a fully-equipped laboratory funded by a multi-national company.

    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I take it your also against Insulin and gene therapy, anti cancer drugs, anti aids drugs, blood transfusions and all the other ways we meddled with nature?

    I think modern science is wonderful actually. Combined with an all-organic diet, we can live very long and healthy lives.

    Crazy huh?


  • #245
    Somnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Somnus


    Taloolah wrote: »
    I suppose you think global warming is being blown completely out of proportion too? Who needs rainforests anyway? We need the land for ranches dammit! More cows to supply the MacDonald's masses!
    Perhaps an example of how 'we've done alright' might have been a good idea here.


    No I don't think global warming is blown out of proportion, but I'm no expert in the field, and I understand scientisits can make mistakes. And of course I completely agree that deforestation is a massive problem that needs to be addressed. I have a great love of nature, but I am also studying science, specifically genetics and cell biology. Just cause I am supportive of GM doesn't mean that I am anti-nature.
    In fact, if you have a GM crop that yields the same, if not better, per area of land, and with need for less herbicides, then it's actually better for the environment. As you don't need as much land and are putting less herbicides on the ground.

    And as for your more cows for McDonalds comment, I'd actually love to try some in-vitro meat. Fast to produce, no slaughter of animals. Less cost in feeding and housing. It's a win

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128282.500-credible-or-inedible.html

    There was a more recent article but I can't find it at the minute. Also, here's some environmental benefits of GM sugar beet
    http://web.ebscohost.com.remote.library.dcu.ie/ehost/detail?sid=559fca05-dc46-4473-9204-a230e145bfd5%40sessionmgr15&vid=1&hid=126&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ukh&AN=11712591

    Taloolah wrote: »
    Health wise? Can you prove that GM foods are just as healthy as non-GM? The overwhelming evidence shows that they are not. The citizens of America are campaigning at the moment to get GM food labelled as such. Why do you think that is?

    Where is your overwhelming evidence that GM food is not as healthy as non GM?
    Here's my supporting literature on how GM food can be healthier than non GM.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com.remote.library.dcu.ie/science/article/pii/S1871678410004450

    So people in America want to know whats GM and what's not. So what? They're afraid of something they know nothing about. It happens all over the place. If people were more educated then they wouldn't have a problem. As I said before, and I mean it in the least offensive way, the publics ignorance is what gives the anti GM crowd ammo. They can say what they want and the public won't know any better.

    Also, those articles mightn't be fully accessible to everyone. Most of those publications require membership. But if you're in college you can probably login with a college account, like I can.


  • #246
    Channel Zero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 333 ✭✭Channel Zero


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Granted there is a problem with cross pollination but that problem is nearly eradicated using new techniques.

    Could you expand on this or have you any info to supply to back this up?
    Coz a quick browse on the interweb is telling me a different story.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    Somnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Somnus


    Channel Zero wrote: »
    Could you expand on this or have you any info to supply to back this up?
    Coz a quick browse on the interweb is telling me a different story.

    If you introduce the gene of interest into the chrolopast genome, instead of that of the main cell, it doesn't get passed on to the pollen.


  • #248
    Bipolar Joe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,443 ✭✭✭Bipolar Joe


    The reason people dislike environmentalists is the same reason people dislike feminists. There's a section full of the most rabid, uninformed spastics, and fuck me sideways are they loud.


  • #249
    Channel Zero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 333 ✭✭Channel Zero


    Dr.Poca wrote: »
    If you introduce the gene of interest into the chrolopast genome, instead of that of the main cell, it doesn't get passed on to the pollen.

    Thanks for reply.
    So is it true to say that cross-pollination is not still a very real risk and problem?
    Is the info below now reduntant?
    Are these scientists the rabid, uninformed spastics that Bipolar Joe and you are talking about?

    "Field trials could be underestimating the potential for cross-pollination between GM and conventional crops, according to new research by the University of Exeter."
    http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2007/19-gmcrops.asp


    "GM rice grown for only one year in field trials was found to have widely contaminated the US rice supply and seed stocks. Contaminated rice was found as far away as Africa, Europe, and Central America."
    (Risky business: Economic and regulatory impacts from the unintended release of genetically engineered rice varieties into the rice merchandising system of the US. Report for Greenpeace, 2007.)

    "In Canada, contamination from GM oilseed rape has made it virtually impossible to cultivate organic, non-GM oilseed rape."
    (Press release, Organic Agriculture Protection Fund Committee, Saskatoon, Canada, 1 August 2007.)

    "US courts reversed the approval of GM alfalfa because it threatened the existence of non-GM alfalfa through cross-pollination."
    (The United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 199 Filed 05/03/2007: Memorandum and Order Re: Permanent Injunction.)

    "Organic maize production in Spain has dropped significantly as the acreage of GM maize production has increased, because of cross-pollination problems."
    (Coexistence of plants and coexistence of farmers: Is an individual choice possible? Binimelis, R., Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21: 437-457, 2008.)

    "In 2007 alone, there were 39 new instances of GM contamination in 23 countries, and 216 incidents have been reported since 2005."
    (Biotech companies fuel GM contamination spread. Greenpeace International, 29 February 2008.)


  • #250
    Conflats
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 224 ✭✭Conflats


    Channel Zero wrote: »
    Here's the view of GM-Free Ireland on the proposed experiment for anyone interested:

    http://www.gmfreeireland.org/potato/index.php

    These boys are living in a unusual world, they state alot of propaganda is all it could be called and they obviously are doing there best to mis inform the people,

    A few points struck me because they must know nothing of the location
    1- its is not on the banks of the river barrow it is a good distance away.
    2- whoever wrote it needs to brush up on their plant pathology because its a fungus they are trying to control
    3- learn to read an application and distinguish the word herbicide from fungicide because they are totally different products
    4-The fact all 'conventionally' farmed tillage ground or any ground for sowing is treated with glyphosate to reduce the need for more toxic expensive herbicides
    5-pollen will not be brought across the irish sea, nor will it be brought much further than the field boundary in fact it will not be brought further than 20 meters as they have done tests in oak park to see how far the pollen travels
    6-Again they say there is no market for this produce but its a trial to see the effects of a plant (which had its genes inserted from another potato, so its a cis-genic transfer) on the ecosystem and reduce the level of chemicals applied.

    I get the feeling alot of the people who are against gm are also calling for a reduction in chemicals applied and more so encouraging people to eat organically.


  • #251
    andrew
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,372 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    You know what else is an abomination to nature? Cross-breeding of plants. And selective breeding of animals. Down with that sort of thing. It's certainly not what god would want, that's for sure.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement