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 all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
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?

2456

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Johro


    One argument against GM food is that by carelessly combining genes from different life forms that would never otherwise exist in the same organism we risk upsetting the natural state of our environment in an unprecedented way. Some argue that this curious pursuit could suddenly and irreversibly destroy out ecosystem’s delicate balance that is the result of millions of years of evolution through natural selection.
    Another less serious but possibly more sickening argument is that GM foods contain genes that are in fact the property of corporations. By flooding the market with prolific GM crops and the natural cross-contamination of non GM crops with patented genes through natural pollination – the big end of town is in effect taking ownership of the food chain that previously belonged to us all.


    'Unfortunately, genetically engineered crops can have adverse effects on human health and on ecosystems. And by failing to test or regulate genetically engineered crops adequately, the U.S. government has allowed corporations to introduce unfamiliar substances into our food supply without any systematic safety checks.' http://www.ru.org/science/the-case-against-genetically-modified-foods.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,234 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    The idea that GM crops could take millions off the breadline is laughable. Feeding the poor is a matter of logistics, not volume of product - even if world production of food increased by 25% overnight, you could be guarenteed most of the extra product would either be wasted or force the price of food down dramatically killing off hundreds of thousands of small farmers. And none of it, you can be damn sure, would end up in the mouths of hungry kids in Malawi.

    We could feed the world tomorrow if we wanted to. It's corrupt governments, wars and more red tape than feckin' Sellotape HQ that keep people on the verge of starvation.

    On a more personal level, GM is slightly taboo for me, I don't see any reason why we should scientifically alter crops that are perfectly good the way nature intended. I'm a liberal, forward thinking individual that loves science, but GM is just greed, really.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Johro


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Selective breeding combines thousands of new genes in order to select for a desired trait which is trial and error. Genetic modification or transgenics sometimes only adds one new gene to the crop. You can be sure the gene their adding is also fairly well understood.
    Selective breeding uses existing genes. Not 'new' genes. Also, selective breeding or hybridisation happens in the natural world, unlike introducing animal genes to plant genes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,150 ✭✭✭kumate_champ07


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/salt-loving-wheat-could-help-ease-food-crisis-183056363.html

    Just saw this a gm crop that could ease the world food crisis. A type of wheat that can grow in sodium rich soil.
    there is none


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Johro


    There are way too many problems with GM engineering, most of which are outlined here http://www.ru.org/science/the-case-against-genetically-modified-foods.html

    If you read that and still think GM foods are a good idea maybe you should read about the lab tests they did in the nineties on rats fed with genetically modified potatoes. http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=260542




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,725 ✭✭✭charlemont


    What the f is wrong with normal food ? As it is there is loads of unnatural junk in lots of our food and we don't need anymore. Ireland should be growing and producing the best of natural food.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    sdeire wrote: »
    The idea that GM crops could take millions off the breadline is laughable. Feeding the poor is a matter of logistics, not volume of product - even if world production of food increased by 25% overnight, you could be guarenteed most of the extra product would either be wasted or force the price of food down dramatically killing off hundreds of thousands of small farmers. And none of it, you can be damn sure, would end up in the mouths of hungry kids in Malawi.

    We could feed the world tomorrow if we wanted to. It's corrupt governments, wars and more red tape than feckin' Sellotape HQ that keep people on the verge of starvation.

    On a more personal level, GM is slightly taboo for me, I don't see any reason why we should scientifically alter crops that are perfectly good the way nature intended. I'm a liberal, forward thinking individual that loves science, but GM is just greed, really.
    QFT! The reason that Zimbabwe went from being the bread basket of Africa to being a ****hole where people had to hunt their wildlife to near extinction to survive had nothing to do with the lack of GM crops and everything to do with abominable national policy.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 7,941 Mod ✭✭✭✭Yakult


    “Mistakes are common – they have caused exceedingly complex problems all over the world.”

    Anyone know wtf he is talking about when he says that? Or is it scare-mongering?


    I don't see the harm in this. Let them do the isolated research and see what they learn by it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Johro


    sdeire wrote: »
    The idea that GM crops could take millions off the breadline is laughable. Feeding the poor is a matter of logistics, not volume of product - even if world production of food increased by 25% overnight, you could be guarenteed most of the extra product would either be wasted or force the price of food down dramatically killing off hundreds of thousands of small farmers. And none of it, you can be damn sure, would end up in the mouths of hungry kids in Malawi.

    We could feed the world tomorrow if we wanted to. It's corrupt governments, wars and more red tape than feckin' Sellotape HQ that keep people on the verge of starvation.
    Totally agree with that, here is another example of how poor farmers are being f#cked over for profit:
    'New Delhi, 3 April 1998. Thousands of angry Indian farmers rallied in the streets of the capital to denounce a US patent on basmati rice. Exasperated after several years of protest against American patents on the use of turmeric, neem and other indigenous resources, Indian farmers are up in arms about a US monopoly claim on their own rice. "We have not done enough to protect our own treasures of this country," said Jaya Jetlie, general secretary of Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat, an agricultural labour organization present at the rally. "If we lose our [rice] exports and lose whatever tradition and wealth we have, we will soon become a country where every pebble and every stone is owned by somebody else," she told reporters.'

    It's been happening in Asia for years, and the ultimate aim is for these big companies to hold patents for all the world's crop seeds, GM crops are the start of wiping out existing natural crops.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    We are well able to feed the worlds population and then some without GM crops if only we'd stop warring and cheating each other.

    What has organic food actually have going for it? I'm sure the Daily Mail goes on to no end about its cancer-defying, mugger-repelling superpowers, but otherwise I don't think there are advantages to eating them. Whereas GM foods are cheap, plentiful and Safe (scientists are generally thorough with these things). Remember, if we stayed natural we'd still be living naked in Africa.

    You think so ? How much do you actually know about genetics ?
    Selective breeding is a hatchet, GM is a scalpel. Which does the job cleaner?

    No, GM is a shotgun. The 'shotgun technique' has been one of the main techniques genetic engineering has used for decades. Crudely put it means you fire the new gene into a bunch of germ cells, grow em, and hope one of them has the trait you want. And doesn't have other traits you don't want. You may not know until donkeys years down the line what traits show up.

    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Selective breeding combines thousands of new genes in order to select for a desired trait which is trial and error. Genetic modification or transgenics sometimes only adds one new gene to the crop. You can be sure the gene their adding is also fairly well understood.

    It isn't. One of the great scientific scams of the last 20 years was that we understood genetics and could manipulate it in predictable ways. Absolutely rubbish. The stuff of science fiction - years away from that if its even possible. People don't seem to understand - we are still decoding the language of genetics - right now - we are like babies speaking their first quasi-words, we are years if not decades away from writing the eloquent prose that so many seem to think we are capable of already.

    The general understanding of genetics by the population, and I dare say businessmen and investors of the 80's and 90's, is rudimentary at best. The arrogance of some scientists is stellar. They actually labelled part of the genome as 'junk' DNA - because it didn't make sense to them they figured it did nothing and was junk. In last few years we know it does stuff, important stuff.

    Genetically modified crops outside of a lab represent nothing less than a massive, planetary, ecosystem wide, uncontrolled, completely unplanned, unscientific experiment carried out on a worldwide population, who not only did not give informed consent, but weren't even asked their permission or told it was happening until it was too late.


  • Posts: 3,505 [Deleted User]


    Surely it should be dependent on the modification???

    There's a big difference between a modification to allow crops to withstand ridiculous unnecessary levels of pesticides and herbicides, compared to something like golden rice.

    There are pros and cons to genetic modification. The cons are not considerable enough to make me think GM should be banned, but the pros are very often just not worth it. If the pros reflect a need, then I say go for GM, but if the pros reflect greed, then those crops should not be grown outside. Too risky to grow them without a good reason.

    With regards to the mention of no cross pollination, in many plants seeds can be produced without cross pollination. These seeds can then be dispersed outside the area of farming and enter the outside population. Especially if these plants have been grown to resist herbicides, we'll have a big problem with a potentially invasive species.


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


    Yakult wrote: »
    “Mistakes are common – they have caused exceedingly complex problems all over the world.”

    Anyone know wtf he is talking about when he says that? Or is it scare-mongering?


    I don't see the harm in this. Let them do the isolated research and see what they learn by it.

    There has been problems with gm crops but as we speak those problems are being ironed out. I think hes mostly referring to the potential of gm crops to cross breed with non gm crops. Most of it is scare mongering though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,037 ✭✭✭Nothingbetter2d


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I think their actually testing the impact on the enviroment with larger scale trials.

    the big risk to all of this is cross breeding with native plants resulting in uncontrolled changes to the native plants.


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


    We are well able to feed the worlds population and then some without GM crops if only we'd stop warring and cheating each other.

    Well I dont see war stopping anytime soon as its part of human nature.


    You think so ? How much do you actually know about genetics ?

    Not as much as a geneticist but I would have done a large amount of study on it.

    No, GM is a shotgun. The 'shotgun technique' has been one of the main techniques genetic engineering has used for decades. Crudely put it means you fire the new gene into a bunch of germ cells, grow em, and hope one of them has the trait you want. And doesn't have other traits you don't want. You may not know until donkeys years down the line what traits show up.

    That seems to be knock out mice your referring to where you knock out a gene and try to determine the effect that gene had on development ect. Modern genetics uses vectors in the form of plasmids and other methods to introduce new dna.


    It isn't. One of the great scientific scams of the last 20 years was that we understood genetics and could manipulate it in predictable ways. Absolutely rubbish. The stuff of science fiction - years away from that if its even possible. People don't seem to understand - we are still decoding the language of genetics - right now - we are like babies speaking their first quasi-words, we are years if not decades away from writing the eloquent prose that so many seem to think we are capable of already.

    Yes we are still decoding the genome but you can be sure that the genes being introduced to plants are fairly well understood. We have a much larger understanding of genetics than you think.
    The general understanding of genetics by the population, and I dare say businessmen and investors of the 80's and 90's, is rudimentary at best. The arrogance of some scientists is stellar. They actually labelled part of the genome as 'junk' DNA - because it didn't make sense to them they figured it did nothing and was junk. In last few years we know it does stuff, important stuff.

    Ill be the first to say that a lot of scientists are arrogant and there is a lot of dogma in science even to this day but there will always be people to question the hypothesis put forward by most scientists. I dont accept some of the current scientific thinking to this day. It wasnt fair to call it junk dna and today its largely referred to as non coding dna as it doesnt express a gene or translate to a protein. The businessmen or investors havent a clue I agree.
    Genetically modified crops outside of a lab represent nothing less than a massive, planetary, ecosystem wide, uncontrolled, completely unplanned, unscientific experiment carried out on a worldwide population, who not only did not give informed consent, but weren't even asked their permission or told it was happening until it was too late.
    Outside of your coperate concerns what are you afraid will happen?


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


    the big risk to all of this is cross breeding with native plants resulting in uncontrolled changes to the native plants.

    Cross breeding in general results in uncontrolled changes to native plants. Domestic crops are nothing like the wild type before man got to it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,234 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    skregs wrote: »
    Hurf.

    Rather than having a self-indulgent punt at derailing my reasoning, perhaps an intelligent rebuttal?


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


    Johro wrote: »
    Selective breeding uses existing genes. Not 'new' genes. Also, selective breeding or hybridisation happens in the natural world, unlike introducing animal genes to plant genes.

    Natural doesnt always mean good and unnatural doesnt always mean bad. Vaccines are not natural yet they save millions of lives worldwide.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    steddyeddy wrote: »

    Not as much as a geneticist but I would have done a large amount of study on it.
    Not as much as you think. Read more.
    That seems to be knock out mice your referring to where you knock out a gene and try to determine the effect that gene had on development ect. Modern genetics uses vectors in the form of plasmids and other methods to introduce new dna.

    No its not knock out mice I'm referring to - its specifically plant genetic engineering techniques. More correctly called bioballistics. You basically stick your target gene onto a metal atom and fire it into the cell and hope for the best. Its the most used method for engineering plants. See what I said about you reading some more ? This is an example of stuff you apparently don't know about.

    Yes we are still decoding the genome but you can be sure that the genes being introduced to plants are fairly well understood. We have a much larger understanding of genetics than you think.
    I am sure we don't. We have a much poorer understanding of genetics than you think.
    Outside of your coperate concerns what are you afraid will happen?
    Difficult to predict. They have apparently already found plant transgenes in human enteric bacteria. That can't be good. We are using sophisticated shotguns to f**k with an ecosystem of immense complexity evolved over eons. Anyone who tells you what can or can not happen is talking through their hole - like I said, its 'a massive, planetary, ecosystem wide, uncontrolled, completely unplanned, unscientific experiment'


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    woodoo wrote: »
    Absolutely. We should be going for the organic market worldwide.

    Stay the hell away from GM foods.

    lol at Organic Market.

    Over priced foods with a highly limited option for export.

    Makes sense.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,848 ✭✭✭Andy-Pandy


    There is no need for Ireland to grow GM products, are soil and growing conditions are just about perfect. There is a case for GM products in some country's, as there are drought/disease resistant variants of crops that will give a higher yield in places with poorer growing conditions. But in Ireland we simple just dont need them. In saying that, i wouldnt deny any developing country with a high population density the opportunity to be able to produce greater yields, therefore feeding more people.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Not as much as you think. Read more.

    No its not knock out mice I'm referring to - its specifically plant genetic engineering techniques. More correctly called bioballistics. You basically stick your target gene onto a metal atom and fire it into the cell and hope for the best. Its the most used method for engineering plants. See what I said about you reading some more ? This is an example of stuff you apparently don't know about.

    I didnt refer to it as that technique is being used less or less and viral or plasmid vector is infinitley more productive. Im well aware of the basics thanks. Bioballistics isnt only used in plant engineering by the way.

    I am sure we don't. We have a much poorer understanding of genetics than you think.

    Im not a typical arrogant scientist I am first to condemn those scientists who think they know everything and I have taken a lot of flack for it too.

    Difficult to predict. They have apparently already found plant transgenes in human enteric bacteria. That can't be good. We are using sophisticated shotguns to f**k with an ecosystem of immense complexity evolved over eons. Anyone who tells you what can or can not happen is talking through their hole - like I said, its 'a massive, planetary, ecosystem wide, uncontrolled, completely unplanned, unscientific experiment'

    We already share much of our genes with plants, viruses, rats, bats and bacteria. The importance of research is paramount here but judging by the poll most people dont even want to give research a chance.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    We already share much of our genes with plants, viruses, rats, bats and bacteria. The importance of research is paramount here but judging by the poll most people dont even want to give research a chance.

    So therefore you agree that the long terms effects are completely unpredictable given that these genes can hop species unpredictably ?
    The poll is not about research - it is about releasing the stuff into the environment.


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


    Andy-Pandy wrote: »
    There is no need for Ireland to grow GM products, are soil and growing conditions are just about perfect. There is a case for GM products in some country's, as there are drought/disease resistant variants of crops that will give a higher yield in places with poorer growing conditions. But in Ireland we simple just dont need them. In saying that, i wouldnt deny any developing country with a high population density the opportunity to be able to produce greater yields, therefore feeding more people.

    We could increase our ability to export goods longer distances without fear of them going off and we could engineer crops that would be in season all year round. We are famous for our agricultural prowess and rightfully so but If we dont capiltalise on new technology we could fall behind.


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


    So therefore you agree that the long terms effects are completely unpredictable given that these genes can hop species unpredictably ?
    The poll is not about research - it is about releasing the stuff into the environment.

    I added a option yes but more research is needed first.

    Yes as with ANY type of breeding genetic or otherwise the random recombination of alleles is largely unpredictable.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Carter P Fly


    Practically everything we eat is from sources that have been genetically modified, even organic foods come from GM stock!!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,848 ✭✭✭Andy-Pandy


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    We could increase our ability to export goods longer distances without fear of them going off and we could engineer crops that would be in season all year round. We are famous for our agricultural prowess and rightfully so but If we dont capiltalise on new technology we could fall behind.

    Ireland exports are crops and food stuffs under the basis that they are Irish, therefore being grown in better "purer" conditions than are competitors. Also, crops should not be able to be grown all year round, its just unnautral and totally wrong. There is a natural balance to things, you start growing crops all year round you affect other wildlife, which in turn trickles down the food chain and leads to god knows what. In Ireland, its fixing a problem that does not need fixing, its just a way for people to be able to do less work and for company's to make a bigger profit.

    DDT and the affect it had on the enviorment should be a warning that many of these company's really dont know what they are doing and are only interested in profit.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,848 ✭✭✭Andy-Pandy


    Practically everything we eat is from sources that have been genetically modified, even organic foods come from GM stock!!!

    Id like to see some proof to back up that statement. To get an organic certification you have to go through some pretty rigorous changes to the normal farming conditions. This would include showing where your seed stock comes from, and i can assure you, in Ireland at least, GM stock just isnt going to get you that certification, even if you could get your hands on GM seeds, which you shouldnt legally be able to anyway.

    You are right though, there are products in Ireland that would contain foods made from GM crops, but non of them could originate in Ireland.


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


    Andy-Pandy wrote: »
    Practically everything we eat is from sources that have been genetically modified, even organic foods come from GM stock!!!

    Id like to see some proof to back up that statement. To get an organic certification you have to go through some pretty rigorous changes to the normal farming conditions. This would include showing where your seed stock comes from, and i can assure you, in Ireland at least, GM stock just isnt going to get you that certification, even if you could get your hands on GM seeds, which you shouldnt legally be able to anyway.

    You are right though, there are products in Ireland that would contain foods made from GM crops, but non of them could originate in Ireland.

    All domestic crops by definition are genetically modified.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,848 ✭✭✭Andy-Pandy


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    All domestic crops by definition are genetically modified.

    Can you please explain this more. Not trying to be smart, i am genuinely interested in this subject as it is part of my curriculum in college.

    Do you mean modified through generation's of breeding? I've no problems with this as it is a "natural" modification, with plants within the same genus being interbred. But implanting genetic material from totally alien sources can lead to who knows where, and that worries me.

    But ill stick to my original answer, there is no need for GM crops in Ireland.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 163 ✭✭line6


    i don't suppose there's any connection with the population explosion - the curve is nearing the vertical now and some people might want to see fewer people on the planet

    and if they can make a few quid at the same time so much the better for them

    this would help explain the spraying of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, and into the water supply as well


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 491 ✭✭doomed


    44leto wrote: »
    Yes they should with open arms it is a future industry.


    I'll certainly embrace it with all three of my arms.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,330 ✭✭✭Archeron


    The carrots I bought in Lidl earlier said they think its a great idea.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,641 ✭✭✭Teyla Emmagan


    Never.


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


    Never.




    Not even in 100 years?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,012 ✭✭✭Plazaman


    Absolutely, bigger, tastier, better. Plus I want that new fruit that is a cross between a banana and an orange a banorange if you will..... or is that ornana........ mmmm..... ornana.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Johro


    Practically everything we eat is from sources that have been genetically modified, even organic foods come from GM stock!!!
    I'm not so sure about that, though I do know that it's almost impossible these days to tell if soya used in a food product (and it's in just about everything) is GM soya or not.
    People who grow organic foodstuffs are the most careful about seed stock etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭TheBegotten


    I see the same thing everytime...GM foods cause cancer, deformaties, etc. Unfortunatly, most of these claims forget the rule of stats: correlation DOES NOT equal causation. For example, a recent survey has shown ~99% of criminals ate quantitys of bread in their youth. None of this type of data can be verified or disproved for a long time.


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


    Andy-Pandy wrote: »
    Can you please explain this more. Not trying to be smart, i am genuinely interested in this subject as it is part of my curriculum in college.

    Do you mean modified through generation's of breeding? I've no problems with this as it is a "natural" modification, with plants within the same genus being interbred. But implanting genetic material from totally alien sources can lead to who knows where, and that worries me.

    But ill stick to my original answer, there is no need for GM crops in Ireland.


    Hey Im sorry for the lateness of reply just back now.

    The debate about genetic engineering is extensive and has being going on for decades however the purpose behind genetic engineering is to breed a crop with a desired trait and this in itself has being going on for thousands of years. Although recent techniques allow us to modify, cut out and insert genes into crops with relative accuracy the desire to imbue a desired trait into a crop led farmers and plant breeders to experiment with breeding and cross breeding species of plant in an effort to breed the ideal crop. The very fact that there is “domesticated” plant species and wild plant species is testament to the fact that sometime in the past man has cultivated plants to have a desired trait such as sweetness, faster growth or larger tubers. These early farmers knew nothing of genetic engineering yet they still managed to completely breed thousands of species with the desired traits. The potential to manipulate plant growth and trait development is huge in plants as they are totipotent, that is plant cells have a high differentiating potential. This can be seen when plants generate an entire individual out of a small branch cutting.

    Every botonist worth his salt knows that the native americans were amongst the best engineerers of crops. The modifed a species of plants called teosintes from a bush like shrub to a crop that produced corn as evident in the "before and after seen here.

    The only thing that has changed with genetic engineering is the techniques used. The native americans used hybridization and the rest to acheive something totally different from what they started with. The techniques used now are much much more refined.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,300 ✭✭✭Indubitable


    The problems causing world hunger is not the volume of food produced, it is the distribution of said food. Also, I think Organic food is Ireland's niche. That being said, I don't think I would have too much of a problem eating GM crops but I don't think I would ever eat meat grown in a laboratory.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Johro


    News article, December 2009

    'IRELAND ADOPTS GM-FREE ZONE POLICY

    DUBLIN - The Irish Government has announce it will ban the cultivation of all GM crops and introduce a voluntary GM-free label for food - including meat, poultry, eggs, fish, crustaceans, and dairy produce made without the use of GM animal feed.


    The policy was adopted as part of the Renewed Programme for Government and specifies that the Government will "Declare the Republic of Ireland a GM-Free Zone, free from the cultivation of all GM plants".

    The official text also states "To optimise Ireland's competitive advantage as a GM-Free country, we will introduce a voluntary GM-Free logo for use in all relevant product labelling and advertising, similar to a scheme recently introduced in Germany."

    The President of the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association, Malcolm Thompson, said he was delighted by the announcement, adding, "The Government's new GM-free policy is the fulfillment of what we at ICSA have held for the last five years. I very much look forward to its full implementation."


    Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland said the policy signals a new dawn for Irish farmers and food producers:


    "The WTO's economic globalisation agenda has forced most Irish farmers to enter an unwinnable race to the bottom for low quality GM-fed meat and dairy produce, in competition with countries like the USA, Argentina and Brazil which can easily out-compete us with their highly subsidised GM crop monocultures, cheap fossil fuel, extensive use of toxic agrochemicals that are not up to EU standards, and underpaid migrant farm labour.


    "Meanwhile, hundreds of European food brands, retailers and Regions now offer GM-free beef, pork, lamb, poultry, eggs, fish and dairy produce as part of their Food Safety, Quality Agriculture, Biodiversity, Fair Trade, Sustainable Development and Climate Change strategies. Thousands of brands in the USA are doing likewise. Without a GM-free label to distinguish our produce, Irish food is being excluded from this global market."


    "The Irish Government plan to ban GM crops and to provide a voluntary GM-fee label for qualifying animal produce makes obvious business sense for our agri-food and eco-tourism sectors . Everyone knows that US and EU consumers, food brands and retailers want safe GM-free food, and Ireland is ideally positioned to deliver the safest, most credible GM-free food brand in Europe, if not the world."


    The international market for GM-free animal produce is growing rapidly


    Across Europe, hundreds of leading food brands (including the largest dairy coop, Friesland Campina) and dozens of leading retailers (including the largest, Carrefour) now offer premium meat, fish, eggs, poultry eggs and dairy produce made without the use of GM feedstuffs. These are backed by GM-free labels and Government regulations in Austria, Italy, Germany, with France to follow later this year. Sales of GM-free milk have skyrocketed since the label came into effect in Germany.


    In the USA, to which Ireland exports vast quantities of dairy produce (including milk powder and casein for cheese production), leading food manufacturers, retailers, processors, distributors, farmers, seed breeders and consumers have set up joint venture called the Non-GMO Project, which already provides GM-free labels for over 1,000 food products by individual manufacturers in addition to thousands of GM-free private retail brands.


    Unique selling point for Irish food

    Ireland's geographical isolation and offshore Atlantic western winds provide a natural barrier to contamination by wind-borne GM pollen drift from countries such as the UK and Spain which still allow commercial release and/or field trials of GM crops.
    Together with this natural protection - and Ireland's famous green image and unpolluted topsoil - the new GM-free policy will provide Irish farmers and food producers who avoid the use of GM feed with a truly unique selling point: ''the most credible safe GM food brand in Europe."

    Moreover, because most Irish cattle and sheep enjoy a grass-based diet, their consumption of GM feedstuffs is lower than livestock in many competing countries. This provides Irish farmers with a valuable lead start in phasing out the use of GM feed. The only obstacle is the Irish animal feed cartel, which has a virtual monopoly on feed imports, and seems unwilling to provide the affordable Non-GM feedstuffs available to farmers in other European countries.


    Back in 2007, the Irish Government adopted a weaker policy "to seek to negotiate to declare the island of Ireland as a GMO-free zone", but the two opt-out clauses did not inspire conviction; failure to define the implications of the policy for GM animal feed created confusion in the farming sector and the Government failed to even draft any related legislation to implement the policy. That said, Ireland did stop voting in favour of new GMOs in Brussels and has since joined the majority of EU member states which back an Austrian proposal for the EU Commission to allow national bans on GM crops. In response to this move, the EU Commission indicated its willingness to consider national bans earlier this year.


    Although Ireland's new affirmative GM-free policy unambiguously aims to ban both commercial release as well as field trials of GM crops, it requires implementing legislation in the Republic, as well as Northern Ireland to prevent contamination from across the border.


    A label that means what it says


    O'Callaghan said the Irish GM-free label for algae, meat, poultry, eggs, crustaceans, fish, and dairy produce should set a higher standard than the existing German and proposed French labels, which mislead consumers by allowing GM-free claims for animal produce from livestock whose diet has included large amounts of GM feedstuffs for varying periods before they are converted into food:


    "Ireland's GM-free label should mean what it says, i.e. no feeding of any GM-labelled feedstuffs during the entire life of the animal. Specifically, the label should guarantee that the animal has been fed either on plant materials for which no GMO varieties exist, or on fodder crops that contain no GMO ingredients above the generally accepted detection level of 0.1 per cent. To avoid misleading consumers, the EU should to adopt a credible GM-free labelling regulation of this kind for the whole single market, instead of allowing individual member state to set their own standards, which can be not only confusing, but also deceptive. The Irish Government is now in a position to lead on this."


    International reaction


    Jochen Koester, a leading soy industry adviser who runs TraceConsult in Geneva, Switzerland, said: "The Irish Government's decision is very timely and deserves congratulations. In a very natural way, this will increase the Irish farmers' demand for Non-GMO animal nutrition that permits GMO-free claims on the final animal product. Increased import volumes and lower per-tonne logistics costs will bring down the price of certified Non-GMO imported soy meal. Irish farmers can thus soon join the ranks of "GMO-free" producers from Austria, Germany and France. This enhanced supplier platform will also create a lot more clout for all players in the Non-GMO food and feed industries."


    In London, the Irish Michelin-starred celebrity chef and TV host Richard Corrigan laughed out loud when he heard the news at his Bentley's Mayfair restaurant, adding that "the eyes of Europe will now gaze with envy on Ireland!" (Corrigan created a stir in Irish farming circles earlier this year when he denounced Bord Bia [the Irish Food Board] on his TV programme for providing its Quality Assurance label to meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM feedstuffs which are excluded from such labels in more food-savvy EU countries.


    Reacting to the announcement in Rome, Greenpeace EU GMO Policy Director Marco Contiero said "Greenpeace welcomes this decision by the Irish Government. It puts an additional brake on the global expansion of the risky, unproven and costly technology of genetically modified agriculture. Ireland's GM-free policy answers the serious concerns which European consumers have on GM food, and will allow Irish retailers and businesses to be rewarded for the good quality produce they bring to the market."


    Commenting from the USA, the Executive Director of the Non-GMO Project Megan Thompson said "Ireland has taken a truly inspiring step towards ensuring consumers' right to choose non-GMO products... As more and more companies in the USA and Canada are looking for non-GMO ingredients, this is a very timely move and we look forward to developing sourcing opportunities with GM-free producers in Ireland."


    Speaking for GM-Free Cymru in Wales, Dr Brian John said: "We congratulate the Irish Government on this very bold step, which is underpinned by sound science and by a proper regard for the precautionary principle. It is also a very smart commercial move which will give Ireland a competitive advantage. We hope that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will now follow suit by making similar declarations and by showing the Westminster government that its slavish adherence to a pro-GM agenda is scientifically untenable and out of step with the public mood."


    In Brussels, Friends of the Earth Europe's GMO campaign co-ordinator Helen Holder said "All around Europe, countries are putting up bans or other limits to growing genetically modified crops and the Irish government is to be congratulated. The EU should drop genetically modified food and crops, and instead support green farming which is good for the economy and for the planet".


    But that was then... It's ultimately very disappointing to see yet another about turn just when politicians got it right for a change.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,953 ✭✭✭✭kryogen


    Anybody thinking GM foods is a good thing should do a good bit more research into it.


  • Posts: 3,505 [Deleted User]


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    The only thing that has changed with genetic engineering is the techniques used. The native americans used hybridization and the rest to acheive something totally different from what they started with. The techniques used now are much much more refined.

    But surely you see the difference between genetic modification and selective breeding? Just because they have a similar goal does not mean they're the same thing.

    Selective breeding has it's risks, from the undesirable consequences that may arise from bred traits such as increased competitiveness of a plant, to the consequences of the continuous inbreeding of the crop once the desired trait has been reached. But the effects of selective breeding are far more subtle than those of GM, as selective breeding has no choice but to stand the test of time, whereas GM has genes inserted straight away. There's a big difference between the selected breeding of two varieties (or just two individuals of the same variety) of Zea mays, compared with artificially throwing a bacterial gene into a potato. Big difference.

    I'm not saying selective breeding is ok and genetic modification isn't, I'm just saying they're clearly not the same thing.


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


    Another type of genetic engineering of plants is cisgenic engineering producing cisgenic plants. These plants contain genes from sexually compatible species that could pollinate them anyway.

    Ill add that scientists are not out to get people. I do get that theres a deep distrust of scientists and to a large degree thats deserved but for every scientific dogma put out by scientists there are those of us who question it.

    Most scientists I know are not in it for the money or do not want food to be controlled exclusivley by big faceless companies. Most scientists are depressed about the fact that big industry is going to be the major factor in what gets researched at all. Theresonly problem I see with gm crops is who owns the patent. I think the patents should be publically owned.

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


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Johro


    kryogen wrote: »
    Anybody thinking GM foods is a good thing should do a good bit more research into it.
    Cryogenics, on the other hand, sounds great. Didn't Walt Disney have his body cryogenically frozen?
    Gives a whole new meaning to 'Disney On Ice'.


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


    Johro wrote: »
    News article, December 2009

    'IRELAND ADOPTS GM-FREE ZONE POLICY

    DUBLIN - The Irish Government has announce it will ban the cultivation of all GM crops and introduce a voluntary GM-free label for food - including meat, poultry, eggs, fish, crustaceans, and dairy produce made without the use of GM animal feed.


    The policy was adopted as part of the Renewed Programme for Government and specifies that the Government will "Declare the Republic of Ireland a GM-Free Zone, free from the cultivation of all GM plants".

    The official text also states "To optimise Ireland's competitive advantage as a GM-Free country, we will introduce a voluntary GM-Free logo for use in all relevant product labelling and advertising, similar to a scheme recently introduced in Germany."

    The President of the Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association, Malcolm Thompson, said he was delighted by the announcement, adding, "The Government's new GM-free policy is the fulfillment of what we at ICSA have held for the last five years. I very much look forward to its full implementation."


    Michael O'Callaghan of GM-free Ireland said the policy signals a new dawn for Irish farmers and food producers:


    "The WTO's economic globalisation agenda has forced most Irish farmers to enter an unwinnable race to the bottom for low quality GM-fed meat and dairy produce, in competition with countries like the USA, Argentina and Brazil which can easily out-compete us with their highly subsidised GM crop monocultures, cheap fossil fuel, extensive use of toxic agrochemicals that are not up to EU standards, and underpaid migrant farm labour.


    "Meanwhile, hundreds of European food brands, retailers and Regions now offer GM-free beef, pork, lamb, poultry, eggs, fish and dairy produce as part of their Food Safety, Quality Agriculture, Biodiversity, Fair Trade, Sustainable Development and Climate Change strategies. Thousands of brands in the USA are doing likewise. Without a GM-free label to distinguish our produce, Irish food is being excluded from this global market."


    "The Irish Government plan to ban GM crops and to provide a voluntary GM-fee label for qualifying animal produce makes obvious business sense for our agri-food and eco-tourism sectors . Everyone knows that US and EU consumers, food brands and retailers want safe GM-free food, and Ireland is ideally positioned to deliver the safest, most credible GM-free food brand in Europe, if not the world."


    The international market for GM-free animal produce is growing rapidly


    Across Europe, hundreds of leading food brands (including the largest dairy coop, Friesland Campina) and dozens of leading retailers (including the largest, Carrefour) now offer premium meat, fish, eggs, poultry eggs and dairy produce made without the use of GM feedstuffs. These are backed by GM-free labels and Government regulations in Austria, Italy, Germany, with France to follow later this year. Sales of GM-free milk have skyrocketed since the label came into effect in Germany.


    In the USA, to which Ireland exports vast quantities of dairy produce (including milk powder and casein for cheese production), leading food manufacturers, retailers, processors, distributors, farmers, seed breeders and consumers have set up joint venture called the Non-GMO Project, which already provides GM-free labels for over 1,000 food products by individual manufacturers in addition to thousands of GM-free private retail brands.


    Unique selling point for Irish food

    Ireland's geographical isolation and offshore Atlantic western winds provide a natural barrier to contamination by wind-borne GM pollen drift from countries such as the UK and Spain which still allow commercial release and/or field trials of GM crops.
    Together with this natural protection - and Ireland's famous green image and unpolluted topsoil - the new GM-free policy will provide Irish farmers and food producers who avoid the use of GM feed with a truly unique selling point: ''the most credible safe GM food brand in Europe."

    Moreover, because most Irish cattle and sheep enjoy a grass-based diet, their consumption of GM feedstuffs is lower than livestock in many competing countries. This provides Irish farmers with a valuable lead start in phasing out the use of GM feed. The only obstacle is the Irish animal feed cartel, which has a virtual monopoly on feed imports, and seems unwilling to provide the affordable Non-GM feedstuffs available to farmers in other European countries.


    Back in 2007, the Irish Government adopted a weaker policy "to seek to negotiate to declare the island of Ireland as a GMO-free zone", but the two opt-out clauses did not inspire conviction; failure to define the implications of the policy for GM animal feed created confusion in the farming sector and the Government failed to even draft any related legislation to implement the policy. That said, Ireland did stop voting in favour of new GMOs in Brussels and has since joined the majority of EU member states which back an Austrian proposal for the EU Commission to allow national bans on GM crops. In response to this move, the EU Commission indicated its willingness to consider national bans earlier this year.


    Although Ireland's new affirmative GM-free policy unambiguously aims to ban both commercial release as well as field trials of GM crops, it requires implementing legislation in the Republic, as well as Northern Ireland to prevent contamination from across the border.


    A label that means what it says


    O'Callaghan said the Irish GM-free label for algae, meat, poultry, eggs, crustaceans, fish, and dairy produce should set a higher standard than the existing German and proposed French labels, which mislead consumers by allowing GM-free claims for animal produce from livestock whose diet has included large amounts of GM feedstuffs for varying periods before they are converted into food:


    "Ireland's GM-free label should mean what it says, i.e. no feeding of any GM-labelled feedstuffs during the entire life of the animal. Specifically, the label should guarantee that the animal has been fed either on plant materials for which no GMO varieties exist, or on fodder crops that contain no GMO ingredients above the generally accepted detection level of 0.1 per cent. To avoid misleading consumers, the EU should to adopt a credible GM-free labelling regulation of this kind for the whole single market, instead of allowing individual member state to set their own standards, which can be not only confusing, but also deceptive. The Irish Government is now in a position to lead on this."


    International reaction


    Jochen Koester, a leading soy industry adviser who runs TraceConsult in Geneva, Switzerland, said: "The Irish Government's decision is very timely and deserves congratulations. In a very natural way, this will increase the Irish farmers' demand for Non-GMO animal nutrition that permits GMO-free claims on the final animal product. Increased import volumes and lower per-tonne logistics costs will bring down the price of certified Non-GMO imported soy meal. Irish farmers can thus soon join the ranks of "GMO-free" producers from Austria, Germany and France. This enhanced supplier platform will also create a lot more clout for all players in the Non-GMO food and feed industries."


    In London, the Irish Michelin-starred celebrity chef and TV host Richard Corrigan laughed out loud when he heard the news at his Bentley's Mayfair restaurant, adding that "the eyes of Europe will now gaze with envy on Ireland!" (Corrigan created a stir in Irish farming circles earlier this year when he denounced Bord Bia [the Irish Food Board] on his TV programme for providing its Quality Assurance label to meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on GM feedstuffs which are excluded from such labels in more food-savvy EU countries.


    Reacting to the announcement in Rome, Greenpeace EU GMO Policy Director Marco Contiero said "Greenpeace welcomes this decision by the Irish Government. It puts an additional brake on the global expansion of the risky, unproven and costly technology of genetically modified agriculture. Ireland's GM-free policy answers the serious concerns which European consumers have on GM food, and will allow Irish retailers and businesses to be rewarded for the good quality produce they bring to the market."


    Commenting from the USA, the Executive Director of the Non-GMO Project Megan Thompson said "Ireland has taken a truly inspiring step towards ensuring consumers' right to choose non-GMO products... As more and more companies in the USA and Canada are looking for non-GMO ingredients, this is a very timely move and we look forward to developing sourcing opportunities with GM-free producers in Ireland."


    Speaking for GM-Free Cymru in Wales, Dr Brian John said: "We congratulate the Irish Government on this very bold step, which is underpinned by sound science and by a proper regard for the precautionary principle. It is also a very smart commercial move which will give Ireland a competitive advantage. We hope that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will now follow suit by making similar declarations and by showing the Westminster government that its slavish adherence to a pro-GM agenda is scientifically untenable and out of step with the public mood."


    In Brussels, Friends of the Earth Europe's GMO campaign co-ordinator Helen Holder said "All around Europe, countries are putting up bans or other limits to growing genetically modified crops and the Irish government is to be congratulated. The EU should drop genetically modified food and crops, and instead support green farming which is good for the economy and for the planet".


    But that was then... It's ultimately very disappointing to see yet another about turn just when politicians got it right for a change.

    Richard corrigan and politicians should stay out of science they havent a clue.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    But surely you see the difference between genetic modification and selective breeding? Just because they have a similar goal does not mean they're the same thing.

    The techniques have changed now and the fact that previously you could only introduce genes from one plant species to another sexually compatiable one where as now you can introduce genes from a sexually incompatible species. The amount of genes added now has been reduced hugely.
    Selective breeding has it's risks, from the undesirable consequences that may arise from bred traits such as increased competitiveness of a plant, to the consequences of the continuous inbreeding of the crop once the desired trait has been reached. But the effects of selective breeding are far more subtle than those of GM, as selective breeding has no choice but to stand the test of time, whereas GM has genes inserted straight away. There's a big difference between the selected breeding of two varieties (or just two individuals of the same variety) of Zea mays, compared with artificially throwing a bacterial gene into a potato. Big difference.

    Yes the effect is a more pronounced trait which is instant as opposed to breeding a crop for generations to produce effects. Genes are natural they (usually) code for proteins which are a series of amino acids. The only difference here is we are dictating the exact sequence of amino acids.

    [/QUOTE]I'm not saying selective breeding is ok and genetic modification isn't, I'm just saying they're clearly not the same thing.[/QUOTE]

    The only difference is selective breeding is a lot cruder.


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


    Johro wrote: »
    What about all the other people in the article who are not politicians? Or chefs. Millions of people do not want or are suspicious of GM foods, just look at your poll. Politicians, businesses, farmers and the food trade are well aware of it. Are you saying they're all misinformed or stupid?

    Im saying they are definatly misinformed of the science involved. Definatly not stupid however. There was a scare attached to certain vaccines that had little or no scientific evidence attached to it at the time and this reaction to anything gm is very similar.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Richard corrigan and politicians should stay out of science they havent a clue.

    Thats a bit rich coming from you when you weren't familiar with the bioballistic method yourself, yet you are on here pushing this agneda for some reason.

    I'm curious - what exactly is your interest in this ? Do you have any financial interests in genetic engineering ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,037 ✭✭✭Nothingbetter2d


    Should ireland welcome gm food?

    YES. if they can develop foods that cure illness, or substance addiction. Homer's Tobacomatos ftw.

    NO. if they just wanna develop a cartel where they charge through the nose for their seeds


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    or substance addiction

    Its been known/suspected for years that LSD can cure substance addiction. Its just too controversial for mainstream acceptance. Althou this might signal a change in that:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17297714


  • Advertisement
Advertisement