Should Ireland welcome gentically modified food?

13-03-2012 12:43pm

The major concern is that GM crops can be designed to not propagate a seed. This means that unlike now where a farm keeps some seed to replant next year, the farmer will have to buy more seed of the company every year.

GM crops can also be designed to aggressively cross-pollinate so that non-GM crops can be affected, resulting in the farmer having to buy seeds every year.

GM crops can also be designed to respond only to certain fertilisers so that the farmer needs to buy from the company every year too.

The main point is that GM crops create a dependency on that company. So instead of now where someone gets seed and is able to continue farming, with GM crops you have to pay an outlay to the company every year.

This is fine if you are a big factory farm but for smaller farmers, especially poorer farmers you are creating an unnecessary burden.

GM crops can have loads of benefits but companies will attach conditions to those benefits to shackle farmers to them. It will also mean that the bio-diversity will be threatened.

Conflats · 13-03-2012 1:40pm

There has been talk of cross polination in crops in Ireland, potatoes wheat barley do not have plants related to it in the wild the only possible one is oilseed rape which is a brassica crop, the point of this trial is to assess the environmental impact of the blight resistant trait has on the environment
It's all well and good people who haven't seen first hand what it is like to have to go spray chemicals on a crop 10-12 times a year and still have losses, big thing with blight is make a mistake with your control and 100% loss of the crop is possible.
People have talked here about Ireland being a green island and somebody even suggested go and aim for the organic market is a ridiculous statement to make, we tried to farm organically 50-60 years ago and that was a disaster people were unable to make a living form the land.
GM should be regulated strictly and the so called 'terminator gene' is a way to protect a patent, it happens in every industry but it should be in the hands of the people which is why a semi- state body such as Teagasc should be encouraged to use gm technologies which benefit Irish farmers.

And anyone who starts saying rats and mice in trials fed gm foods better have a good strong example because if anyone ate the same food day in day out you would get the same kind of results.
Plus people in Europe welcomed Gm in fact when a tomato was brought out which enabled it to stay fresher but then the scare mongerers came along and played on the people.
Its high time Ireland had a INFORMED debate on Genetically modified foods.
AND final comment when you buy Irish meat and milk their is a strong chance that the animal in question has been feed GM soya Due to the fact europe is not self sufficient in proteins.

af_thefragile · 13-03-2012 2:23pm

I'm up for selective breeding and all where the crops are still grown by a natural process. You're just picking out the best variety and growing them.

But i wouldn't trust GM foods. A carrot is no longer a carrot if it has a bit of tomato or whatever in it which hasn't been introduced through a natural process but in a lab by a bunch of meddling scientists.

Why cant they focus on ways to improve the fertility of soil and ways to grow crops in arid regions? Like Ireland is full of bogs, why cant all the empty land be converted into farms for growing crops for food and maybe also bio fuels??

brokenhinge · 13-03-2012 2:42pm

As long as it's clearly labelled I don't care. I wouldn't eat GM foods if I had the option, but I'm not struggling to afford food or starving- so I don't think I have the right to dictate that others shouldn't.

bleg · 13-03-2012 3:10pm

Like it or not GMO will be at the forefront of food technology for at least the next 30 years. Ireland should be riding on the cusp of the wave and not wallowing in the backwater.

Thankfully, most people here don't have a problem with GM but rather with the company and patent law that surrounds it at the moment.

If you don't like the idea of GMO you can always go off and join the Amish.

opinion guy · 13-03-2012 3:10pm

brokenhinge wrote: »

As long as it's clearly labelled I don't care. I wouldn't eat GM foods if I had the option, but I'm not struggling to afford food or starving- so I don't think I have the right to dictate that others shouldn't.

Doesn't work that way. Once you introduce it it will cross contaminate the non GM stuff. Its all or nothing I'm afriad

Andy-Pandy · 13-03-2012 3:33pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

Steddyteddy, I was going to write about the fundamental differences between genetic engineering and selective breeding but i found this article that says pretty much what i wanted to say.

Id also like to add that its not the damage that could be done to the people that eat GM foods but the possible damage to the country's biodiversity that worries me most. Look at the damage that rouge plants like Japanese Knotweed, Japanese Bindweed, Rhododendron's and Hogweed (i could name many more) have caused when they have managed to gain a foothold in the country. Unfortunately these plants have no natural predators and find Ireland to have perfect growing conditions. They are almost impossible to eradicate and have been causing the destruction of are natural habitats, leading to loss of biodiversity and the eradication of species. Now picture what would happen if a crop that is immune to herbicides did the same thing. Ireland does not need GM crops, we have perfect growing conditions and the country has enough land to feed many many millions, we have a small population density and no need to increase crop yields.

I agree scientists are not trying to make a balls of things but they make mistakes, DDT is the perfect example that in the end they dont know the full implications of what they are doing.

steddyeddy · 13-03-2012 3:36pm

opinion guy wrote: »

brokenhinge wrote: »

As long as it's clearly labelled I don't care. I wouldn't eat GM foods if I had the option, but I'm not struggling to afford food or starving- so I don't think I have the right to dictate that others shouldn't.

Doesn't work that way. Once you introduce it it will cross contaminate the non GM stuff. Its all or nothing I'm afriad

This sort of thing is something I have a massive problem with. Where are you getting your information on gm foods, little shop of horrors? Not all gm crops cross contaminate other crops. Theres a lot of ways to prevent this happening?

Andy-Pandy · 13-03-2012 4:00pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Theres a lot of ways to prevent this happening?

Thats the problem, there's no way to be sure that there wont be cross contamination. The company's that develop the GM stock are like the pharma companys, its profit before anything else. Look again at DDT, we were told for years it was safe but it was anything but, i trust nature more than i would ever be able to trust them.

Conflats · 13-03-2012 4:06pm

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

Thats the problem, there's no way to be sure that there wont be cross contamination. The company's that develop the GM stock are like the pharma companys, its profit before anything else. Look again at DDT, we were told for years it was safe but it was anything but, i trust nature more than i would ever be able to trust them.

Well in Ireland we don't have any naturally related species of wheat, barley potatoes so thats a fundamental flaw in your argument the only crop which can and isn't largely grown in Ireland is Oilseed Rape which is a member of brassica family.
Again another you make about the companies why not put the funding into government bodies such as Teagasc and the Universities to use this technology in a non commercial way in that they cover there costs of development but the ownership rights are the developer who would be funded by the state and which in turn the people of the country

bleg · 13-03-2012 4:25pm

Excellent video and deals with a small bit about GMO from 12 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OMLSs8t1ng

Andy-Pandy · 13-03-2012 4:35pm

Conflats wrote: »

Well in Ireland we don't have any naturally related species of wheat, barley potatoes so thats a fundamental flaw in your argument the only crop which can and isn't largely grown in Ireland is Oilseed Rape which is a member of brassica family.
Again another you make about the companies why not put the funding into government bodies such as Teagasc and the Universities to use this technology in a non commercial way in that they cover there costs of development but the ownership rights are the developer who would be funded by the state and which in turn the people of the country

I don't mind being corrected if im wrong, im trying to widen my horizons on this subject. GM product's most likely will cross pollinate with are existing crops, this would mean that we would have no choice but to eat these GM crops even if we don't want too. If this happens do the company's that produce these crops then have the right to charge neighbouring farmers for using there patent? Cases like this have happened in the states before.

I would love if it was only the Universities and An Teagasc that ran this in Ireland, but i dont trust the government to handle this correctly, they will most likely go down the easiest road and use crops already in production, therefore loosing the opportunity to produce are own patents and forcing farmers to use patented crops and therefore loosing control of what we can grow to outside company's.

I really think one of the main driving forces behind the surge in GM crops is to allow company's to patent foods and gain monopoly's, that just seems very wrong to me.

opinion guy · 13-03-2012 4:38pm

opinion guy wrote: »

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 ?

Still waiting for your answer.....

pickarooney · 13-03-2012 4:41pm

Let nobody say they don't recognise a Canadian accent any more:
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm

Andy-Pandy · 13-03-2012 4:49pm

shedweller · 13-03-2012 4:54pm

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

Cases like this have happened in the states before.

They have and i do remember seeing a documentary about it about three or four years ago. You would think you could counter sue them for contaminating your crops but hey, i'm not a lawyer!

Anyway, in other, somewhat related news:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/04/147819839/the-ultimate-in-heirloom-wheat-arrives-at-seed-vault?sc=fb&cc=fp

A few days ago, amid darkness and freezing winds, thousands of small packages of seeds were carried into an underground storage vault on a remote Arctic island. That vault holds a growing collection of seeds from all the different kinds of crops around the world that humans grow for food.
The seeds — 740,000 samples and counting — are stored inside a mountain on a group of islands called Svalbard, which is legally part of Norway, but is located far out in the Arctic Ocean, just 600 miles from the North Pole.
The Svalbard Global Seed Vault — along with dozens of other, less-secure collections around the world — is supposed to preserve a vital part of the world's botanical gene pool; in this case, all the varieties of corn or peas or tomatoes that have disappeared from farmers' fields.
Those varieties disappeared because farmers turned to varieties that promise bigger harvests and greater profits. But Cary Fowler, director of the Global Crop Diversity Trust, which runs the Svalbard vault, says the old varieties hold underappreciated genetic traits that we may need someday in order to fight diseases or cope with a changing climate.

Will that GM rubbish be going to Svalbard? I certainly hope not.

One of the comments to this article got my attention with this bit:

crop yield improvements are a result of many centuries of breeding, GMO's do not increase yield directly, glyphosphate is a weed killer not a yield enhancer.

Do not increase yield, he says. Hm.

Conflats · 13-03-2012 6:01pm

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

I don't mind being corrected if im wrong, im trying to widen my horizons on this subject. GM product's most likely will cross pollinate with are existing crops, this would mean that we would have no choice but to eat these GM crops even if we don't want too. If this happens do the company's that produce these crops then have the right to charge neighbouring farmers for using there patent? Cases like this have happened in the states before.

I would love if it was only the Universities and An Teagasc that ran this in Ireland, but i dont trust the government to handle this correctly, they will most likely go down the easiest road and use crops already in production, therefore loosing the opportunity to produce are own patents and forcing farmers to use patented crops and therefore loosing control of what we can grow to outside company's.

I really think one of the main driving forces behind the surge in GM crops is to allow company's to patent foods and gain monopoly's, that just seems very wrong to me.

The problem is with all this is the need for proper laws to be put in place to handle this before situations arising, and in Ireland I feel we dont need the herbicide tolerant(yes this is a naturally occurring thing too) crops as we have one major advantage in weed control which is ploughing unlike other more arid regions of the world. however if we had varitieties of the aforementioned crops to have better Nitrogen efficiency( which is about currently 50%) or the main one Disease resistance, Gm should be seen as a tool in the box to help provide a more rational control because i find it funny how the people who call for no gm also call for no chemical inputs which gm has the potential to cut if

On the issue of cross pollination the main problem has been the perceived threat of 'super' weeds and the lack of natural relations helps. Also the point in ireland we dont eat directly the grain crops or at least the majority of it due to the quality aspects(esp in milling wheat).

The main thing is though a lot of these issues is around people either dont know or the anti-gm lobby forget to mention, all these traits are in the natural environment for example this thread was started over the application to study the environmental impacts of GM potatoes, these genes have been transferred from a wild relative of the potato. These genes can create a new improved variety in about 16 weeks vs 15 years for the natural one.
And please dont somebody say there is already naturally resistant blight varieties out there yes there is and the reason they arent used widely is down to quality and cooking characteristics which the people who dont want them are the CONSUMER who wont buy them

Conflats · 13-03-2012 6:07pm

One of the comments to this article got my attention with this bit:

Do not increase yield, he says. Hm.[/QUOTE]
Well by using a trait such as herbicide tolerance in the plant by getting a better kill of weeds will actually increase yields due to the competition effect which weeds have with crops, so yes the use of glyphosate does increase yields in both herbicide sensitive and herbicide tolerant crops.

Digits · 13-03-2012 6:23pm

Interesting thread.

To me GM crops is a bigger issue for Ireland than the US, Australia etc. Irish food produce sold accross the globe is heavily marketed as organic, free range, healthy etc. Take kerrygold, they are very popular in German supermarkets. Look at there german website showing cows grazing fresh pasture. This is the image we are selling as food producers.

http://www.kerrygold.de/

People in counties that import Irish food believe we have he highest quality food. Now what about when they learn that our cows are actually being fed GM beet, kale etc. Foreign consumers will just think "why don't I just buy the cheaper product since Irish cows are being fed the same GM thing". This is just in the example of butter but it can be applied accross the board.

Basically we're viewed as having the best quality natural foods across the globe, so why cast doubts into the consumers minds, thus killing our 'green image?'

Conflats · 13-03-2012 6:31pm

The only GM ingredients our livestock are being fed are soya and maize meal (not the stuff we grow the actual grain) this is due to the fact over 90% of world soya is now GM due to the widespread adaption of the technology.

Also with the image of the cows grazing the focus in irish agriculture is to use the most amount of grass possible in the diets reducing the need for the expensive concentrates( grains and protein sources).

Also a huge part of the irish products is the taste the meat, milk and butter etc taste better which is why the consumer buys it 99% of the time

Digits wrote: »

Interesting thread.

To me GM crops is a bigger issue for Ireland than the US, Australia etc. Irish food produce sold accross the globe is heavily marketed as organic, free range, healthy etc. Take kerrygold, they are very popular in German supermarkets. Look at there german website showing cows grazing fresh pasture. This is the image we are selling as food producers.

http://www.kerrygold.de/

People in counties that import Irish food believe we have he highest quality food. Now what about when they learn that our cows are actually being fed GM beet, kale etc. Foreign consumers will just think "why don't I just buy the cheaper product since Irish cows are being fed the same GM thing". This is just in the example of butter but it can be applied accross the board.

Basically we're viewed as having the best quality natural foods across the globe, so why cast doubts into the consumers minds, thus killing our 'green image?'

bleg · 13-03-2012 6:32pm

But what about when GMO branded food becomes accepted, will they not just go for the cheaper foodstuffs then anyway? Would we be foolish to ignore all research into GMO at the expense of future technological advances and possible loss of competitiveness?

Caliden · 13-03-2012 6:42pm

GM foods haven't been out long enough to see the longterm effects.

The copyright law associated with them is something to consider.

i.e. what happens in the situation where GM crops pollinate adjacent fields? copyright infringement?

Andy-Pandy · 13-03-2012 7:00pm

Its a bit off topic but i read an interesting book called "The Windup Girl".

The Windup Girl is set in 23rd century Thailand. Global warming has raised the levels of world's oceans, carbon fuel sources have become depleted, and manually wound springs are used as energy storage devices. Biotechnology is dominant and mega corporations like AgriGen, PurCal and RedStar (called calorie companies) control food production through 'genehacked' seeds, and use bioterrorism, private armies and economic hitmen to create markets for their products. Frequent catastrophes, such as deadly and widespread plagues and illness, caused by genetically modified crops and mutant pests, ravage entire populations. The natural genetic seed stock of the world's plants has been almost completely supplanted by those that are genetically engineered to be sterile.

I know its a scifi book, but scifi sometimes has a way of predicting the future. The premise that i find most believable is the possibility that with GM product's, company's could eventually own the patents for the majority of the Earths food crops. That would just give way too much power to the companies/country's that control them. Look at how the superpowers have reacted to dwindling oil supply's, we need as much diversity in are food sources as possible, look at how bacteria's and viruses are known to already mutate against the affects of herbicides etc They will adapt to the changes made in GM crops, then like with herbicides, insecticides, antibiotics etc we will always be playing catch up.

Digits · 13-03-2012 7:04pm

Conflats wrote: »

The only GM ingredients our livestock are being fed are soya and maize meal (not the stuff we grow the actual grain) this is due to the fact over 90% of world soya is now GM due to the widespread adaption of the technology.

I've lived on a farm all my life bud so I don't need the Ag lecture.

I know a lot of lads near us that are switching to their own beet, turnips etc. because bag ration is simply too expensive. TBH yes that is relatively a tiny part of the animals diet but what about when the Germans, French etc. all learn that we're growing GM crops? Will they brush it off as nonsense or ask what's the point in buying this GM crap? Granted, yes that there will be very little or no GM traces in the product but why open ourselves to that scrutiny from overseas markets? Irish food has a good name abroad so if it aint' broke then why try fixing it?

opinion guy · 13-03-2012 7:24pm

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

Its a bit off topic but i read an interesting book called "The Windup Girl".

I know its a scifi book, but scifi sometimes has a way of predicting the future. The premise that i find most believable is the possibility that with GM product's, company's could eventually own the patents for the majority of the Earths food crops. That would just give way too much power to the companies/country's that control them. Look at how the superpowers have reacted to dwindling oil supply's, we need as much diversity in are food sources as possible, look at how bacteria's and viruses are known to already mutate against the affects of herbicides etc They will adapt to the changes made in GM crops, then like with herbicides, insecticides, antibiotics etc we will always be playing catch up.

Oh I wouldn't worry, I'm sure in 50 years we will all be Borg like creatures with the latest core i27 intel inside implanted in our grey matter, directly photo-syntheisising energy in our skin from sunlight during the day and via inbuilt Duracell's in place of a digestive system by night and our main worry will be winning the 40 year platform wars between the Apple Dictatorship, Google Collective and Samsung Directorate that sparked off when they realised the Patent Lawyers Cartel were happy to continue the never ended cycle of lawsuits to further their own mysterious ends

bleg · 13-03-2012 7:52pm

Digits wrote: »

Irish food has a good name abroad so if it aint' broke then why try fixing it?

Because failure to innovate will eventually lead to the end of your business.

You sound like people in the late 1990s: "I've done my business without e-mail and mobile phones for years, why do I need this new technology now? Why would I even invest?"

GMOs are going to become the standard. We can choose to be part of the leading pack in this new technology or we can lag behind. What's wrong with a bit of research?

Andy-Pandy · 13-03-2012 7:59pm

bleg wrote: »

Because failure to innovate will eventually lead to the end of your business.

You sound like people in the late 1990s: "I've done my business without e-mail and mobile phones for years, why do I need this new technology now? Why would I even invest?"

GMOs are going to become the standard. We can choose to be part of the leading pack in this new technology or we can lag behind. What's wrong with a bit of research?

How will it lead to the end of his business? We will still be producing high quality produce that people will still be wanting to buy. If anything by not going GM Ireland will gain a new niche in the market and be able to market are selves accordingly. We are not loosing anything, and it is still to be seen in the longterm whether or not the gains are sustainable. We have no problem, so why do we need a fix for it?

Digits · 13-03-2012 8:24pm

bleg wrote: »

GMOs are going to become the standard. We can choose to be part of the leading pack in this new technology or we can lag behind. What's wrong with a bit of research?

If you read my posts properly I am not against GM food. I just think that here in Ireland where we have the capacity for exceptional yields in various crops without extreme human intervention then why not promote our GM free crops? 'semi-artizan' if you will?

Of course GM food can have massive benefits, especially in areas of the world with poor yield/soils. (TBH GM will be a necessity to feed 10bn humans by 2050, story for another day).

Conflats · 13-03-2012 8:41pm

Digits wrote: »

If you read my posts properly I am not against GM food. I just think that here in Ireland where we have the capacity for exceptional yields in various crops without extreme human intervention then why not promote our GM free crops? 'semi-artizan' if you will?

Of course GM food can have massive benefits, especially in areas of the world with poor yield/soils. (TBH GM will be a necessity to feed 10bn humans by 2050, story for another day).

Yes Ireland has some of the top yields in the world but not without the use of expensive inputs in the form of fungicides and nitrogen to pick the main 2. The last few years in particular we may have had what may be described as low disease pressure but its not that far back that we had very poor harvests due to disease. So to say without extreme human intervention not sure what you mean in that, because a potato crop which requires weekly spraying upto 12 times a season, or a winter wheat crop which could have a tractor and sprayer in 5/6 times shows to me that barring irrigation i dont see much more intervention a farmer can have in crop inputs

Plus these 10 billion people the majority of them just want food they dont want this artizan food.

WakeUp · 13-03-2012 8:43pm

No. A French Study found Monsanto's GM modified corn caused internal organ damage. And that's just corn - what other damage do their other freak seeds cause?

Whats disturbing about the above freak seed is that it was approved, Monsanto suppressed the study of the seed and it wasnt till greenpeace took them court and had the information released that this came to light companies care about margin not people. The food we eat and buy at the moment doesn't cause internal organ damage why would people want to put us in that position? Are we not being screwed in enough ways already without eating poisonous food because the government "approve" it.

Digits · 13-03-2012 8:55pm

Conflats wrote: »

Yes Ireland has some of the top yields in the world but not without the use of expensive inputs in the form of fungicides and nitrogen to pick the main 2. The last few years in particular we may have had what may be described as low disease pressure but its not that far back that we had very poor harvests due to disease. So to say without extreme human intervention not sure what you mean in that, because a potato crop which requires weekly spraying upto 12 times a season, or a winter wheat crop which could have a tractor and sprayer in 5/6 times shows to me that barring irrigation i dont see much more intervention a farmer can have in crop inputs

By extreme I mean playing god with GM and changing growing patterns in a lab etc. Obviously nitrogen and pesticides are a given in any potato crop.

Plus these 10 billion people the majority of them just want food they dont want this artizan food.

When did I mention that they did? If you read my post properly you would have seen how I mentioned that that's why we do need GM crops. I never said that GM free crops will fee the world. At the current rate i'ts impossible IMO.

EDIT:

WakeUp wrote: »

No. A French Study found Monsanto's GM modified corn caused internal organ damage. And that's just corn - what other damage do their other freak seeds cause?

Whats disturbing about the above freak seed is that it was approved, Monsanto suppressed the study of the seed and it wasnt till greenpeace took them court and had the information released that this came to light companies care about margin not people. The food we eat and buy at the moment doesn't cause internal organ damage why would people want to put us in that position? Are we not being screwed in enough ways already without eating poisonous food because the government "approve" it.

An interesting video of Monsanto's domination in the US. This would be a worst case scenario for Ireland IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P1CJ7IEt0c

44leto · 13-03-2012 9:00pm

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

How will it lead to the end of his business? We will still be producing high quality produce that people will still be wanting to buy. If anything by not going GM Ireland will gain a new niche in the market and be able to market are selves accordingly. We are not loosing anything, and it is still to be seen in the longterm whether or not the gains are sustainable. We have no problem, so why do we need a fix for it?

It maybe a niche market, it also will be profitable, but noway as profitable as industrial high intensity agriculture. I can be certain of one thing in this present world the price of food will rise. Good farm-land is an Irish resource but we don't have that much of it, we are no Ukraine or North America, but what we have you use it to its full potential.

We are a net food exporter, we are also a food product exporter, we could become a greater food exporter, I can guarantee you food is a growing market. So it would be best to produce quantity then quality, it will earn more.

Conflats · 13-03-2012 9:07pm

Digits wrote: »

By extreme I mean playing god with GM and changing growing patterns in a lab etc. Obviously nitrogen and pesticides are a given in any potato crop.

When did I mention that they did? If you read my post properly you would have seen how I mentioned that that's why we do need GM crops. I never said that GM free crops will fee the world. At the current rate i'ts impossible IMO.

You are talking of something space age, how is taking a gene for example from a wild potato and putting it in a variety which is widely grown playing god? by that you must assume the 'conventional' breeders are also playing god because they are doing the same thing just one way is a lot quicker than the other. Also you mentioned grow patterns if a plant can intercept more sunlight in may and june why not alter it's genetic code to make it have bigger leaves for example and thus increase yield

The main people in the world who are against gm crops tend to be the ones who can afford food without it being a large part of their disposable income.

annascott · 13-03-2012 9:12pm

Aren't GM foods carcinogenic?

bleg · 13-03-2012 9:15pm

annascott wrote: »

Aren't GM foods carcinogenic?

What would make them exclusively carcinogenic over non GMO?

steddyeddy · 13-03-2012 9:18pm

opinion guy wrote: »

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.

You said this

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.

The bit highlighted is applied to several methods of adding target genes to a selective genome it is not exclusive to bioballistics. Im familair with the technique when its named properly. When working with genetic engineering model organisims are used which are selected because the effects of genetic tampering are usually evident quite quickly.

To get onto the agenda side of things. People seem to be misrepresenting the work done by honest scientists on this for years and my agenda if any would be to try and balance out some of the more emotive reasoning which is out there at the moment.

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

No financial interests in it at all. I am currently a biochemist doing my masters in UCD but during my undergradute programme as a zoologist/ biochemist I met and studied under a lot of intelligent people. One of whom Im most fond was called Matthew Harmey in my opinion a brilliant botanist and geneticist. He instilled in me the worth of genetic engineering. I myself have worked in labs using certain techniques related to genetics although my area of interest is in animal/human gene and protein manipulation I would work with similar techniques to those used in genetic engineering of crops. So If I have an agenda it is to refute some of the dogma relating to gm foods.

steddyeddy · 13-03-2012 9:19pm

WakeUp wrote: »

No. A French Study found Monsanto's GM modified corn caused internal organ damage. And that's just corn - what other damage do their other freak seeds cause?

Whats disturbing about the above freak seed is that it was approved, Monsanto suppressed the study of the seed and it wasnt till greenpeace took them court and had the information released that this came to light companies care about margin not people. The food we eat and buy at the moment doesn't cause internal organ damage why would people want to put us in that position? Are we not being screwed in enough ways already without eating poisonous food because the government "approve" it.

A study published by the organic and non gm group is not what you call unbiased. I would love to see the peer reviewed paper that backs up this study.

opinion guy · 13-03-2012 9:21pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

The bit highlighted is applied to several methods of adding target genes to a selective genome it is not exclusive to bioballistics. Im familair with the technique when its named properly. When working with genetic engineering model organisims are used which are selected because the effects of genetic tampering are usually evident quite quickly.

Took you a while to respond.....did some reading up ?

People seem to be misrepresenting the work done by honest scientists on this for years

Monsanto are not honest scientists

No financial interests in it at all. I am currently a biochemist doing my masters in UCD but during my undergradute programme as a zoologist/ biochemist I met and studied under a lot of intelligent people. One of whom Im most fond was called Matthew Harmey in my opinion a brilliant botanist and geneticist. He instilled in me the worth of genetic engineering. I myself have worked in labs using certain techniques related to genetics although my area of interest is in animal/human gene and protein manipulation. So If I have an agenda it is to refute some of the dogma relating to gm foods.

Fair enough. Recognise that there is dogma on both sides of the fence.

steddyeddy · 13-03-2012 9:31pm

opinion guy wrote: »

Took you a while to respond.....did some reading up ?

As I said Im familiar with the basics at least. I did consult a reference book to make sure I got it right though. Some of the cobwebs need brushing off its been a while since I studied some of that stuff.

Monsanto are not honest scientists

Well I share your concern about the companies involved. I dont think a private company should own any patents on anything to do with food. Saying that I would say it would be the scientists involved with monsanto who are dishonest.

Fair enough. Recognise that there is dogma on both sides of the fence.

There is indeed and in the former zoology component I have stood up against dogma which was upheld by zoologists. (Dogma is a bit rare in biochem fortunatly!).

Digits · 13-03-2012 9:37pm

Conflats wrote: »

You are talking of something space age, how is taking a gene for example from a wild potato and putting it in a variety which is widely grown playing god? by that you must assume the 'conventional' breeders are also playing god because they are doing the same thing just one way is a lot quicker than the other. Also you mentioned grow patterns if a plant can intercept more sunlight in may and june why not alter it's genetic code to make it have bigger leaves for example and thus increase yield.

Again I have nothing against it. I'd eat a GM pud no bother if it was properly tested and passed etc. I'm just looking from an Irish point of view, there are always going to be many people with big reservations with GM food who are going to avoid at all costs. So why don't we become leaders in these markets which demand GM free food no?

[/QUOTE]The main people in the world who are against gm crops tend to be the ones who can afford food without it being a large part of their disposable income.[/QUOTE]

How would you even know that? Complete b*****ks of a comment.

steddyeddy · 13-03-2012 9:39pm

A reply to letter by the enviromental doctor who critiscised gm foods from a senior botanist at Galway university. Please read this it makes sense and is from a scientific perspective as opposed to a business point of view.

Teagasc seeking GM go-ahead

Sir, – Elizabeth Cullen states it is difficult to understand why Teagasc would want to examine genetically modified (GM) crops as she claims it opposes Ireland’s “green” image (March 10th). In fact, green does not have to mean no GM. The German Greens in government allowed more than 40 successful GM crop trials. Any truly green-minded person would welcome Teagasc’s independent research into a technology that could help cut the 250,000lbs of toxic fungicide used annually against potato blight in Ireland.
Moreover, the Green Party in our last government produced Harvest 2020 (July 19th, 2010), a vision for future Irish agriculture that was based on smart green growth. The recommendation relating to GM technology was listed under the title of “Restoring Competitiveness” and stated: “Teagasc should continue to provide an impartial research programme on the issues of GM crop cultivation to policy makers, tillage farmers, and the general public, in order that Ireland can engage in scientific discussions on new crop technologies and be to the forefront of technology should EU policy on GM crop cultivation alter and broader acceptance of the merits of GM technology emerge.”
Since Teagasc’s last trials of GM crops in the last 1990s the mantra that “all GM is bad and all non-GM is good” has been shown to be incorrect and overly simplistic.
This Government needs to establish a forward-looking approach to GM technology so that it can develop evidence-based policies (via research by Teagasc) in a democratic manner in this area of strategic importance to Ireland’s society, economy and environment. – Yours, etc,
SHANE MORRIS BSc,
Research Associate,
Department of Botany and
Plant Science,
National University of Ireland,
Galway.

44leto · 13-03-2012 9:41pm

There seems to be something else involved in peoples opposition to GM. The term "frankenfood" a reference to Shelly's monster Frankestein about what can happen when science tinkers and defies nature. It was a great novel, a classic, but just a novel. We are tinkering with nature and we always did, we are now living in a geological termed era the anthropogenic age. An era and environment caused by humans.

I find people opposed to this technology are not opposed to the food, that is secondary. What they are really proposing is, food should be produced as naturally as possible (whatever that means), as nature intended, as if nature has an intention. Like the communist doctrine of back to the land or the fascist one of the purity of the Earth. Its kind of religious.

I feel the only thing man has is science, we have nothing else, this tech has the potential to feed the world, at present we do not, 1 dies every second from malnutrition and its complications. But even with this tech that is not guaranteed. But one thing is for certain. Without it more will starve.

This tech is the green revolution with jet engines, it is that superior and it is still in it infancy, why doesn't this excite everyone, a science that will make our live better.

Conflats · 13-03-2012 9:48pm

Digits wrote: »

Again I have nothing against it. I'd eat a GM pud no bother if it was properly tested and passed etc. I'm just looking from an Irish point of view, there are always going to be many people with big reservations with GM food who are going to avoid at all costs. So why don't we become leaders in these markets which demand GM free food no?

The main people in the world who are against gm crops tend to be the ones who can afford food without it being a large part of their disposable income.[/QUOTE]

How would you even know that? Complete b*****ks of a comment.[/QUOTE]

Well have a logical think about it i doubt the people in Africa or any where else starving give two f**ks about weather its Gm or not they just want food.
Plus another point on it would be where are these lobby groups based? western countries, many countries such as brazil and argentina have embraced gm

For somebody who lived on a farm for their life you must surely realise the benefits it can bring to the farm, (although not saying anything about anyone enterprise) the arable sector has more to gain from Gm being introduced.

The idea that Ireland should be a GM free zone is stupid due to the fact we have to use chemical inputs which they could potentially be replaced with genes that already exist in the environment.

Digits · 13-03-2012 9:51pm

44leto wrote: »

I feel the only thing man has is science, we have nothing else, this tech has the potential to feed the world, at present we do not, 1 dies every second from malnutrition and its complications. But even with this tech that is not guaranteed. But one thing is for certain. Without it more will starve.

Completely agree with this aspect. People seem to think that I have a problem with GM. Not the case, I'm looking from an economic viewpoint in Ireland's case.

steddyeddy · 13-03-2012 9:53pm

Conflats wrote: »

The main people in the world who are against gm crops tend to be the ones who can afford food without it being a large part of their disposable income.

How would you even know that? Complete b*****ks of a comment.[/QUOTE]

Well have a logical think about it i doubt the people in Africa or any where else starving give two f**ks about weather its Gm or not they just want food.
Plus another point on it would be where are these lobby groups based? western countries, many countries such as brazil and argentina have embraced gm

For somebody who lived on a farm for their life you must surely realise the benefits it can bring to the farm, (although not saying anything about anyone enterprise) the arable sector has more to gain from Gm being introduced.

The idea that Ireland should be a GM free zone is stupid due to the fact we have to use chemical inputs which they could potentially be replaced with genes that already exist in the environment.[/QUOTE]

We use a lot of chemical inputs that would removed if we used gm crops.

Somnus · 13-03-2012 10:22pm

annascott wrote: »

Aren't GM foods carcinogenic?

No

And as for GM in general. Most people who are opposed know nothing about it. I'm studying genetics and cell biology in college (Not saying I'm an expert in the field) and I think people who don't have experience in science have all these fears and misconceptions about what actually happens. Basically it's ignorance, and I mean that in the least offensive way.

Two of the most common arguments are:

1) Cross pollination with non GM plants. Solution: Make sure the plants can't produce seed/pollen. Which then leads on to the second one...

2) Dependency on a company for seed.

So you don't want it to be able to reproduce... but you don't want to have to keep buying seed from the creator...

The only danger in my mind is use of extra herbicides, which can be easily solved by either developing non toxic herbicides, or intensive preparation after harvesting. That problem all ready exists. And I'd imagine farmers all ready by commercial seed.

Finally, to all the people with the "If its not broke don't fix it" attitude. What kinda attitude is that!!? Where do you think the human race would be if we never tried to improve anything?
The standard of living we have now is thanks to experimentation and develop in all areas of science. It's part of what makes us great as a species. We're just getting better at improving things. There's always room to improve something
Absolutely ridiculous attitude in my opinion.

constitutionus · 13-03-2012 11:12pm

voted no on this one.

mainly for branding reasons.

any gobshyte can grow foods so potential developments in other up and coming countries around the world threaten our market share as we aint a cheap country to farm in.

but marketing ourselves as a non GM country ?

thats quids in for the speciality market and those idiots will spend a fortune on it and its a growing futures market.

that all goes out the window if weve got widescale GM farming potentially "infecting" stuff

even the rumour of it threatens sales.

whether thats rational or not is irrelevent.

just look at the number of countries we cant sell beef in because of the british BSE cases.

44leto · 13-03-2012 11:21pm

Dr.Poca wrote: »

No

And as for GM in general. Most people who are opposed know nothing about it. I'm studying genetics and cell biology in college (Not saying I'm an expert in the field) and I think people who don't have experience in science have all these fears and misconceptions about what actually happens. Basically it's ignorance, and I mean that in the least offensive way.

Two of the most common arguments are:

1) Cross pollination with non GM plants. Solution: Make sure the plants can't produce seed/pollen. Which then leads on to the second one...

2) Dependency on a company for seed.

So you don't want it to be able to reproduce... but you don't want to have to keep buying seed from the creator...

The only danger in my mind is use of extra herbicides, which can be easily solved by either developing non toxic herbicides, or intensive preparation after harvesting. That problem all ready exists. And I'd imagine farmers all ready by commercial seed.

Finally, to all the people with the "If its not broke don't fix it" attitude. What kinda attitude is that!!? Where do you think the human race would be if we never tried to improve anything?
The standard of living we have now is thanks to experimentation and develop in all areas of science. It's part of what makes us great as a species. We're just getting better at improving things. There's always room to improve something
Absolutely ridiculous attitude in my opinion.

Kudo I wish I was you and went into this fascinating and exciting field.

It is broke and it does need fixing. Take our recent past and the green revolution,
From Wiki
"The initiatives, led by Norman Borlaug, the "Father of the Green Revolution" credited with saving over a billion people from starvation, involved the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques, distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers".

This was an outstanding success and the programme won the Nobel prize for Norman Borlaug in 1970. Just suppose this never happened and he was to propose such a programme today. You would get all the green heads screaming murder about cross breathing, using hybridized seeds, artificial fertilizers and pesticides. Its not natural, not as nature intended etc.

But the countries that benefited from the green revolution are in trouble, their soil is close to exhaustion, the water resources are under pressure, the over use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers is causing other environmental damage.

So what is needed is a grain crop that uses less water, less pesticides and fertilizers, A miracle, but an attainable one with this technology. You could tell the farmers in the Punjab to go back to the old ways and use the farming techniques that they used before the green revolution. But really there is no going back. They need a tech rescue, a GM tech rescue.

But the world has changed the green revolution made India self sufficient in food production. Now they just buy it on international markets, they can afford to now, pushing the price up more and more.

Roadtrippin · 13-03-2012 11:25pm

In the last couple of years we a had bit more genetic modification here and it seemed to have done the general gene pool the world of good

bring on the introduction of monster potatoes

Randy Anders · 13-03-2012 11:54pm

Ireland has vast amounts of land for food production and our population is tiny, we don't need to bring in GM crops

If we lived in a country like Holland where population density is very high and land is at a premium, then we would have to look at the possibility

As it stands, we don't need it here in Ireland

Should Ireland welcome gentically modified food?

Comments