Should Ireland welcome gentically modified food?

opinion guy · 15-03-2012 8:00pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is a cnut a genetically modified nut?

Yes. They are fish flavoured.....:pac:

Conflats · 15-03-2012 8:36pm

[/QUOTE]
would it be the part about using dangerous viruses like e-coli to break down and invade the cells of crops, or using antibiotic gene markers? or would it be about the blatant political corruption, the patenting of organic life, or the fact that it's never been officially FDA tested or approved? or how about the ecological aspects of completely wiping out sub species which depend on said crops to survive and promote a healthy biosphere? maybe it's the ecological ramifications that have yet to be seen? or maybe it's just the simple fact that we're messing with our foodchain that took nature millions if not billions of years to evolve to its current state.. or could it be just the health defects that affect those who eat it? it could hardly be the fact that growing GMO crops actually yields less crops in the end.. and hands our single most precious commodity over to corporations on a silver platter. could it?[/QUOTE]

Yes nature evolved to overcome problems and man is also just using what nature has provided to try and survive, after all darwin did write about the survival of the fittest and that stands true to this very day.

IF people where to take the attitude of not trying something what would we have achieved? we put man on the moon, we have mobile phones we have cars man has achieved so much.

Plus please give an actual real valid point to how the worlds rapidly growing population is going to be fed? its morally wrong to ignore the potential gm offers to feed this population. Conventional agriculture has achieved so much but the levels of inputs is unsustainable and any of these so called 'tree huggers' are the very ones who want to cut these inputs so unfortunately we dont live in a perfect world!

For anyone who is actually interested i suggest read pages 11-12 in the Irish Farmers Journal for questions which have been answered about the proposed Gm trial on blight in Carlow

steddyeddy · 15-03-2012 9:16pm

dyer wrote: »

which part exactly don't said fcuking tree huggers not fcuking understand?

would it be the part about using dangerous viruses like e-coli to break down and invade the cells of crops, or using antibiotic gene markers?

First of all Im an animal lover and to me there is nothing more important to biodiversity so in theory I would be a "treehugger" but I despise that term so I wouldnt refer to myself as one.

The second point is that e-coli isnt a virus its a bacteria and at that there are thousands of species of E-coli bacteria and most strains of the bacteria are completely harmless. Yet some of articles put out against the use of gm foods site the "dangerous use of E-coli. E-coli is used because it is one of the few bacteria that can be easily cultured in the lab.

or would it be about the blatant political corruption, the patenting of organic life, or the fact that it's never been officially FDA tested or approved?

That might describe monsanto but very few of the scientists behind the actual science fit that description.

or how about the ecological aspects of completely wiping out sub species which depend on said crops to survive and promote a healthy biosphere? maybe it's the ecological ramifications that have yet to be seen? or maybe it's just the simple fact that we're messing with our foodchain that took nature millions if not billions of years to evolve to its current state.

As an aside the current attitude towards biodiversity in Ireland is appalling so thats something I certainly have a concern about. We have the distinction in europe of being the only country that has more extinct birds of prey than extant birds of prey. I posted here recently about Ireland's unscientific and archaic way of dealing with the tb problem. One sophisticated gent even advocated pouring slurry down a set and so the problem will be solved. Another described and animal which isnt livestock as vermin and should be dealt with as such (shot). Finally theres a growing number of people who want to see the pine martin "dealt with".

So I dont buy that gm food will suddenly destroy our reputation in the area of biodiversity. Amongst conservationists we have an appaling reputation.

or could it be just the health defects that affect those who eat it? it could hardly be the fact that growing GMO crops actually yields less crops in the end.. and hands our single most precious commodity over to corporations on a silver platter. could it?

Again corporations are not the only people looking to make gm crops and even the ones who are will hopefully be regulated. your other point about the yeilds and gm. Gm doesnt describe one type of crop. If one gm crop isnt producing yeilds it wouldnt be too hard to further engineer a crop that does. Thats one of the benifits of gm crops that we can constantly improve in a matter of weeks and not years.

bleg · 15-03-2012 9:34pm

dyer wrote:

would it be the part about using dangerous viruses like e-coli

You got this far before you invalidated everything you say following it.

opinion guy · 15-03-2012 10:16pm

bleg wrote: »

You got this far before you invalidated everything you say following it.

To be fair - conflats didnt' say that - his quote box is broken, dyre said that

Roadtrippin · 15-03-2012 11:37pm

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

I think your confusing me with someone else

Ha, I clearly did. Sorry

Was meant for Mister I-hate-tree huggers...

dyer · 16-03-2012 2:57am

bleg wrote: »

You got this far before you invalidated everything you say following it.

twas just a freudian slip..semantics hardly invalidate an arguement, im well aware of the difference between a virus and bacteria. tbh i didn't think too much before writing that post.. i was just trying to show that there are inherent dangers in the process and was amazed how ignorant people can be about them.

messing around with plants and crops seems like a straightforward deal, but it's not, nature is much more complex than that and we don't know the affects this would have in the long term. most species (bacteria,plant,animal you name it) are linked together in elaborate relationships we are only beginning to understand.. when this stuff gets out into the wild there's no going back, why should that be a risk worth taking? we have no idea how it might effect local wildlife or indeed insects, there is already a huge problem due to the global decline of bee populations needed for pollination. what happens when they start to eat this stuff?

call me a tree hugger or whatever you like, i don't like the term either.. im just a person voicing their concerns. i would prefer to eat real food grown by real farmers who know a thing or two about the land through knowledge that has been passed down through generations, or even grow it myself, which i do. most cancers these days days have been attributed to industrialised food processes, additives, hormones etc..and now genetic meddling with the cellular biology of our food source? no thanks says i, but thats just my opinion

So I dont buy that gm food will suddenly destroy our reputation in the area of biodiversity. Amongst conservationists we have an appaling reputation.

that i can whole heartedly agree with and its a dam shame we are so far behind in that regard.

Mickey Dazzler · 16-03-2012 11:00am

I believe my contribution was both sound well constructed.

steddyeddy · 17-03-2012 1:03am

Right to be honest a lot of those who are anti gm are basing their decision on misinformation and false science put out there by those opposed to gm foods at all.

A typical statement is one of a health shop owner who wrote a letter to the Irish times.

EVOLV health shop in Enniscorthy proprietor Matt Ronan has reacted with horror to an application from Teagasc, the agricultural advisory service, to grow trial plots of genetically modified potatoes in Ireland.
'It is absolutely outrageous that a nationally funded organisation should be allowed to utterly disregard the obvious national interests of the country,' commented the man from the shop at Castle Hill in Enniscorthy. The move has led to calls from those opposed to GM foods for a boycott of Teagasc.

No reason given why gm is bad presumably because its science based.

A reply by a scientist working for teagasc (not Monsanto) was sent to the Irish times:

Teagasc has rejected claims from organic farming organisation IOFGA that it's wasting taxpayers' money on a proposed trial of genetically modified blight-resistant potatoes.
IOFGA development officer Grace Maher claimed it was "economic suicide" to consider growing GM crops in Ireland and that it would threaten Ireland's €9.1bn worth of exports.
However, Teagasc scientist John Spink said the proposed four-year research project would be funded by the EU, not Ireland.
He added that the trials would be on a 20sqm plot of potatoes with blight-resistant genes from other potatoes and no other crops.

Its only potatoes that are being introduced and their blight resistant reducing the need to use pesticide! Am I missing something here? Is there anything wrong with this.

The term GM food does not mean monsanto nor does it mean any one thing. Gm can be a organisim that is genetically modified by anyone for a particular trait. Thats it. We have been modifying plants for thousands of years already now its time to refine it.

Somnus · 17-03-2012 1:17am

dyer wrote: »

twas just a freudian slip..semantics hardly invalidate an arguement, im well aware of the difference between a virus and bacteria.

I was going to address that point but steddyeddy got there first.
What you have to understand is just because it's the word virus doesn't mean it's dangerous. When viruses are used as expression vectors for any sort of genetic engineering you simply cut out the genes in their genome that cause harmful effects and replace them with the genes you want to insert.

You're just using the viruses abilty to infiltrate the cell to your advantage, there is literally no harmful effect at all as you've removed the harmful aspects.

And in regards to what would happen to insects eating GM crops, probably nothing. As far as I am aware, and feel free to correct me with a reputable source, there is no proof of uptake of harmful genes from consuming GM food.

As I said in my earlier post, and has been reiterated by other pro GM posters, most peoples fears are because they don't know enough about the subject. Phrases like genetic engineering and viruses sound scary to people who haven't studied it.

Johro · 17-03-2012 1:25am

Mickey Dazzler wrote: »

Yes Yes fcuking yes.

I can't fcuking stand those fcuking tree hugging fcuking cnuts who harp on about it being a bad fcuking thing when they have no fcuking idea what the fcuk whole fcuking thing is about. Fcuking tree hugging fcuking cnuts.

That one big generalisation, one assumption and a whole lot of cnuts. Talk about not having a clue.

Gbear · 17-03-2012 1:44am

Either we embrace genetic modification of food, or we sit idly by as, with the global population set to keep growing, we accept that famine is going to kill lots of people.
There is, as with any new technology, a "yuck response" to GM food that goes far beyond the rational objections to it.

That's not to say the likes of Monsanto should be given free reign, but we need GM food to feed this planet and it's up to governments to ensure that we implement it safely and fairly. It's sad that that's unlikely to happen.

Somnus · 17-03-2012 1:50am

Gbear wrote: »

Either we embrace genetic modification of food, or we sit idly by ...

That's not to say the likes of Monsanto should be given free reign, but we need GM food to feed this planet and it's up to governments to ensure that we implement it safely and fairly. It's sad that that's unlikely to happen.

That's the other thing. Either way GM will most likely be taken up all over the world. We might as well play a part in the inevitable, surely anti-GM protesters can see it won't be stopped.

And the more countries/organisations (like Teagasc) that take part, the more the control/profits are spread out. Other companies will emerge to compete with Monsanto, thus solving the monopoly issue.

dvpower · 17-03-2012 2:31am

I don't have any ethical problems with genetically modifying food, but why would we want to use it here?

There would be the usual benefits of better yields and disease resistance, but while the technology is still controversial (rightly or wrongly), I think the benefits of having a 'green' image far outweigh the benefits of GM, for Ireland, at this point in time.

steddyeddy · 17-03-2012 2:41am

dvpower wrote: »

I don't have any ethical problems with genetically modifying food, but why would we want to use it here?

There would be the usual benefits of better yields and disease resistance, but while the technology is still controversial (rightly or wrongly), I think the benefits of having a 'green' image far outweigh the benefits of GM, for Ireland, at this point in time.

GM does not mean "not green". Our aproach to biodiversity is not green anyway. Why shouldnt we move forward in science just because some people think its controversial? If we didnt move forward everytime something was seen as controversial we wouldnt be living anywhere near as advanced as we do now.

dyer · 17-03-2012 3:55pm

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

yes the world population is growing.. but populations have a tendency to level off at a certain stage anyway as can be seen in most central european countries, they dont increase exponentially. there is a big problem with the way we are living our lives.. with the way shops are stocked to the gills with produce, most of which will never even sell. that way of life is not sustainable.. we are literally raping the worlds oceans and lands to appease our needs. we are not going to solve these problems with science alone.. that's just taking the easy, and dare i say it, cowardly way out.

i strongly oppose GM food, not just for moral and ethical reasons, but also because of the dangers to human health and the eco system. changes need to be made.. people need to start making conscious decisions about what they eat and who they give their money to. i really believe going the way of GM food is a grave mistake, and one i hope my children don't live to see.

We have been modifying plants for thousands of years already now its time to refine it.

there is a marked difference between cross breeding/splicing plants and actually messing with their genes. it would be exceptionally foolish to see things that way.

GLaDOS · 17-03-2012 3:59pm

Out of interest, what are peoples opinion on using GM crops for pest resistance, reducing the need for potentially harmful pesticides?

bleg · 17-03-2012 4:05pm

dyer wrote: »

we are not going to solve these problems with science alone.. that's just taking the easy, and dare i say it, cowardly way out.

Frankly, I find this opinion very very scary.

dyer · 17-03-2012 4:08pm

i'm not surprised..

Neodymium · 17-03-2012 4:28pm

I personally don't like the idea of GM foods but if world population growth keeps increasing GM foods will become a necessity. The current rate of world population growth is 1.1%. The current world population has recently surpassed 7 billion and is expected to reach 8 billion by 2025. Hypothetically speaking if world population keeps increasing at a rate of 1.1% our current population will double to 14 billion in around 64 years.

dyer · 17-03-2012 4:36pm

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

steddyeddy · 17-03-2012 4:36pm

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

Somnus · 17-03-2012 4:43pm

dyer wrote: »

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

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

dyer wrote: »

i strongly oppose GM food, not just for moral and ethical reasons, but also because of the dangers to human health and the eco system

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

Somnus · 17-03-2012 4:45pm

dyer wrote: »

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

What has this got to do with GM

hatrickpatrick · 17-03-2012 4:46pm

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

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

steddyeddy · 17-03-2012 4:51pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

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

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

Somnus · 17-03-2012 4:52pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

Chances of this happening are about as likely as any crop developing a random mutation that would ruin it. Genetic engineering can be achieved very cleanly. And the genes can be precisely inserted. Random recombination events can happen to any organism.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

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

bleg · 17-03-2012 4:56pm

Dr.Poca wrote: »

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

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

Stercus Accidit · 17-03-2012 5:09pm

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

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

bleg · 17-03-2012 5:11pm

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

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

Should Ireland welcome gentically modified food?

Comments