Should Ireland welcome gentically modified food?

steddyeddy · 12-03-2012 1:44am

ted1 wrote: »

We're a small island with limited land mass, we can't do high volumes. Our niche is superior organic natural products that come with a premium. Leave the freak show crops to the high volume producers.

Gm crops do not need to be high volume. Can we compete with our competitors if their food tastes better, lasts longer or is bigger?

SeanW · 12-03-2012 1:45am

steddyeddy wrote: »

Plus we have been eating genetically modified food for thousands of years. Its not a new practice.

Not really, for thousands of years we've been using natural means to make different types of food, for example, encouraging cross-pollination of breeds of apple tree.

The concept of growing Franken-seeds in laboratories by arbitralily splicing genes from one thing into another ... that's totally different to selective breeding.

TheBegotten · 12-03-2012 1:49am

SeanW wrote: »

steddyeddy wrote: »

Plus we have been eating genetically modified food for thousands of years. Its not a new practice.

Not really, for thousands of years we've been using natural means to make different types of food, for example, encouraging cross-pollination of breeds of apple tree.

The concept of growing Franken-seeds in laboratories by arbitralily splicing genes from one thing into another ... that's totally different to selective breeding.

Selective breeding is a hatchet, GM is a scalpel. Which does the job cleaner?

woodoo · 12-03-2012 1:50am

I'm very uncomfortable with companies owning patents on foods. Particularly when the GM crop can spread around to other farmers land and they then are in hoc to the GM company. Very dangerous road to go down.

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

44leto · 12-03-2012 1:52am

SeanW wrote: »

Not really, for thousands of years we've been using natural means to make different types of food, for example, encouraging cross-pollination of breeds of apple tree.

The concept of growing Franken-seeds in laboratories by arbitralily splicing genes from one thing into another ... that's another thing altogether.

Not encouraging but actively selecting, there is a difference. There are examples of natural apples, carrots, potatoes in the wild, but they are bitter and inedible. The vege we have now would not last in the wild without the intervention of man.

In effect we have created sugar pots, carrots, apples, oranges even onions, peas and peppers etc. So most our cuisine is not natural. Not even our livestock.

So now we have the power to select other qualities and why not.

Chorcai · 12-03-2012 1:52am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0uls507hvM

Round-Up, Round-Up ready Soya beans... GM foods are not the way to go.

steddyeddy · 12-03-2012 1:52am

SeanW wrote: »

Not really, for thousands of years we've been using natural means to make different types of food, for example, encouraging cross-pollination of breeds of apple tree.

The concept of growing Franken-seeds in laboratories by arbitralily splicing genes from one thing into another ... that's totally different to selective breeding.

No its not in the slightest. We have been breeding plants for certain traits for thousands of years. Now we have simply identified the genes associated with certain traits and implanted them directly into the target plants. If anything genetic modification of food is a lot more accurate than the random cross pollination of crops were you can get any combination of genes.

GLaDOS · 12-03-2012 1:57am

I had a lecture on this the other day, there is a technique of using chloroplast DNA to introduce the required trait, which results in said DNA not entering the pollen. This rules out the risk of cross pollination with non GM plants. I've no idea if this technique is currently being used at the moment though.

steddyeddy · 12-03-2012 2:00am

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.

Plant scientists on Sunday said they had bred a strain of wheat that thrives in saline soils, boosting the quest to feed Earth's growing population at a time of water stress and climate change.
Durum wheat with a salt-loving gene had yields which were up to 25 percent greater than ordinary counterparts, according to trials carried out in highly saline fields.

steddyeddy · 12-03-2012 2:02am

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I had a lecture on this the other day, there is a technique of using chloroplast DNA to introduce the required trait, which results in said DNA not entering the pollen. This rules out the risk of cross pollination with non GM plants. I've no idea if this technique is currently being used at the moment though.

Indeed all of the concerns about gm food can be worked out.

Einhard · 12-03-2012 2:06am

Eh we've been using a genetically modified crop for thousands of years. It's called wheat.

Mickeroo · 12-03-2012 2:07am

I agree with gm food as a viable option but i disagree with patenting the seeds and having them owned by a large corporation so i voted no.

Chuck Stone · 12-03-2012 2:07am

We have people in the west dying from over eating and we waste millions of tons of food annually.

What is the need for GM foods?

blatantrereg · 12-03-2012 2:15am

steddyeddy wrote: »

Why?

Because GM foodstuffs are associated with bad practices.

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

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

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

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

44leto · 12-03-2012 2:24am

blatantrereg wrote: »

Because GM foodstuffs are associated with bad practices.

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

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

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

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

But haven't modern industrial farms always bought seed, also if farmers are not buying a Monsanto herbicide they have been using other herbicides and insecticides, these do have a negative impact on the environment as well.

But if they didn't use them, that would have a very and extreme negative impact on population, as in, a lot more would starve to death. A prospect awaiting more of us if we do not learn how to produce more food. This tech is the ONLY hope for that.

Johro · 12-03-2012 2:30am

TheBegotten wrote: »

Selective breeding is a hatchet, GM is a scalpel. Which does the job cleaner?

Wtf?

steddyeddy · 12-03-2012 2:33am

Johro wrote: »

Wtf?

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.

brimal · 12-03-2012 2:42am

Absolutely we should accept GM food.

blatantrereg · 12-03-2012 2:45am

44leto wrote: »

But haven't modern industrial farms always bought seed, also if farmers are not buying a Monsanto herbicide they have been using other herbicides and insecticides, these do have a negative impact on the environment as well.

But if they didn't use them, that would have a very and extreme negative impact on population, as in, a lot more would starve to death. A prospect awaiting more of us if we do not learn how to produce more food. This tech is the ONLY hope for that.

Herbicide is a plant killer. You can't use too much of it around crops or you'll just kill them. Unless the crops are genetically modified. Abundant use of toxic chemicals is always bad when it comes to producing food though alright. In Ireland it is also completely unnecessary. This is naturally a very fertile country.

GM foods are certainly not the only hope for avoiding mass starvation. I dont even think they're a safe or sensible approach - certainly not with the Monsanto approach of trying to make sure nothing can grow unless it's been bought from them.

Better approaches would include encouraging vegetarianism and reducing reliance on animal foods, as well as encouraging contraceptive use and discouraging having large numbers of children.

guitarzero · 12-03-2012 2:47am

Like most sh*t that we eat, we'll only know if its good or bad in about 20 years time when RTE announce that Cow and Gate, Coke and Beechams are to take products of the market as they've found that they are a huge cause of cancer. So for now, like a proper Irish citizen should do - "Waaaay!!! Ah, sure why not!"

Johro · 12-03-2012 2:49am

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

sdanseo · 12-03-2012 2:54am

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.

Johro · 12-03-2012 2:54am

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.

kumate_champ07 · 12-03-2012 2:57am

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

Johro · 12-03-2012 3:10am

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

charlemont · 12-03-2012 3:13am

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.

SeanW · 12-03-2012 3:13am

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.

Yakult · 12-03-2012 3:24am

“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.

Johro · 12-03-2012 3:30am

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.

opinion guy · 12-03-2012 3:47am

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.

TheBegotten wrote: »

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 ?

TheBegotten wrote: »

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.

Should Ireland welcome gentically modified food?

Comments