Should Ireland welcome gentically modified food?

44leto · 13-03-2012 11:59pm

Randy Anders wrote: »

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

We are a trading economy and our farming land is a resource so are you saying we don't need to increase production, are you saying we don't need all those extra foreign earnings and those extra jobs and wealth?????

Johro · 14-03-2012 1:39am

D wrote: »

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.

Exactly. That, for me, is the biggest threat.
Also, Monsanto produces the weedkiller Roundup, Gm crops are engineered to be resistant to Roundup, so the idea is to spray the poison liberally and crops will be fine, everything else will die. Wonderful... So much for Ireland's green image and unpolluted topsoil.
And they have the cheek to tell us that we'll benefit. No we won't. The likes of Monsanto will benefit greatly.
This is all about money, it's not for the good of the world's population. Public disapproval of genetically modified foods isn't just about the science, it's also about the principle. It will make a lot of money for a few people, create a monopoly, and bio-diversity will suffer.

Johro · 14-03-2012 1:47am

44leto wrote: »

We are a trading economy and our farming land is a resource so are you saying we don't need to increase production, are you saying we don't need all those extra foreign earnings and those extra jobs and wealth?????

No, we need to pay farmers decent prices for their crops. Farmers need bigger fields and higher yields and increased production only because they get paid pennies, because we don't want to pay for quality food down the supermarkets.
As was said before, Ireland is uniquely placed in Europe, it should make the most of its green reputation. Not spoil it by going the GM route.

Conflats · 14-03-2012 11:41am

constitutionus wrote: »

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.

Actually Ireland also had outbreaks of BSE so that is not a valid point in this argument, although we have not had any outbreaks for the last few years.

You use the word infecting? whats infecting things? if its the transgenic crops the genes they use already exist in the natural environment.

The consumers are the very people who are calling for less chemical inputs to there food, and like everything in life you cant have it every way there is a choice which needs to be made
1) No Gm and more chemical inputs( because this is just the way it goes for a number of resaons)
2)Gm in a rational way with proper laws and the use of gm to benefit everyone with relevant gene transfer

Fact of life on this planet we are using up our resources and the population is expanding rapidly so unless there is a major slowdown in population growth something needs to be done quick.

The last green revolution helped to multiply yields significantly, example Wheat yields in western europe( highest average yield's in the world are obtained here) increased by 2% per year 20 years ago now it lucky to be 1% while maize in the states etc is increasing by 8% per anumn in some cases.

twinQuins · 14-03-2012 11:48am

Good to see Luddism still alive and well...

There are certainly arguments as to how GM food is implemented (mostly surrounding copyrighting and patents) but they shouldn't be used as an argument against GM foods as a concept.

Conflats · 14-03-2012 11:57am

Johro wrote: »

Exactly. That, for me, is the biggest threat.
Also, Monsanto produces the weedkiller Roundup, Gm crops are engineered to be resistant to Roundup, so the idea is to spray the poison liberally and crops will be fine, everything else will die. Wonderful... So much for Ireland's green image and unpolluted topsoil.
And they have the cheek to tell us that we'll benefit. No we won't. The likes of Monsanto will benefit greatly.
This is all about money, it's not for the good of the world's population. Public disapproval of genetically modified foods isn't just about the science, it's also about the principle. It will make a lot of money for a few people, create a monopoly, and bio-diversity will suffer.

Yes that is this form of gm which may affect biodiversity, on the subject of roundup it is now a generic product which you can buy off anyone you like, it was one major reason behind Monsanto producing these RR crops. Also Roundup is one of the safer herbicides vs the ones which have been banned due the fact they are extremely toxic, plus the fact it has been shown to break down in the soil and not accumulate.

That in my opinion is where government regulation can stop this only allow crops which have a relevance to irish agriculture such as Fungal disease resitance and increase N use efficiency.

Biodiversity in Ireland is not under threat due to a major factor the 80% use of agricultural land for grass based enterprises and the 10% for arable and the rest for forestry and rough grazing. The arable sector stands to benefit directly from this technology at a time when we have to fight our corner in world markets against the big countries like ukraine, russia and argentina we have to maximise tonnes per ha.

Also Irish tillage farming does not have the vast monocultures that exist in other countries which also reduces the potential impact it may have on biodiversity

TheBegotten · 14-03-2012 5:57pm

Just to point out, a crop that CAN'T produce seeds is no good. The fruit that you actually eat is the swollen ovary around the seed. Also, like it or not, but genes and genomes could and most likely will become patentable. Tracker genes are already being proposed in breeding circles to trace an animals origin, and genetic implants in pollinating flies and bees couldn't be too far off. Ireland should welcome this with open arms because we have some of the best scientific institutes to develop and support it, e.g. the CRANN nano-science facility in Trinity.

YFlyer · 14-03-2012 6:37pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

Not the same.

YFlyer · 14-03-2012 6:42pm

TheBegotten wrote: »

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

Bad analogy.

YFlyer · 14-03-2012 6:44pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

Have they?

steddyeddy · 14-03-2012 7:32pm

YFlyer wrote: »

Have they?

Sorry Im sure you will understand but myself and others proponents and opponents have put forward detailed scientific arguements to back up our views two word replies and queries will not get a detailed reply from me.

Caliden · 14-03-2012 7:42pm

http://www.dawn.com/2012/03/11/us-scientists-warn-epa-on-monsanto-corn-rootworm.html

Rootworm adapting to 'rootworm' proof GM crops.

Monsanto now telling farmers to use insecticides, the same insecticides they were told they wouldn't need if they used GM crops...

steddyeddy · 14-03-2012 7:50pm

Caliden wrote: »

http://www.dawn.com/2012/03/11/us-scientists-warn-epa-on-monsanto-corn-rootworm.html

Rootworm adapting to 'rootworm' proof GM crops.

Monsanto now telling farmers to use insecticides, the same insecticides they were told they wouldn't need if they used GM crops...

Monsanto are not the only ones working on gm crops! I could literally walk into the lab and give it shot (it would probraly kill whoever took it but what the hell).

opinion guy · 14-03-2012 7:56pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

(it would probraly kill whoever took it but what the hell).

Lol.....you see its that wreckless attitude thats the problem.

The precautionary principle seems to have been all but forgotten.

steddyeddy · 14-03-2012 8:16pm

opinion guy wrote: »

Lol.....you see its that wreckless attitude thats the problem.

The precautionary principle seems to have been all but forgotten.

I was just illustrating that Monsanto do not hold exclusive rights to genetic engineering.

opinion guy · 14-03-2012 8:20pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

I was just illustrating that Monsanto do not hold exclusive rights to genetic engineering.

I was making a joke! :rolleyes:

(well partly)

steddyeddy · 14-03-2012 8:25pm

opinion guy wrote: »

I was making a joke! :rolleyes:

(well partly)

Ah ok sorry

lcrcboy · 14-03-2012 9:36pm

http://strawberryblu.com/2011/08/21/so-whats-with-the-blue-strawberry/

Blue Strawberries anyone??

GLaDOS · 14-03-2012 9:49pm

TheBegotten wrote: »

Just to point out, a crop that CAN'T produce seeds is no good.

The yellow bananas most people eat are selectively bred to be sterile i.e. the don't produce a viable seed. The crop is renewed through vegetative propagation.

Johro · 15-03-2012 1:25am

bleg wrote: »

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.

That's a pretty ignorant remark, there are lots of valid arguments against GMO coming from the same scientific background as the people who are for it.
As for Ireland 'riding on the cusp of the wave', it's a bit late for that. GM is all over Europe already. Much better for Ireland to be true to it's green image and stick with the ban on GM crops and the GM free zone, since that stance is actually applauded by many in the EU.
It's a mistake to regard any new technology or scientific breakthrough as a triumph, many such mistakes have been made in the past.

Johro · 15-03-2012 1:50am

bleg wrote: »

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

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

Oh come on, anyone can find a youtube video that supports their view. I'm getting kinda fed up too with the notion that people who don't want genetically modified foods are luddites or in any way anti-progress or 'denying science' . Ffs.
There's plenty of scientific material to be found on the dangers of GMO's if anyone cared to look.

steddyeddy · 15-03-2012 2:10am

Johro wrote: »

Oh come on, anyone can find a youtube video that supports their view. I'm getting kinda fed up too with the notion that people who don't want genetically modified foods are luddites or in any way anti-progress or 'denying science' . Ffs.
There's plenty of scientific material to be found on the dangers of GMO's if anyone cared to look.

There is for and against Johro but the problem is some people seem to be rejecting it out of hand. The other thing Ill say in monsanto does not hold exclusive rights to gm crops! I wouldnt like that myself.

dyer · 15-03-2012 2:42am

This is very much worth the watch : http://www.thefutureoffood.com/onlinevideo.html

The benefits of GM crops are highly exaggerated and severely short sighted.

Roadtrippin · 15-03-2012 5:24pm

lcrcboy wrote: »

http://strawberryblu.com/2011/08/21/so-whats-with-the-blue-strawberry/

Blue Strawberries anyone??

Yes, please. As long as they taste like strawberries :pac: Nom nom.
But according to that link "the gene that regulates the production of the antifreeze trait was taken from the Arctic Flounder fish and was genetically introduced into the strawberry plant"

I'd say those strawberries may taste of Arctic Ocean or fish or both

No, thanks!

Andy-Pandy · 15-03-2012 5:32pm

Interesting guardian article on the movement in California to have foods labelled as containing GM if they contain GM ingredients.

Mickey Dazzler · 15-03-2012 5:34pm

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.

steddyeddy · 15-03-2012 5:35pm

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.

Is a cnut a genetically modified nut?

Andy-Pandy · 15-03-2012 5:47pm

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.

Great way to add to the conversation dude, do you have anything constructive to add or are you just gonna mouth off? Do you even have any idea what it is that we are discussing? Ohhh, and i am one of these tree huggers you are talking of and proud to be one.

dyer · 15-03-2012 6:43pm

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.

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? 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?

Andy-Pandy · 15-03-2012 7:08pm

Roadtrippin wrote: »

Ha, you're one to talk about adding greatly to the conversation... After your little rant dispersed with f**k about 20 times you really lost all credibility in terms of contributing to conversation...

Maybe go hug a tree. Might make you feel better Anger management classes or a valium may be the better option in your case though

I think your confusing me with someone else

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.

Should Ireland welcome gentically modified food?

Comments