Do you oppose GM crops?

ChocolateSauce

This is an important issue in the world today and I was wondering what your take on them is.

Along with your reasons for opposing them (if you do), is there any situation that would convince you to change your mind? If so please post.

Húrin

Yes, because we do not know the risks involved, or the risks involved are too great

GM Crops are purely a money-making monopoly scheme, and I find the lies used to make it appear that it is anything but this, to be objectionable.

Macha

No, I do not oppose GM crops.

Húrin wrote: »

GM Crops are purely a money-making monopoly scheme, and I find the lies used to make it appear that it is anything but this, to be objectionable.

Totally agree. What else would explain the development of "terminator technology"? Monsanto are unbelievably evil.

And no one has been able to explain away the pesky little problem of cross-pollination, or what I prefer to call "cross-contamination".

Unfortunately, what could be a very useful technology has been hijacked by profiteering giant multinationals and now the whole thing stinks.

djpbarry

taconnol wrote: »

Unfortunately, what could be a very useful technology has been hijacked by profiteering giant multinationals and now the whole thing stinks.

I would add that the principle of GM technology has been rather foolishly branded as evil by environmental groups the world over, without any justification. The motives of certain corporations may be evil, but the technology itself is extremely useful.

For the record, I did not vote; I am neither 'for' nor 'against' GM crops, in principle.

Macha

No, I do not oppose GM crops.

djpbarry wrote: »

I would add that the principle of GM technology has been rather foolishly branded as evil by environmental groups the world over, without any justification. The motives of certain corporations may be evil, but the technology itself is extremely useful.

And at the same time, it is being lauded as the way to cure world hunger, (and world peace, stop wars...) when in fact, there is more than enough food in this world and famines are caused by human conflict - civil war, etc

As usual, when there are billions of $$ involved, and another technology that stops humans from having to change their behaviour, the truth is harder to find.

Kama

Yes, because we shouldn't be interfering with nature to this extent.

In theory, I'm not against GM. In practice, I'm dead set against.

The technology may be neutral, but its application is far from. It's pushed as a end to hunger, but this isn't plausible, since famine is a distributional issue rather than a production one. The 'Enclosure' of the genome is yet another squatters-patent, and a dangerous one for world food security.

SeanW

I voted no, but in the poll was deficient in not allowing a neutral option.

If you own a hammer, you can use it to drive nails into wood, and build something. Perhaps something useful. Something good.
Then again, you could take the hammer with you to pub, get tanked up beyond belief and use the hammer to smash some poor sods head in.

Like many other things, it's not what we have, it's what we DO with what we have that makes the difference. Dynamite was originally invented for mining operations, but that invention and other explosives contributed to dramatically 'improved' war munitions and terrorist arsenals of the century-odd since.

GM crops can be similar - they can have good use in specific circumstances - but without a clear strategy, and clear legal protections for victims and potential victims of cross-contamination (so people don't end up like this man), GM crops do indeed have the potential to do more harm than good.
Much like handing hammers out to alcoholic jailbirds instead of carpenters.
Or giving dynamite to feuding families instead of miners.

Kama

Yes, because we shouldn't be interfering with nature to this extent.

Agree with Sean, it's how its done.

The way GM crops have been introduced, they haven't taken any of the cares and precautions (like crosspollination) that would be basic requirements for me to test the technology. WHich imo constitutes gross negligence.

ChocolateSauce

Kama wrote: »

Agree with Sean, it's how its done.

The way GM crops have been introduced, they haven't taken any of the cares and precautions (like crosspollination) that would be basic requirements for me to test the technology. WHich imo constitutes gross negligence.

This is patently untrue. It would indeed be gross negligence if they weren't tested, but they are. In fact, they are tested on a case by case basis for hundreds of thousands of hours before they are deemed fit for use. It has been said that no product in the world under goes more testing than GM crops.

Macha

No, I do not oppose GM crops.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

This is patently untrue. It would indeed be gross negligence if they weren't tested, but they are. In fact, they are tested on a case by case basis for hundreds of thousands of hours before they are deemed fit for use. It has been said that no product in the world under goes more testing than GM crops.

There simply have been no long-term trials on GM. In addition, many field trials have indeed resulted in serious cross-pollination, as the risks are underestimated:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070531191126.htm

It's like Pandora's box: once you let it out, can you be sure you can put it back in? And at a time when we are not 100% of the results? Lunacy.

brianthebard

I think there are clear problems in the agriculture sector worldwide atm, things that can be sorted out without the use of gm and can increase yields without putting people in danger. I've yet to see a good argument for gm apart from "It'll stop world hunger" hyperbole that is clearly not going to happen any time soon, for various reasons entirely unconnected to what sort of seed people use.

Kama

Yes, because we shouldn't be interfering with nature to this extent.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

This is patently untrue. It would indeed be gross negligence if they weren't tested, but they are.

I think we have different thresholds for what constitutes adequate testing, rather than either of us spouting 'patent nonsense'.

On one hand, there's the straight scientific side, stuff like gene transfer and cross-pollinization (Terminator gene being the scarier here), and effects on an ecology, such as insects eating BT gened material.
Contamination of non-GM crops has been demonstrated, and several of the test-sites for GM showed this. Given that we don't know how widespread GM pans out, risk analysis is rather difficult; Pandora's Box, as taconnel notes. Hence, the Precautionary Principle.

On the more political-economic side, we are talking about food security, who controls seeds, the effects on farmers, and so on, while on a slighly more ethical level there are issues with the privatization of genomic assets, pejoratively called biopiracy.

ChocolateSauce

It seems to me the solution to the risk of cross pollination is to produce sterile GM seeds. Of course if this were done people would complain that the GM producers are making farmers dependent on them.

No pleasing some people :rolleyes:

brianthebard

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It seems to me the solution to the risk of cross pollination is to produce sterile GM seeds. Of course if this were done people would complain that the GM producers are making farmers dependent on them.

No pleasing some people :rolleyes:

Eh that is making farmers dependent on them. Why would you think that is a good thing? Monsanto has gone out of its way to copyright as many seeds as possible just so it can do such a thing. I can only hope you are making a poor attempt at humour, because the ignorance displayed in your post is scary.

Macha

No, I do not oppose GM crops.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It seems to me the solution to the risk of cross pollination is to produce sterile GM seeds. Of course if this were done people would complain that the GM producers are making farmers dependent on them.

No pleasing some people :rolleyes:

Oh yes aren't we so pesky and irritating, asking questions over GM and big business. You don't solve one problem, open up another major one and just wipe your hands and shout "all done!".

Terminator technology is not the solution for many valid reasons.

Kama

Yes, because we shouldn't be interfering with nature to this extent.

The risky aspect of sterile Terminators is Horizontal Gene Transfer, so said sterile gene could cross into other species, which could have devastating consequences.

Just looking at this as a cost-benefit risk analysis framework, without going into any of the social or broader issues, this is a negligent approach, which is externalising significant risks onto the public and genetic commons, for unproven benefits.

Try and work out the costs for containing and reversing contamination, once it occurs. If this liability is accepted, rather than ignored, there's a sounder case for introduction. Problem is, the costs would be massive, so it won't be.

Corporate free-riding much?

ChocolateSauce

brianthebard wrote: »

Eh that is making farmers dependent on them. Why would you think that is a good thing? Monsanto has gone out of its way to copyright as many seeds as possible just so it can do such a thing. I can only hope you are making a poor attempt at humour, because the ignorance displayed in your post is scary.

I never said otherwise.

I think companies should be allowed to copyright them. They spent the money, time and effort to invent them, why shouldn't they make a profit? And if the crop is better than natural crops, wouldn't farmers make more money? Wouldn't that make it worth it to have to buy them again? If the farmer didn't agree, they could go back to regular crops.

Having terminating seeds would also solve the problem of farmers who did not pay for them using them, and there would be no nasty and questionable lawsuits.

Terminator technology is not the solution for many valid reasons.

Which are?

kama wrote:

I think we have different thresholds for what constitutes adequate testing, rather than either of us spouting 'patent nonsense'.

It isn't nonsense. It is untrue to say they are not tested. Ten years is how long the average GM crop is tested in sealed labs before it is approved.

Macha

No, I do not oppose GM crops.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I think companies should be allowed to copyright them. They spent the money, time and effort to invent them, why shouldn't they make a profit? And if the crop is better than natural crops, wouldn't farmers make more money? Wouldn't that make it worth it to have to buy them again? If the farmer didn't agree, they could go back to regular crops.

Nice theory but doesn't work like that in reality. Your land can become contaminated and the pollen residues are hard to remove. Once there is even a small % of patented content in your crop, the multinationals can swoop in with their big suit lawyers & slap a lawsuit on your ass. Kinda like what happened with Percy Schmeiser.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Having terminating seeds would also solve the problem of farmers who did not pay for them using them, and there would be no nasty and questionable lawsuits.

Terminator technology is just completely, completely evil. Why should a farmer have to pay for his seeds, year after year after year? How do you think this could possibly be good for a farmer's profitability - by adding another bill to pay at the end of the year?? Oh and you usually have to buy their pesticides as well, eg Roundup.

These seeds, and GM in general, also have serious implications for biodiversity.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It isn't nonsense. It is untrue to say they are not tested. Ten years is how long the average GM crop is tested in sealed labs before it is approved.

You still haven't answered points over cross-pollination.

brianthebard

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I never said otherwise.

I think companies should be allowed to copyright them. They spent the money, time and effort to invent them, why shouldn't they make a profit? And if the crop is better than natural crops, wouldn't farmers make more money? Wouldn't that make it worth it to have to buy them again? If the farmer didn't agree, they could go back to regular crops.

Having terminating seeds would also solve the problem of farmers who did not pay for them using them, and there would be no nasty and questionable lawsuits.



Which are?



It isn't nonsense. It is untrue to say they are not tested. Ten years is how long the average GM crop is tested in sealed labs before it is approved.

You don't have the first clue about farming or agriculture in general. Saying the gm crop is better than natural is completely subjective for a start. Secondly if a farmer pays for seed and keeps a surplus why shouldn't he be allowed sow that seed? Why should he have to go buy more? What about the farmer beside the gm guy who's trying to be free range or organic, why should he suffer? Monsanto don't just patent their gm crops btw, they are also in the process of patenting non gm crops. Is that fair? Why?

Kama

Yes, because we shouldn't be interfering with nature to this extent.

In case missed it, I didn't say 'twas nonsense, explicitly said we had different ideas on what safety threshold was adequate. The issue at hand is cross-polination and gene transfer, which you appear to be avoiding...In the case of Terminator, that the sterile expression could translate across into other species. Can you conceptualise the consequence for an ecology? If not, you are either being wilfully ignorant as to the risk, or negligent. In the case of Agro-Bio corps, its most likely the latter; too much money has been sunk into GM for them to back out.

I think companies should be allowed to copyright them. They spent the money, time and effort to invent them

It's arguable that a modification is an 'invention' in a conventional sense; rice was not 'invented', a strain of rice was modified. A case can be made that property (the genetic commons) is being appropriated and privatised without recompense.

ChocolateSauce

taconnol wrote: »

Nice theory but doesn't work like that in reality. Your land can become contaminated and the pollen residues are hard to remove. Once there is even a small % of patented content in your crop, the multinationals can swoop in with their big suit lawyers & slap a lawsuit on your ass. Kinda like what happened with Percy Schmeiser.

But if the crops don't reproduce, problem solved. I agree that the law suit issue is messy, but that shouldn't be reason enough to oppose them.

Terminator technology is just completely, completely evil. Why should a farmer have to pay for his seeds, year after year after year? How do you think this could possibly be good for a farmer's profitability - by adding another bill to pay at the end of the year?? Oh and you usually have to buy their pesticides as well, eg Roundup.

Evil? What a strong word. Farmers should have to pay for seeds year after year if they are benefiting from technology that a business spent money inventing. It more than pays off as they have higher yields and lower expenses (due to less pesticide/herbicide/fungicide needed). If it wasn't worth it, they wouldn't do it. In the US, farmers are one of the biggest supporters of GM.

These seeds, and GM in general, also have serious implications for biodiversity.

Not if they don't reproduce. And what biodiversity? In most places where there are people, nature consists of farmed fields with some shrubs in between. I don't recall entire ecosystems relying on wild wheat.

You still haven't answered points over cross-pollination.

I have-the answer is seeds that cannot pollinate.

brianthebard wrote:

You don't have the first clue about farming or agriculture in general

I'm not an expert, true,but to say I don't know anything about it is a hefty assumption.

Secondly if a farmer pays for seed and keeps a surplus why shouldn't he be allowed sow that seed?

Because he is buying that seed from a company that owns its genetic make up and is entering into a contract. He should buy more because it is a mutually beneficial relationship. Of course, if he doesn't want to, he is free to use normal seed.

What about the farmer beside the gm guy who's trying to be free range or organic, why should he suffer?

Free-range crops?

And assuming cross-polination does not happen, how would the organic farmer suffer? It seems to me that he would benefit from not being so near to a farm that uses loads of chemicals.

Monsanto don't just patent their gm crops btw, they are also in the process of patenting non gm crops. Is that fair? Why?

If this is true, I'll be on your side on this one, patenting crops they didn't have a hand in is over the top. But can you source that please?

kama wrote:

In the case of Terminator, that the sterile expression could translate across into other species.

This is a known phenomenon among single celled organsms, but the evidence seems to show that it doesn't happen to any meaningful extent in larger ones. Sure, in a being that is single celled they could mutate into something new, but in something with millions of cells, like crops, it isn't going to matter if one of their cells is somehow altered. It happens all the time in nature.

It's arguable that a modification is an 'invention' in a conventional sense; rice was not 'invented', a strain of rice was modified. A case can be made that property (the genetic commons) is being appropriated and privatised without recompense.

It is, and a case could be made. I would say that we don't own natural genetic code, however.

brianthebard

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'm not an expert, true,but to say I don't know anything about it is a hefty assumption.

Because he is buying that seed from a company that owns its genetic make up and is entering into a contract. He should buy more because it is a mutually beneficial relationship. Of course, if he doesn't want to, he is free to use normal seed.

And once he has bought the seeds he is (at the minute) free to do what he wants with it. Why should they own crops they didn't even produce??

free range crops?

Yes plants can be free range. Its also important for free range and organic farmers that the food they give their animals is not contaminated.

And assuming cross-polination does not happen, how would the organic farmer suffer? It seems to me that he would benefit from not being so near to a farm that uses loads of chemicals.

How can you ask the farmer to make that assumption? They are using just the same amount of chemicals on gm crops (clearly you haven't done much research), pesticides still have to be used. You think monsanto are creating gm so they can destroy their round up market? No, they are putting the two together, the plant and the chemical.

If this is true, I'll be on your side on this one, patenting crops they didn't have a hand in is over the top. But can you source that please?

firstly what's the difference? Secondly try this film

It is, and a case could be made. I would say that we don't own natural genetic code, however.

But you are arguing that monsanto can or should?

bonkey

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

This is patently untrue. It would indeed be gross negligence if they weren't tested, but they are. In fact, they are tested on a case by case basis for hundreds of thousands of hours before they are deemed fit for use.

Hundreds of thousands of hours? Are you sure?

My back of the envelope calculations say that one hundred thousand hours equates to about 11 and a half years. So if we assume round the clock testing, then you're looking at a minimum of 23 years to get to hundreds of thousands of hours of testing....unless one counts parallel testing which makes the figure worthless in terms of what sort of time-scales long-term effects have been studied for.

Consider that the first products came onto the market in teh early 90s. For these to have been tested for hundreds of thousands of hours, they must have been developed in the late 60s or early 70s. Were they?

It has been said that no product in the world under goes more testing than GM crops.

It has indeed been said. Is it true?

bonkey

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Farmers should have to pay for seeds year after year if they are benefiting from technology that a business spent money inventing.

Why?

Every single commercial crop today is in some way, shape or form man-made. Hybrid strains pre-date GM technology by millenia.

Even in our own lifetimes, the variety of crops produced has drastically changed, with fewer and fewer strains making the bulk of any given produce...strains which have been developed to offer natural resistance to this, that and the other, to yield more crop per acre, or whatever.

So why is GM any different?

Not if they don't reproduce.

Incorrect. Cross-pollination effects cannot rule out the impact of features of GM crops making their way into the wild, where there is no such thing as reproduction.

the answer is seeds that cannot pollinate.

Seeds are the result of pollination. Remove pollination, and you have no fruit...no grain...no crop. Terminator seeds are seeds which will not germinate as a result of being sterile.

And assuming cross-polination does not happen, how would the organic farmer suffer?

He wouldn't. Assuming cross-pollination can happen....what's your solution?

SeanW

Cross-contamination is a big issue IMO. What happens if, for example, an organic or specialist farm (Percy Schmeiser had spent 50 years breeding a custom Canola crop-type) operates near a GM crop farm? When that farmer becomes a victim of cross-contamination, what next?

Under current legal code the GM genome owner can sue the bejesus out of the victim. Surely in the name of natural justice, it should be the other way around, the victim should have the right to either
A) Continue with their activities regardless
Destroy the crop
C) Sue the genome owner for the damage, in the case of organic or specialist operations.

As for the terminator gene, I'm no biology expert, but AFAIK genomes are carried even seedlessly by bees and other insects, so the threat of cross contamination - this time with a crop-killing sequence - appears to be raised. How can anyone be certain that the terminator technology doesn't threaten other crops?

These issues all need to be thrashed out and there should be clear vision of what is to be gained IMO, before GM crops are embraced.
Not saying don't do it: just don't do it wrong.

Dara Robinson

Yes, because we shouldn't be interfering with nature to this extent.

seeing the results of this poll I am scared that 47% of ppl do not oppose them...

wow I did not expect that

Kama

Yes, because we shouldn't be interfering with nature to this extent.

Me either.

I'd like to hear some justifications, the pro's seem notably silent on contamination....As to horizontal tranfer, its shown here and more here

laborator evidence has shown that DNA isolated from a range of GM crops can transfer an antibiotic resistance gene marker to soil bacteria

Which screws with the idea of patenting sections of genome. Maintaining copyright is problematised by a system which naturally copies and recombines sections.

The error (and its a significant one) is in a view that a plant is an isolated monad that does not genetically interact with other life. There's a fair quantity of evidence that it does, from plants to bacteria, from bacteria to fungi, from either to animals in the gut, or in pregnant animals to the young via the placenta. Given even a small chance of this, and the impossibility of quarantining or reversing it, we'd do well to tread very carefully...