GM in Ireland

Corsendonk

Birdnuts wrote: »

Monsanto, Bayer, Novartis to name but a few etc.

I think you read too much USA reports on these companies. Ireland is a back water for most of these companies. Do you have any idea of the restrictions on pesticide usage in Ireland and the cost? Why would you as a large vested interest get a license for a pesticide for parsnips when you only have 4 large farmers as customers?

Macha

The lack of presence of these companies in Ireland is a direct result of the Irish government's policy of no GMO crops.

As it stands, these companies' products can be bought in any gardening store, especially the (in)famous Round Up.

But what they're after isn't specifically the Irish market but the European market and Wikileaks gave a rare insight into their best ally: the US government:

Diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks reveal heavy lobbying by Washington in Europe in support of GM crops. For example, the US embassy in Paris advised Washington to draw up a 'retaliation list' against EU countries opposed to GM crops.

The initiative, which dates back to 2007, represents a response to moves by France to ban Monsanto's genetically-modified (GM) maize strain at that time.

"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits," wrote US Ambassador Craig Stapleton in a cable dated 14 December 2007.

http://www.euractiv.com/en/global-europe/us-lobbied-eu-back-gm-crops-wikileaks-news-500960

Macha

Corsendonk wrote: »

Emmm you know I am talking about commercial growers and farmers here, your first statement is like saying Aer Lingus IT dept buy their PCs in PC World. I think if you check the Bord Bia grower figures, the cost of licensing in Ireland and the cost of the product you will quickly work out its market economics and not some false boast from the Greens about GM crops.

I am aware that the discussion is about agriculture. I was quite simply making the point that these companies already have products in this country - indeed they have an office in Dunshaughlin.

My comments also had little to do with the Green Party as GM crops have never been licensed in Ireland, apart from a Monsanto GM sugar beet in 1997. (Although I would point out that the Green Party point of view also has an economic logic behind it).

Thank you for the info on pesticide product authorization legislation - an area I don't know much about. But the below fees are pocket change to a company like Monsanto:

http://www.monsanto.com/investors/Pages/financial-highlights.aspx

MalteseBarry

Yes, Monsanto sure is the company we are all supposed to hate.

Man has been genetically modifying foods for centuries, and that was fine, and even beneficial and was considered progress.

When a company starts to do it, it appears to becomes a target of hate.

Macha

MalteseBarry wrote: »

Yes, Monsanto sure is the company we are all supposed to hate.

Man has been genetically modifying foods for centuries, and that was fine, and even beneficial and was considered progress.

When a company starts to do it, it appears to becomes a target of hate.

There is a significant difference between humans selecting specific varieties due to their assets as the processes involved are well understood. Not only that but how these particularly varieties evolve themselves and the role they play in biodiversity is also well understood.

In contrast, a scientist genes from a completely different genus. Monsanto's Roundup pesticides have resulted in resistant strains of "superweeds" that are incredibly difficult to control. Monsanto also produced Roundup resistant crops and there are questions over how these new strains interact with other plants in the fields and their impact on biodiversity.

And let's be clear of the importance of biodiversity in creating resilience and flexibility. Almost all wheat that is eaten today comes from a breed that was developed in the 1960s to have a very short root structure. Now that more regions are suffering from drought and changed rain patterns as a result of climate change, suddenly crops of this breed of wheat are failing seriously. We need the natural processes of nature to provide us with biodiversity and the long-term impacts of our interference in this are is not well understood.

I have no particular issue with GM if the science demonstrates that the above issues have been resolved but I have a keen dislike of how Monsanto treats both consumers and farmers. Their use of the infamous "killer gene" is nothing short of horrifying and their apparent lack of interest in transparent labelling shows complete disregard for the right of consumers to know what they're eating.

Edit: New thread created - we're all off topic!

ei.sdraob

Those evil scientists and engineers

lets hold their research and work on a pedestal when it comes to climate change and wind generation or whatever is the green obsession of the month

while lets ignore and put then down when it comes to biotech and GM etc


:rolleyes: need I point out the hypocrisy :rolleyes:

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Those evil scientists and engineers

lets hold their research and work on a pedestal when it comes to climate change and wind generation or whatever is the green obsession of the month

while lets ignore and put then down when it comes to biotech and GM etc


:rolleyes: need I point out the hypocrisy :rolleyes:

They're not really parallel to be honest. The impacts of wind generation and other renewable technologies are well understood. The same cannot be said for GM.

Agriculture and biodiversity are far, far more complicated than electricity generation.

djpbarry

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Those evil scientists and engineers

lets hold their research and work on a pedestal when it comes to climate change and wind generation or whatever is the green obsession of the month

while lets ignore and put then down when it comes to biotech and GM etc


:rolleyes: need I point out the hypocrisy :rolleyes:

Please do - seems to me everyone else is trying to have an objective discussion while you are solely interested in sticking labels on anyone with whom you disagree. Knock it off.

Corsendonk

How come my post of the cost of pesticide licenses turns up as a GM thread? There seems to be a confusion that all pesticide companies have a GM agenda to push. Products such as citrus oil come under pesticides too.

Birdnuts

MalteseBarry wrote: »

Yes, Monsanto sure is the company we are all supposed to hate.

Man has been genetically modifying foods for centuries, and that was fine, and even beneficial and was considered progress.

When a company starts to do it, it appears to becomes a target of hate.

The above suggests you have no knowledge of either the history of plant breeding or of Monsanto the company:rolleyes:

Corsendonk

Birdnuts wrote: »

The above suggests you have no knowledge of either the history of plant breeding or of Monsanto the company:rolleyes:

Some consider man's selection and breeding of plants/animals and breeding for specific attributes an older form of genetic engineering. So perhaps the poster has a better understanding than you think.

SuperInfinity

Corsendonk wrote: »

Some consider man's selection and breeding of plants/animals and breeding for specific attributes an older form of genetic engineering. So perhaps the poster has a better understanding than you think.

Yes man did manipulate genes by artificial selection and breeding for thousands of years.... and it was all a huge mistake that they should never have done in the first place and something I WISH they had NEVER done.

Now we will never be able to eat the foods that our ancestors ate for millions of years previous to that, the foods that we are perfectly evolved to eat and would do best on. They ruined our food to some extent, but nothing compared to what some people who call themselves "scientists" would do now.

You cannot compare the artificial selecting of plants and animals with genetic engineering. Artifical selection still involves natural mutations and trait selections. Genetically modified foods and animals could absolutely destroy the entire ecosystem.

They have no idea what all the parts of each food does for our body. This is why processing food makes it so much less healthy for us.... because it changes it in ways to make it unnatural and therefore we are not evolved for it and it causes all forms of anomalies.

But at least with cooked and highly processed foods you can still eat raw food if you wish. You can still eat something *like* what your ancestors ate. If in the domesday scenario, they put out all these genetically modified foods and they intermixed with natural foods.... then all of our natural foods would be gone forever!!!! Our descendants would never know what real food would be like. God knows what unbelievable health problems and suffering they would have to go through during their lives. It would be the end of life as we know it.

Once they got into the food chain god knows what they could do. The people who think "shur what's the worst that could happen, I'll eat and drink my food lolololol" are ignorant fools who don't know what they're talking about. Just because you can't imagine something using your primitive, instinctive, intuitive concept of the world doesn't mean it won't happen. The GM foods cause horrific things to happen to even the offspring of those that eat the, extremely stunted growth, damaged heads in their children.... because you can't just change around things and expect them to work in the same way.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/

You can use smiley sarcastic faces all you want safe in your knowledge that "shur a huge atomic bomb never exploded to destroy the whole world... let's laugh at all these guys".... the atomic bomb never did that because a lot of people **** bricks and flipped out and did anything they could to FORCE there to be policies on atomic bombs and nuclear weapons such that they would practically NEVER be used. If we could get GM foods to end up like that, then our world would be relatively safe for our descendants again. But GM foods aren't going anywhere.

The only good thing is that they claim that the GM foods have a "terminator gene" that stops them from reproducing, without that.... the situation would be hopeless.... the genetically modified salmon (three times your average sized salmon) are also said to be unable to reproduce. But who is checking if they can reproduce? Who is checking the terminator gene? One mistake and the seed or the gene would be gone, in the win, and we could NEVER RECALL IT.

WHY THE HELL... THE HELL.... SHOULD WE ALLOW anyone to mess with our food and the food of all our descendants like this??? Why should they get to do that for some money and put their fingers in our food forever? When they don't know what they're doing, they don't have a clue of what hidden consequences there might be to it.... it is MADNESS!!!!

It's always only year AFTER things happen that they start to say "oh, maybe that wasn't such a smart thing after all, but by then it's too late. But at least with chemicals you can eventually mop them up, at least with toxic waste it will go away eventually.... the chemicals don't replicate and go off into the sunlight forever to be a part of the world.

Macha

ei.sdraob, if you have a problem with a post, please report it.

ei.sdraob

Macha wrote: »

ei.sdraob, if you don't have something constructive to post, please don't post.

I posted what the user has posted to me, to illustrate a point, what he did was uncalled for.

If you want something constructive then watch this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y4yql/Horizon_20102011_Science_Under_Attack/

The new BBC Horizon documentary talks the same issues I brought in this thread.

Environmental issue are being driven by political and hysterical arguments (see post above from SuperInfinity) and not science, whats worse some people selectively cherry pick the technologies they like and then argue against other. watch the bbc horizon doc, very interesting

Macha

Do NOT post PMs in this forum again. If you have an issue with a PM report it.

Post with PM deleted and infraction given for the 2nd time a moderator has had to deal with you in this thread.

7 day ban for ignoring warnings to stop insulting the entire environmental movement. Keep this up and you'll be permabanned.

Irish residents cannot watch BBC iPlayer.

Corsendonk

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Yes man did manipulate genes by artificial selection and breeding for thousands of years.... and it was all a huge mistake that they should never have done in the first place and something I WISH they had NEVER done.

Now we will never be able to eat the foods that our ancestors ate for millions of years previous to that, the foods that we are perfectly evolved to eat and would do best on. They ruined our food to some extent, but nothing compared to what some people who call themselves "scientists" would do now.

You cannot compare the artificial selecting of plants and animals with genetic engineering. Artifical selection still involves natural mutations and trait selections. Genetically modified foods and animals could absolutely destroy the entire ecosystem.

They have no idea what all the parts of each food does for our body. This is why processing food makes it so much less healthy for us.... because it changes it in ways to make it unnatural and therefore we are not evolved for it and it causes all forms of anomalies.

But at least with cooked and highly processed foods you can still eat raw food if you wish. You can still eat something *like* what your ancestors ate. If in the domesday scenario, they put out all these genetically modified foods and they intermixed with natural foods.... then all of our natural foods would be gone forever!!!! Our descendants would never know what real food would be like. God knows what unbelievable health problems and suffering they would have to go through during their lives. It would be the end of life as we know it.

Once they got into the food chain god knows what they could do. The people who think "shur what's the worst that could happen, I'll eat and drink my food lolololol" are ignorant fools who don't know what they're talking about. Just because you can't imagine something using your primitive, instinctive, intuitive concept of the world doesn't mean it won't happen. The GM foods cause horrific things to happen to even the offspring of those that eat the, extremely stunted growth, damaged heads in their children.... because you can't just change around things and expect them to work in the same way.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/

You can use smiley sarcastic faces all you want safe in your knowledge that "shur a huge atomic bomb never exploded to destroy the whole world... let's laugh at all these guys".... the atomic bomb never did that because a lot of people **** bricks and flipped out and did anything they could to FORCE there to be policies on atomic bombs and nuclear weapons such that they would practically NEVER be used. If we could get GM foods to end up like that, then our world would be relatively safe for our descendants again. But GM foods aren't going anywhere.

The only good thing is that they claim that the GM foods have a "terminator gene" that stops them from reproducing, without that.... the situation would be hopeless.... the genetically modified salmon (three times your average sized salmon) are also said to be unable to reproduce. But who is checking if they can reproduce? Who is checking the terminator gene? One mistake and the seed or the gene would be gone, in the win, and we could NEVER RECALL IT.

WHY THE HELL... THE HELL.... SHOULD WE ALLOW anyone to mess with our food and the food of all our descendants like this??? Why should they get to do that for some money and put their fingers in our food forever? When they don't know what they're doing, they don't have a clue of what hidden consequences there might be to it.... it is MADNESS!!!!

It's always only year AFTER things happen that they start to say "oh, maybe that wasn't such a smart thing after all, but by then it's too late. But at least with chemicals you can eventually mop them up, at least with toxic waste it will go away eventually.... the chemicals don't replicate and go off into the sunlight forever to be a part of the world.

Point of clarification, whats shur?

djpbarry

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Now we will never be able to eat the foods that our ancestors ate for millions of years previous to that, the foods that we are perfectly evolved to eat and would do best on.

These foods that you refer to – they remained unaltered for millions of years?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Genetically modified foods and animals could absolutely destroy the entire ecosystem.

How?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

They have no idea what all the parts of each food does for our body. This is why processing food makes it so much less healthy for us.... because it changes it in ways to make it unnatural and therefore we are not evolved for it and it causes all forms of anomalies.

By that same logic, medication is also bad for our bodies. Take insulin for example, which is produced using genetically modified strains of Escherichia coli – you’re saying that diabetics would be better off without this therapeutic compound?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

If in the domesday scenario, they put out all these genetically modified foods and they intermixed with natural foods.... then all of our natural foods would be gone forever!!!! Our descendants would never know what real food would be like. God knows what unbelievable health problems and suffering they would have to go through during their lives. It would be the end of life as we know it.

Yet therapeutic compounds have been produced using engineered organisms since the early 1980’s – where are all the health problems produced by said compounds?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Just because you can't imagine something using your primitive, instinctive, intuitive concept of the world doesn't mean it won't happen.

Just because you can imagine some scenario, doesn’t mean it will happen.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

The GM foods cause horrific things to happen to even the offspring of those that eat the, extremely stunted growth, damaged heads in their children...

News to me – which “GM foods” are you referring to?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

If we could get GM foods to end up like that, then our world would be relatively safe for our descendants again.

In your opinion.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

The only good thing is that they claim that the GM foods have a "terminator gene" that stops them from reproducing...

I’m not sure the so-called “terminator gene” is a good thing at all and I think you have totally misunderstood the motivation behind such a development.

SuperInfinity

djpbarry wrote: »

These foods that you refer to – they remained unaltered for millions of years?

They naturally co-evolved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution with us. In billions of ways that we could never hope to understand or comprehend.

djpbarry wrote: »

How?

You obviously haven't got the slightest clue of how an ecosystem works, you have no idea what you're talking about or what you're messing with. They could wipe out species in a flash, they could create huge imbalances in nature.

Don't ask me "how", it doesn't matter "how"... I can't tell you specifically "how"... that's the whole point!!!! We don't know WHAT could happen. And it's ignorant fools like you that could destroy us all.

Someone once said about me that I was into "basic living"... actually in fact if you mess with nature, THEN is when you're doing basic living. Because you're turning something extremely complex into something obscenely simplified, you're taking away its depth and replacing it with random things that each have about a 1 in 100,000 chance of being good for us (according to observations made in mutated DNA). It's playing Russian roulette at every turn and if these escape from the wild there is no going back from it!!!!

djpbarry wrote: »

By that same logic, medication is also bad for our bodies. Take insulin for example, which is produced using genetically modified strains of Escherichia coli – you’re saying that diabetics would be better off without this therapeutic compound?

Medication is generally bad for our bodies, only in rare circumstances caused by the modern artificial world can it be helpful. The only good thing medication can do is to try to bring the body back to a more natural state and even then it has a lot of horrible side effects. Nobody has a clue how a pharmaceutical drug is going to react in a population, which is why the vast majority created have to be discarded.

Diabetes WOULD NOT EXIST if everyone ate perfectly raw food. It does not exist in places where they have healthy diets and are active. The natural way that we are evolved to live is by far the best way.

All of these diseases like diabetes, alzheimers, cardiovascular disease, macular degeneration etc. are due to us living in an environment and consuming things that we are not evolved to deal with. So pathologies happen, everything is out of balance... chaos ensues. You cannot just throw some spanners in the works and assume it will all work correctly. None of these diseases would exist if we were living the lifestyle our ancestors were living.

I personally aspire to eating whatever I want as long as it's raw and as organic/natural as possible and it improved my health drastically. Many people do. But I still come back to processed foods because I'm addicted and because buying so much good food is too expensive.

To deny that natural foods and lifestyle are optimal for us is to deny evolution and deny all of the evidence we have. We gradually evolved over millions of years to be perfectly adapted for these things, we don't have an absolute clue of how they work with our body apart from looking at some results and trying ot infer things from it.

djpbarry wrote: »

Yet therapeutic compounds have been produced using engineered organisms since the early 1980’s – where are all the health problems produced by said compounds?

This is a totally different thing. The arguments for that back then were that it was directly mimicking a natural process... this is anything but!!!! Just because you are so negligent for your children, don't make ours have to inherit the world you don't care about leaving behind.

djpbarry wrote: »

News to me – which “GM foods” are you referring to?

Look at the responsibletechnology website. But even if they can't observe any problems in their couple of tests, what the hell would that prove?

The problems that happen now mightn't be observable until years later. Lacerations of the liver, dying off of brain cells that leads to memory loss, all of these things happen from using current medication.

Have you ever heard of chaos theory? When you throw something random into a perfectly balanced system, ANYTHING can happen.

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not sure the so-called “terminator gene” is a good thing at all and I think you have totally misunderstood the motivation behind such a development.

If you're not sure that the terminator gene is "a good thing at all" then I can't speak to you because you're beyond uneducated and ignorant and you don't know anything about biology!!!! I hugely recommend you read up on it.

I know there are commercial interests in keeping GM foods separate, if it is the case that that's the reason for the terminator gene and making it so that salmon three times the normal size don't reproduce.... well that is a pretty of avoiding the domesday scenario of every food we eat being genetically modified!!!! But I find it hard to believe that scientists and others would be in any way as careless and negligent about letting all strawberries we eat and bananas etc. all be GMed already after having let them all reproduce.

So unbelievably, you've taken a side that is actually WORSE and more depraved than the scientists that are pushing this themselves. Only amazing ignorance and cluelessness could produce such a thing.... these are the types of arguments I thought I'd be having with some of the most left-field ignoramouses of the public, NOT on a board about the environment and sustainability!!!

Macha

SuperInfinity wrote: »

You obviously haven't got the slightest clue of how an ecosystem works, you have no idea what you're talking about or what you're messing with....

Don't ask me "how", it doesn't matter "how"... I can't tell you specifically "how"... that's the whole point!!!! We don't know WHAT could happen. And it's ignorant fools like you that could destroy us all.

Please tone down the language SuperInfinity. If you can't discuss this in a respectful manner, don't discuss it at all.

And this forum is not just for people who are passionately interested in sustainability and have qualifications, it is for anyone who is somewhat interested in the subject matter, regardless of their level of knowledge so cut out the comments about what this forum should or should not be.

djpbarry

SuperInfinity wrote: »

And it's ignorant fools like you that could destroy us all.
...
Just because you are so negligent for your children, don't make ours have to inherit the world you don't care about leaving behind.
...
If you're not sure that the terminator gene is "a good thing at all" then I can't speak to you because you're beyond uneducated and ignorant and you don't know anything about biology!!!!
...
Only amazing ignorance and cluelessness could produce such a thing

Less of the personal comments please.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

They naturally co-evolved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution with us.

So would it not be more accurate to say that our ancestors ate a variety of different foods at different points in the evolutionary history of the planet? In an evolutionary sense, millions of years is a reasonably long time.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Don't ask me "how", it doesn't matter "how"... I can't tell you specifically "how"... that's the whole point!!!!

Indeed, it is the whole point: You’ve decided that GM is bad, even though, by your own admission, you’re not really sure of the risks. Wouldn’t it make sense to evaluate those risks (and benefits) before reaching a conclusion on whether GM is, on balance, good or bad?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Someone once said about me that I was into "basic living"... actually in fact if you mess with nature, THEN is when you're doing basic living. Because you're turning something extremely complex into something obscenely simplified, you're taking away its depth and replacing it with random things that each have about a 1 in 100,000 chance of being good for us (according to observations made in mutated DNA). It's playing Russian roulette at every turn and if these escape from the wild there is no going back from it!!!!

I don’t really know what you’re getting at here.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Medication is generally bad for our bodies, only in rare circumstances caused by the modern artificial world can it be helpful.

Medication is generally bad? Really? Based on what exactly?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

The only good thing medication can do is to try to bring the body back to a more natural state and even then it has a lot of horrible side effects.

Define “natural state”. And what’s this medication with all the horrible side effects?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Nobody has a clue how a pharmaceutical drug is going to react in a population...

So what are clinical trials for?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

...which is why the vast majority created have to be discarded.

Do they? The vast majority of drugs that go on sale to the general public are recalled and discarded/destroyed?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Diabetes WOULD NOT EXIST if everyone ate perfectly raw food. It does not exist in places where they have healthy diets and are active.

Where is this magical place where Type I Diabetes does not exist?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

All of these diseases like diabetes, alzheimers, cardiovascular disease, macular degeneration etc. are due to us living in an environment and consuming things that we are not evolved to deal with.

Are they? No underlying genetic factors involved at all?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

None of these diseases would exist if we were living the lifestyle our ancestors were living.

Our ancestors didn’t suffer from disease? Really?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I personally aspire to eating whatever I want as long as it's raw and as organic/natural as possible and it improved my health drastically.

How have you quantified this drastic improvement in your health?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

To deny that natural foods and lifestyle are optimal for us is to deny evolution and deny all of the evidence we have.

And yet, global life expectancy is increasing all the time – what gives?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

We gradually evolved over millions of years to be perfectly adapted for these things, we don't have an absolute clue of how they work with our body apart from looking at some results and trying ot infer things from it.

Yeah, those crazy scientists with their conclusions based on reproducible observations - what will they think of next?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

This is a totally different thing. The arguments for that back then were that it was directly mimicking a natural process... this is anything but!!!!

Eh?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Look at the responsibletechnology website. But even if they can't observe any problems in their couple of tests, what the hell would that prove?

Indeed – who cares what tests show us? Let’s just invent doomsday scenarios and base our decisions on those!

SuperInfinity wrote: »

The problems that happen now mightn't be observable until years later.

But years have passed since humans began using medication. Many years. Where are all the problems you refer to?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Lacerations of the liver, dying off of brain cells that leads to memory loss, all of these things happen from using current medication.

Prove it.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Have you ever heard of chaos theory? When you throw something random into a perfectly balanced system, ANYTHING can happen.

No, that’s not what chaos theory is. Chaos theory is the study of systems that are highly sensitive to small changes in initial conditions.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I know there are commercial interests in keeping GM foods separate...

No scientific interests? Are there no potential benefits in using GM technology at all?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

...if it is the case that that's the reason for the terminator gene and making it so that salmon three times the normal size don't reproduce.... well that is a pretty of avoiding the domesday scenario of every food we eat being genetically modified!!!!

You can’t see any downside to such a technology? Suppose you’re a farmer growing a food, the seeds for which are supplied by me. Suppose said food is genetically modified and equipped with so-called terminator technology. Doesn’t that make you completely dependent on me in order to be able to produce food?

SuperInfinity

djpbarry wrote: »

Less of the personal comments please.
So would it not be more accurate to say that our ancestors ate a variety of different foods at different points in the evolutionary history of the planet? In an evolutionary sense, millions of years is a reasonably long time.

No it wouldn't be "more accurate" because I never said they didn't eat a variety of different foods. I try to eat what they ate as much as I can (for example figs which the other great apes eat a lot of to this day).

djpbarry wrote: »

Indeed, it is the whole point: You’ve decided that GM is bad, even though, by your own admission, you’re not really sure of the risks. Wouldn’t it make sense to evaluate those risks (and benefits) before reaching a conclusion on whether GM is, on balance, good or bad?

I know for a fact that GM is bad because axiomatically, it is impossible to do "better" than nature. And certainly the scientists at this point haven't got the slightest clue about what they're doing with regard to food and diet, we know so little about diet. Any well-informed person on diet and nutrition will tell you that.

djpbarry wrote: »

Medication is generally bad? Really? Based on what exactly?

I already tried to explain, a full discussion on medication would take another topic. I doubt there's anything I'm going to say in a few paragraphs that would convince you of anything.

djpbarry wrote: »

Define “natural state”. And what’s this medication with all the horrible side effects?

I'll give you one example: according to a peer-reviewed studies, people who take blood pressure medication do no better in terms of mortality than people who don't take it. Search for it on pubmed. Antidepressants don't work in any way and are linked to violene and suicide (they have to write "may cause suicide" on the pack in the US and list it as a side effect here!). Heart medication has had to be recalled for causing heart attacks!!!

djpbarry wrote: »

So what are clinical trials for?

They're supposed to test for the safety, but again there are a million things that the drugs might be causing that are never scene.

djpbarry wrote: »

Do they? The vast majority of drugs that go on sale to the general public are recalled and discarded/destroyed?

Have you ever considered taking a course in remedial reading comprehension? There's no shame in it. I said/meant that the vast majority of proposed drugs are recalled/discarded, usually they are tested on mice first.

djpbarry wrote: »

Where is this magical place where Type I Diabetes does not exist?

Type 1 Diabetes is an autoimmune disease like asthma or arthritis. While there is no direct cause and effect that we know of that is so clear like type 2 is, the environment and diet certainly plays a part. I doubt there is any place that has people living totally natural lives that somehow miraculously has people suffering from type 1 diabetes. It would not make evolutionary sense.

djpbarry wrote: »

Are they? No underlying genetic factors involved at all?

I NEVER said that. Once again: Reading comprehension.

djpbarry wrote: »

Are they? No underlying genetic factors involved at all?

And yet, global life expectancy is increasing all the time – what gives?[/quote]

Life expectency was always at least 100 years old in primitive times if you didn't get eaten by a lion or get a snake-bite etc. This parading around the place of life expectency is both vulgar and obscene. The life expectency only plummeted when civilization came about and brought with it all sorts of bacteria, diseases, viral infections, huge nutritional deficiencies etc., none of which occur in the wild.

djpbarry wrote: »

Yeah, those crazy scientists with their conclusions based on reproducible observations - what will they think of next?

This is a totally rhetorical point and has no argumentative merit whatsoever. I mean that statement would still be corect even if scientists were today playing about with atomic bombs and causing all kinds of horrible radiation fallout. While you might like the idea of sniggering at people who diss your precious "scientists" (as if they are all one group of people), don't allow it to convince yourself our world is worth sacrificing to the pretend advances of scientists.

djpbarry wrote: »

Indeed – who cares what tests show us? Let’s just invent doomsday scenarios and base our decisions on those!

While saying something like that may seem very funny to you it doesn't lend itself to any discussion. If you're going to be sarcastic, there should at least be something someway true about it, some point you're trying to get across. That's what humour in a discussion is supposed to do, not just "oh gosh golly you don't believe the scientists hahahaha". The scientists are all totally different people and they're people like you and I!!!

The tests show up anomalies and destruction left, right and centre anyway. Most of the tests are designed to overlook the drawbacks of the foods as they're paid for by the industry itself.

djpbarry wrote: »

No scientific interests? Are there no potential benefits in using GM technology at all?

No, I STRONGLY believe on an axiomatic level there is not anything any human or organism can do for itself that is better than bringing about a more natural environment for itself... as similar as possible the one it was evolved for.

Now they're going to be pushing GM foods saying that we need them to "feed the world". But of course the world will never be fed, because people in poorer countries will just have bigger families and there will be more to feed.

djpbarry wrote: »

You can’t see any downside to such a technology? Suppose you’re a farmer growing a food, the seeds for which are supplied by me. Suppose said food is genetically modified and equipped with so-called terminator technology. Doesn’t that make you completely dependent on me in order to be able to produce food?

So what? Many people are dependant on others. You think I would seamlessly sacrifice my entire planet for a few euros? You see that's the problem with so many people these days, they only do things for money and they can only see what's right in front of their face. Some scientists working on GM foods are so depraved that for millions or hundreds of thousands they will sell their soul to GM technology.

The people who are against GM and don't like the terminator gene are.....*beep*. I have no respect for them.

I find it both extremely offensive and extremely absurd that you would actually seem to be considering the merits of a GM holocaust in order that some farmers aren't relying on others?

I've said all I'm going to say on this for now, I was already repeating some points in this that you appear to have somehow missed originally.

djpbarry

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I know for a fact that GM is bad because axiomatically, it is impossible to do "better" than nature. And certainly the scientists at this point haven't got the slightest clue about what they're doing with regard to food and diet, we know so little about diet. Any well-informed person on diet and nutrition will tell you that.

A well-informed person on “food and diet” will tell you they know very little on the subject?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I'll give you one example: according to a peer-reviewed studies...

Hold up – peer-reviewed? That’d be research conducted by scientists, right? Didn’t you just say scientists don’t know diddelly-squat?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Have you ever considered taking a course in remedial reading comprehension?

Ok, that’s one personal comment too many for my liking. Have yourself a wee break from the forum to calm down and come up with a rational, evidence-based argument. If the soap-box ranting continues when you come back, the ban will be made permanent.

You might spend the time searching for some evidence to support this little doozy:

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Life expectency was always at least 100 years old in primitive times...

Greenmachine

Ireland had just changed it's position on GM products. Excuse the language but who the .... do fine fail think they are changing goverment policy at this stage. They shouldn't be allowed change squat at this stage. Let the goverment after the general election decided the matter.

Ireland alters position on EU GM proposals

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0208/gm.html

SuperInfinity

Oh well someone somewhere else is doing something highly dangerous so we should do it too so as not to be left at an economic disadvantage. ****ing brilliant logic.

Corsendonk

Greenmachine wrote: »

Ireland had just changed it's position on GM products. Excuse the language but who the .... do fine fail think they are changing goverment policy at this stage. They shouldn't be allowed change squat at this stage. Let the goverment after the general election decided the matter.

Ireland alters position on EU GM proposals

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0208/gm.html

Irish Universities are at the front of some very cutting edge GM development for Pharmaceutical and Enviromental Waste uses.

skregs

This superinifinity lad is funny. Obviously no background/knowledge in science or the environment, but very entertaining nonetheless

Macha

skregs, cut out the personal attacks please.

Mark Hamill

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I know for a fact that GM is bad because axiomatically, it is impossible to do "better" than nature.

My laptop says otherwise, unless you have a naturally occuring portable computer?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

They're supposed to test for the safety, but again there are a million things that the drugs might be causing that are never scene.

If they are never seen, then how can we assume they are happening at all?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I said/meant that the vast majority of proposed drugs are recalled/discarded, usually they are tested on mice first.

So? Diseases are usually caused by very specific things, and usually require very specific things to combat them. Its true that we dont fully understand a lot of how diseases work, but thats why we test drugs first, so we can learn.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Type 1 Diabetes is an autoimmune disease like asthma or arthritis. While there is no direct cause and effect that we know of that is so clear like type 2 is, the environment and diet certainly plays a part. I doubt there is any place that has people living totally natural lives that somehow miraculously has people suffering from type 1 diabetes. It would not make evolutionary sense.

It makes perfect evolutionary sense. Evolution uses random mutation to create new information which results, well, usually in nothing. Most mutations do nothing, the change is too small or effects obsolete DNA or whatever. Sometimes the changes are beneficial, sometimes, however they are not. Usually, creatures with non beneficial mutations either die from them or are simply rejected by possible partners. Humans though, thanks to our advances, live longer despite disability and mate according to parameters a little outside of genetic perfection.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Life expectency was always at least 100 years old in primitive times if you didn't get eaten by a lion or get a snake-bite etc. This parading around the place of life expectency is both vulgar and obscene. The life expectency only plummeted when civilization came about and brought with it all sorts of bacteria, diseases, viral infections, huge nutritional deficiencies etc., none of which occur in the wild.

Evidence?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

This is a totally rhetorical point and has no argumentative merit whatsoever. I mean that statement would still be corect even if scientists were today playing about with atomic bombs and causing all kinds of horrible radiation fallout. While you might like the idea of sniggering at people who diss your precious "scientists" (as if they are all one group of people), don't allow it to convince yourself our world is worth sacrificing to the pretend advances of scientists.

Ha, pretend advances you say? While typing on a mass produced computer, sending data over a broadband internet connection to a hosted website that nearly anyone in the world can see and respond to. Yes pretend advances indeed.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

The tests show up anomalies and destruction left, right and centre anyway. Most of the tests are designed to overlook the drawbacks of the foods as they're paid for by the industry itself.

Who do you think pays for the "tests" that blankly proclaim wordl ending dangers in GM food? Could it be the $60 billion organic food industry?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

No, I STRONGLY believe on an axiomatic level there is not anything any human or organism can do for itself that is better than bringing about a more natural environment for itself... as similar as possible the one it was evolved for.

Evidence?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Now they're going to be pushing GM foods saying that we need them to "feed the world". But of course the world will never be fed, because people in poorer countries will just have bigger families and there will be more to feed.

These are separate issues. Education and economical stability effect family size, not the amount of available food.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

So what? Many people are dependant on others. You think I would seamlessly sacrifice my entire planet for a few euros? You see that's the problem with so many people these days, they only do things for money and they can only see what's right in front of their face. Some scientists working on GM foods are so depraved that for millions or hundreds of thousands they will sell their soul to GM technology.

The people who are against GM and don't like the terminator gene are.....*beep*. I have no respect for them.

You seem to have an issue (not just from the text immediately above, but evident in all of your posts) of differentiating between the scientists who invented GM products and the companies who try to make money from them (and who try to get the scientists to do horrible things, like the terminator gene). I dont agree with some of these companies business practises, but I cant deny teh good that has come from the work of scientists like Norman Borlaug, the man who, thanks to inventing certain GM foods is credited with saving a billion people from starvation.

SuperInfinity

skregs wrote: »

This superinifinity lad is funny. Obviously no background/knowledge in science or the environment, but very entertaining nonetheless

You are incorrect, I have a degree in Engineering and have read hundreds of books on science subjects including human biology, genetics, nutrition, food, animal behaviour, biogerontology, paleoanthology, you name it. I am an expert in science.

I would always come out on top or near the top of science at school, I have exceptional knowledge and background in science. It's naive and clueless people like yourself who have no absolute clue about science that are led along to accept all of these things that are clearly being pushed by huge industries.

Macha

Superinfinity, I thought I said to cut out the personal attacks! Next one gets a ban.

SuperInfinity

I wish they would just leave me alone Macha. Why are you allowing them to come out with CLEAR ad hominem attacks against me? It's a joke.

Mark Hamill, I already answered all of that in this topic.

Macha

Right, banned for 3 days for discussing moderation in-thread and carrying on the bickering,

Get back on topic.

whiteonion

Well let's see, GM soy has caused havoc in South America. In places like Paraguay they have huge monocultures of GM soy. They have cut down huge areas of rainforest to clear way for GM soy. http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/wp-content/uploads/Rainforests-getting-cut-down-for-soy.jpg This leads to soil degradation and destruction of the land. Is this the future you want for Ireland?

djpbarry

whiteonion wrote: »

Well let's see, GM soy has caused havoc in South America. In places like Paraguay they have huge monocultures of GM soy. They have cut down huge areas of rainforest to clear way for GM soy.

Surely that's one of the drawbacks of agriculture in general, rather than something that is specific to GM crops?

Mark Hamill

whiteonion wrote: »

Well let's see, GM soy has caused havoc in South America. In places like Paraguay they have huge monocultures of GM soy. They have cut down huge areas of rainforest to clear way for GM soy. http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/wp-content/uploads/Rainforests-getting-cut-down-for-soy.jpg This leads to soil degradation and destruction of the land. Is this the future you want for Ireland?

How much more land do you think they would need to deforest if they weren't using the gm high yield crops? They have to deforest so much because there is so many people to feed, its thanks to gm crops that they dont need (yet) to deforest the lot.

Mark Hamill

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Mark Hamill, I already answered all of that in this topic.

I checked and you didn't. I await your response to my post in three days.

whiteonion

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How much more land do you think they would need to deforest if they weren't using the gm high yield crops? They have to deforest so much because there is so many people to feed, its thanks to gm crops that they dont need (yet) to deforest the lot.

that gm crops generate higher yields that traditional crops doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny. http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/new-study-gm-wheat-yields-48-56-percent-less-in-field-experiments/

Mark Hamill

whiteonion wrote: »

that gm crops generate higher yields that traditional crops doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny. http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/201/07/18/new-study-gm-wheat-yields-48-56-percent-less-in-field-experiments/

Read the actual paper:
The crop in question gave increased yields and had resistance to the mildew it was GM against, the decreased yields (in two of only four strains, btw), can be attributed to the fact that none were treated with fungicide.

daithiordave

this documentary http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/future_of_food/ answered a lot of questions i had on gm and food, anyone see it ?

thought this was funny on it http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80839

Mark Hamill

daithiordave wrote: »

this documentary http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/future_of_food/ answered a lot of questions i had on gm and food, anyone see it ?

Never seen it. From the wikipedia article it seems to come out strong against the business practises of the likes of Monsanto (terminator gene etc) which I would also be against. However I see a difference between decrying the business practises of GM companies and the benefits of GM food itself.

djpbarry

daithiordave wrote: »

this documentary http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/future_of_food/ answered a lot of questions i had on gm and food, anyone see it ?

Nope - could you provide a synopsis?

daithiordave

Mark Hamill wrote: »

However I see a difference between decrying the business practises of GM companies and the benefits of GM food itself.

I agree but the problem is it is difficult to separate the two, because of the power of these companies. Gm crops is relatively new and as such we really only have one country to look to on this subject, america. But that isnt what that documentary is all about, its a general warning to all about gm crops and how not to do things, which are being done.

If we go by america as basis for the planting and eating of gm crops, there has been a lot of shady goings on around the testing, regulation and advertising of gm grops in america, in most cases it hasn't been tested and is completely unregulated. In many respects they have been testing it on the american people.

There is also a number of problems around gm crops, like patenting cross pollination, increased use of pesticides, anyway i shouldn't be posting right now , back to work, the documentary is only an hour and a half long. Can be watched free.

daithiordave

djpbarry wrote: »

Nope - could you provide a synopsis?

You mean further then what is written in the reviews and description from the link ? , well i would like to do a write up on the subject soon, but like many other topics i havent had the time , reading up on such things and watching docs takes up so much of my free time as it is . But i will, i think. Its a very important topic and one that people need to look into.

djpbarry

daithiordave wrote: »

You mean further then what is written in the reviews and description from the link ? , well i would like to do a write up on the subject soon, but like many other topics i havent had the time , reading up on such things and watching docs takes up so much of my free time as it is . But i will, i think. Its a very important topic and one that people need to look into.

What you have in your previous post is fine. As a general rule, we ask that people do not post links sans discussion, but you've explained the nature of the documentary above, so that's fine.

daithiordave

djpbarry wrote: »

What you have in your previous post is fine. As a general rule, we ask that people do not post links sans discussion, but you've explained the nature of the documentary above, so that's fine.

Apologies, should have read it, rarely post

SuperInfinity

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How much more land do you think they would need to deforest if they weren't using the gm high yield crops? They have to deforest so much because there is so many people to feed, its thanks to gm crops that they dont need (yet) to deforest the lot.

Mark Hamill, you have a cute line of thinking here, and that is how a lot of people think. "the GM foods will feed people, shur isn't that what we want?!".

The more people you feed, the more people there will be to feed in the future. It's a vicious circle. People should be left to starve to death if it means not having GM foods. I would genuinely starve to death if it gauranteed that no GM foods were ever available to anyone.

It's time to face facts. Everyone dies at some point, what makes a life worthwhile is if you have left your descendants something good behind. We can't stop people from having children in poorer countries, if they have too many that they can't feed then they should be left to starve to death. Otherwise, they are putting us all and all our descendants in jeopardy. In the long run, it would be a mercy. In the long run, LESS people would starve and we wouldn't have ruined food. There would just be more to feed otherwise, you won't "save" anyone.

I also have another avenue that I didn't really express or emphasize before, I hope this might answer your question:

The food a farmer owns in his field is his food, right? It is his property. If GM foods should contaminate his crops, then they have irreversibly modified his crops, right? It doesn't MATTER if you say: "show me the evidence that it's bad". Many GM contaminations have ruined crops, but even if they didn't... it is the farmer's property. He has every right to keep his crops how they are. These people are going to rape the planet if they're allowed, and it's a very slippery slope. They should not be allowed to alter other people's property.

I hope that goes some way to answering your questions, if not then I have nothing more to add so won't be replying back here. Again, I do not believe anyone who is remotely scientifically-minded person could possibly be in favour of GM foods, I'm saying this because of the ad hominem attacks thrown at me.

djpbarry

SuperInfinity wrote: »

The more people you feed, the more people there will be to feed in the future. It's a vicious circle.

Then why are birth rates so low in developed countries?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I would genuinely starve to death if it gauranteed that no GM foods were ever available to anyone.

Good for you – don’t expect too many people to share that point of view.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

We can't stop people from having children in poorer countries, if they have too many that they can't feed then they should be left to starve to death.

Very easy when it’s not your kids, eh?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Otherwise, they are putting us all and all our descendants in jeopardy.

How?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

In the long run, LESS people would starve and we wouldn't have ruined food. There would just be more to feed otherwise, you won't "save" anyone.

Utter nonsense – there is already plenty of food to go round, GM or no GM. The reasons for the large numbers of starving people in the world are largely political.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Many GM contaminations have ruined crops...

Such as?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

...but even if they didn't...

You just said they did – make up your mind.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

...it is the farmer's property. He has every right to keep his crops how they are.

Whether the farmer likes it or not, genetic mutations happen all the time. Whether you like it or not, genetic mutations (modifications) are occurring in your body as we speak.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Again, I do not believe anyone who is remotely scientifically-minded person could possibly be in favour of GM foods...

And I don’t believe that anyone who is remotely scientifically-minded could not possibly see any benefits in the study of genetics.

SuperInfinity

djpbarry wrote: »

Then why are birth rates so low in developed countries?

How am I supposed to know why they are so low in developed countries? That has nothing to do with it. The fact is that they're not low in these third world countries and the populations will keep expanding. Surely you agree with that.

djpbarry wrote: »

Then why are birth rates so low in developed countries?

Utter nonsense – there is already plenty of food to go round, GM or no GM. The reasons for the large numbers of starving people in the world are largely political.[/quote]

There is plenty poor food to go around if it weren't for politics, not fresh, organic food.

djpbarry wrote: »

Such as?

GM cotton are said to have made bt crops worse than they are, according to the documentary I watched they made them much worse than if they had just used their original crops.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/12/gm-cotton-fails-pests-thriving-when-they-should-be-dead.php

djpbarry wrote: »

You just said they did – make up your mind.

Of course I said they did. You are an IDIOT. I am saying that they did but even if they didn't. Do you even know what "even if they didn't" means?

djpbarry wrote: »

Whether the farmer likes it or not, genetic mutations happen all the time. Whether you like it or not, genetic mutations (modifications) are occurring in your body as we speak.

Yes, but they are not being done by scientists. What you are saying is like saying: "Whether you like it or not, your skin is being touched as we speak, so why not allow these scientists to do it for their own benefit" or "Whether you like it or not, insects are going to eat some of your crop as we speak, so why not allow people to steal your crops in bulk?"

Ridiculous arguments. These GM organisms could ruin the world and anyone who can't see that is a fool. Don't talk to me again.

And to say that the terminator gene is something unnecessary or unwanted is something that is just so retarded and such a despicable and disgusting thing to say that it sickens me.

djpbarry

SuperInfinity wrote: »

How am I supposed to know why they are so low in developed countries? That has nothing to do with it.

You said that “the more people you feed, the more people there will be to feed in the future”. But in the developed world, where people are very well fed, birth rates are very low – what gives?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

GM cotton are said to have made bt crops worse than they are...

Eh, Bt-cotton is GM cotton.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Of course I said they did. You are an IDIOT.

Right, that’s a permanent ban for you. You had your chance, now take your ranting elsewhere please.

daithiordave

Birth rates tend to be effected by education, availability of contraception, poverty, and government policies. I could try go more into it but im not sure its applicable to this thread or that im that much of an expert on it

People are starving around the world from lack of access to food rather then the availability of food on a global scale. Many reasons on this but mainly people have been driven from either access or the ability to farm there own food sustainably, we want there workforce as cheap labor, not to compete with us selling food.

GM right now, has nothing to do with feeding the world, it may well help a lot in the future, but that is not why it is here today. Its about profit, and control of food. Companies pertain that feeding the world is the reason so that every one can go back to sleep, comfortable in the knowledge that these companies know best and are going to save the poor children

MalteseBarry

Anyone who thinks they are not eating GM foods is delusional. Man has been genetically modifying foods and animals for hundreds of years. Just because it is now done in a laboratory rather than the cowshed or barn doesn't alter the fact.

There have always been luddites who have opposed progress, and those who oppose GM foods seem to have no arguments at all except to try to stir up others emotions and create scares about "big business" and "frankenstein foods".