GM crops in Ireland

sharepapa

Not sure is you are aware, but the outgoing Minister for Agriculture has made a decision to allow the use of GM crops in Ireland.

http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-to-bring-gm-crops-onto-home-market-2011-02/

I know this is a heavily debated topic but I think it's fair to say that not enough independent scientific review has gone into these products and there is reasonable doubt they have the potential to cause harm. There are endless lists of scientists questioning the validity of these as a necessary product at all.

Here are detailed articles and reports from independent scientists bringing this technology into question.

http://www.naturalnews.com/027058_crops_food_GMO.html
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/defendiSeralini.php


Besides the fact that its danger to humans goes beyond reasonable doubt, the technology has proved to be ineffective in increasing yields, patents have to be collected on seeds used and seed cannot be carried forward to further years, cross pollination can result in lawsuits and cross pollination could destroy organic crop varieties.

I urge you to educate yourselves on this issue. I believe it is a referendum issue which is being pushed forward while the smokescreen of the elections is ongoing.

nilhg

My understanding is that most of the soya and distillers fed to our cattle and pigs is GM, must get into the 100s of 1000s of tonnes a year and as far as I know the sky hasn't fallen in.

ihatetractors

Thats what i thaught, alot of the soya coming out of S America is anyway

sharepapa

Regarding the article by Gilles-Eric Séralini,
over 640 independent scientists have vilified his work. While they have been used as animal feed, saying the sky hasn't fallen in isn't due scientific process, its market economics. The decision to use them is based on their cost; as farming is squeezed more and more, economic decisions like these are a natural conclusion. It doesn't mean its a scientific review. And it doesn't discount the fact that there is significant doubt over the use of this technology.

Minute levels of dioxin in pork were enough to issue a recall in 2008. Statistically there was no real risk with this meat yet a recall costing Ireland many millions was instigated.

I believe this decision should receive the same level of scrutiny as to the dangers; no more.

djmc

I think that unless something happens to stop the human popalation growth in this planet it will only be a matter of time before we will have to grow GM crops to produce enough food to feed everyone.:(

sharepapa

They don't increase yields, the information is everywhere.

http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/2026-GM-crops-are-not-the-answer-to-world-hunger-

http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-crops-research-documenting-the-limitations-risks-and-alternatives

nilhg

sharepapa wrote: »

They don't increase yields, the information is everywhere.

http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/2026-GM-crops-are-not-the-answer-to-world-hunger-

http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-crops-research-documenting-the-limitations-risks-and-alternatives

Similar yields and much reduced pesticide use.

Of course the breeders take a big share of the savings for themselves in the cost of licence fees (royalties).

nilhg

If it's of interest to anyone the Irish Tillage and Land Use Society had it's annual conference last December, the theme was Plant Science – The Future of Farming and Food. Due to the weather some of the speakers couldn't make it but the three speakers who did covered quite a lot about GM and the possible application of some of the techniques developed by the GM industry in plant breeding in Ireland/EU, stuff like marker assisted selection.

A short report and PDF's of the papers are here

sharepapa

More info, testing of 3 strains of GM corn on rats fed over 90 days concludes possible horizontal transfer of genes in stomach lining and "clear negative impact" on function of kidneys and liver.

So, with this in mind, using the sky hasn't fallen in rational, would you eat GM cornflakes for 90 days?

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

bogman_bass

Do I think GM is safe? yes

Do I think we should grow it in ireland? no

If people are daft enough to pay a premium for our products because its GM free then I see little benift in bringing it in

ihatetractors

sharepapa wrote: »

They don't increase yields, the information is everywhere.

http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/2026-GM-crops-are-not-the-answer-to-world-hunger-

http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-crops-research-documenting-the-limitations-risks-and-alternatives

But disease/pests is startng to become a huge issue in crops due to lack of knowledge on rotation when the chemicals were first introduced and have developed varying levels of resistance. As the uncle says, when he started all that was needed was a herbicide and a fungicide application. Now he usualy sprays 3 applications and it still doesnt fully clean out the crop. Unless we can get a generation of active ingredients i think GM must be cotemplated. There's ony so much crop breeding can do naturaly and the fact we need more varieties, more often now is an indicator of this to combat disease. We need to get serious which route to take, as the cost of seed especialy is rocketing due to recent gains in global markets.

sharepapa

Briefly,

Bills presentation examines GM use, linking it to a 30 year increase in wheat production, despite its use being only for a short area of this time. Before going for the 'how will we feed an extra 50% increase in the worlds population' angle.

J.burkes report does highlight another issue with GM products:
"While Bt resistance seems to be in check, increasing numbers of glyphosate-tolerant weed species suggest improved deployment options are needed for widespread use of GHT crops" while running through a history of crop breeding and trying to make the leap to GM crops (a stark difference exists here with regard to how genes are manipulated)
His simplified explanations of genetics seems childish and lacks understanding.

Kevin Rosenbohm's information is mearly a case study with retoric.


As I said above, these are not scientific evaulations. They are economic ones. This shouldnt be or first concern when evaulating changes to our food supply, specially when they're is a reasonable doubt expressed in the scientific report listed above that these changes may harm health. (What use is greater yields when they may cause liver damage?)

nilhg

sharepapa wrote: »

Briefly,

Bills presentation examines GM use, linking it to a 30 year increase in wheat production, despite its use being only for a short area of this time. Before going for the 'how will we feed an extra 50% increase in the worlds population' angle.

J.burkes report does highlight another issue with GM products:
"While Bt resistance seems to be in check, increasing numbers of glyphosate-tolerant weed species suggest improved deployment options are needed for widespread use of GHT crops" while running through a history of crop breeding and trying to make the leap to GM crops (a stark difference exists here with regard to how genes are manipulated)
His simplified explanations of genetics seems childish and lacks understanding.

Kevin Rosenbohm's information is mearly a case study with retoric.


As I said above, these are not scientific evaulations. They are economic ones. This shouldnt be or first concern when evaulating changes to our food supply, specially when they're is a reasonable doubt expressed in the scientific report listed above that these changes may harm health. (What use is greater yields when they may cause liver damage?)

sharepapa, perhaps you'd like to share your scientific qualifications here, since you consider a man like Dr Jimmy Bourke to have a "childish and lacks understanding" knowledge of plant breeding, you must be extremely highly qualified yourself?

Corsendonk

Greenpeace are collecting signatures for the first European Citizens Iniative to outlaw GM production in Europe. Me thinks that the anti GM supporters were the same who voted NO to Lisbon which is ironic as the ECI was part of the Treaty.

sharepapa

nilhg wrote: »

sharepapa, perhaps you'd like to share your scientific qualifications here, since you consider a man like Dr Jimmy Bourke to have a "childish and lacks understanding" knowledge of plant breeding, you must be extremely highly qualified yourself?

I don't doubt the doctors credentials, I was merely summarising these pdfs as presented. Page 32 for example. He states clearly:

No adverse risks to human health or to the environment.

This is false. There is evidence that these products can cause a risk to animal health. it would surmise that the risks could also be present in humans. No trial in humans have been undertaken to this extent.

Read this, a complete scientific study on the issue:

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

Plus, even in his own slide, he says that BT resistance weeds are springing up in areas around the the fields where BT resistant crops are used. This is most definitely an impact on the environment.

Please stick to the point. My qualifications are of no importance here, just that I can read. Please be open to new information.

djmc

Just got dairy ration this morning and read ingredients
Produced from genetically modifed maize
Produced from genetically modifed soya
So unless its organic food every thing else contains GM food.
Im all for science making things easier / better once it dosent end up like meat and bone meal and BSE where farmers take the hit :mad:
I dont see how farmers can produce enough food organicly at the price supermarkets will pay.
whatever about maize there is nothing to match soya bean for protein and it will only grown in america where most of it is GM
They can just say take it or leave it what else can be used instead

5live

Well done sharepapa. We should all believe some random pieces of blurb picked from the net over independant peer reviewed scientific journals:rolleyes:. I have no affinity with GM products and remember a story about a canadian farmer growing non GM products being sued by Monsanto because his crop was tested and found to have GM seeds. These were from neighbouring crops whose pollen fertilised his crops. I have no fear of GM but i am horrified by yhe thoughts that all our foodstuffs may be owned by corporations

theroad

What 5live said. Monsanto own 90% of all commercial GM crop patents, which gives me cause for concern. You're also spot-on about Monsanto and the Canadian farmer.

I wonder also about the timing of this decision: in the dying hours of a government the outgoing minister changes a position that will have huge implications for agriculture. Why can't he just tidy his desk and go away, and leave such things to the incoming administration?

By the way djmc, GM and organic are two separate issues. Not growing GM does not mean having to grow organic.

ihatetractors

Organic is all well and good, if someone will pay a premium for it....

djmc

theroad wrote: »

What 5live said. Monsanto own 90% of all commercial GM crop patents, which gives me cause for concern. You're also spot-on about Monsanto and the Canadian farmer.

I wonder also about the timing of this decision: in the dying hours of a government the outgoing minister changes a position that will have huge implications for agriculture. Why can't he just tidy his desk and go away, and leave such things to the incoming administration?

By the way djmc, GM and organic are two separate issues. Not growing GM does not mean having to grow organic.

Yes but my point was that all pig cattle or sheep feed contains GM soya or maize which be eaten by animals which produce milk meat etc.
nothing wrong with that.
An organic farmer can not buy in animal feed unless its organic ie. from an organic farmer at over twice the price of normal animal feed.

sharepapa

5live wrote: »

Well done sharepapa. We should all believe some random pieces of blurb picked from the net over independant peer reviewed scientific journals:rolleyes:. I have no affinity with GM products and remember a story about a canadian farmer growing non GM products being sued by Monsanto because his crop was tested and found to have GM seeds. These were from neighbouring crops whose pollen fertilised his crops. I have no fear of GM but i am horrified by yhe thoughts that all our foodstuffs may be owned by corporations

Sorry, Im missing your point. This is a peer reviewed scientific experiment into potential risks in mammals from 3 types of GM Maize.

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

Here's details of the scientists in question being subject to a smear champaign
based on this research by the French Association for Plant Biotechnology.

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

And here's the same scientists being vilified by the high court in France.

http://www.ensser.org/media/0111/

What random blurb are you talking about? Please quantify your points.
Less patronizing more reading may serve you.

ihatetractors

Sharepapa, i would like to know whats your agenda. you seem to like googleing and posting links of anti GM crops without giving an alternative. What are your qualifications if you can say what one scientists work is superior to anothers. I personaly don't believe everything i read, why are you trying to make it so with your biased argument.

And is it not the case the french government have allowed trials of GM maize? last year. In the latter half if i remember correctly

sharepapa

theroad wrote: »

I wonder also about the timing of this decision: in the dying hours of a government the outgoing minister changes a position that will have huge implications for agriculture. Why can't he just tidy his desk and go away, and leave such things to the incoming administration?

By the way djmc, GM and organic are two separate issues. Not growing GM does not mean having to grow organic.

Just on this... I tried to get a comment on this today from the Minister and found out that the decision made yesterday is that Ireland's position is yes, we are in favour of GM crops in Ireland. An EU wide vote is happening today and all member states will be voting. The outcome will be posted tomorrow.

I think this reeks. When a change happens they want, it happens in a blinding flash, when it's something the people want, its years of slogging.

I agree also, the post is crossing the issues of organic and GM; livestock fed on petro-chem fertilizers have been used for years and while I believe it's not optimal, it's most definitely necessary. I just think this next step in farming practices is inherently open to more risks than this and should be examined more closely.

5live

sharepapa wrote: »

Sorry, Im missing your point. This is a peer reviewed scientific experiment into potential risks in mammals from 3 types of GM Maize.

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

Here's details of the scientists in question being subject to a smear champaign
based on this research by the French Association for Plant Biotechnology.

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

And here's the same scientists being vilified by the high court in France.

http://www.ensser.org/media/0111/

What random blurb are you talking about? Please quantify your points.
Less patronizing more reading may serve you.

I had better explain peer review to you. The whole purpose of publication in scientifie journals is to show the produce, the methods used and the result so that others can replicate the experiment. If the results are the same then the experiment can be viewed as a 'success'. If others get different results then more trials are carried out to determine why the differences. If a product is harmful, it will show up in trials as such and will not be released. I call most things on the web 'random blurb' because it has as much substance as a vaccum. Until i am familiar with the history and motives of sites then i treat then with, at best, suspicion. And as for patronising, you could read back on posts on this thread by SHAREPAPA to get a fairly good feel for that term;)

sharepapa

ihatetractors wrote: »

Sharepapa, i would like to know whats your agenda. you seem to like googleing and posting links of anti GM crops without giving an alternative. What are your qualifications if you can say what one scientists work is superior to anothers. I personaly don't believe everything i read, why are you trying to make it so with your biased argument.

I believe there is a doubt surrounding these products and until it is investigated fully it should not be forced into the mouths of me or my country men. I don't see why you need my qualifications I have not asked for yours. But my backround is in applied physics and IT. Im not justifying one scientists opinion over another but it is common knowledge that Monsanto does use a strong marketing arm to push its agenda and products backed by its own scientists. I would compare it to how the tobacco industry used its own scientists to show there was no risk from smoking during the 60s and 70s before enough independent research proved them incorrect.

My only agenda is concern for my future food supply and my kids and grandkids food supply. A decision like this is hard to reverse, it would be better to put more investigation into this before it is made. unfortunately, it looks like it already was made.

sharepapa

5live wrote: »

I had better explain peer review to you. The whole purpose of publication in scientifie journals is to show the produce, the methods used and the result so that others can replicate the experiment. If the results are the same then the experiment can be viewed as a 'success'. If others get different results then more trials are carried out to determine why the differences. If a product is harmful, it will show up in trials as such and will not be released. I call most things on the web 'random blurb' because it has as much substance as a vaccum. Until i am familiar with the history and motives of sites then i treat then with, at best, suspicion. And as for patronising, you could read back on posts on this thread by SHAREPAPA to get a fairly good feel for that term;)

So I am correct in assuming you agree with me then that? The science here holds water?

5live

sharepapa wrote: »

So I am correct in assuming you agree with me then that? The science here holds water?

If the results say the earth revolves around the sun then guess what......:) Then again, i take it you are against the vitamin enriched rice now being produced for sale in the third world that not only produces enhanced yields for nutritionally disadvantaged people but additionally, enhanced nutritional profiles for the rice to counteract widespread deficiencies? Then again, who cares, because im all right jack:mad:. I just dont get it. Would the term 'luddite' apply in this case? Just asking, not implying:D

sharepapa

5live wrote: »

If the results say the earth revolves around the sun then guess what......:) Then again, i take it you are against the vitamin enriched rice now being produced for sale in the third world that not only produces enhanced yields for nutritionally disadvantaged people but additionally, enhanced nutritional profiles for the rice to counteract widespread deficiencies? Then again, who cares, because im all right jack:mad:. I just dont get it. Would the term 'luddite' apply in this case? Just asking, not implying:D

You keep saying Im pulling random blurbs.... Please reference your opinions as I have.

5live

Google GM vitamin a rice:D

sharepapa

5live wrote: »

Google GM vitamin a rice:D

Yes, I did. Found many 'random blurbs' etc. No proven science. No quotable article from an abstract which was not presented by corporate sponsored scientists.This is my problem, currently all GM tech is pie in the sky.

On paper, it's absolutely amazing. Truly, it is.

John_F

seeeing as we are all shoving links up what abou the shortage of food in the world, usda forecast out today http://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/latest.pdf

large demand from china for grain http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFLDE7171HQ20110208

you say it doesn't raise yield, but it lowers the risk of crop failure.

im on the fence on this one im afraid

sharepapa

Look, I'm on the fence about this issue. I like the technology's claims, I just want to see open independent trials. No agenda, just openness. It's easy to pick up info on how great GM is meant to be, it is an amazing technology. But when there is concern from independent scientists, I would like to see more details from independent scientists to back up any data, whatever the results.

My problem is this:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88387

Arguably, this is part of the reason for the decision yesterday and today.
Strong arm capitalist tactics being used to push agenda.

This does not instil confidence in this technology. It instils doubt.

nilhg

sharepapa wrote: »

Look, I'm on the fence about this issue. I like the technology's claims, I just want to see open independent trials. No agenda, just openness. It's easy to pick up info on how great GM is meant to be, it is an amazing technology. But when there is concern from independent scientists, I would like to see more details from independent scientists to back up any data, whatever the results.

My problem is this:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88387

Arguably, this is part of the reason for the decision yesterday and today.
Strong arm capitalist tactics being used to push agenda.

This does not instil confidence in this technology. It instils doubt.

That article is two and a half years old, hardly anything to do with yesterdays decision?

I have no problem with people being philosophically against GM, they don't like the concept of it and don't want to eat GM products which again is fine as long as they are willing to pay the cost of the extra production cost.

Where I do have a problem is when those people decide that because they don't like it it's wrong and nobody else should be able to make up their own mind and that they know better than us and all the scientific bodies of the US, EU and our own little country here. I've had more than enough of that while the Greens had their day in the sun, stuff like this couldn't be even discussed.

sharepapa

nilhg wrote: »

That article is two and a half years old, hardly anything to do with yesterdays decision?

I have no problem with people being philosophically against GM, they don't like the concept of it and don't want to eat GM products which again is fine as long as they are willing to pay the cost of the extra production cost.

Where I do have a problem is when those people decide that because they don't like it it's wrong and nobody else should be able to make up their own mind and that they know better than us and all the scientific bodies of the US, EU and our own little country here. I've had more than enough of that while the Greens had their day in the sun, stuff like this couldn't be even discussed.

Well, he never left. Rap on the knuckles for being exposed, professionally PR photo and website... :0 Hmmm. The plot thickens. Would this give you cause for concern?

http://www.chiefscientificadviser.ie/

But I agree with you, I am not against these products for any illogical reason, I think I have presented clear logic for more enquiry and less of a hurry to adopt something unproven. In the least it could be expensive but may hold promise - potentially it may cause serious harm to the consumer. I believe that unlike smoking for example, this won't be an adoptable choice, it will be an unavoidable one.

Birdnuts

djmc wrote: »

I think that unless something happens to stop the human popalation growth in this planet it will only be a matter of time before we will have to grow GM crops to produce enough food to feed everyone.:(

There is plenty of land to grow food - the problem here is that increasing amounts of it are used to grow cash crops, biofuels etc. or in the case of many countries vast amounts of land are controlled by a tiny and often corrupt elite:(

Birdnuts

nilhg wrote: »

much reduced pesticide use.

.

Far from it - countries like Argentina and India have seen increased use of pesticides thanx to the introduction of herbicide resistant varieties etc.

Birdnuts

nilhg wrote: »

Where I do have a problem is when those people decide that because they don't like it it's wrong and nobody else should be able to make up their own mind and that they know better than us and all the scientific bodies of the US, EU and our own little country here. I've had more than enough of that while the Greens had their day in the sun, stuff like this couldn't be even discussed.

There is very little independent testing of new GM crops - most of these so called "safety" tests are done in-house by the likes of Monsanto, that is what has people concerned

PS: A well known independent Scientist got thrown out his job in the UK when he came up with some very worrying results from trials with rats and GM potatoes - an excellent Channel 4 doc exposed the role of the Blair government in this a few years back

sharepapa

Birdnuts wrote: »

There is very little independent testing of new GM crops - most of these so called "safety" tests are done in-house by the likes of Monsanto, that is what has people concerned

PS: A well known independent Scientist got thrown out his job in the UK when he came up with some very worrying results from trials with rats and GM potatoes - an excellent Channel 4 doc exposed the role of the Blair government in this a few years back

I was just reading about him. Must check out the doc. I don't think anyone listening though; I've been trying to show the same things on here today and get the impression, some people have their mind made up, despite clear evidence showing discrepancies and coercive tactics being used to promote these products.

Birdnuts

sharepapa wrote: »

I was just reading about him. Must check out the doc. I don't think anyone listening though; I've been trying to show the same things on here today and get the impression, some people have their mind made up, despite clear evidence showing discrepancies and coercive tactics being used to promote these products.

Unfortunately the "corporate slave" mentality have been hardwired into the Irish Psyche by decades of corporate controlled media and state propaganda. Its also the main factor that has turned the country into the economic basket case that it is today:(

nilhg

Birdnuts wrote: »

Far from it - countries like Argentina and India have seen increased use of pesticides thanx to the introduction of herbicide resistant varieties etc.

In that case there has to have been a big increase in productivity.

Birdnuts wrote: »

There is very little independent testing of new GM crops - most of these so called "safety" tests are done in-house by the likes of Monsanto, that is what has people concerned

PS: A well known independent Scientist got thrown out his job in the UK when he came up with some very worrying results from trials with rats and GM potatoes - an excellent Channel 4 doc exposed the role of the Blair government in this a few years back

Again it comes back to whether you trust at all the various institutions set up to protect public health.

It is interesting though that GM crops have been widely grown in one of the most litigious countries in the world and I'm not aware of any case taken claiming damage to someone's health.

Birdnuts

nilhg wrote: »

In that case there has to have been a big increase in productivity.

Thats how the companies marketed these crops and growers signed long term agreements based on these "promises" - unfortunately many of these expectations have not been met, even worse is the fact that the genetic variety of crops such as maize and soya have been compromised by the fact that growers were encouraged to cease cultivation of them leading to extinction in many cases.


PS: Its only in recent years that tobacco companies have started to be sued on the back of independent research - its still very early days with GM but watch this space. There have already been court cases in regards to non-GM crop contamination and there could be big trouble coming down the line for certain GM-companies as there is increasing evidence that GM-crops in association with "systemic" pesticides are a significant factor in the massive decline in Honey Bees world-wide:(

Corsendonk

Are you objecting also to the development of GM crops in Ireland?

Birdnuts

Corsendonk wrote: »

Are you objecting also to the development of GM crops in Ireland?

Particularly Ireland given that the supervision of such things is probably even more in the pocket of big-business then the likes of Canada, Argentina:

http://www.villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2011/01/unloved-epa/


PS: In any case following the US/Argentina model of farming will wipe out family farming in this country leaving only a handfull of barley/beef barons and a devastated rural countryside at every level( social, environmental etc.)

Corsendonk

Birdnuts wrote: »

Particularly Ireland given that the supervision of such things is probably even more in the pocket of big-business then the likes of Canada, Argentina:

http://www.villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2011/01/unloved-epa/


PS: In any case following the US/Argentina model of farming will wipe out family farming in this country leaving only a handfull of barley/beef barons and a devastated rural countryside at every level( social, environmental etc.)

But isn't the majority of Irish developments in GM plants not for agriculture use but for environmental and pharmaceutical needs? All of you agriculture examples are large countries with massive farm sizes compared to Ireland.

5live

Sooooo.........if we agree with you we are independant minds questioning the status quo and if we dont we are closed minded corporate schills? LOL guys:rolleyes:

Birdnuts

5live wrote: »

Sooooo.........if we agree with you we are independant minds questioning the status quo and if we dont we are closed minded corporate schills? LOL guys:rolleyes:

I support independent oversight of this area based on independent peer-reviewed science. If you prefer to place your trust in the likes of Monsanto, best of luck to you:)

5live

Birdnuts wrote: »

I support independent oversight of this area based on independent peer-reviewed science. If you prefer to place your trust in the likes of Monsanto, best of luck to you:)

Check post no. 17:D

sharepapa

5live wrote: »

Check post no. 17:D

More info for those who wish to read a little:

Monsanto blocks research on GMO safety

http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/02/14/monsanto-blocks-research-on-gmo-safety/

I wonder why they would do that if they were perfectly safe?

Of coarse, you could say this is all just random blurbs from the net. You could say that Oh wait, you already did.

5live

While we are on the subject of random blurbs on the net, how come ALL sharepapas posts are on this one thread on this one forum? Most posters have posts in lots of other threads but not you. You wouldnt, by any chance, be posting under an assumed title? Just curious SP;)

sharepapa

5live wrote: »

While we are on the subject of random blurbs on the net, how come ALL sharepapas posts are on this one thread on this one forum? Most posters have posts in lots of other threads but not you. You wouldnt, by any chance, be posting under an assumed title? Just curious SP;)

No but I've never used boards for more than searching before. I just decided to flesh out this issue with people as it's something I feel strongly about. As per ALL your earlier posts, your paranoia that I've some kind of agenda is ridiculous. What do you think my agenda would be? Why not base your answers on what I'm saying rather than your own spurious thought. Like why would Monsanto block independent access to their technology for testing purposes. i.e. stick to the point.

5live

sharepapa wrote: »

No but I've never used boards for more than searching before. I just decided to flesh out this issue with people as it's something I feel strongly about. As per ALL your earlier posts, your paranoia that I've some kind of agenda is ridiculous. What do you think my agenda would be? Why not base your answers on what I'm saying rather than your own spurious thought. Like why would Monsanto block independent access to their technology for testing purposes. i.e. stick to the point.

Commercial sensitivity perhaps? Like protecting their patented technology:)