Should Ireland welcome gentically modified food?

bleg

But what about when GMO branded food becomes accepted, will they not just go for the cheaper foodstuffs then anyway? Would we be foolish to ignore all research into GMO at the expense of future technological advances and possible loss of competitiveness?

Caliden

GM foods haven't been out long enough to see the longterm effects.

The copyright law associated with them is something to consider.

i.e. what happens in the situation where GM crops pollinate adjacent fields? copyright infringement?

Andy-Pandy

Its a bit off topic but i read an interesting book called "The Windup Girl".

The Windup Girl is set in 23rd century Thailand. Global warming has raised the levels of world's oceans, carbon fuel sources have become depleted, and manually wound springs are used as energy storage devices. Biotechnology is dominant and mega corporations like AgriGen, PurCal and RedStar (called calorie companies) control food production through 'genehacked' seeds, and use bioterrorism, private armies and economic hitmen to create markets for their products. Frequent catastrophes, such as deadly and widespread plagues and illness, caused by genetically modified crops and mutant pests, ravage entire populations. The natural genetic seed stock of the world's plants has been almost completely supplanted by those that are genetically engineered to be sterile.

I know its a scifi book, but scifi sometimes has a way of predicting the future. The premise that i find most believable is the possibility that with GM product's, company's could eventually own the patents for the majority of the Earths food crops. That would just give way too much power to the companies/country's that control them. Look at how the superpowers have reacted to dwindling oil supply's, we need as much diversity in are food sources as possible, look at how bacteria's and viruses are known to already mutate against the affects of herbicides etc They will adapt to the changes made in GM crops, then like with herbicides, insecticides, antibiotics etc we will always be playing catch up.

Digits

Conflats wrote: »

The only GM ingredients our livestock are being fed are soya and maize meal (not the stuff we grow the actual grain) this is due to the fact over 90% of world soya is now GM due to the widespread adaption of the technology.

I've lived on a farm all my life bud so I don't need the Ag lecture. I know a lot of lads near us that are switching to their own beet, turnips etc. because bag ration is simply too expensive. TBH yes that is relatively a tiny part of the animals diet but what about when the Germans, French etc. all learn that we're growing GM crops? Will they brush it off as nonsense or ask what's the point in buying this GM crap? Granted, yes that there will be very little or no GM traces in the product but why open ourselves to that scrutiny from overseas markets? Irish food has a good name abroad so if it aint' broke then why try fixing it?

opinion guy

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

Its a bit off topic but i read an interesting book called "The Windup Girl".



I know its a scifi book, but scifi sometimes has a way of predicting the future. The premise that i find most believable is the possibility that with GM product's, company's could eventually own the patents for the majority of the Earths food crops. That would just give way too much power to the companies/country's that control them. Look at how the superpowers have reacted to dwindling oil supply's, we need as much diversity in are food sources as possible, look at how bacteria's and viruses are known to already mutate against the affects of herbicides etc They will adapt to the changes made in GM crops, then like with herbicides, insecticides, antibiotics etc we will always be playing catch up.

Oh I wouldn't worry, I'm sure in 50 years we will all be Borg like creatures with the latest core i27 intel inside implanted in our grey matter, directly photo-syntheisising energy in our skin from sunlight during the day and via inbuilt Duracell's in place of a digestive system by night and our main worry will be winning the 40 year platform wars between the Apple Dictatorship, Google Collective and Samsung Directorate that sparked off when they realised the Patent Lawyers Cartel were happy to continue the never ended cycle of lawsuits to further their own mysterious ends

bleg

Digits wrote: »

Irish food has a good name abroad so if it aint' broke then why try fixing it?

Because failure to innovate will eventually lead to the end of your business.


You sound like people in the late 1990s: "I've done my business without e-mail and mobile phones for years, why do I need this new technology now? Why would I even invest?"


GMOs are going to become the standard. We can choose to be part of the leading pack in this new technology or we can lag behind. What's wrong with a bit of research?

Andy-Pandy

bleg wrote: »

Because failure to innovate will eventually lead to the end of your business.


You sound like people in the late 1990s: "I've done my business without e-mail and mobile phones for years, why do I need this new technology now? Why would I even invest?"


GMOs are going to become the standard. We can choose to be part of the leading pack in this new technology or we can lag behind. What's wrong with a bit of research?

How will it lead to the end of his business? We will still be producing high quality produce that people will still be wanting to buy. If anything by not going GM Ireland will gain a new niche in the market and be able to market are selves accordingly. We are not loosing anything, and it is still to be seen in the longterm whether or not the gains are sustainable. We have no problem, so why do we need a fix for it?

Digits

bleg wrote: »

GMOs are going to become the standard. We can choose to be part of the leading pack in this new technology or we can lag behind. What's wrong with a bit of research?

If you read my posts properly I am not against GM food. I just think that here in Ireland where we have the capacity for exceptional yields in various crops without extreme human intervention then why not promote our GM free crops? 'semi-artizan' if you will?

Of course GM food can have massive benefits, especially in areas of the world with poor yield/soils. (TBH GM will be a necessity to feed 10bn humans by 2050, story for another day).

Conflats

Digits wrote: »

If you read my posts properly I am not against GM food. I just think that here in Ireland where we have the capacity for exceptional yields in various crops without extreme human intervention then why not promote our GM free crops? 'semi-artizan' if you will?

Of course GM food can have massive benefits, especially in areas of the world with poor yield/soils. (TBH GM will be a necessity to feed 10bn humans by 2050, story for another day).

Yes Ireland has some of the top yields in the world but not without the use of expensive inputs in the form of fungicides and nitrogen to pick the main 2. The last few years in particular we may have had what may be described as low disease pressure but its not that far back that we had very poor harvests due to disease. So to say without extreme human intervention not sure what you mean in that, because a potato crop which requires weekly spraying upto 12 times a season, or a winter wheat crop which could have a tractor and sprayer in 5/6 times shows to me that barring irrigation i dont see much more intervention a farmer can have in crop inputs


Plus these 10 billion people the majority of them just want food they dont want this artizan food.

WakeUp

No. A French Study found Monsanto's GM modified corn caused internal organ damage. And that's just corn - what other damage do their other freak seeds cause?

Whats disturbing about the above freak seed is that it was approved, Monsanto suppressed the study of the seed and it wasnt till greenpeace took them court and had the information released that this came to light companies care about margin not people. The food we eat and buy at the moment doesn't cause internal organ damage why would people want to put us in that position? Are we not being screwed in enough ways already without eating poisonous food because the government "approve" it.

Digits

Conflats wrote: »

Yes Ireland has some of the top yields in the world but not without the use of expensive inputs in the form of fungicides and nitrogen to pick the main 2. The last few years in particular we may have had what may be described as low disease pressure but its not that far back that we had very poor harvests due to disease. So to say without extreme human intervention not sure what you mean in that, because a potato crop which requires weekly spraying upto 12 times a season, or a winter wheat crop which could have a tractor and sprayer in 5/6 times shows to me that barring irrigation i dont see much more intervention a farmer can have in crop inputs

By extreme I mean playing god with GM and changing growing patterns in a lab etc. Obviously nitrogen and pesticides are a given in any potato crop.

Plus these 10 billion people the majority of them just want food they dont want this artizan food.

When did I mention that they did? If you read my post properly you would have seen how I mentioned that that's why we do need GM crops. I never said that GM free crops will fee the world. At the current rate i'ts impossible IMO.

EDIT:

WakeUp wrote: »

No. A French Study found Monsanto's GM modified corn caused internal organ damage. And that's just corn - what other damage do their other freak seeds cause?

Whats disturbing about the above freak seed is that it was approved, Monsanto suppressed the study of the seed and it wasnt till greenpeace took them court and had the information released that this came to light companies care about margin not people. The food we eat and buy at the moment doesn't cause internal organ damage why would people want to put us in that position? Are we not being screwed in enough ways already without eating poisonous food because the government "approve" it.

An interesting video of Monsanto's domination in the US. This would be a worst case scenario for Ireland IMO.

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

44leto

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

How will it lead to the end of his business? We will still be producing high quality produce that people will still be wanting to buy. If anything by not going GM Ireland will gain a new niche in the market and be able to market are selves accordingly. We are not loosing anything, and it is still to be seen in the longterm whether or not the gains are sustainable. We have no problem, so why do we need a fix for it?

It maybe a niche market, it also will be profitable, but noway as profitable as industrial high intensity agriculture. I can be certain of one thing in this present world the price of food will rise. Good farm-land is an Irish resource but we don't have that much of it, we are no Ukraine or North America, but what we have you use it to its full potential.

We are a net food exporter, we are also a food product exporter, we could become a greater food exporter, I can guarantee you food is a growing market. So it would be best to produce quantity then quality, it will earn more.

Conflats

Digits wrote: »

By extreme I mean playing god with GM and changing growing patterns in a lab etc. Obviously nitrogen and pesticides are a given in any potato crop.



When did I mention that they did? If you read my post properly you would have seen how I mentioned that that's why we do need GM crops. I never said that GM free crops will fee the world. At the current rate i'ts impossible IMO.

You are talking of something space age, how is taking a gene for example from a wild potato and putting it in a variety which is widely grown playing god? by that you must assume the 'conventional' breeders are also playing god because they are doing the same thing just one way is a lot quicker than the other. Also you mentioned grow patterns if a plant can intercept more sunlight in may and june why not alter it's genetic code to make it have bigger leaves for example and thus increase yield

The main people in the world who are against gm crops tend to be the ones who can afford food without it being a large part of their disposable income.

annascott

Aren't GM foods carcinogenic?

bleg

annascott wrote: »

Aren't GM foods carcinogenic?

What would make them exclusively carcinogenic over non GMO?

steddyeddy

opinion guy wrote: »

Thats a bit rich coming from you when you weren't familiar with the bioballistic method yourself, yet you are on here pushing this agneda for some reason.

You said this

No, GM is a shotgun. The 'shotgun technique' has been one of the main techniques genetic engineering has used for decades. Crudely put it means you fire the new gene into a bunch of germ cells, grow em, and hope one of them has the trait you want. And doesn't have other traits you don't want. You may not know until donkeys years down the line what traits show up.

The bit highlighted is applied to several methods of adding target genes to a selective genome it is not exclusive to bioballistics. Im familair with the technique when its named properly. When working with genetic engineering model organisims are used which are selected because the effects of genetic tampering are usually evident quite quickly.

To get onto the agenda side of things. People seem to be misrepresenting the work done by honest scientists on this for years and my agenda if any would be to try and balance out some of the more emotive reasoning which is out there at the moment.

I'm curious - what exactly is your interest in this ? Do you have any financial interests in genetic engineering ?

No financial interests in it at all. I am currently a biochemist doing my masters in UCD but during my undergradute programme as a zoologist/ biochemist I met and studied under a lot of intelligent people. One of whom Im most fond was called Matthew Harmey in my opinion a brilliant botanist and geneticist. He instilled in me the worth of genetic engineering. I myself have worked in labs using certain techniques related to genetics although my area of interest is in animal/human gene and protein manipulation I would work with similar techniques to those used in genetic engineering of crops. So If I have an agenda it is to refute some of the dogma relating to gm foods.

steddyeddy

WakeUp wrote: »

No. A French Study found Monsanto's GM modified corn caused internal organ damage. And that's just corn - what other damage do their other freak seeds cause?

Whats disturbing about the above freak seed is that it was approved, Monsanto suppressed the study of the seed and it wasnt till greenpeace took them court and had the information released that this came to light companies care about margin not people. The food we eat and buy at the moment doesn't cause internal organ damage why would people want to put us in that position? Are we not being screwed in enough ways already without eating poisonous food because the government "approve" it.

A study published by the organic and non gm group is not what you call unbiased. I would love to see the peer reviewed paper that backs up this study.

opinion guy

steddyeddy wrote: »

The bit highlighted is applied to several methods of adding target genes to a selective genome it is not exclusive to bioballistics. Im familair with the technique when its named properly. When working with genetic engineering model organisims are used which are selected because the effects of genetic tampering are usually evident quite quickly.

Took you a while to respond.....did some reading up ?

People seem to be misrepresenting the work done by honest scientists on this for years

Monsanto are not honest scientists

No financial interests in it at all. I am currently a biochemist doing my masters in UCD but during my undergradute programme as a zoologist/ biochemist I met and studied under a lot of intelligent people. One of whom Im most fond was called Matthew Harmey in my opinion a brilliant botanist and geneticist. He instilled in me the worth of genetic engineering. I myself have worked in labs using certain techniques related to genetics although my area of interest is in animal/human gene and protein manipulation. So If I have an agenda it is to refute some of the dogma relating to gm foods.

Fair enough. Recognise that there is dogma on both sides of the fence.

steddyeddy

opinion guy wrote: »

Took you a while to respond.....did some reading up ?

As I said Im familiar with the basics at least. I did consult a reference book to make sure I got it right though. Some of the cobwebs need brushing off its been a while since I studied some of that stuff.

Monsanto are not honest scientists

Well I share your concern about the companies involved. I dont think a private company should own any patents on anything to do with food. Saying that I would say it would be the scientists involved with monsanto who are dishonest.

Fair enough. Recognise that there is dogma on both sides of the fence.

There is indeed and in the former zoology component I have stood up against dogma which was upheld by zoologists. (Dogma is a bit rare in biochem fortunatly!).

Digits

Conflats wrote: »

You are talking of something space age, how is taking a gene for example from a wild potato and putting it in a variety which is widely grown playing god? by that you must assume the 'conventional' breeders are also playing god because they are doing the same thing just one way is a lot quicker than the other. Also you mentioned grow patterns if a plant can intercept more sunlight in may and june why not alter it's genetic code to make it have bigger leaves for example and thus increase yield.

Again I have nothing against it. I'd eat a GM pud no bother if it was properly tested and passed etc. I'm just looking from an Irish point of view, there are always going to be many people with big reservations with GM food who are going to avoid at all costs. So why don't we become leaders in these markets which demand GM free food no?

[/QUOTE]The main people in the world who are against gm crops tend to be the ones who can afford food without it being a large part of their disposable income.[/QUOTE]

How would you even know that? Complete b*****ks of a comment.

steddyeddy

A reply to letter by the enviromental doctor who critiscised gm foods from a senior botanist at Galway university. Please read this it makes sense and is from a scientific perspective as opposed to a business point of view.

Teagasc seeking GM go-ahead





Sir, – Elizabeth Cullen states it is difficult to understand why Teagasc would want to examine genetically modified (GM) crops as she claims it opposes Ireland’s “green” image (March 10th). In fact, green does not have to mean no GM. The German Greens in government allowed more than 40 successful GM crop trials. Any truly green-minded person would welcome Teagasc’s independent research into a technology that could help cut the 250,000lbs of toxic fungicide used annually against potato blight in Ireland.
Moreover, the Green Party in our last government produced Harvest 2020 (July 19th, 2010), a vision for future Irish agriculture that was based on smart green growth. The recommendation relating to GM technology was listed under the title of “Restoring Competitiveness” and stated: “Teagasc should continue to provide an impartial research programme on the issues of GM crop cultivation to policy makers, tillage farmers, and the general public, in order that Ireland can engage in scientific discussions on new crop technologies and be to the forefront of technology should EU policy on GM crop cultivation alter and broader acceptance of the merits of GM technology emerge.”
Since Teagasc’s last trials of GM crops in the last 1990s the mantra that “all GM is bad and all non-GM is good” has been shown to be incorrect and overly simplistic.
This Government needs to establish a forward-looking approach to GM technology so that it can develop evidence-based policies (via research by Teagasc) in a democratic manner in this area of strategic importance to Ireland’s society, economy and environment. – Yours, etc,
SHANE MORRIS BSc,
Research Associate,
Department of Botany and
Plant Science,
National University of Ireland,
Galway.

44leto

There seems to be something else involved in peoples opposition to GM. The term "frankenfood" a reference to Shelly's monster Frankestein about what can happen when science tinkers and defies nature. It was a great novel, a classic, but just a novel. We are tinkering with nature and we always did, we are now living in a geological termed era the anthropogenic age. An era and environment caused by humans.

I find people opposed to this technology are not opposed to the food, that is secondary. What they are really proposing is, food should be produced as naturally as possible (whatever that means), as nature intended, as if nature has an intention. Like the communist doctrine of back to the land or the fascist one of the purity of the Earth. Its kind of religious.

I feel the only thing man has is science, we have nothing else, this tech has the potential to feed the world, at present we do not, 1 dies every second from malnutrition and its complications. But even with this tech that is not guaranteed. But one thing is for certain. Without it more will starve.

This tech is the green revolution with jet engines, it is that superior and it is still in it infancy, why doesn't this excite everyone, a science that will make our live better.

Conflats

Digits wrote: »

Again I have nothing against it. I'd eat a GM pud no bother if it was properly tested and passed etc. I'm just looking from an Irish point of view, there are always going to be many people with big reservations with GM food who are going to avoid at all costs. So why don't we become leaders in these markets which demand GM free food no?

The main people in the world who are against gm crops tend to be the ones who can afford food without it being a large part of their disposable income.[/QUOTE]

How would you even know that? Complete b*****ks of a comment.[/QUOTE]

Well have a logical think about it i doubt the people in Africa or any where else starving give two f**ks about weather its Gm or not they just want food.
Plus another point on it would be where are these lobby groups based? western countries, many countries such as brazil and argentina have embraced gm

For somebody who lived on a farm for their life you must surely realise the benefits it can bring to the farm, (although not saying anything about anyone enterprise) the arable sector has more to gain from Gm being introduced.

The idea that Ireland should be a GM free zone is stupid due to the fact we have to use chemical inputs which they could potentially be replaced with genes that already exist in the environment.

Digits

44leto wrote: »

I feel the only thing man has is science, we have nothing else, this tech has the potential to feed the world, at present we do not, 1 dies every second from malnutrition and its complications. But even with this tech that is not guaranteed. But one thing is for certain. Without it more will starve.

Completely agree with this aspect. People seem to think that I have a problem with GM. Not the case, I'm looking from an economic viewpoint in Ireland's case.

steddyeddy

Conflats wrote: »

The main people in the world who are against gm crops tend to be the ones who can afford food without it being a large part of their disposable income.

How would you even know that? Complete b*****ks of a comment.[/QUOTE]

Well have a logical think about it i doubt the people in Africa or any where else starving give two f**ks about weather its Gm or not they just want food.
Plus another point on it would be where are these lobby groups based? western countries, many countries such as brazil and argentina have embraced gm

For somebody who lived on a farm for their life you must surely realise the benefits it can bring to the farm, (although not saying anything about anyone enterprise) the arable sector has more to gain from Gm being introduced.

The idea that Ireland should be a GM free zone is stupid due to the fact we have to use chemical inputs which they could potentially be replaced with genes that already exist in the environment.[/QUOTE]

We use a lot of chemical inputs that would removed if we used gm crops.

Somnus

annascott wrote: »

Aren't GM foods carcinogenic?

No

And as for GM in general. Most people who are opposed know nothing about it. I'm studying genetics and cell biology in college (Not saying I'm an expert in the field) and I think people who don't have experience in science have all these fears and misconceptions about what actually happens. Basically it's ignorance, and I mean that in the least offensive way.

Two of the most common arguments are:

1) Cross pollination with non GM plants. Solution: Make sure the plants can't produce seed/pollen. Which then leads on to the second one...

2) Dependency on a company for seed.

So you don't want it to be able to reproduce... but you don't want to have to keep buying seed from the creator...

The only danger in my mind is use of extra herbicides, which can be easily solved by either developing non toxic herbicides, or intensive preparation after harvesting. That problem all ready exists. And I'd imagine farmers all ready by commercial seed.


Finally, to all the people with the "If its not broke don't fix it" attitude. What kinda attitude is that!!? Where do you think the human race would be if we never tried to improve anything?
The standard of living we have now is thanks to experimentation and develop in all areas of science. It's part of what makes us great as a species. We're just getting better at improving things. There's always room to improve something
Absolutely ridiculous attitude in my opinion.

constitutionus

voted no on this one.

mainly for branding reasons.

any gobshyte can grow foods so potential developments in other up and coming countries around the world threaten our market share as we aint a cheap country to farm in.

but marketing ourselves as a non GM country ?

thats quids in for the speciality market and those idiots will spend a fortune on it and its a growing futures market.

that all goes out the window if weve got widescale GM farming potentially "infecting" stuff

even the rumour of it threatens sales.

whether thats rational or not is irrelevent.

just look at the number of countries we cant sell beef in because of the british BSE cases.

44leto

Dr.Poca wrote: »

No

And as for GM in general. Most people who are opposed know nothing about it. I'm studying genetics and cell biology in college (Not saying I'm an expert in the field) and I think people who don't have experience in science have all these fears and misconceptions about what actually happens. Basically it's ignorance, and I mean that in the least offensive way.

Two of the most common arguments are:

1) Cross pollination with non GM plants. Solution: Make sure the plants can't produce seed/pollen. Which then leads on to the second one...

2) Dependency on a company for seed.

So you don't want it to be able to reproduce... but you don't want to have to keep buying seed from the creator...

The only danger in my mind is use of extra herbicides, which can be easily solved by either developing non toxic herbicides, or intensive preparation after harvesting. That problem all ready exists. And I'd imagine farmers all ready by commercial seed.


Finally, to all the people with the "If its not broke don't fix it" attitude. What kinda attitude is that!!? Where do you think the human race would be if we never tried to improve anything?
The standard of living we have now is thanks to experimentation and develop in all areas of science. It's part of what makes us great as a species. We're just getting better at improving things. There's always room to improve something
Absolutely ridiculous attitude in my opinion.

Kudo I wish I was you and went into this fascinating and exciting field.

It is broke and it does need fixing. Take our recent past and the green revolution,
From Wiki
"The initiatives, led by Norman Borlaug, the "Father of the Green Revolution" credited with saving over a billion people from starvation, involved the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques, distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers".

This was an outstanding success and the programme won the Nobel prize for Norman Borlaug in 1970. Just suppose this never happened and he was to propose such a programme today. You would get all the green heads screaming murder about cross breathing, using hybridized seeds, artificial fertilizers and pesticides. Its not natural, not as nature intended etc.

But the countries that benefited from the green revolution are in trouble, their soil is close to exhaustion, the water resources are under pressure, the over use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers is causing other environmental damage.

So what is needed is a grain crop that uses less water, less pesticides and fertilizers, A miracle, but an attainable one with this technology. You could tell the farmers in the Punjab to go back to the old ways and use the farming techniques that they used before the green revolution. But really there is no going back. They need a tech rescue, a GM tech rescue.

But the world has changed the green revolution made India self sufficient in food production. Now they just buy it on international markets, they can afford to now, pushing the price up more and more.

Roadtrippin

In the last couple of years we a had bit more genetic modification here and it seemed to have done the general gene pool the world of good bring on the introduction of monster potatoes

Randy Anders

Ireland has vast amounts of land for food production and our population is tiny, we don't need to bring in GM crops

If we lived in a country like Holland where population density is very high and land is at a premium, then we would have to look at the possibility

As it stands, we don't need it here in Ireland