Should Ireland welcome gentically modified food?

Channel Zero

Here's the view of GM-Free Ireland on the proposed experiment for anyone interested:

http://www.gmfreeireland.org/potato/index.php

Taloolah

Dr.Poca wrote: »

Human kind has shaped the resources of the planet to our will for a long time, and I think we've done all right out of that.

To quote a wise man "what a ridiculously naive statment".
You think that mankind has done a good job in shaping the resources of the planet to his will? I suppose you think global warming is being blown completely out of proportion too? Who needs rainforests anyway? We need the land for ranches dammit! More cows to supply the MacDonald's masses!
Perhaps an example of how 'we've done alright' might have been a good idea here.

Dr.Poca wrote: »

GM foods are just another step in improving things for ourselves.

Again, can you give an example? Economically? Ireland had a lot going for it with its green image. Believe it or not, most people want to eat organic food, why take this resource away from us unnecessarily?

Health wise? Can you prove that GM foods are just as healthy as non-GM? The overwhelming evidence shows that they are not. The citizens of America are campaigning at the moment to get GM food labelled as such. Why do you think that is?

Taloolah

steddyeddy wrote: »

Secondly Ireland has a terrible record of respect for nature so I dont buy the whole gm foods will ruin that thing. We are using unscientific and pointless way to eradicate bovine tb by culling badgers. We are killing the reintroduced birds of prey In ireland by the same method they were made extinct one hundred years ago. We see any non livestock animal as vermin. Talk to any conservationist outside of Ireland and youll hear about our reputation first hand.

With all due respect, I understand that Ireland's track record is not very good when it comes to respecting nature, but the GM line is the one line we haven't crossed yet, but are about to. A ban on GM would be one less insult to nature.

steddyeddy wrote: »

If nature works in perfect harmony with our bodies why do we bother pasteurizing milk

Well, let me explain to you shall I? Milk was first pasteurized in the 1800s, because cheap and dirty milk was making people ill. Not milk from farms, but milk from cramped, industrial warehouses. The pasteurization process kills virtually all the bad bacteria, but also the good bacteria.
Pasteurization also allows for a longer shelf life the supermarket.
So nothing to do with scary nature - just man's inability to keep things sanitized.

steddyeddy wrote: »

With genetic modification you use a more sophisticated method to change the occurence of certain genes in the gene pool. All the additions result in a change in the amino acids expressed by a gene. Apart from technique whats the difference?

But the problem lies with the technique. If nature could take genes from here there and everywhere, and insert them into organisms that are genetically completely different, wouldn't it have done so already?
No, because nature doesn't have a fully-equipped laboratory funded by a multi-national company.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I take it your also against Insulin and gene therapy, anti cancer drugs, anti aids drugs, blood transfusions and all the other ways we meddled with nature?

I think modern science is wonderful actually. Combined with an all-organic diet, we can live very long and healthy lives.

Crazy huh?

Somnus

Taloolah wrote: »

I suppose you think global warming is being blown completely out of proportion too? Who needs rainforests anyway? We need the land for ranches dammit! More cows to supply the MacDonald's masses!
Perhaps an example of how 'we've done alright' might have been a good idea here.

No I don't think global warming is blown out of proportion, but I'm no expert in the field, and I understand scientisits can make mistakes. And of course I completely agree that deforestation is a massive problem that needs to be addressed. I have a great love of nature, but I am also studying science, specifically genetics and cell biology. Just cause I am supportive of GM doesn't mean that I am anti-nature.
In fact, if you have a GM crop that yields the same, if not better, per area of land, and with need for less herbicides, then it's actually better for the environment. As you don't need as much land and are putting less herbicides on the ground.

And as for your more cows for McDonalds comment, I'd actually love to try some in-vitro meat. Fast to produce, no slaughter of animals. Less cost in feeding and housing. It's a win

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128282.500-credible-or-inedible.html

There was a more recent article but I can't find it at the minute. Also, here's some environmental benefits of GM sugar beet
http://web.ebscohost.com.remote.library.dcu.ie/ehost/detail?sid=559fca05-dc46-4473-9204-a230e145bfd5%40sessionmgr15&vid=1&hid=126&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ukh&AN=11712591

Taloolah wrote: »

Health wise? Can you prove that GM foods are just as healthy as non-GM? The overwhelming evidence shows that they are not. The citizens of America are campaigning at the moment to get GM food labelled as such. Why do you think that is?

Where is your overwhelming evidence that GM food is not as healthy as non GM?
Here's my supporting literature on how GM food can be healthier than non GM.
http://www.sciencedirect.com.remote.library.dcu.ie/science/article/pii/S1871678410004450

So people in America want to know whats GM and what's not. So what? They're afraid of something they know nothing about. It happens all over the place. If people were more educated then they wouldn't have a problem. As I said before, and I mean it in the least offensive way, the publics ignorance is what gives the anti GM crowd ammo. They can say what they want and the public won't know any better.

Also, those articles mightn't be fully accessible to everyone. Most of those publications require membership. But if you're in college you can probably login with a college account, like I can.

Channel Zero

steddyeddy wrote: »

Granted there is a problem with cross pollination but that problem is nearly eradicated using new techniques.

Could you expand on this or have you any info to supply to back this up?
Coz a quick browse on the interweb is telling me a different story.

Somnus

Channel Zero wrote: »

Could you expand on this or have you any info to supply to back this up?
Coz a quick browse on the interweb is telling me a different story.

If you introduce the gene of interest into the chrolopast genome, instead of that of the main cell, it doesn't get passed on to the pollen.

Bipolar Joe

The reason people dislike environmentalists is the same reason people dislike feminists. There's a section full of the most rabid, uninformed spastics, and fuck me sideways are they loud.

Channel Zero

Dr.Poca wrote: »

If you introduce the gene of interest into the chrolopast genome, instead of that of the main cell, it doesn't get passed on to the pollen.

Thanks for reply.
So is it true to say that cross-pollination is not still a very real risk and problem?
Is the info below now reduntant?
Are these scientists the rabid, uninformed spastics that Bipolar Joe and you are talking about?

"Field trials could be underestimating the potential for cross-pollination between GM and conventional crops, according to new research by the University of Exeter."
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2007/19-gmcrops.asp


"GM rice grown for only one year in field trials was found to have widely contaminated the US rice supply and seed stocks. Contaminated rice was found as far away as Africa, Europe, and Central America."
(Risky business: Economic and regulatory impacts from the unintended release of genetically engineered rice varieties into the rice merchandising system of the US. Report for Greenpeace, 2007.)

"In Canada, contamination from GM oilseed rape has made it virtually impossible to cultivate organic, non-GM oilseed rape."
(Press release, Organic Agriculture Protection Fund Committee, Saskatoon, Canada, 1 August 2007.)

"US courts reversed the approval of GM alfalfa because it threatened the existence of non-GM alfalfa through cross-pollination."
(The United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 199 Filed 05/03/2007: Memorandum and Order Re: Permanent Injunction.)

"Organic maize production in Spain has dropped significantly as the acreage of GM maize production has increased, because of cross-pollination problems."
(Coexistence of plants and coexistence of farmers: Is an individual choice possible? Binimelis, R., Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21: 437-457, 2008.)

"In 2007 alone, there were 39 new instances of GM contamination in 23 countries, and 216 incidents have been reported since 2005."
(Biotech companies fuel GM contamination spread. Greenpeace International, 29 February 2008.)

Conflats

Channel Zero wrote: »

Here's the view of GM-Free Ireland on the proposed experiment for anyone interested:

http://www.gmfreeireland.org/potato/index.php

These boys are living in a unusual world, they state alot of propaganda is all it could be called and they obviously are doing there best to mis inform the people,

A few points struck me because they must know nothing of the location
1- its is not on the banks of the river barrow it is a good distance away.
2- whoever wrote it needs to brush up on their plant pathology because its a fungus they are trying to control
3- learn to read an application and distinguish the word herbicide from fungicide because they are totally different products
4-The fact all 'conventionally' farmed tillage ground or any ground for sowing is treated with glyphosate to reduce the need for more toxic expensive herbicides
5-pollen will not be brought across the irish sea, nor will it be brought much further than the field boundary in fact it will not be brought further than 20 meters as they have done tests in oak park to see how far the pollen travels
6-Again they say there is no market for this produce but its a trial to see the effects of a plant (which had its genes inserted from another potato, so its a cis-genic transfer) on the ecosystem and reduce the level of chemicals applied.

I get the feeling alot of the people who are against gm are also calling for a reduction in chemicals applied and more so encouraging people to eat organically.

andrew

You know what else is an abomination to nature? Cross-breeding of plants. And selective breeding of animals. Down with that sort of thing. It's certainly not what god would want, that's for sure.

Channel Zero

Conflats wrote: »

A few points struck me because they must know nothing of the location
1- its is not on the banks of the river barrow it is a good distance away.

Yes noticed that too. It's not on the banks.

5-pollen will not be brought across the irish sea, nor will it be brought much further than the field boundary in fact it will not be brought further than 20 meters as they have done tests in oak park to see how far the pollen travels

That's quite a definitive statement given the long history of cross-pollination related to gm. Many would not share your sureness or optimism based on past experiences. In the real world it seems they can't stop cross-pollination despite some claiming otherwise.

Dude111

No im being QUITE SERIOUS!!

Wild Bill

I see the Neo-Luddites dominate here!

steddyeddy

Wild Bill wrote: »

I see the Neo-Luddites dominate here!

Always the way in Ireland im afraid. It has surprised me a bit though to be honest. The last event like this was the protest against condoms.

steddyeddy

Sorry for leaving this so late to reply to questions guys but a prof I studied under wrote into the Irish times. This is the guy that educated me about the benifits of gm trials. His letter is a response to the original letter protesting gm foods and I have to say I couldnt have put it better myself. He destroys her arguements.

Sir, – It is regrettable that you chose to run a one-sided article by Stella Coffey on the proposed GM (genetically modified) trials by Teagasc (Opinion, March 26th). It should be pointed out that gene transfer by agrobacterium has been happening for centuries if not longer. It was well documented but not understood. It must therefore be accepted as a naturally occurring event. An understanding and exploitation of the event is only some 30 years old.
The exploitation of this phenomenon has led to the production of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) although some more sophisticated processes have sprung from this natural phenomenon. It should be said in favour of GMOs that millions in the third world have been spared blindness thanks to the GMO Golden Rice. The development of high Lysine Maize has made survival on a staple diet of maize possible. I owe my well being at this advanced age to insulin produced by GMO as do millions in the western world. The majority of cheeses produced in Ireland use Rennet produced by GMOs. It would seem, therefore, that GMOs are not intrinsically bad.
In respect of the proposed trial by Teagasc, Ms Coffey would seem to have little knowledge of the sexual life of the potato or of the blight organism. The chances of gene transfer from potato giving rise to any super organism are beyond my comprehension and if she can offer a mechanism for such an event I am all ears. Over 100 million have been consuming the extensively grown GMO plants and many of our farm animals have been doing likewise. The absence of her threatening forecasts is striking. Perhaps the American consumption of GMOs has led to behavioural problems that gave rise to the war in Afghanistan. Such a claim would not be more outlandish than some of the claims made by the Apostles of Humus in regard to GMOs.
Which would the Irish people prefer: A potato with an extra protein which would be digested normally the same as any other protein, or a potato that came from plants treated with heavy, nay, even toxic, levels of copper applied to prevent blight? Inadequate phytosanitary measures have led to the decline of the once thriving seed potato industry in Ireland. To espouse slack preventative regimes that allow the rapidly evolving pathogens to outpace disease prevention seems a very unwise choice.
Simply look at the superbug situation in our hospitals.
A salient epidemiological feature of much of our green organic growing of potatoes is that, due to inadequate use of insecticides, the growers provide and maintain a reservoir of plant viruses. They also provide them free of charge to hapless commercial growers.
The same applies to a certain extent with blight. Crops such as those proposed for trial by Teagasc may in the long term benefit both organic and conventional growers. There is nothing to prevent GMO crops being grown under an organic regime.
I believe these trials should be approved and I hope that if they are, the crops will not be destroyed by Green Luddites. – Yours, etc,
MATTHEW A HARMEY, Emeritus Professor of Plant Molecular Biology, UCD, Pleasants Street, Dublin 8