GM, A disaster waiting to happen.

Red Neck Hughie

There are closed threads on the subject already but here goes:
GM involves moving genetic material from one species to another, such as from a fish to a carrot, it is not natural, it bears no similarity to natural means of creating diversity and the potential for harm is definitely not fully communicated by those involved.
In my humble opinion this is a bigger threat to my hopes of having grandchildren than Reagan's foreign relations policies ever were.:eek:
Apart from the kind of commercial bullying and monopolising by monsanto - the ecological effects could be disastrous.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57459357/gm-grass-linked-to-texas-cattle-deaths

Conflats

GM is all around us weather you like it or not! Diabetics rely on insulin produced using gm technologies, and yes it can be got naturally but not in quantities to make it cheap and available to a wider population.

If you actually knew anything about agriculture (and don't say organics due to the fact a big benefit of GM is reduced agro-chemical inputs and that would infringe on the organic persons premium when the level of agro chems are reduced) GM provides a major tool in the arsenal in combating the effects of many things such as pest's, fungal and bacterial disease's, drought stress, salinity stress etc.

The potato is still ravaged by blight every year and the population of the fungus is mutating into a harder to control organism, crops now routinely receive 14 sprays a year, this is unsustainable not just for the farmers bottom line but for the environment.

Wheat is not a natural plant, neither is the carrot you had with your dinner or cabbage, broccoli of Brussels sprouts, see gm with proper regulation can help to speed up the process of conventional plant breeding, Gm rice with increased Vitamin A levels have helped to combat a major nutrient deficiency in 3rd world countries. It's all well and good to be in the developed world and talk utter s***e, the people in the developing nations want food security

You mentioned corporate power, well i can tell you this much if you spent time and effort creating something you would want to get a return on investment like any business. ANd before you talk about terminator genes (which cause the plant to produce sterile seeds) they were put in at the insistance of the people who didnt want GM pollen crossbreeding in the environment

Judgement Day

conflats - without wishing to fight with you (I can't be arsed actually) your type of offensive, dismissive, patronising post above is why this forum is virtually defunct rather than thriving as it should be.

Conflats

Well if you want to believe the tripe spouted against gm do but anything i pointed out above is true, again if you cant be arsed to have a discussion on the matter why bother with a reply like that? i stated my point on a topic which i have spent time learning about and so be it if my post was what you say it is but people read things and only see the negative side to things my post pointed to nothing but benefits for both farmers and peoples health

Conflats

Tell me what exactly was offensive about telling the truth? and the article has been edited for using incorrect information, do not blame me for this forum not thriving as you say it should, maybe if people cared it would be

jay2012

Red Neck Hughie wrote: »

Apart from the kind of commercial bullying and monopolising by monsanto - the ecological effects could be disastrous.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57459357/gm-grass-linked-to-texas-cattle-deaths

Perhaps it wasn't there when you first posted the link, but the bottom of that article now has a clarification that the grass involved in the cattle death wasn't, in fact, gm grass

djpbarry

Red Neck Hughie wrote: »

GM involves moving genetic material from one species to another, such as from a fish to a carrot, it is not natural...

Actually, it is. While DNA is remarkably stable, mutation occurs naturally all the time. It’s happening in your body as we speak. Furthermore, certain viruses (retroviruses), naturally occurring microbes, are capable of modifying host cell DNA quite dramatically.

Despite popular belief, genetic modification is not something that mankind invented a few years back. It is a naturally occurring process and is in fact the basis for evolution.

djpbarry

Judgement Day wrote: »

conflats - without wishing to fight with you (I can't be arsed actually) your type of offensive, dismissive, patronising post above is why this forum is virtually defunct rather than thriving as it should be.

[MOD]Maybe you could do something about that by making a valid contribution to the discussion?[/MOD]

Judgement Day

djpbarry wrote: »

[MOD]Maybe you could do something about that by making a valid contribution to the discussion?[/MOD]

What's the point? If the Forum wasn't just a bash anybody with environmental concerns chamber maybe..Anyway, good old Monsanto etc. they are going to feed the World's hungry masses....it will be like Calder Hall/Windscale/Sellafield etc. electricity to cheap to meter. :rolleyes:

Red Neck Hughie

djpbarry wrote: »

Actually, it is. While DNA is remarkably stable, mutation occurs naturally all the time. It’s happening in your body as we speak. Furthermore, certain viruses (retroviruses), naturally occurring microbes, are capable of modifying host cell DNA quite dramatically.

Despite popular belief, genetic modification is not something that mankind invented a few years back. It is a naturally occurring process and is in fact the basis for evolution.

Using electron microscopes is probably a new thing though and definitely not natural. Death is also natural -should I shoot someone? And there is a slight difference between artificially moving genes from species which might never even meet - to the way viruses become part of the human dna set. (You didnt mention that the virus might often alomst wipe out a species, like is happening with koalas atm I believe).

Good old Monsanto only making an honest buck, like suing farmers when the seed used on neighbouring farms blows onto their own farms. Or advocating trade wars with democratic countries which reject gm. Scum.

Conflats

So what is your solution to the problem? because as I see it mankind is in a bit of a pickle the world population is growing at a very fast rate and food production is not keeping pace, I bet you didnt know that the last 3 harvests were world records but since the demand is there it didnt do anything to change the price(and the USA corn going into ethanol the majority of this land used was actually fallow due to poor prices)
Either man needs to stop reproducing or he needs to find more food

djpbarry

Red Neck Hughie wrote: »

Using electron microscopes is probably a new thing though and definitely not natural. Death is also natural -should I shoot someone?

Ignoring for a moment that “natural” is an entirely arbitrary designation, shooting someone is not “natural”. I have absolutely no idea what your point is with regard to electron microscopes.

Red Neck Hughie wrote: »

And there is a slight difference between artificially moving genes from species which might never even meet - to the way viruses become part of the human dna set.

I never said there was no difference. However, you’re not doing a very good job of demonstrating that “artificial” GM will have potentially disastrous consequences.

Red Neck Hughie wrote: »

You didnt mention that the virus might often alomst wipe out a species...

Ok ... and?

Red Neck Hughie wrote: »

Good old Monsanto only making an honest buck, like suing farmers when the seed used on neighbouring farms blows onto their own farms.

We’ve already had at least two other threads on Monsanto in the recent past – let’s keep this one on the general subject of GM.

djpbarry

Conflats wrote: »

because as I see it mankind is in a bit of a pickle the world population is growing at a very fast rate and food production is not keeping pace...

I would be of the opinion that the extent of this problem is over-stated. The problem is not lack of food. The problem, for a lot of people, is lack of access to food.

And the global population should level off around about 11 billion in the middle of this century. The rate of global population growth has been slowing steadily since the early 1970’s.

Conflats

djpbarry wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that the extent of this problem is over-stated. The problem is not lack of food. The problem, for a lot of people, is lack of access to food.

And the global population should level off around about 11 billion in the middle of this century. The rate of global population growth has been slowing steadily since the early 1970’s.

The real question is then can we sustain a population of 11 billion people though?

norrie rugger

djpbarry wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that the extent of this problem is over-stated. The problem is not lack of food. The problem, for a lot of people, is lack of access to food.

And the global population should level off around about 11 billion in the middle of this century. The rate of global population growth has been slowing steadily since the early 1970’s.

Exactly. There is enough food to feed the world, with a substantial amout left over.
The problem is that the food, like wealth, is concentrated in the "West". The amount of food that we waste is insane.

norrie rugger

Conflats wrote: »

The real question is then can we sustain a population of 11 billion people though?

In relation to food? Yes, if the farming technology being used in the developed countries is worldwide by then.

Water will probably be the biggest issue, to a population of that size, ignoring the environmental/resource drain.

djpbarry

Conflats wrote: »

The real question is then can we sustain a population of 11 billion people though?

Yeah, probably. There's still plenty of untouched arable land out there.

We're far more likely to run out of fresh water before we run out of food, but a lot of that comes down to stupid usage of water.

EDIT: norrie rugger beat me to it.

Red Neck Hughie

[QUOTE=djpbarry;79472095We’ve already had at least two other threads on Monsanto in the recent past – let’s keep this one on the general subject of GM.[/QUOTE]

I'm possibly a bit stupid but I assumed that in mentioning evolutionary mutation you were defending gm. If not then why did you bother posting that?

Electron microscopes (if they are used) and laboratory work in gm are completely different to normal reproductive or viral mutation, not that those effects are always good but when scientists perform it at the beck of big business then it will not be for the benefit of all.

And monsanto is unfortunately integral to the problem, when a commercial concern feels ok bullying everyone from small farmers to the french govt then I doubt that feeding humanity is getting prioritised over revenues.

As the last couple of posts touched on, food production isnt the problem, its food sharing. And even if gm turns out to be a magic bullet - population increases will wipe out any gains eventually.
@conflats - what would I do?
Education education education, especially of women and children. Possibly encourage voluntary sterilisation, maybe look at why a single individual (Gates) can be worth the equivalent of the economic output of all but the top 18-20 richest nations. There's a lot wrong with this world but gm wont fix it.

norrie rugger

Food access is great but African countries will never be able to grow the food that we do, given their environmental situations there. These people need variations of crops that are drought/sun/insect/flood resistant.

Arable land untouched, or under farmed, is really the land of east europe towards China and South American land

djpbarry

Red Neck Hughie wrote: »

I'm possibly a bit stupid but I assumed that in mentioning evolutionary mutation you were defending gm.

I was pointing out that modification of genetic material occurs naturally all the time – a lot of people are unaware of this.

Red Neck Hughie wrote: »

Electron microscopes (if they are used) and laboratory work in gm are completely different to normal reproductive or viral mutation...

Actually, they’re not at all. Viruses are very commonly used to introduce DNA into cells in laboratories – it's called transduction/transfection.

Red Neck Hughie wrote: »

...not that those effects are always good but when scientists perform it at the beck of big business then it will not be for the benefit of all.

You seem to be completely unaware that humanity has benefited enormously from our ability to manipulate genetic material? It’s already been mentioned on this thread, but are you aware that insulin, for example, is typically produced using genetically-modified E. coli? There is a huge array of other products that are produced by GM microbes.

Red Neck Hughie wrote: »

As the last couple of posts touched on, food production isnt the problem, its food sharing. And even if gm turns out to be a magic bullet - population increases will wipe out any gains eventually.

The global population is not going to continue to climb inexorably upwards – it will level off eventually (sooner rather than later).

Red Neck Hughie wrote: »

Education education education, especially of women and children.

Because men know everything?

Red Neck Hughie wrote: »

Possibly encourage voluntary sterilisation...

So you’re ok with scientists sterilising people, but scientists tinkering with food is pure evil?

Conflats

Yes there is land out there large parts of it in fact in places like russia and in the ideal world this land would produce crops but it is extremely marginal land lack of moisture is the biggest influence on crop growth in OZ, the midwest USA, canada etc.

Land availablity is a real issue and in fact GM can help here with the marginal land through improving drought resistance, salinity stress etc but also through the development of plants which can be used to clean up polluted land.

There is no major land masses left to be developed in the world in fact we are loosing more land everyday(cant rem the figure but its astonishing)

Jim Martin

Conflats wrote: »

GM is all around us weather you like it or not! Diabetics rely on insulin produced using gm technologies, and yes it can be got naturally but not in quantities to make it cheap and available to a wider population.

If you actually knew anything about agriculture (and don't say organics due to the fact a big benefit of GM is reduced agro-chemical inputs and that would infringe on the organic persons premium when the level of agro chems are reduced) GM provides a major tool in the arsenal in combating the effects of many things such as pest's, fungal and bacterial disease's, drought stress, salinity stress etc.

The potato is still ravaged by blight every year and the population of the fungus is mutating into a harder to control organism, crops now routinely receive 14 sprays a year, this is unsustainable not just for the farmers bottom line but for the environment.

Wheat is not a natural plant, neither is the carrot you had with your dinner or cabbage, broccoli of Brussels sprouts, see gm with proper regulation can help to speed up the process of conventional plant breeding, Gm rice with increased Vitamin A levels have helped to combat a major nutrient deficiency in 3rd world countries. It's all well and good to be in the developed world and talk utter s***e, the people in the developing nations want food security

You mentioned corporate power, well i can tell you this much if you spent time and effort creating something you would want to get a return on investment like any business. ANd before you talk about terminator genes (which cause the plant to produce sterile seeds) they were put in at the insistance of the people who didnt want GM pollen crossbreeding in the environment

Where I live (W.Clare, Ireland), potato blight is a considerable problem because of the wet climate & often warm, humid conditions. I am currently working voluntarily on a local community garden project which is promoting sustainable living, as part of that project, our gardening volunteers have been making an organic solution to the blight problem - a liquid (tea) made from Horsetail, which is a very invasive local plant. The 'tea' is very easy to make - just immerse the plant in water for 2 or 3 weeks and then use the filtered liquid left over to spray the potato plants (including the underside of the foliage). The process can be accelerated by boiling the Horsetail in water instead of waiting a few weeks for it to ferment naturally. By the way, the smell of the resultant 'tea' is dreadful , maybe it scares the blight away!

Jim Martin

A recipe for 'Horsetail' tea:

http://littlegreenblog.com/green-home/gardening-and-pest-control/horsetail-potato-blight/

Conflats

Jim Martin wrote: »

Where I live (W.Clare, Ireland), potato blight is a considerable problem because of the wet climate & often warm, humid conditions. I am currently working voluntarily on a local community garden project which is promoting sustainable living, as part of that project, our gardening volunteers have been making an organic solution to the blight problem - a liquid (tea) made from Horsetail, which is a very invasive local plant. The 'tea' is very easy to make - just immerse the plant in water for 2 or 3 weeks and then use the filtered liquid left over to spray the potato plants (including the underside of the foliage). The process can be accelerated by boiling the Horsetail in water instead of waiting a few weeks for it to ferment naturally. By the way, the smell of the resultant 'tea' is dreadful , maybe it scares the blight away!

While i find this interesting 2 things strike me
1 its scale of use to agriculture
2 the legalities everything which is to be used in the food chain weather natural or synthetic needs to go through rigorous testing and not that im doubting but maybe there is alkaloids/posions in the plants but its an interesting thing and hopefully it will noticed by someone

Jim Martin

Conflats wrote: »

While i find this interesting 2 things strike me
1 its scale of use to agriculture
2 the legalities everything which is to be used in the food chain weather natural or synthetic needs to go through rigorous testing and not that im doubting but maybe there is alkaloids/posions in the plants but its an interesting thing and hopefully it will noticed by someone

It's also used for a number of treatments for various human ailments.

Mark Hamill

Jim Martin wrote: »

Where I live (W.Clare, Ireland), potato blight is a considerable problem because of the wet climate & often warm, humid conditions. I am currently working voluntarily on a local community garden project which is promoting sustainable living, as part of that project, our gardening volunteers have been making an organic solution to the blight problem - a liquid (tea) made from Horsetail, which is a very invasive local plant. The 'tea' is very easy to make - just immerse the plant in water for 2 or 3 weeks and then use the filtered liquid left over to spray the potato plants (including the underside of the foliage). The process can be accelerated by boiling the Horsetail in water instead of waiting a few weeks for it to ferment naturally. By the way, the smell of the resultant 'tea' is dreadful , maybe it scares the blight away!

Any studies that horsetail tea is better, or as good as, the alternatives for fighting potato bight?

Jim Martin wrote:

It's also used for a number of treatments for various human ailments.

While there doesn't seem to be anything saying it is unhealthy to eat, the health claims have been rejected by the EFSA for, as is usual with most organic/natural healthfoods, either not characterising the active ingredient properly or not presenting any studies to support its claims.

However, lets say it does all you say, lets say its perfect for fighting blight and has all the great health benefits claimed. Why not genetically modify potatoes so that they produce the claimed active ingredient themselves? Then you will have potatoes that fight blight themselves, while giving people all these health benefits. Is that not better?

Judgement Day

Alternatively we could switch to breeds of potatoes that are less affected by blight: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:07LbGExt1eUJ:www.mayosmallholders.ie/articles/blight_resistant_seed_potatoes.PDF+blight+resistant+potato&hl=en&gl=ie&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShRF9zdytpHe7Kp-vr8GLoGlzDG45eLGVoeib0joBoKoOkT6XYrKaf-_l6qRHBvTzF_4dxPRhODPtL-0TlDzBDy_uF4VildRMJM0e9W70vQZunxL5RFZvueYGLg-zmdLu95gi7k&sig=AHIEtbRE7fy8qd1lV0OAZq8bBCAGY9pnWw

I know one thing - and nothing to do with nutritional value - but the organic spuds I buy at my local farmer's market have a great flavour unlike the bland, chemical laced muck in the supermarket.

norrie rugger

Judgement Day wrote: »

Alternatively we could switch to breeds of potatoes that are less affected by blight: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:07LbGExt1eUJ:www.mayosmallholders.ie/articles/blight_resistant_seed_potatoes.PDF+blight+resistant+potato&hl=en&gl=ie&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShRF9zdytpHe7Kp-vr8GLoGlzDG45eLGVoeib0joBoKoOkT6XYrKaf-_l6qRHBvTzF_4dxPRhODPtL-0TlDzBDy_uF4VildRMJM0e9W70vQZunxL5RFZvueYGLg-zmdLu95gi7k&sig=AHIEtbRE7fy8qd1lV0OAZq8bBCAGY9pnWw

I know one thing - and nothing to do with nutritional value - but the organic spuds I buy at my local farmer's market have a great flavour unlike the bland, chemical laced muck in the supermarket.

Perception is a powerful thing. Unless you are blind tasting them then your mind will play all sorts of tricks on your perception of taste

Judgement Day

norrie rugger wrote: »

Perception is a powerful thing. Unless you are blind tasting them then your mind will play all sorts of tricks on your perception of taste

Righty! There speaks a true gourmand.

Cardinal Richelieu

Judgement Day wrote: »

Alternatively we could switch to breeds of potatoes that are less affected by blight: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:07LbGExt1eUJ:www.mayosmallholders.ie/articles/blight_resistant_seed_potatoes.PDF+blight+resistant+potato&hl=en&gl=ie&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShRF9zdytpHe7Kp-vr8GLoGlzDG45eLGVoeib0joBoKoOkT6XYrKaf-_l6qRHBvTzF_4dxPRhODPtL-0TlDzBDy_uF4VildRMJM0e9W70vQZunxL5RFZvueYGLg-zmdLu95gi7k&sig=AHIEtbRE7fy8qd1lV0OAZq8bBCAGY9pnWw

I know one thing - and nothing to do with nutritional value - but the organic spuds I buy at my local farmer's market have a great flavour unlike the bland, chemical laced muck in the supermarket.

The Sarpo Mira variety in your link isn't actually blight resistant, its resistant to many forms of blight but not all. Plant breeders are always playing catchup, diseases like Mildew, you can buy hybrid butter head lettuce varieties resistent to 30 odd variations of Mildew but there are 50 odd strains in Ireland that effect lettuce. GM breeding will hopefully allow plant breeders to leap ahead with plant disease resistance.

A downside to conventional planet breeding is that the breeder often has to compromise on other characteristics such as flavour, shelf life, drought tolerance etc. The Sarpo Mira potato while touted as the cure all for gardeners effected by blight has very poor flavour.

Jim Martin

I think it's very important to keep Ireland GM free as, being on the edge of Europe and with clean Atlantic air, it is vital to have a sanctuary where, if/when things go belly-up with GM, their is an organic source to repair any damage!

djpbarry

Jim Martin wrote: »

I think it's very important to keep Ireland GM free as, being on the edge of Europe and with clean Atlantic air, it is vital to have a sanctuary where, if/when things go belly-up with GM, their is an organic source to repair any damage!

And if things don't go "belly up"?

norrie rugger

djpbarry wrote: »

And if things don't go "belly up"?

Then we are left playing catch up.

Also the seed bank will have "pure" supplies of all our crop seeds. I love than no one can actually give disadvantages of GM.

Jim Martin

djpbarry wrote: »

And if things don't go "belly up"?

We have to have some kind of insurance (back-up) in case they do!

Conflats

Jim Martin wrote: »

We have to have some kind of insurance (back-up) in case they do!

Is that not why they have a large seed reference collection in norway, also the national botnical gardens have one along with the department of agriculture, along with many many breeding companies. Also who said that gm crops would be the only crops grown? its a unlikely scenario that they would become dominant with 100% monoculture

Judgement Day

norrie rugger wrote: »

Then we are left playing catch up.

Also the seed bank will have "pure" supplies of all our crop seeds. I love than no one can actually give disadvantages of GM.

Here's a few for you - but I'm sure that you will be able to dismiss them all.

Disadvantages of Genetically Modified Food

Changing plants may have lasting effects on other organisms in the ecosystem. The change in a plant may cause it to be toxic to an insect or animal that uses it as its main food source.

Due to the widespread use of insect resistant genes in crops the insects may become resistant to the genetic modifications. This would cause a widespread loss of crops and plants that have the natural immunity leading to a loss in biodiversity.

Breeding and cross pollination across unintended species could occur resulting in things such as insect resistant weeds.

Cross pollination can also occur across crops that are not genetically modified leading to lawsuits about who owns the GM technology and seed. The same thing can happen between organic crops and genetically modified crops making it difficult to maintain an organic status.

A huge concern is that genetic modification could cause allergies in humans due to gene modification of plants. People may find that they are now allergic to other food products – people because they contain a gene from the allergen they have. One example is the use of a Brazilian nut gene in corn.
Some studies have shown that it may affect the human digestive system in a number of ways. The incorporation of substances that may interact badly with one another in food or in fact be poisonous to people may happen. The modification of certain genes may make some plant substances difficult to digest at all.

A major economical concern is that the control of world food sources may be limited to large companies because they own the GM seeds and have the money to start and finish the accreditation process.

Genetic modification can also make it difficult to know what you are eating, as a plant could contain animals products via genetic engineering. This could cause issues for those with dietary restrictions and religious commitments.

http://wanttoknowit.com/disadvantages-of-genetically-modified-food/

I could throw in some of my own but why bother.

norrie rugger

Judgement Day wrote: »

Here's a few for you - but I'm sure that you will be able to dismiss them all.

Disadvantages of Genetically Modified Food

Changing plants may have lasting effects on other organisms in the ecosystem. The change in a plant may cause it to be toxic to an insect or animal that uses it as its main food source. Examples please?

Due to the widespread use of insect resistant genes in crops the insects may become resistant to the genetic modifications. This would cause a widespread loss of crops and plants that have the natural immunity leading to a loss in biodiversity. Examples please?


Breeding and cross pollination across unintended species could occur resulting in things such as insect resistant weeds. basically natural genetic resequancing that can happen anyway oh and Examples please?


Cross pollination can also occur across crops that are not genetically modified leading to lawsuits about who owns the GM technology and seed. The same thing can happen between organic crops and genetically modified crops making it difficult to maintain an organic status. This is business and law issues nothing to do with GM itself

A huge concern is that genetic modification could cause allergies in humans due to gene modification of plants. People may find that they are now allergic to other food products – people because they contain a gene from the allergen they have. One example is the use of a Brazilian nut gene in corn.
Some studies have shown that it may affect the human digestive system in a number of ways. The incorporation of substances that may interact badly with one another in food or in fact be poisonous to people may happen. The modification of certain genes may make some plant substances difficult to digest at all. links to the study would be great? People develop allergies all the time. I only started getting hayfever this year. Any mutation in the plant could cause this, not just GM



A major economical concern is that the control of world food sources may be limited to large companies because they own the GM seeds and have the money to start and finish the accreditation process. Nothing stops people using traditional seeds


Genetic modification can also make it difficult to know what you are eating, as a plant could contain animals products via genetic engineering. This could cause issues for those with dietary restrictions and religious commitments.
Is there anything to back this up??

http://wanttoknowit.com/disadvantages-of-genetically-modified-food/ This webiste just randomly throws out "facts" without any references

I could throw in some of my own but why bother.

Seems a bit like scaremongering TBF

Conflats

Judgement Day wrote: »

Here's a few for you - but I'm sure that you will be able to dismiss them all.

Disadvantages of Genetically Modified Food

Changing plants may have lasting effects on other organisms in the ecosystem. The change in a plant may cause it to be toxic to an insect or animal that uses it as its main food source.

Due to the widespread use of insect resistant genes in crops the insects may become resistant to the genetic modifications. This would cause a widespread loss of crops and plants that have the natural immunity leading to a loss in biodiversity.

Breeding and cross pollination across unintended species could occur resulting in things such as insect resistant weeds.

Cross pollination can also occur across crops that are not genetically modified leading to lawsuits about who owns the GM technology and seed. The same thing can happen between organic crops and genetically modified crops making it difficult to maintain an organic status.

A huge concern is that genetic modification could cause allergies in humans due to gene modification of plants. People may find that they are now allergic to other food products – people because they contain a gene from the allergen they have. One example is the use of a Brazilian nut gene in corn.
Some studies have shown that it may affect the human digestive system in a number of ways. The incorporation of substances that may interact badly with one another in food or in fact be poisonous to people may happen. The modification of certain genes may make some plant substances difficult to digest at all.

A major economical concern is that the control of world food sources may be limited to large companies because they own the GM seeds and have the money to start and finish the accreditation process.

Genetic modification can also make it difficult to know what you are eating, as a plant could contain animals products via genetic engineering. This could cause issues for those with dietary restrictions and religious commitments.

http://wanttoknowit.com/disadvantages-of-genetically-modified-food/

I could throw in some of my own but why bother.

That slice of bread you had this today is not from a naturally occurring plant wheat is a cross of 3 different plants http://www.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec35631/009.htm here's a lecture from a respected scientist in the area of molecular biology,

The arguments you have put forward on cross pollination contradicts a point you made on ownership of seed, the reason why gm crops are sterile are due to the point of no cross pollination will occurr

Judgement Day

How do you know what type of bread I ate today? Anyway there's some difference between selective breeding of different species of wheat and GM but, as I say, there's no point in arguing with people who have all the answers. Last post on this thread in Anti-Sustainable & Environmental Forum.

Helix

Red Neck Hughie wrote: »

Using electron microscopes is probably a new thing though and definitely not natural.

nothing in the universe is unnatural. anything that occurs within the laws of physics, chemistry and biology is natural. that includes humans creating technology, and using that technology to do whatever it's capable of

djpbarry

Judgement Day wrote: »

Here's a few for you - but I'm sure that you will be able to dismiss them all.

There’s a difference between dismissing something and questioning it.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Changing plants may have lasting effects on other organisms in the ecosystem. The change in a plant may cause it to be toxic to an insect or animal that uses it as its main food source.

I'll start by questioning this. Considering that mankind has been “changing” plants since the advent of agriculture, how many cases of the above have ever been recorded?

Judgement Day wrote: »

Anyway there's some difference between selective breeding of different species of wheat and GM...

There is obviously a difference, but the desired outcome is the same, is it not?

Judgement Day wrote: »

...but, as I say, there's no point in arguing with people who have all the answers. Last post on this thread in Anti-Sustainable & Environmental Forum.

Suit yourself. But if everyone accepted without question anything that was posted on this site, the quality of discussion would be pretty darn low.

Conflats

Judgement Day wrote: »

How do you know what type of bread I ate today? Anyway there's some difference between selective breeding of different species of wheat and GM but, as I say, there's no point in arguing with people who have all the answers. Last post on this thread in Anti-Sustainable & Environmental Forum.

Ok so to specify for you to make it clear it was bread made from wheat i was talking about

Mark Hamill

Judgement Day wrote: »

Disadvantages of Genetically Modified Food

Changing plants may have lasting effects on other organisms in the ecosystem. The change in a plant may cause it to be toxic to an insect or animal that uses it as its main food source.

This can happen anyway. We have been doing this for centuries, do you think bananas are naturally yellow (they're green) or carrots naturally orange (many different colours possible)? Thats just in terms of appearance, but we have been crossbreeding plants to improve yield and pest resistance too.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Due to the widespread use of insect resistant genes in crops the insects may become resistant to the genetic modifications. This would cause a widespread loss of crops and plants that have the natural immunity leading to a loss in biodiversity.

This can happen anyway. Insects can become immune to plants with natural resistant genes anyway, the process is much the same to the insect regardless of whether they are encountering naturally resistant crops or GM crops.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Breeding and cross pollination across unintended species could occur resulting in things such as insect resistant weeds.

This can happen anyway. Except with GM crops we can actually modify the plants so they crossbreed less and reduce this.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Cross pollination can also occur across crops that are not genetically modified leading to lawsuits about who owns the GM technology and seed. The same thing can happen between organic crops and genetically modified crops making it difficult to maintain an organic status.

Again, we can modify the crops so this wont happen. Its also a legal issue rather than a scientific one.

Judgement Day wrote: »

A huge concern is that genetic modification could cause allergies in humans due to gene modification of plants. People may find that they are now allergic to other food products – people because they contain a gene from the allergen they have. One example is the use of a Brazilian nut gene in corn.
Some studies have shown that it may affect the human digestive system in a number of ways. The incorporation of substances that may interact badly with one another in food or in fact be poisonous to people may happen. The modification of certain genes may make some plant substances difficult to digest at all.

All of which just means that a) crops should be labelled clearly so we know where their new genes come from and b) testing is done to determine if allergies can be induced by specific gene transfer. I feel though, that the argument based on peanut allergies is a bit of scaremonger. Its only certain chemicals in nuts that give rise to allergies (three or so specific chemicals, if I remember). Genes are specific chemical parts of nuts, but the allergy causing chemicals and the useful genetic chemicals aren't necessarily the same chemical. Its still an important point to remember and test, but I thinks its a bit of an over simplification.

Judgement Day wrote: »

A major economical concern is that the control of world food sources may be limited to large companies because they own the GM seeds and have the money to start and finish the accreditation process.

Organic farms have never stopped people having vegetable patches in their back gardens.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Genetic modification can also make it difficult to know what you are eating, as a plant could contain animals products via genetic engineering. This could cause issues for those with dietary restrictions and religious commitments.

Again, this is just a case for clear labelling, which I do support (I am vegetarian). However, this issue isn't restricted to gm foods, many non-gm foods contain animal products that you wouldn't expect (many sweets aren't vegetarian because they contain pork/beef byproducts or crushed insects as colouring).

I get the feeling you think organic crops don't use pesticides or weed killers?