GMOs to be cultivated in Ireland?

generic2012

There has been basically a blanket ban on GMOs in Europe, only a few have been approved for cultivation and this is only after expensive(, prohibitive?) and extensive case by case analysis.


http://www.agriland.ie/news/member-states-determine-rules-gmos/

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/eu-states-able-to-accept-or-reject-gm-crops-301065.html

From agri-land:

The European Parliament has ruled that Member States should be allowed to determine their own stance on the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The EU Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Vytenis Andriukaitis said the European Parliament and the Council have reached a provisional political agreement on the draft legislation on GMO cultivation.

The proposal, still subject to confirmation by Coreper and by the plenary of the European Parliament, will give Member States the possibility to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs on their territory, without affecting the EU risk assessment, he said.

Just wondering what people in a health forum think about Irish GMOs.

Should we be allowed grow GMO crops?
Should we be allow import them for human consumption? if so, should they be labelled/unlabelled?
Should they be imported for animal feed?
Is genetically engineering animals a step too far?
Should they're be a blanket ban on any sort of GMOs in Irelan, full stop?

Why do you think this?

Jawgap

Meh....

yes
yes
yes
yes
no

These things are tested every which way that is possible and they're still banned. 'Naturally' produced hybrids are not subject to a fraction of the testing (yes, there's no cross speciation) and can be planted, used, processed and fed to us without an eye lid being batted.

Seeing as they pose no health risk, why not?

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

Meh....

yes
yes
yes
yes
no

These things are tested every which way that is possible and they're still banned. 'Naturally' produced hybrids are not subject to a fraction of the testing (yes, there's no cross speciation) and can be planted, used, processed and fed to us without an eye lid being batted.

Retro-viruses have caused more cross species genetic transfer than GMO ever will

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

Retro-viruses have caused more cross species genetic transfer than GMO ever will

Quantitatively yes they have, but qualitatively there's a greater potential for forced genetic transfer to shift more material, quicker between species with limited contact or association.

......which no doubt triggers even greater levels of testing, scrutiny etc to assess the safety of the resulting organism.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

Quantitatively yes they have, but qualitatively there's a greater potential for forced genetic transfer to shift more material, quicker between species with limited contact or association.

......which no doubt triggers even greater levels of testing, scrutiny etc to assess the safety of the resulting organism.

Yes but it is just a continuation of something that has shaped the evolution of creatures for hell know how long.

It's tested to hell and back so let it just happen already

generic2012

There's a massive push against GMOs in America for alleged health reasons, there is also a ban in Europe, so I'm just trying to get a view of the health concious peoples' opinions on GMOs. I'm curious to see if the view will be different in this forum rather than, let's say, the farming and forestry forum.

Jawgap

generic2012 wrote: »

There's a massive push against GMOs in America for alleged health reasons, there is also a ban in Europe, so I'm just trying to get a view of the health concious peoples' opinions on GMOs. I'm curious to see if the view will be different in this forum rather than, let's say, the farming and forestry forum.

I should declare an interest then. While I'm health conscious (not obsessively so) I'm also a scientist by training - imo a lot of the resistance to GMOs is driven by an 'irrational' emotional reaction to the technology - I'm not for one moment suggesting that it's an invalid response - we all have different values that animate our chosen lifestyles - but it's rarely supported by reasoned science.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

I should declare an interest then. While I'm health conscious (not obsessively so) I'm also a scientist by training - imo a lot of the resistance to GMOs is driven by an 'irrational' emotional reaction to the technology - I'm not for one moment suggesting that it's an invalid response - we all have different values that animate our chosen lifestyles - but it's rarely supported by reasoned science.

Molecular Biology here too. It is total scaremongering TBH

generic2012

BSc and MSc in Environmental Science here too, I'm the one that voted 'They should have the same privileges as conventional agriculture', so I'm not disagreeing with you by any means.

generic2012

generic2012 wrote: »

BSc and MSc in Environmental Science here too, I'm the one that voted 'They should have the same privileges as conventional agriculture', so I'm not disagreeing with you by any means.

I actually voted the "in between" as each new varient should be tested to the nth degree and after that then have the same level of access as conventional

generic2012

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually voted the "in between" as each new varient should be tested to the nth degree and after that then have the same level of access as conventional

I don't know if they should require massive testing. This cost will have to passed on to consumers in the same way as 10 year drug trials are. I think GMO's greatest contribution to the world will be ethical, unless it ends up like a 'big pharma' scenario where the product is marketed to the richest because profits are obviously needed.

generic2012

generic2012 wrote: »

I don't know if they should require massive testing. This cost will have to passed on to consumers in the same way as 10 year drug trials are. I think GMO's greatest contribution to the world will be ethical, unless it ends up like a 'big pharma' scenario where the product is marketed to the richest because profits are obviously needed.

Monsanto is already this fields "Big Pharma". I am not looking at drug trial level but more keeping the companies honest
Testing that I would expect is that the companies are upfront about the level of cross species involved and what species material was derived from

ford2600

Hard for general public to have an informed opinion, the only posters here have relevant qualifications(except me) and tbh I don't have a clue. From a point of ignorance most people will say no or be easily brought around to no.

But don't undersetimate the ability of people to run scared from something new; ever go to a anti windfarm meeting? Comments like"those yokes are deadly dangerous" get rounds of applause for example(actually against them myself from an economic point of view but might be a little of topic!)

Alf Veedersane

ford2600 wrote: »

Hard for general public to have an informed opinion, the only posters here have relevant qualifications(except me) and tbh I don't have a clue. From a point of ignorance most people will say no or be easily brought around to no.

But don't undersetimate the ability of people to run scared from something new; ever go to a anti windfarm meeting? Comments like"those yokes are deadly dangerous" get rounds of applause for example(actually against them myself from an economic point of view but might be a little of topic!)

Don't mention the windfarms war?

But we'll need them from an economic POV...

Caliden

I'm in favour of them so long as we're diverse with them.

Here's a story of a worm that adapted to eat a special type of corn adapted specifically to kill it:

http://www.wired.com/2014/03/rootworm-resistance-bt-corn/

The corn that was used accounted for 2 thirds of the U.S. supply and once the worm adapted they were up **** creek and had to resort to pesticides.

generic2012

Deleted User wrote: »

Monsanto is already this fields "Big Pharma". I am not looking at drug trial level but more keeping the companies honest
Testing that I would expect is that the companies are upfront about the level of cross species involved and what species material was derived from

Unfortunately Monsanto have received an excessively bad reputation because of their very profit orientated actions. This is the greatest risk to the whole GM debate, generalisation and prove the rule with exceptions. There are many altruistic GM organisations, patenting their own techniques and then allowing them to be used for free by organisations that are using them for good.

ford2600 wrote: »

Hard for general public to have an informed opinion, the only posters here have relevant qualifications(except me) and tbh I don't have a clue. From a point of ignorance most people will say no or be easily brought around to no.

But don't undersetimate the ability of people to run scared from something new; ever go to a anti windfarm meeting? Comments like"those yokes are deadly dangerous" get rounds of applause for example(actually against them myself from an economic point of view but might be a little of topic!)

I agree with you, I was just wondering where everyone sits in relation to GMO as is. Unfortunately people tend to listen to the loudest voices rather than the most sensible, just look at the Dáil. Yeah, the windmill thing is crazy, no one cared a few years ago and then some of these 'loudest voices' got listened to and it's been turned on its head. I'm against them as a source of energy in Ireland myself too.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

But we'll need them from an economic POV...

I disagree.

Caliden wrote: »

I'm in favour of them so long as we're diverse with them.

Here's a story of a worm that adapted to eat a special type of corn adapted specifically to kill it:

http://www.wired.com/2014/03/rootworm-resistance-bt-corn/

The corn that was used accounted for 2 thirds of the U.S. supply and once the worm adapted they were up **** creek and had to resort to pesticides.

While I agree, that can happen with any monoculture, there is nothing unique about GMO in that sense.

generic2012

generic2012 wrote: »

Unfortunately Monsanto have received an excessively bad reputation because of their very profit orientated actions. This is the greatest risk to the whole GM debate, generalisation and prove the rule with exceptions. There are many altruistic GM organisations, patenting their own techniques and then allowing them to be used for free by organisations that are using them for good.

Where there are profits to be had companies like Monsanto will exist. They will push for drug like trials though, soon enough, as the smaller organisations that you mention will not be able to afford that.


Wind power will be economically viable in the next decade or so as the oil sources start to dwindle. Unless we have a differing power source (nuclear is not exactly cost beneficial either) wind may be a good option

Caliden

Caliden wrote: »

I'm in favour of them so long as we're diverse with them.

Here's a story of a worm that adapted to eat a special type of corn adapted specifically to kill it:

http://www.wired.com/2014/03/rootworm-resistance-bt-corn/

The corn that was used accounted for 2 thirds of the U.S. supply and once the worm adapted they were up **** creek and had to resort to pesticides.

The saying "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" predates GMO for very good reason

generic2012

Deleted User wrote: »

Wind power will be economically viable in the next decade or so as the oil sources start to dwindle. Unless we have a differing power source (nuclear is not exactly cost beneficial either) wind may be a good option

Not as good as anaerobic digestion.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Deleted User wrote: »

The saying "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" predates GMO for very good reason

GMOs allow you to essentially program in genetic diversity to prevent this type of event. But then people get greedy and see that one particular mutation may make them millions/billions now and to hell with 20 years down the line. Typical enough of all human advancement.

Alf Veedersane

generic2012 wrote: »

I disagree.

I don't want to start dragging this off topic but with a 20% RE target to hit by 2020 and the absence of enough alternative resources, then there is a need for onshore wind farms. Not 100% onshore but a fraction for sure.

Though aside from that there's the whoe security of supply etc but this isn't the place for that discussion

Alf Veedersane

generic2012 wrote: »

Not as good as anaerobic digestion.

Even less consistent than energy.

And you are still going to need large facilities, in all reality, and not just on-farm AD plants. People don't like large facilities in their backyard.

But AD is part of the solution. As is biomass CHP, municipal waste-to-energy etc.

jobbridge4life

Deleted User wrote: »

Wind power will be economically viable in the next decade or so as the oil sources start to dwindle. Unless we have a differing power source (nuclear is not exactly cost beneficial either) wind may be a good option

Oil sources are to dwindle in the next decade? Em not quite. Fracking.

Alf Veedersane

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Fracking.

The Peoples' Choice.

jobbridge4life

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Oil sources are to dwindle in the next decade? Em not quite. Fracking.

We have either reached peak oil or are about to. Many say it will have happened between 2010 and 2020 and most agree that beyond 2030 is not a plausible condition. So yes, in the next 15 years the rate of oil extraction will begin to decline and prices will rise. Couple that with emerging China/India and other economies wanting oil and it makes sense.

generic2012

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Even less consistent than energy.

And you are still going to need large facilities, in all reality, and not just on-farm AD plants. People don't like large facilities in their backyard.

But AD is part of the solution. As is biomass CHP, municipal waste-to-energy etc.

Funny post to follow up your not 'dragging of topic' post but anyway!

By 'even less consistent than energy' I'm going to presume you less consistent than wind energy (?). This is false, the reason that wind energy is such a disaster in Ireland at the moment is that the inconsistency of energy supply means that other fuel stations have to be stopped and fired up to pick up the lull in energy which, like starting a car engine, is very hard on fuel. Even worse than the lulls in energy from lack of wind is the fact that turbines have to be turned off when there is too much wind, which is a ridiculous scenario. An increase in the energy source should mean an increase in energy production.

Also electricity cannot be stored like gas from AD which is another massive advantage. Your argument of people not liking big facilities in their backyard is ridiculous when you are using it to back up a claim for wind farms which, by their nature, will predominately be in scenic areas, AD facilities having no such need.

I never said on farm AD plants, cooperative and/or centralised AD facilities are what's needed. There are many benefits AD can provide specifically to Ireland's agriculture and transport sectors that no other RE can, especially wind energy.

Wind energy is an essentially a one trick pony that is sh1t at its trick.

Alf Veedersane

generic2012 wrote: »

Funny post to follow up your not 'dragging of topic' post but anyway!

By 'even less consistent than energy' I'm going to presume you less consistent than wind energy (?). This is false, the reason that wind energy is such a disaster in Ireland at the moment is that the inconsistency of energy supply means that other fuel stations have to be stopped and fired up to pick up the lull in energy which, like starting a car engine, is very hard on fuel. Even worse than the lulls in energy from lack of wind is the fact that turbines have to be turned off when there is too much wind, which is a ridiculous scenario. An increase in the energy source should mean an increase in energy production.

Also electricity cannot be stored like gas from AD which is another massive advantage. Your argument of people not liking big facilities in their backyard is ridiculous when you are using it to back up a claim for wind farms which, by their nature, will predominately be in scenic areas, AD facilities having no such need.

I never said on farm AD plants, cooperative and/or centralised AD facilities are what's needed. There are many benefits AD can provide specifically to Ireland's agriculture and transport sectors that no other RE can, especially wind energy.

Wind energy is an essentially a one trick pony that is sh1t at its trick.

Your post had appeared in the meantime, which is why I replied.

I think you're misinterpreting some of what I said. The point about AD facilities and people objectinbg to them in their backyard isn't to strengthen the argument for windfamrs but just that most facilities are going to be objected to on the grounds that they're in someone's backyard (dressed up as something else).

AD facilities have been denied planning permission because of their effect on the 'visual amenity' despite being on land zoned for industry.

I'm not arguing for one over the other. They're all needed.

But wind is providing 15% of Ireland's electricity so it's hardly grounds for dismissal.

generic2012

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

But wind is providing 15% of Ireland's electricity so it's hardly grounds for dismissal.

Purely because they are subsidised so much. It is in the interest of the wind farm developer and land owners to create so many wind farms, look up some of the alleged payments people are receiving for allowing wind farms on their land, there's plenty on boards. It is of no economic benefit to the country.

ford2600

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

But wind is providing 15% of Ireland's electricity so it's hardly grounds for dismissal.

Is it?

Do you pay for energy or do we pay for order? They are not the same thing.

Comparing 100MW of wind(before we even get into the fact that capacity is usually quoted and not output/likely output) with 100MW of oil/coal/nuclear is not the same thing. You have the oil/coal/nuclear when you want it and you can rely on it.

The cost of putting order on wind is never counted, diverse collection network, multiple transmission losses, running fossil fuels systems on standby just in case etc.

Wind, wave etc are chaotic low order system, limitless alright the trick and cost is in putting order into the system.

The most important word in the "energy" debate is entropy; I doubt an energy minister in the world understands it.

Alf Veedersane

generic2012 wrote: »

Purely because they are subsidised so much. It is in the interest of the wind farm developer and land owners to create so many wind farms, look up some of the alleged payments people are receiving for allowing wind farms on their land, there's plenty on boards. It is of no economic benefit to the country.

By subsidised do you mean through REFIT? Because the lowest payment is for onshore wind.

And the Department of Ag will subsidise growing energy crops that could be used for combustion, CHP or co-firing.

Alf Veedersane

ford2600 wrote: »

Is it?

Do you pay for energy or do we pay for order? They are not the same thing.

Comparing 100MW of wind(before we even get into the fact that capacity is usually quoted and not output/likely output) with 100MW of oil/coal/nuclear is not the same thing. You have the oil/coal/nuclear when you want it and you can rely on it.

The cost of putting order on wind is never counted, diverse collection network, multiple transmission losses, running fossil fuels systems on standby just in case etc.

Wind, wave etc are chaotic low order system, limitless alright the trick and cost is in putting order into the system.

The most important word in the "energy" debate is entropy; I doubt an energy minister in the world understands it.

The figure is output, not capacity.

And no one is arguing it should be the mainstay. It has a role. As would nuclear but getting that one through the door is unlikely.

Anyway what about them GMOs?

generic2012

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Anyway what about them GMOs?

What about 32% of people thinking there should be a blanket ban and not one person posting a comment against GMOs?

I would guess that you have the uneducated, conspiracy theorists, anti business and/or general crackpots (like the anti vaccine/fluoride whackjobs)

generic2012

Deleted User wrote:

I would guess that you have the uneducated, conspiracy theorists, anti business and/or general crackpots (like the anti vaccine/fluoride whackjobs)

Jesus. That's a bit rude? You're on a health and fitness forum?......How could you have left out the high fat/low carb/paleo/organic food/employers of the naturalistic fallacy crowd!

Alf Veedersane

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Anyway what about them GMOs?

Hmmmm...are they considered processed by default?

generic2012

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Hmmmm...are they considered processed by default?

Only if they have the dreaded.....TERMINATOR GENE.

laoch na mona

as long as we keep Monsanto out then why not

Jawgap

laoch na mona wrote: »

as long as we keep Monsanto out then why not

They're already here

laoch na mona

Jawgap wrote: »

They're already here

but there crops aren't growing on Irish farms I know we can't ban gmos as we already use them in animal feed but companies like Monsanto are not something which should be part of food production

Jawgap

laoch na mona wrote: »

but there crops aren't growing on Irish farms I know we can't ban gmos as we already use them in animal feed but companies like Monsanto are not something which should be part of food production

Pretty sure they're involved in one or two research projects.......

......and you're right companies like Monsanto should not be permitted here, sure what use would we have for crops like blight resistant, low acrylsmide potential spuds

laoch na mona

Jawgap wrote: »

Pretty sure they're involved in one or two research projects.......

......and you're right companies like Monsanto should not be permitted here, sure what use would we have for crops like blight resistant, low acrylsmide potential spuds

were have been dealing with blight just fine, more like we don't need food produced by companies that act like big pharma companies