Half of Europe opts out of new GM crop scheme but "green" Ireland does not!?

Qtrip

theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/01/half-of-europe-opts-out-of-new-gm-crop-scheme

"Bid for exclusion by 14 countries and three regions would make two-thirds of Europe’s population and arable land GM-free"

Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and other countries opted out of allowing GM to be grown but I don't see Ireland listed as one of those countries.
Whether or not you agree with GM crops this just removes any credibility from statements highlighting the quality of our produce.

What the 'ell is wrong with our government? They should be protecting the green image used to promote Irish food around the world and its unique selling point that differentiates it from the rest of the produce on the market.

paddysdream

Qtrip wrote: »

theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/01/half-of-europe-opts-out-of-new-gm-crop-scheme

"Bid for exclusion by 14 countries and three regions would make two-thirds of Europe’s population and arable land GM-free"

Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and other countries opted out of allowing GM to be grown but I don't see Ireland listed as one of those countries.
Whether or not you agree with GM crops this just removes any credibility from statements highlighting the quality of our produce.

What the 'ell is wrong with our government? They should be protecting the green image used to promote Irish food around the world and its unique selling point that differentiates it from the rest of the produce on the market.

Think you have read one too many bord bia press releases.In the big scheme of things the vast bulk of our ag. produce is traded/sold at wholesale/trade price on the world market.
Our "green" image is mainly aimed at the home market as in the bigger scheme of things we are but one tiny voice shouting in an increasingly overcrowded marketplace.The sad reality is that our food is no different to much of what is produced elsewhere.Look at the "grass fed beef" idea with regard to the new markets in the USA.Our cattle are not grass fed as understood in USA but mainly grazed and finished in most cases on similar diets to those in feedlots ie cereals etc.

djmc

Most of our animal feed in ration or nut form given to cows calves pigs chickens sheep etc. contains soya imported from America
Almost all soya is a GM crop at this stage but nothing else can provide protein as cheap as soya and supermarkets have farmers squeezed to the last price wise.
Personally I would have more of a problem with the people running the GM crop companies than the crop itself.

_Brian

A base price of food stufs has been made based on GM feeds being part of the system. This isn't going to change and essentially the genie is out of the bottle.

It all comes back down to base price.. the average consumer isn't going to take a 20-30% increase in meat/food prices just to be 100% sure its GM free.

Capercaillie

The use of GMO in Ireland should be based on individual risk assessments for specific crop/animals. It is naive to say that all GMO are bad and dangerous. As for Ireland's food been "Green and sustainable" is a pure feckin lie.

Qtrip

So it's all just optics and even the Americans called us out on this by not allowing Irish beef to be labeled as grass-feed. Even the so called trace-ability of Irish cattle is a joke when you consider all the stolen animals that disappear in the system and when they are found then it is only by accident when a dept vet (fair dues to that man) notices that a ten month old animal is 400KGs dead and then the fecker involved only gets 5 months.

The GM feed genie might be out but given a choice the consumer would choose non GM - that's why the industry has pretty much succeeded in limiting the regulations requiring GM foods/ingredients to be labeled as such.
The next step in their process is to get the EU to accept the planting of GM crops but at least some countries are not going that far.

An island should be protecting its biosecurity and even more so when its neighbors are doing so. The race to the bottom continues and the Irish think its great that its freewheeling downhill.

Whom ever was the lobbyist to get the wording to be that countries had to request an opt-out instead of an opt-in really did get value for their money.

Capercaillie

Qtrip wrote: »

So it's all just optics and even the Americans called us out on this by not allowing Irish beef to be labeled as grass-feed. Even the so called trace-ability of Irish cattle is a joke when you consider all the stolen animals that disappear in the system and when they are found then it is only by accident when a dept vet (fair dues to that man) notices that a ten month old animal is 400KGs dead and then the fecker involved only gets 5 months.

The GM feed genie might be out but given a choice the consumer would choose non GM - that's why the industry has pretty much succeeded in limiting the regulations requiring GM foods/ingredients to be labeled as such.
The next step in their process is to get the EU to accept the planting of GM crops but at least some countries are not going that far.

An island should be protecting its biosecurity and even more so when its neighbors are doing so. The race to the bottom continues and the Irish think its great that its freewheeling downhill.

Whom ever was the lobbyist to get the wording to be that countries had to request an opt-out instead of an opt-in really did get value for their money.

How does GMO wheat threaten our biosecurity?

mirrormatrix

Qtrip wrote: »

So it's all just optics and even the Americans called us out on this by not allowing Irish beef to be labeled as grass-feed. Even the so called trace-ability of Irish cattle is a joke when you consider all the stolen animals that disappear in the system and when they are found then it is only by accident when a dept vet (fair dues to that man) notices that a ten month old animal is 400KGs dead and then the fecker involved only gets 5 months.

The GM feed genie might be out but given a choice the consumer would choose non GM - that's why the industry has pretty much succeeded in limiting the regulations requiring GM foods/ingredients to be labeled as such.
The next step in their process is to get the EU to accept the planting of GM crops but at least some countries are not going that far.

An island should be protecting its biosecurity and even more so when its neighbors are doing so. The race to the bottom continues and the Irish think its great that its freewheeling downhill.

Whom ever was the lobbyist to get the wording to be that countries had to request an opt-out instead of an opt-in really did get value for their money.

As I read it, all GM foods need to be labelled as such (> 0.9% in final food/ingredient), except in the case of cattle fed with GM feed.

https://www.fsai.ie/legislation/food_legislation/gmos/labelling_of_gm_food.html

Do you have some other information source?

Also, what's wrong with GM? MON 810 has been grown in the EU (mostly Spain) for years. France have repeatedly tried to get rid of this due to perceived environmental and resistance risks, but have not provided any convincing evidence to support their position (see report from EFSA below).

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/2705.pdf

This reaction to GM seems to me to be mainly a political one. People have it in their heads that GM is bad, and unfortunately no amount of evidence is going to change that perception. It's an awful waste, as it's a technology with real potential.

Capercaillie

mirrormatrix wrote: »

As I read it, all GM foods need to be labelled as such (> 0.9% in final food/ingredient), except in the case of cattle fed with GM feed.

https://www.fsai.ie/legislation/food_legislation/gmos/labelling_of_gm_food.html

Do you have some other information source?

Also, what's wrong with GM? MON 810 has been grown in the EU (mostly Spain) for years. France have repeatedly tried to get rid of this due to perceived environmental and resistance risks, but have not provided any convincing evidence to support their position (see report from EFSA below).

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/2705.pdf

This reaction to GM seems to me to be mainly a political one. People have it in their heads that GM is bad, and unfortunately no amount of evidence is going to change that perception. It's an awful waste, as it's a technology with real potential.

Potential to use less pesticides, greater yields, fortified crops. Crops with the ability to grow on marginal land.

seachto7

Welcome to TTIP

Qtrip

my point is really only about Ireland not protecting itself from the race to the bottom that due to its size it could never win

anyway
yes in the EU beef feed GMs do not have to be labelled
Even the Bio industry are not proud of their product as in the EU they are pressing hard to get labelling removed as they see it as "stigmatising".
"Potential to use less pesticides, greater yields, fortified crops" is proof of nothing only a well employed media PR team.

I dont think there is conclusive proof either way with the best paid for research being quoted on either side of the argument.

Better safe than sorry and fair dues to those countries who opted out for playing it safe.

Yea TTIP here we come

Capercaillie

Qtrip wrote: »

my point is really only about Ireland not protecting itself from the race to the bottom that due to its size it could never win

anyway
yes in the EU beef feed GMs do not have to be labelled
Even the Bio industry are not proud of their product as in the EU they are pressing hard to get labelling removed as they see it as "stigmatising".
"Potential to use less pesticides, greater yields, fortified crops" is proof of nothing only a well employed media PR team.

I dont think there is conclusive proof either way with the best paid for research being quoted on either side of the argument.

Better safe than sorry and fair dues to those countries who opted out for playing it safe.

Yea TTIP here we come

Don't use any potentially beneficial new technologies so. Get rid of the MMR vaccine as that is GMO. New strains of wheat/barley (non-GMO) could be dangerous so better off not using them.

road_high

Capercaillie wrote: »

Potential to use less pesticides, greater yields, fortified crops. Crops with the ability to grow on marginal land.

I can never get my head around the hysteria over GM. Reminds of the water "protest" brigade.
Surely a potential for reduced pesticide input is so very desirable from a green point of view. This has been totally lost in the hype over Monsanto, threats to biodiversity etc, a lot of it frankly non sensical but sadly has found resonance with the ordinary public.

djmc

I feel that gm crops is like science and a step forward.
Some people have always been afraid of science
and change through out history.
Even mistakes we generally learn and change or adopt to suit our needs.eg.nuclear power.
The possibilitys are big if people keep working on it for example a bumper crop from black oat that could be grown on poor ground or peat.
Maize that could grow at high altitude and cold climates or a highbred of clover and grass that could fix its own nitrogen as it grows.
It might seem far fetched but so did gm. Dna. Or the Internet 30 years ago.
It might be a mistake to let some of our older crops and breeds go too. as they are generally harder and more resilient than modern types with higher yields.

feelgoodinc27

paddysdream wrote: »

The sad reality is that our food is no different to much of what is produced elsewhere.Look at the "grass fed beef" idea with regard to the new markets in the USA.Our cattle are not grass fed as understood in USA but mainly grazed and finished in most cases on similar diets to those in feedlots ie cereals etc.

The system here is nothing like america, the bulk of an animals diet here is grass, in the feedlots of the states its about 80% grains. Also theres no mass feeding of antibiotics here.

The GM and similar stuff is the product of a toxic mix of cowardly politicians, devious NGOs and ignorant media. NGOs provide the biased copy (fair enough in one way as thats their business), the Media cut and pastes it (need to fill space triumphs over truth and accuracy) and politicians swallow it (cowardice for fear the NGOs will target them next).
In the US the mix is the same but different. There, the role of the NGO is replaced by Industry and the same cowardly politians are in fear of losing their election funding.
Sad state of affairs for our democracies.

cmac

Just out of curiosity, what did Ireland do in the end? Opt out or say nothing?

Capercaillie

feelgoodinc27 wrote: »

The system here is nothing like america, the bulk of an animals diet here is grass, in the feedlots of the states its about 80% grains. Also theres no mass feeding of antibiotics here.

Growth promoters not used in Ireland, but plenty of prophylatic use of antibiotics.

paddysdream

feelgoodinc27 wrote: »

The system here is nothing like america, the bulk of an animals diet here is grass, in the feedlots of the states its about 80% grains. Also theres no mass feeding of antibiotics here.

Thats not the point I was trying to make.
Grass fed beef means(as Americian's, and others I presume,understand it)an animal that is finished on grass and not intensively fed to finish.Very little if any cattle killed here would qualify by that criteria.

We heard all the talk re. our "grass fed beef" and how its sale in the USA and elsewhere would be amazimg on the basis of our green clean image.The reality is that the vast bulk of Irish beef and lamb is sold on non premium commodity markets.Look at any supermarket shelf in the UK(our major beef market).Only Irish beef you will find is lower priced cuts or mince.All premium stuff is red tractor etc.

All thats beside the point though.My point is that denying ourselves GM technology because of a misguided belief that it will somehow harm our pristine image is fairyland thinking.The scientific adviser(Anne Glover) to Juncker was more or less sacked/forced to resign last year due to the fact that she would not say anything other than that on a science/fact based basis GM technology was safe and EU opposition to it was illogical and based on emotion and an idealogigal basis.
Personally have no real interest unless we can breed a ewe which will rear 4 lambs (one on each of her 4 tits) and give 2 crops a year that will kill 22kgs at 4 months off grass.Just hate to see people object to something because it"might" be harmful.Something like the linked but unrelated scare re.Roundup/Glyphostate.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Qtrip wrote: »

So it's all just optics and even the Americans called us out on this by not allowing Irish beef to be labeled as grass-feed. Even the so called trace-ability of Irish cattle is a joke when you consider all the stolen animals that disappear in the system and when they are found then it is only by accident when a dept vet (fair dues to that man) notices that a ten month old animal is 400KGs dead and then the fecker involved only gets 5 months.

The GM feed genie might be out but given a choice the consumer would choose non GM - that's why the industry has pretty much succeeded in limiting the regulations requiring GM foods/ingredients to be labeled as such.
The next step in their process is to get the EU to accept the planting of GM crops but at least some countries are not going that far.

An island should be protecting its biosecurity and even more so when its neighbors are doing so. The race to the bottom continues and the Irish think its great that its freewheeling downhill.

Whom ever was the lobbyist to get the wording to be that countries had to request an opt-out instead of an opt-in really did get value for their money.

They might, but would they be willing to pay for it?

_Tombstone_

19 opt outs now.

I wouldn't be a Fan. Not near enough testing done of it before it was released. For every plus someone wants to list for them I'd bet their's a study that says otherwise.

taxusbaccata

You can be sure that the Bankers & Corporations Party (FG) will destroy Irish farming when they have financial interests in global agricultural entities who will be ramming GM into as many countries as possible. TTIP all the way for these gentlemen.

>>independent.ie/business/irish/noonan-makes-killing-in-stock-market-punts-30137701.html

Just look at the documentaries of what Monsanto does to small farmers in the USA and India when their patented genes pollute regular growers.

>>youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A

taxusbaccata

[QUOTE=_Tombstone_;97275423}

I wouldn't be a Fan. Not near enough testing done of it before it was released. For every plus someone wants to list for them I'd bet their's a study that says otherwise.[/QUOTE]

3 Issues I have with GM:

1) The GM crop itself is not likely toxic to consume with a transplanted gene but if the organism goes wild it could devastate the balance of an ecosystem (eg. dominant with no natural vulnerability and collapse an ecosystem)

2) The toxicity is from the chemicals sprayed in conjunction with GM crops - drowning our fields with the known carcinogen glyphosate which is already being done is just horrendous.

3) The reported benefits of GM farming over conventional farming have been at best exaggerated and likely lied about to allow for the corporate takeover and control of food production. Our water supply is also a target as we have seen recently.

If we turn out like the USA where corporations rule our farming and environment will be completely enslaved and our lands decimated.

Capercaillie

taxusbaccata wrote: »

3 Issues I have with GM:

1) The GM crop itself is not likely toxic to consume with a transplanted gene but if the organism goes wild it could devastate the balance of an ecosystem (eg. dominant with no natural vulnerability and collapse an ecosystem)

What's to stop a strain of crop (non-GMO) bred intensively from escaping to the wild?

2) The toxicity is from the chemicals sprayed in conjunction with GM crops - drowning our fields with the known carcinogen glyphosate which is already being done is just horrendous.

Glyphosate/Round-up is sprayed on most conventional non-GMO crops.

3) The reported benefits of GM farming over conventional farming have been at best exaggerated and likely lied about to allow for the corporate takeover and control of food production. Our water supply is also a target as we have seen recently.

GMO crops generally have better production.

taxusbaccata

Capercaillie wrote: »

What's to stop a strain of crop (non-GMO) bred intensively from escaping to the wild?

Glyphosate/Round-up is sprayed on most conventional non-GMO crops.

GMO crops generally have better production.

1) That is called evolution (even with human intervention) and happens with much slower natural changes with subtle advantages. GM is completely unpredictable and potentially disastrous.

2) As I said "which is already being done". But you seem to miss that the major purpose of GM crops is to increase chemical sales and to further solidify control over agriculture. GM crops and these herbicides are used in partnership - eg. "Round-up Ready"

3) Generally? Research has show that most of the time the yields are about the same although GM goes up in harsher environments eg. Extreme drought.

>>>skepticalraptor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/maize_prod_nat-biotech_2013.pdf

The financial yield certainly does not go up for farmer - it goes up for the companies proving the pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers. Look at the yields of food farmers must produce for any kind of profit.

Capercaillie

taxusbaccata wrote: »

1) That is called evolution (even with human intervention) and happens with much slower natural changes with subtle advantages. GM is completely unpredictable and potentially disastrous.

2) As I said "which is already being done". But you seem to miss that the major purpose of GM crops is to increase chemical sales and to further solidify control over agriculture. GM crops and these herbicides are used in partnership - eg. "Round-up Ready"

3) Generally? Research has show that most of the time the yields are about the same although GM goes up in harsher environments eg. Extreme drought.

>>>skepticalraptor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/maize_prod_nat-biotech_2013.pdf

The financial yield certainly does not go up for farmer - it goes up for the companies proving the pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers. Look at the yields of food farmers must produce for any kind of profit.

1.Evolution tailored by intensive breeding can be rapid as well. You could have chromosomal mutations occurring quickly coupled to the short generational times with bacteria can leads to rapid changes in the genome of a bacteria. How do you stop that spreading?

2. Most conventional strains of crops in order to have high production levels require herbicides like round-up. No real difference to GMO crops.

taxusbaccata

Capercaillie wrote: »

1.Evolution tailored by intensive breeding can be rapid as well. You could have chromosomal mutations occurring quickly coupled to the short generational times with bacteria can leads to rapid changes in the genome of a bacteria. How do you stop that spreading?

2. Most conventional strains of crops in order to have high production levels require herbicides like round-up. No real difference to GMO crops.

1). Here's a good example of your scenario - Kill off undesirable bacteria with manmade products developed from the chemical industry. The rapid changes of the bacteria adapt. A super bacteria arises. How do you stop that spreading? You minimise use of these chemicals which created these super bacteria in the first place. We call these chemicals antibiotics. Just like potentially vigorous and aggressive GM crops - don't create them when they are not needed.

2). You don't need herbicides like Roundup for high yields as said before. It certainly will grant you a short season of monoculture for the crop of your choice. You have been sold a lie for the profits of agrichemical companies. You are being extorted to practice your God given right to produce your own food. You grow your food their way and pay them dearly.

ganmo

taxusbaccata wrote: »

1). Here's a good example of your scenario - Kill off undesirable bacteria with manmade products developed from the chemical industry. The rapid changes of the bacteria adapt. A super bacteria arises. How do you stop that spreading? You minimise use of these chemicals which created these super bacteria in the first place. We call these chemicals antibiotics. Just like potentially vigorous and aggressive GM crops - don't create them when they are not needed.

2). You don't need herbicides like Roundup for high yields as said before. It certainly will grant you a short season of monoculture for the crop of your choice. You have been sold a lie for the profits of agrichemical companies. You are being extorted to practice your God given right to produce your own food. You grow your food their way and pay them dearly.

You're arguing with a very environmentally friendly member of this forum.

I'm highly sceptical of the GM companies but not of the science.
I believe it is the right idea not to close the door against it as a whole. the dept+teagasc already started looking GM spuds.

While we as a nation could feed ourselves as an island without GM but the world needs feeding

Capercaillie

taxusbaccata wrote: »

1). Here's a good example of your scenario - Kill off undesirable bacteria with manmade products developed from the chemical industry. The rapid changes of the bacteria adapt. A super bacteria arises. How do you stop that spreading? You minimise use of these chemicals which created these super bacteria in the first place. We call these chemicals antibiotics. Just like potentially vigorous and aggressive GM crops - don't create them when they are not needed.

.

Not a good example. Antibiotics are needed. In modern day farming you have livestock at high stocking densities and as a result disease is more prevalent. Without antibiotics animal welfare/production would be compromised. Zoonotic diseases would be increasingly transmitted to people without antibiotics.

2). You don't need herbicides like Roundup for high yields as said before. It certainly will grant you a short season of monoculture for the crop of your choice. You have been sold a lie for the profits of agrichemical companies. You are being extorted to practice your God given right to produce your own food. You grow your food their way and pay them dearly

Roundup use does give higher yields, roughly 4 times production. Certain environmentalists have a blanket refusal to using round-up. Round-up can in certain circumstance aid in conservation.

kowtow

ganmo wrote: »

I'm highly sceptical of the GM companies but not of the science.
I believe it is the right idea not to close the door against it as a whole. the dept+teagasc already started looking GM spuds.

While we as a nation could feed ourselves as an island without GM but the world needs feeding

As far as the present GM situation is concerned you sum up my own feelings precisely. The present state of affairs in the US with Monsanto et. al. is a twisted perversion of nature, science, and intellectual property law and would be very damaging indeed to Irish family farming if transported lock stock and barrel.

On the other hand GM per se should not be ruled out simply by it's mis-use.

I'm not sure whether opting out would have stopped us opting in on a selective basis, and I hope to God that the decision not to opt out is not as a result of some unseen corporate lobbying. Were there actually any direct advantages in not having an automatic opt out?

And although the world undoubtedly needs feeding, I'm not sure that Ireland has any obligation, moral or otherwise, to feed it unless doing so puts healthy food on Irish tables - and particularly those of it's farming families - first.

yosemitesam1

kowtow wrote: »

And although the world undoubtedly needs feeding, I'm not sure that Ireland has any obligation, moral or otherwise, to feed it unless doing so puts healthy food on Irish tables - and particularly those of it's farming families - first.

It always seems to come up that gm is essential to feed the world, but as it stands we can produce enough food even with huge areas of land under bad/no management. The problem is people can't afford food, I don't know if gm will reduce cost of production but I'd have my doubts whether it will do a better job than low cost sustainable agriculture