Permission granted to grow GM potatoes in Ireland

lucylu wrote: »

My concern about the GM potato testing in Carlow is on the same Site Dr. Mary Coffey manages approx 100 Beehives, examining them and trialing products available in Europe trying eliminate the Varroa Mite and foul brood disesases on the Irish bee population. The Varroa mite is wiping out bee colonies worldwide.

A full working beehive have have 60k plus bees * 100 hives. a honeybee is pollen dependent and will forage on the 1 plant only.
Potato plants produces flowers. GM potato plants will also produce flowers.
A bee will travel for pollen up to 2 miles. There are alot of potato growers that have leased grounds around carlow town outskirts so cross pollination will be my fear.

I think bee keepers have more to worry about than gm crops like colony collapse disorder. If colony collapse disorder affects Ireland to a large degree Irish agriculture will be fecked. Also gm crops reduce the need for pesticide which is one of the potential causes of colony collapse disorder.

Last time there was a GM trial in Carlow (beet) and Monsanto were financing it. A group of people went in and ripped them up out of the ground.
Hopefully they do the same this time round.

http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/2694

cruhoortwunk wrote: »

Last time there was a GM trial in Carlow (beet) and Monsanto were financing it. A group of people went in and ripped them up out of the ground.
Hopefully they do the same this time round.

http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/2694

And the best bit of information you'll hear back on this statement- The information that the scientists required had already been gathered before these criminals destroyed the research so in fact they did nothing to deter it and the fact they ripped them up shows they in fact no very little about the life cycle of a biennial plant (such as beet) also the fact any herbicide that is used on cereals will kill beet so the glyphosate isnt really an issue

Isnt there a bit of a catch 22 being argued here?

On the one hand, crops designed not to cross pollinate create a monopoly where the farmer has to rely on the company for seeds every year. It does remove the risk of cross pollination with native species though

On the other hand, crops that can cross pollinate remove this reliance on one company but can cross with local varieties.

Another point that everyone overlooks is that introducing GM crops on a wide scale reduces the use of natural varieties. This is "unnatural selection" in practice. What is going to happen to interesting varieties of different crops? Example in the US has an almost 85% GM soya crop, where are all the natural varieties being displaced to?

I think the benefits are amazing but as always there are many downsides.

Conflats wrote: »

A big point which often comes out in debates on GM is why dont we go organic? simple reason is we used to go organic but then we discovered ways to improve production and hence population grew due to the abundance of food in part.

GM crops DO NOT have anything to do with increased food production. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMcropsfailed.php

You are using a strawman there.

Rango555 wrote: »

GM crops DO NOT have anything to do with increased food production. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMcropsfailed.php

You are using a strawman there.

SO you are telling me by using gm technology it cant increase the yields of crops grown? Or it can't be used to create plants which grow in marginal lands such as western Australia and guarantee a crop to actually harvest or give disease resistance to plants which do loose yield due to less photosynthesis

And you link shows that the yield drop is from the gene insertion process let me see where i've heard that before oh yes now i remember it happened with wheat when the semi dwarfing gene was inserted to reduce crop height give the gm breeders time and the yield will rise when the genes are inserted into higher yielding varieties

Rango555 wrote: »

I'm referring to the facts.. the facts are that GM crops have not increased yield and have increased the need for harmful pesticides. The damage to the areas where GM crops have been grown is irreversable... they have had all the "time" I'm willing to give them to get it right. It is too late for the areas where GM is the norm.

ok you must have picked my point up wrong then, yield drag is a common occurance in plant breeding when selecting for one trait you can cause a drag in another desireable trait its up to the breeder to decide the levels acceptable. GM was introduced in 1996 it has cut costs for farmers making it more profitable to grow crops. The levels of gylphosate used had increased due to the natural phenomenon known as selection pressure from use of the product with the same mode of action (as the glyphosate) when this occurs usually from enhanced metabolism within the plant it requires more active ingredient to kill it hence the increasing levels. And in case anyone is wondering there is plenty of examples of herbicide resistance in Europe we only have to look to the east of the UK to see blackgrass resistance problems

Rango555 wrote: »

GM crops DO NOT have anything to do with increased food production. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMcropsfailed.php

You are using a strawman there.

Are you also against other gm products like insulin and other hormones?

Conflats wrote: »

ok you must have picked my point up wrong then, yield drag is a common occurance in plant breeding when selecting for one trait you can cause a drag in another desireable trait its up to the breeder to decide the levels acceptable. GM was introduced in 1996 it has cut costs for farmers making it more profitable to grow crops. The levels of gylphosate used had increased due to the natural phenomenon known as selection pressure from use of the product with the same mode of action (as the glyphosate) when this occurs usually from enhanced metabolism within the plant it requires more active ingredient to kill it hence the increasing levels. And in case anyone is wondering there is plenty of examples of herbicide resistance in Europe we only have to look to the east of the UK to see blackgrass resistance problems

http://www.stwr.org/food-security-agriculture/do-gm-crops-increase-yield-the-answer-is-no.html

Look... you can introduce as much scientific talk as you think you need to answer but the simple reality is that food production has not been increased by the introduction of GM crops. Ask an Indian farmer if GM crops have cut the cost to them.. you are using strawman arguments that have no basis in fact.

GM crops DO NOT produce more food
GM crops HAVE NOT made farming cheaper... those are facts.

Rango555 wrote: »

http://www.stwr.org/food-security-agriculture/do-gm-crops-increase-yield-the-answer-is-no.html

Look... you can introduce as much scientific talk as you think you need to answer but the simple reality is that food production has not been increased by the introduction of GM crops. Ask an Indian farmer if GM crops have cut the cost to them.. you are using strawman arguments that have no basis in fact.

GM crops DO NOT produce more food
GM crops HAVE NOT made farming cheaper... those are facts.

You know gm foods like golden rice have spared the sight of millions? I dont know the data on increased food yield but you can be pretty certain when gm technology improves food yield will also improve.

steddyeddy wrote: »

You know gm foods like golden rice have spared the sight of millions? I dont know the data on increased food yield but you can be pretty certain when gm technology improves food yield will also improve.

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/goldenricehoax.html

Thats about the only answer you are getting due to your earlier post to me.

Rango555 wrote: »

http://www.stwr.org/food-security-agriculture/do-gm-crops-increase-yield-the-answer-is-no.html

Look... you can introduce as much scientific talk as you think you need to answer but the simple reality is that food production has not been increased by the introduction of GM crops. Ask an Indian farmer if GM crops have cut the cost to them.. you are using strawman arguments that have no basis in fact.

GM crops DO NOT produce more food
GM crops HAVE NOT made farming cheaper... those are facts.

I have told you the scientfic reasons behind the yield drag maybe you cant understand it im not sure but the point is your just anti-gm end of

Yes i do lean on the side not of pro gm but on the side of science proven science.

You ask the people who eat the rice with increased levels of vitamin A how their eye sight is or better still ask the diabetics who rely on insulin to stay alive, gm has created a cheaper more consistent supply of insulin to them and would you believe its made in dear old dublin but not many people would care as long as its saving lives by being there

Do you have any experience of actual farming on a reasonable scale? I do and I can see day in day out the problems associated with it any technology which has not being proven unsafe to use that helps ease the burden of this is a plus in my book. Gm does cut costs maybe not in a country such as the states but you talk to any tillage farmer in ireland who had to spray against fungal disease does he like spraying? he will tell you NO! it costs time and money to do and still causes losses if a variety can be produced to last in the environment long term against disease it will be a great day for agriculture in general, the problem with the varieties used is they start off with a good tolerance to the disease but over time(in wheat usually 4-5 years) weakens and has to start all over again

Conflats wrote: »

I have told you the scientfic reasons behind the yield drag maybe you cant understand it im not sure but the point is your just anti-gm end of

Yes i do lean on the side not of pro gm but on the side of science proven science.

You ask the people who eat the rice with increased levels of vitamin A how their eye sight is or better still ask the diabetics who rely on insulin to stay alive, gm has created a cheaper more consistent supply of insulin to them and would you believe its made in dear old dublin but not many people would care as long as its saving lives by being there

Do you have any experience of actual farming on a reasonable scale? I do and I can see day in day out the problems associated with it any technology which has not being proven unsafe to use that helps ease the burden of this is a plus in my book. Gm does cut costs maybe not in a country such as the states but you talk to any tillage farmer in ireland who had to spray against fungal disease does he like spraying? he will tell you NO! it costs time and money to do and still causes losses if a variety can be produced to last in the environment long term against disease it will be a great day for agriculture in general, the problem with the varieties used is they start off with a good tolerance to the disease but over time(in wheat usually 4-5 years) weakens and has to start all over again

What people? That rice is not currently available for human consumption. Read the article posted in reply to steddyeddy. Yet another straw man.

I am against GM crops in it's current form (I have not stated otherwise) as it has NOT helped humanity in any way. All the claims about increased food yield are incorrect... all the claims about less need for chemicals are incorrect... all the claims about reducing costs to farmers are incorrect.

I grow crops organically on 3 acres... I change varieties regularly to avoid diseases etc... the very same way that we have done for centuries.

GM crops will never be acceptable to me in their current form because of companies like Monsanto. They are solely driven by profit and are doing their best to ensure the entire world has to come to them to grow food rather than any of the strawman benefits that you have argued thusfar.

If there was ethical regulating and controlled developement of GM crops I would support it... instead we have huge corporations destroying the food supply of millions of people and the land that it is grown on while we "wait" for them to get it right... I'm not buying it.