Permission granted to grow GM potatoes in Ireland

Silene · 11-08-2012 07:47PM

Colmustard wrote:

The organic industry in Ireland they represent makes a tidy profit

And that is an unfair claim to make against organic growers. Most organic farmers grow organic because they care about people's health, and most organic farms exist on a very small scale. Their crops are grown and sold locally, as nature intended.

Somnus · 11-08-2012 08:06PM

xynn wrote: »

If people want to experiment in a lab, or grow stuff for testing in a closed environment, that's one thing. Planting seeds out in nature, with the intention of selling to the general public is another thing entirely.

It's called a field test for a reason.... Testing the crops in real world conditions. Sure, you could possibly simulate growth conditions, possibly pathogen exposure (I assume they're gonna be exposing it to blight) but really the best thing is to carry out the experiment in conditions as close to the real thing as possible.

xynn wrote: »

Whatever about other countries, Ireland has no need whatsoever for genetically engineered crops. We have no vitamin deficiencies here, no weather problems.

But we do have potato blight.... Among other crop damaging pathogens.

xynn wrote: »

What is actually happening is that the likes of Monsanto want to spread this seed around the world as fast as they can. Because if they wait a few more years, results of studies currently underway will show beyond any shadow of doubt that GM/GE foods are detrimental to human and animal health. The link I posted earlier today already shows this. Worth reading for anyone who is unaware of the dangers.

Can you provide a legit link to evidence of harmful GM foods? I looked at your link, and I have numerous problems with it

1) The crop the cows ate and the crop up for human consumption are different

Syngenta’s Bt 176 corn variety expresses an insecticidal Bt toxin (Cry1Ab) derived from the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and a gene conferring resistance to glufosinate herbicides. EU cultivation of Bt 176 was discontinued in 2007. Similar varieties however, including Bt 11 sweet corn are currently cultivated for human and animal consumption in the EU.

And that's not even the bad part

2) Your link has hyperlinked "sources" which link back to it's own website, showing just a list of sources. And how convenient, you need to have a paid membership to actually look at their oh so valid proof!!
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/error/login_error.php?location=CAGMMAD.php

It's laughable. The site hardly looks legit to you does it? All their related articles are anti GM articles. Hardly an unbiased opinion.

1ZRed · 11-08-2012 08:06PM

What's all the fuss about genetically modified crops? I think people are too quick to dismiss this.

Messing with genes is fine because it's no different to manipulating livestock to get the best animal for food, speed, strength etc except it's done by people in a lab at a very controlled and specific level. It's the chemicals used to manipulate and protect the crop that usually fuck you over but that's nothing to do with the genetic make up of the crop.

In fact genetic engineering has been down for years on crops. If I remember correctly from my LC biology last year, the gene for vitamin A taken from the daffodil was splicied into the rice plant to help solve vitamin A deficiency in China.
There are no negative effects because it was natural. All the engineers did was change the building blocks and nature took over to build it.

In fact that's what's probably been done here. A desireable trait in one plant that is immune to blight and other threats would be extracted and added to the DNA of the crop that is susceptible to these diseases.

If anything doing this would cut down on pesticides and chemicals hugely, which would actually turn out to be much healthier for us and give better yields, so in theory, it could lower food prices as it's a much more efficient process.
It's the way forward IMO.

steddyeddy · 11-08-2012 08:17PM

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Couldn't disagree more but I love your logic regardless! "eh apparently our rep is bad so eh, cant hurt to make it worse"

Along with the nuke proponents I argued into the ground a few months before Fukushima I'll say it to you.

You have blood on your hands for carelessly advocating that which will cost countless lives and add to long term human suffering.

GM has saved the lives of millions of people so far.

steddyeddy · 11-08-2012 08:26PM

paddy147 wrote: »

Say good bye to the bees and butterflys then,when GM Crop fields spring up everywhere.

The honey bee is facing extinction already due in part to the use of pesticides. When that goes say goodbye to modern farming. You see the problem I have with the anti gm lot is that they seem to be against the testing of gm crops. They say we dont need them now so their bad ect. Thier perfectly right in that sense. We dont need them now but one day we will. Im guessing the decline of the honey bee is going to be the first time were we will need gm. If we dont test gm we will never have it when we dont need it. I would rather we test it now so we have it just in case.

steddyeddy · 11-08-2012 08:27PM

1ZRed wrote: »

What's all the fuss about genetically modified crops? I think people are too quick to dismiss this.

Messing with genes is fine because it's no different to manipulating livestock to get the best animal for food, speed, strength etc except it's done by people in a lab at a very controlled and specific level. It's the chemicals used to manipulate and protect the crop that usually fuck you over but that's nothing to do with the genetic make up of the crop.

In fact genetic engineering has been down for years on crops. If I remember correctly from my LC biology last year, the gene for vitamin A taken from the daffodil was splicied into the rice plant to help solve vitamin A deficiency in China.
There are no negative effects because it was natural. All the engineers did was change the building blocks and nature took over to build it.

In fact that's what's probably been done here. A desireable trait in one plant that is immune to blight and other threats would be extracted and added to the DNA of the crop that is susceptible to these diseases.

If anything doing this would cut down on pesticides and chemicals hugely, which would actually turn out to be much healthier for us and give better yields, so in theory, it could lower food prices as it's a much more efficient process.
It's the way forward IMO.

Thats Golden rice. It saved the lives of millions. As you say its all natural.

Silene · 11-08-2012 08:41PM

Dr.Poca wrote:

All their related articles are anti GM articles. Hardly an unbiased opinion.

It's not an anti-GM article. It also not an opinion piece. It is a piece written simply reporting facts of a recent case taken by a farmer against a GM corportation for the death of his livestock. Further down in the article then it cites studies that were done, showing how GM toxins have been found in human blood etc. All claims backed up by sources. Sure, I'll post the link again here, and let people make up their own minds: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Syngenta_Charged_for_Covering_Up_Livestock_Deaths_from_GM_Corn.php

I thought it was well written and well put together with no bs. If you thought it was "laughable" then it's a strange sense of humour you have. It makes for some disturbing reading if you ask me.

And how convenient, you need to have a paid membership to actually look at their oh so valid proof!!

All links in the article are clickable, and lead to other articles. Some of these are within the site, some are outside. Scroll to the bottom and you get a full list of references, which lead to more info. I don't know how you got to the login page, unless you clicked the link saying "login".

hoochis · 11-08-2012 08:43PM

xynn wrote: »

And that is an unfair claim to make against organic growers. Most organic farmers grow organic because they care about people's health, and most organic farms exist on a very small scale. Their crops are grown and sold locally, as nature intended.

As Nature Intended. I love hearing that. If you want things as nature intended then get of boards and turn off your computer, it should not be there. Turn off the electricity, it should not be there. Get out of your house/apartment and find a nice cave or build a sh1t hovel. Then you can argue about what nature intended without sounding like a hypocrite!

Colmustard · 11-08-2012 08:48PM

xynn wrote: »

If people want to experiment in a lab, or grow stuff for testing in a closed environment, that's one thing. Planting seeds out in nature, with the intention of selling to the general public is another thing entirely. If you yourself want to consume this stuff, produced from a technology "still in its infancy", you can find a way to do so. Why not move to the US where you can already get all the GM/GE food you want?

Whatever about other countries, Ireland has no need whatsoever for genetically engineered crops. We have no vitamin deficiencies here, no weather problems. What is actually happening is that the likes of Monsanto want to spread this seed around the world as fast as they can. Because if they wait a few more years, results of studies currently underway will show beyond any shadow of doubt that GM/GE foods are detrimental to human and animal health. The link I posted earlier today already shows this. Worth reading for anyone who is unaware of the dangers.

I guarantee you you are consuming GM produce, any food you eat with soya, corn syrup and wheat you can be certain that a proportion of that comes from North America.

Also any meat you eat the lifestock will be fed with GM feeds.

Colmustard · 11-08-2012 08:52PM

xynn wrote: »

And that is an unfair claim to make against organic growers. Most organic farmers grow organic because they care about people's health, and most organic farms exist on a very small scale. Their crops are grown and sold locally, as nature intended.

Rubbish most these farmer grow this produce for a ready market whom they can sell for a premium price, they are not Vincent De Paul.

I find a lot of the Anti GM Monsanto views expressed in this thread is by a bunch of people who have misplaced their tin foil hats.

1ZRed · 11-08-2012 09:07PM

Colmustard wrote: »

I find a lot of the Anti GM Monsanto views expressed in this thread is by a bunch of people who have misplaced their tin foil hats.

I think it's because they don't understand basic genetics and genetic engineering. That and they don't seem to be able to differentiate between chemicals and genes and assume they cause the same negative health outcomes which isn't true.

Silene · 11-08-2012 09:13PM

hoochis wrote:

If you want things as nature intended then get of boards and turn off your computer, it should not be there. Turn off the electricity, it should not be there. Get out of your house/apartment and find a nice cave or build a **** hovel. Then you can argue about what nature intended without sounding like a hypocrite!

And where did I say anywhere I was anti-technology? How quick you are to call someone a hypocrite and try to insult them!

I am all for technology, when used appropriately. The point is that human beings have not suddenly become super-human in the last ten years or so, where they can tolerate and digest everything just because some people want to sell it as 'food'. Tampering with the foods the body is used to and designed for will have unpredictable consequences. That's all I'm saying. And I'm saying it should be tested much more rigorously and for much longer - decades i would say - before being released into the food chain. And if it's found to be detrimental to health, the whole project should be abandoned, no matter how much money people have invested in it.

paddy147 · 11-08-2012 09:15PM

Have any of you actually seen inside a bee hive..in the flesh??

very facinating indeed.

Scary at 1st,but amazing after the nerves settled down.

This is my girlfriend opening the bee hives earlier this year.

You can see the baby bees inside the cells (white grubs).

shedweller · 11-08-2012 09:24PM

1ZRed wrote: »

If anything doing this would cut down on pesticides and chemicals hugely, which would actually turn out to be much healthier for us and give better yields, so in theory, it could lower food prices as it's a much more efficient process.
It's the way forward IMO.

Thats gas! Monsanto would actually make something that would reduce their sales of pesticides!!
How naieve.

Colmustard · 11-08-2012 09:24PM

1ZRed wrote: »

I think it's because they don't understand basic genetics and genetic engineering. That and they don't seem to be able to differentiate between chemicals and genes and assume they cause the same negative health outcomes which isn't true.

I personally feel Mary Shelly has a lot to answer for. Her novel about when man goes against nature and gods law with his science he will only create an unnatural out of control monster.

Frankenfood is an incredibly emotional thought producing term, it makes people fear the science without knowing or wanting to know the facts. They know what will happen they seen the film.

I would be more worried about the increased and more potent chemicals use in agriculture, the organic phosphates, the nitrates, the insecticides, the fungus-ides, the list is endless. Any tech that can reduce those are wellcome, this tech has the potential to do that.

paddy147 · 11-08-2012 09:25PM

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

I like to consider myself the same as I say most posters here do. It's your personal responsibility to educate yourself on the topic. From what I can see you have referenced the decline in bees and butterflies on the posts you have made on GM so you obviously decided your Anti-GM but when asked for further info you have provided a quote from the Green Party not the actual study. Basically that's as good as telling us what you heard the bloke down the pub say. We all know how politicians particularly like to pick and choose which parts of reports to quote so its advisable to read the report they quote.

Surely the normal average person would be aware the Green Party has a vested interest in opposing GM in Ireland. The organic industry in Ireland they represent makes a tidy profit at the expense of the normal average person who can't afford to buy a weekly shop of organic goods.

What the hell are you on about policitcal parties for,with regards myself??

Various websites and stories have said a 68% decline in bees and butteflys in areas where GM crops have been grown/trialed (that was actually over in the Uk where the decline was recorded in GM areas).

All I did was mention it.

Heaven forbid that I posted that here and mentioned it.

Colmustard · 11-08-2012 09:29PM

paddy147 wrote: »

What the hell are you on about policitcal parties for,with regards myself??

Various websites and stories have said a 68% decline in bees and butteflys in areas where GM crops have been grown/trialed.All I did was mention it.

Heaven forbid that I posted that here and mentioned it.

The problem of colony collapse is pretty much solved and it has nothing to do with GM. Its a kind of Bee HIV virus.

paddy147 · 11-08-2012 09:34PM

Colmustard wrote: »

The problem of colony collapse is pretty much solved and it has nothing to do with GM. Its a kind of Bee HIV virus.

Ok thankyou.:)

But all I did was post a link to where it said about the decline in GM areas.

Someone obviously did the survey and posted the results.

So I dont know who is right and who is wrong at the end of the day?

For the record..Ive nothing to do with any political party and dont really care what any politician says.

All of them are overpaid gobshytes...but thats for a different thread.

the bolt · 11-08-2012 09:35PM

danniemcq wrote: »

All for it.

we have come to a stage in time where we are quickly running out of food to feed a ever expanding population.

If we can have a more resistant strand of wheat or corn (or spuds) that would be more resiliant to drought or create a higher yeild per acre then all for it.

All this organic crap where you pay extra for little or no benifit is bullcrap.

what makes you think we are running out of food?

steddyeddy · 11-08-2012 09:36PM

the bolt wrote: »

what makes you think we are running out of food?

Gm is not only about an increase in food!!

Nodin · 11-08-2012 09:38PM

paddy147 wrote: »

Have any of you actually seen inside a bee hive..in the flesh??

very facinating indeed.

Scary at 1st,but amazing after the nerves settled down.

This is my girlfriend opening the bee hives earlier this year.

You can see the baby bees inside the cells (white grubs).

It'll end badly....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpO4gvW6D3Q

1ZRed · 11-08-2012 09:42PM

xynn wrote: »

And where did I say anywhere I was anti-technology? How quick you are to call someone a hypocrite and try to insult them!

I am all for technology, when used appropriately. The point is that human beings have not suddenly become super-human in the last ten years or so, where they can tolerate and digest everything just because some people want to sell it as 'food'. Tampering with the foods the body is used to and designed for will have unpredictable consequences. That's all I'm saying. And I'm saying it should be tested much more rigorously and for much longer - decades i would say - before being released into the food chain. And if it's found to be detrimental to health, the whole project should be abandoned, no matter how much money people have invested in it.

So would you rather we stick to artificial fertizers and pesticides if we aren't free to really get genetically engineered crops off the ground? They are much much more destructive to us but also to the environment. The risks, if even present in GM crops, would be much less severe than than if we were to continue to use chemicals.

All GM produce is is just DNA modification to give it an immunity against a specific threat in its environment. It's basically just accelerating the development of natural resistance by evolution inorder to stop the reliance on harmful and expensive artificial chemicals to do the same task.

I think you need to read up on genetics before you jump to such conclusions. GE is not necessarily harmful if all you are doing is taking the desirable genes from one organism, isolating it, and adding it to the DNA of another. It's like when the gene for human insulin was engineered into a certain type of bacterium inorder to harvest it easily and more productively. There have been no negative effects for this because as I said, all the engineers did was change the blueprints of the organism and nature built it. Totally natural. In fact it was a massive break through in the treatment of diabetes.
All because of GM orgasms.

You can't expect to halt scientific and technological development for decades just because you think it is harmful based on no eveidence and no understanding of the concept behind it. That would be disastrous when in all that time we could have developed far more resistant and resilient crops that would be free of those chemicals. Have you actually stopped to think that artificial fertilisers and chemicals were not tested for decades before they were used?
They were used straight way and modified as they went along once they discovered something harmful so I don't understand why GM produce should be subjected to different standards when it is clearly a much healthier and efficient process as it is healthier for the consumer, gives a better yield for the farmer, which in turn lowers food cost from the savings of pesticides.

Everybody wins.

Cardinal Richelieu · 11-08-2012 10:49PM

1ZRed wrote: »

I think it's because they don't understand basic genetics and genetic engineering. That and they don't seem to be able to differentiate between chemicals and genes and assume they cause the same negative health outcomes which isn't true.

They don't understand farming or the food industry either. They think because they managed to grow a few spuds in the garden that suddenly overnight they are farming experts.

Cardinal Richelieu · 11-08-2012 11:06PM

paddy147 wrote: »

What the hell are you on about policitcal parties for,with regards myself??

Various websites and stories have said a 68% decline in bees and butteflys in areas where GM crops have been grown/trialed (that was actually over in the Uk where the decline was recorded in GM areas).

All I did was mention it.

Heaven forbid that I posted that here and mentioned it.

I think you got my post but choose to read it differently. I didn't imply you were linked to a political party but that the quote you posted was by a political party with a set anti GM policy so you should be wary with what parts of the original report they quoted.

So I take it you still haven't read the original study that you keep referencing regarding the decline of bees and butterflies in GM crops or can't find a link to it to share with us all?

Do you not find it contradictory that you condemn GM crops

Originally Posted by paddy147
Say good bye to the bees and butterflys then,when GM Crop fields spring up everywhere.

yet use pesticides yourself? Or will you now be switching to organic methods of control of weeds now that you know what damage pesticides cause to bees and butterflies?

Einhard · 12-08-2012 02:33AM

xynn wrote: »

Why not move to the US where you can already get all the GM/GE food you want?

Eh, yeah. Great contribution. Just simply up sticks, change jobs, and move the whole family of to another continent...

Whatever about other countries, Ireland has no need whatsoever for
genetically engineered crops.

We have blight problems. GM crops can adddress those. So, in that sense, we do indeed have a need for GM crops.

What is actually happening is that the likes of Monsanto want to spread this
seed around the world as fast as they can.

Teagasc are behind the trials. Are you now claiming that the rather sleepy Teagasc site down the road from me is in diabolical league with Monsanto?

Because if they wait a few more years, results of studies currently underway
will show beyond any shadow of doubt that GM/GE foods are detrimental to human
and animal health.

Ah yes. No such evidence "beyond a shadow of a doubt" has arisen in the years since GM was first widely used in America, but if we wait a few more years it'll all be out in the open. And sure, if it isn't, we'll just wait another few years...and a few more...and on...and on...

xynn wrote: »

And that is an unfair claim to make against organic growers. Most organic farmers grow organic because they care about people's health,

What a pile of Bollocks! Do you really believe that shoite? That organic farmers get up and work hard every day because they care so much about our health? That's brilliant. They do it to make money. Simple as. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but save us this Good Samaritan horse crap.

Their crops are grown and sold locally, as nature intended.

Nature intended this? Really? Did nature inform you of his intentions himself? Or was it third party?

xynn wrote: »

I am all for technology, when used appropriately. The point is that human beings have not suddenly become super-human in the last ten years or so, where they can tolerate and digest everything just because some people want to sell it as 'food'.

The fact that we have so many diet-related health problems in the world should illustrate that we are already eating food in a manner which runs counter to our evolution. If we were to stick to our evolutionary guns, we'd abandon practically every foodstuff in the modern fridge or larder.

shedweller wrote: »

Thats gas! Monsanto would actually make something that would reduce their sales of pesticides!!
How naieve.

Monsanto would make more money selling their anti-pesticidal GM products than they would for their pesticides. Indeed, one of their biggest sellers are seeds that are resistant to their own RoundUp pesticide. Which means they make money from selling their seeds, and money from selling the only weedkiller to whci those seeds are resistant.

1ZRed · 12-08-2012 04:25AM

xynn wrote: »

as nature intended.

This point is no longer valid in this day and age. We are learning to engineer organisms on a much higher level for our own benefit. Disregard food produce for a minute. Genetic engineers have long been modifying viruses and creating weakened or benign strains to inject into our bodies in order to naturally develop resistance to the corresponding harmful pathogens in the environment, thus saving millions of lives and eradicating some viruses completely outside of the lab.

You can't say this is a negative thing that has brought about harmful complications or health implications and I'm sure you have no problem receiving these vaccinations.
The same process apply to GMO. It is just the changing and manipulation of the genetic make up of an organism, by man, in order to benefit humanity. It is actually the core bases of biotechnology.

I've made the point that it's like altering the blueprints for an organism. You make the design and it's nature who puts it together. There isn't any fear of something harmful and unexpected arising because you already know the end process and product that's going to come from the organism. GE is so precise and delicate that once you isolate a gene, let's say for producing broader bigger leaves, all you will get is the DNA sequence for that isolated gene and nothing more. Just the instruction for the production of proteins within the plant inorder to produce broader bigger leaves. And once you slot that in, that's what you will and only get in the crop.

So you see GMO are not to be feared and seen as detrimental to your health without any evidence or credible theories to back it up. It is actually idiotic to claim that growing plants or rearing animals with artifitial chemicals and hormones is a safer and healthier alternative to fixing the problem at its root - its DNA.
Even given enough time and exposure to pathogens in the environment, the organism would learn to become resistant to the threat naturally by evolution. If scientists and engineers just push that along by altering the DNA manually, how would that be any different or less natural (in the grand scheme of things) to that of a plant that would have evolved resistant anyway but over thousands of years?

The time of "as nature indented" was already long over. You have been eating cultivated crops, countlessly cross breed with the use of inorganic and man-made aids for hundreds of years. That's not as nature intended.

If we ever learn to create plants that can withstand any harmful pathogen on its own without the need for any toxic pesticides, fungicides etc then that is the healthiest option because at its core, genetic engineering is only manipulating the processes of DNA which is natural, while man-made chemicals are inorganic, toxic and harmful.
Therefore, whatever comes from GMO will always be more natural and safer in comparison to chemicals.

Silene · 12-08-2012 07:12AM

1ZRed wrote:

So would you rather we stick to artificial fertizers and pesticides if we aren't free to really get genetically engineered crops off the ground?

I am not in favour of spraying chemicals on crops either. I am against that almost as much as I am against GM.

They are much much more destructive to us but also to the environment. The risks, if even present in GM crops, would be much less severe than than if we were to continue to use chemicals.

People can eat chemically sprayed foods at their own risk, if they want to. At least they know what they're getting. But what about GM fruit and veg? Will it say on the label when they arrive on the supermarket shelves, do you think?

It's basically just accelerating the development of natural resistance by evolution inorder to stop the reliance on harmful and expensive artificial chemicals to do the same task.

You say this like chemicals are necessary in the first place. Go to any organic market or shop and see an array of beautiful produce on sale, grown without the need to be laced with chemicals.

I think you need to read up on genetics before you jump to such conclusions. GE is not necessarily harmful if all you are doing is taking the desirable genes from one organism, isolating it, and adding it to the DNA of another.

I think you need to take a step back and really think about the implications of what you're saying. Even if there might be a few cases where it would be tested properly and used responsibly, the door is still wide open for radical experimentation, such as taking a gene from a fish or animal, and implanting it into a crop where it has no business being. But even if such an extreme example were not to happen, I would still not advocate it. The potential for corruption and cover-up in all this is absolutely massive.

In fact it was a massive break through in the treatment of diabetes. All because of GM orgasms.

We are talking here about food that everyone needs everyday to survive. Pharmaceuticals is a separate issue.

You can't expect to halt scientific and technological development for decades just because you think it is harmful based on no eveidence and no understanding of the concept behind it.

And where is your evidence that it is actually safe? If someone wants to push something on people then it's up to them to produce the evidence to reassure people that it's safe, not the other way round.
As it happens, there is enough evidence by now that it is not safe, and new evidence is emerging all the time.

Silene · 12-08-2012 07:39AM

Einhard wrote:

Eh, yeah. Great contribution. Just simply up sticks, change jobs, and move the whole family of to another continent...

The point I was making, if you're interested, was that our soil is not at present contaminated by the growth of GM crops, and that I don't see the sense of changing that. Also, I don't think anything like this should be allowed without the population as a whole having some sort of say. We're supposed to be living in a democracy here.

Teagasc are behind the trials. Are you now claiming that the rather sleepy Teagasc site down the road from me is in diabolical league with Monsanto?

If we start growing GM crops for the market, it won't be long before Monsanto and other giant corporations find their way in. Or how do you propose that they be kept out?

Ah yes. No such evidence "beyond a shadow of a doubt" has arisen in the years since GM was first widely used in America, but if we wait a few more years it'll all be out in the open.

Studies have been done showing GM toxins in human blood. Is that not enough for you?

The fact that we have so many diet-related health problems in the world should illustrate that we are already eating food in a manner which runs counter to our evolution.

And how is genetically engineering crops in Ireland going to make this any better?

If we were to stick to our evolutionary guns, we'd abandon practically every foodstuff in the modern fridge or larder.

Evolution is a different argument. I never mentioned evolution myself. I am simply talking about not implanting genetic material from different organisms into crops, because it is simply madness to do so!

Colmustard · 12-08-2012 09:47AM

xynn wrote: »

The point I was making, if you're interested, was that our soil is not at present contaminated by the growth of GM crops, and that I don't see the sense of changing that. Also, I don't think anything like this should be allowed without the population as a whole having some sort of say. We're supposed to be living in a democracy here.
If we start growing GM crops for the market, it won't be long before Monsanto and other giant corporations find their way in. Or how do you propose that they be kept out?
Studies have been done showing GM toxins in human blood. Is that not enough for you?
And how is genetically engineering crops in Ireland going to make this any better?

Evolution is a different argument. I never mentioned evolution myself. I am simply talking about not implanting genetic material from different organisms into crops, because it is simply madness to do so!

Why is it madness to do so. What exactly is your fear.

Silene · 12-08-2012 10:22AM

IZRed wrote:

xynn wrote:

as nature intended.

This point is no longer valid in this day and age

You are quoting me out of context here. I was not making any point about GM when I said this. I was talking about organic food production, in reply to something said by someone else.

Disregard food produce for a minute. ...

Food produce is the whole point of this discussion. I am already aware that biotechnology itself is nothing new.
If something goes wrong with some drug, for example, then although there would be casualties, at least it would be on a much smaller scale than if something were to go wrong with a food.

you already know the end process and product that's going to come from the organism.GE is so precise and delicate that once you isolate a gene, let's say for producing broader bigger leaves, all you will get is the DNA sequence for that isolated gene and nothing more

You cannot possibly know for sure what the end product will be.

It is actually idiotic to claim that growing plants or rearing animals with artifitial chemicals and hormones is a safer and healthier alternative

I don't know who you're talking to here, but I never said this.

If scientists and engineers just push that along by altering the DNA manually, how would that be any different or less natural (in the grand scheme of things) to that of a plant that would have evolved resistant anyway but over thousands of years?

Because that time frame is there for a reason.

You have been eating cultivated crops, countlessly cross breed with the use of inorganic and man-made aids for hundreds of years. That's not as nature intended.

You can't compare normal agricultural methods with genetic engineering. If you go back and read the thread you'll see that this has already been pointed out many times.

Permission granted to grow GM potatoes in Ireland

Comments