Permission granted to grow GM potatoes in Ireland

emzolita · 21-08-2012 01:21PM

I'm not well informed on gm foods. Will the food still have the same nutritional value, and be as good for you?

1ZRed · 21-08-2012 01:44PM

emzolita wrote: »

I'm not well informed on gm foods. Will the food still have the same nutritional value, and be as good for you?

In theory yeah it will. All that's being done is changing some genes to make the crop more immune to disease, give it a better yield or help it grow better in areas that would not be ideal. It's just taking genes form other plants/organisms that already do this or could help do this inorder to grow a stronger and better yielding crop. Just like you would cross breed a horse for speed, strength or whatever else.

It would do away with many many unhealthy chemicals such as pesticides, fungicides etc so it would be healthier for you. Depending on what genes they focus on, the nutritional value will at least stay the same but it could be greatly increase. Due to intensive farming and the use of artificial substances, modern crops nutritional value is much lower than what it was 50 years ago.
This could be changed with GM crops and still meet the global demand.

Atomicjuicer · 21-08-2012 02:49PM

The naivety on display is astonishing.

Do you really trust large corporate interests to patent natural food production?

Read this for some up to date side effects in California where profit easily squashes opposing citizen-protecting arguments:

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/08/20/2110245/california-wants-genetically-modified-foods-to-be-labelled

Katunga · 21-08-2012 02:55PM

sure half of the fresh fruit we buy is GM food Seed less Oranges, seedless grapes, also broccoli is a GM veg. Most Cereals are GM Crops.

Colmustard · 21-08-2012 02:57PM

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

The naivety on display is astonishing.

Do you really trust large corporate interests to patent natural food production?

Read this for some up to date side effects in California where profit easily squashes opposing citizen-protecting arguments:

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/08/20/2110245/california-wants-genetically-modified-foods-to-be-labelled

What am I looking at that is meant to interest or surprise me.

hoochis · 21-08-2012 03:11PM

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

The naivety on display is astonishing.

Do you really trust large corporate interests to patent natural food production?

Read this for some up to date side effects in California where profit easily squashes opposing citizen-protecting arguments:

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/08/20/2110245/california-wants-genetically-modified-foods-to-be-labelled

That's hilarious. You call others naive and then give us that link!

1ZRed · 21-08-2012 03:13PM

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

The naivety on display is astonishing.

Do you really trust large corporate interests to patent natural food production?

Read this for some up to date side effects in California where profit easily squashes opposing citizen-protecting arguments:

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/08/20/2110245/california-wants-genetically-modified-foods-to-be-labelled

You're talking to me about naivety? You have no clue about basic genetics, therefore you should have no real argument against GMOs because it's ignorant to tell me it's harmful without a reason or understanding as to why that is.

I've made the point here that genetically modified organisms have been in use for decades for the production of insulin, modified viruses for vaccines, etc.
If nobody is up in arms about these things and accept them, why are GM crops held to different standards? Insuline and vaccines are still going into your body and blood stream so it's the same thing. The fact that it's food doesn't make any sort of difference on a molecular level.
Actually it's quite hypocritical to accept some forms of GMOs and call others dangerous.

The only thing naive about your argument is that you have no understanding of basic genetics or biology so it's ignorant to start a discussion about how dangerous they are without any sort of knowledge on it. Give me a real long scientific paper about the negative effects of GMOs based on extensive research and I'll address what I've said here. So if all you can do is give me crap little web pages with no evidence, I'd advice you to pick up a biology book and stop being so unreasonably fearful based on nothing substantial or credible.

I think it's really naive to base your understanding of this from what the media tells you without any deeper understanding of the processes involved. That is what is naive.

Atomicjuicer · 21-08-2012 03:29PM

1ZRed wrote: »

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

The naivety on display is astonishing.

Do you really trust large corporate interests to patent natural food production?

Read this for some up to date side effects in California where profit easily squashes opposing citizen-protecting arguments:

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/08/20/2110245/california-wants-genetically-modified-foods-to-be-labelled

You're talking to me about naivety? You have no clue about basic genetics, therefore you should have no real argument against GMOs because it's ignorant to tell me it's harmful without a reason or understanding as to why that is.

I've made the point here that genetically modified organisms have been in use for decades for the production of insulin, modified viruses for vaccines, etc.
If nobody is up in arms about these things and accept them, why are GM crops held to different standards? Insuline and vaccines are still going into your body and blood stream so it's the same thing. The fact that it's food doesn't make any sort of difference on a molecular level.
Actually it's quite hypocritical to accept some forms of GMOs and call others dangerous.

The only thing naive about your argument is that you have no understanding of basic genetics or biology so it's ignorant to start a discussion about how dangerous they are without any sort of knowledge on it. Give me a real long scientific paper about the negative effects of GMOs based on extensive research and I'll address what I've said here. So if all you can do is give me crap little web pages with no evidence, I'd advice you to pick up a biology book and stop being so unreasonably fearful based on nothing substantial or credible.

I think it's really naive to base your understanding of this from what the media tells you without any deeper understanding of the processes involved. That is what is naive.

What the media tells me? Lol

You are being spoonfed stats that are paid for by those who aim to capitalize on that which is free - your food, via patents.

I'm on a phone and I have a job so I can't spend all my time convincing the blind.

You accelerate your cars at top speed saying you've never crashed before but there's nothing to be said when it all blows up in your face.

My preference as an intelligent being is to think my actions through in advance.

Tamper with something less valuable please. I'll be fine without your patented "super seed".

WoollyRedHat · 21-08-2012 03:31PM

Do you want GM fries with that?

hoochis · 21-08-2012 03:37PM

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

What the media tells me? Lol

You are being spoonfed stats that are paid for by those who aim to capitalize on that which is free - your food, via patents.

Tell us where this free food is.

Somnus · 21-08-2012 04:10PM

Pfft, GM food is old news.

Bring on the genetically selected babies!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9480372/Genetically-engineering-ethical-babies-is-a-moral-obligation-says-Oxford-professor.html

This thread makes me want to weep at this stage...
No one is going to convince the other to change their views, I think we can agree on that

Genghiz Cohen · 21-08-2012 04:18PM

Dr.Poca wrote: »

No one is going to convince the other to change their views, I think we can agree on that

I don't agree to that.

Somnus · 21-08-2012 04:23PM

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I don't agree to that.

Maybe early in the thread you will get people who don't really have an opinion, and they might be swayed. But at this point it's purely pro vs anti posters arguing with each other.

This isn't the first GM thread, and they always just dissolve into bitter arguements.
I think most of the people who disagree with GM feel it's wrong ethically/morally; and no amount of science is going to change their view.
Likewise, unless there's concrete scientific evidence, pro GM advocates aren't going to change their views.

It's all imo obviously, but this thread has definitely run it's course.

Genghiz Cohen · 21-08-2012 04:32PM

Dr.Poca wrote: »

Likewise, unless there's concrete scientific evidence, pro GM advocates aren't going to change their views.

A man named David Ickle believes, actually believes the moon is hollow. Some people don't care about scientific evidence.

Atomicjuicer · 21-08-2012 04:35PM

Yeah, the problem is when one side just sneaks the disputed action through regardless of the consequences or disagreement.

They shut up pretty quick when the mess unfolds but it's too late then.

Prevention is better than clean up. And reversing the release of GM after the fact doesn't seem too handy to me.

Somnus · 21-08-2012 04:37PM

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

A man named David Ickle believes, actually believes the moon is hollow. Some people don't care about scientific evidence.

Just looked him up, he's not a scientist though. My point is that anyone with a scientific background won't be persuaded by unbacked up ravings of groups who are anti-GM, but they would consider scientific evidence

Colmustard · 21-08-2012 04:56PM

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

What the media tells me? Lol

You are being spoonfed stats that are paid for by those who aim to capitalize on that which is free - your food, via patents.

I'm on a phone and I have a job so I can't spend all my time convincing the blind.

You accelerate your cars at top speed saying you've never crashed before but there's nothing to be said when it all blows up in your face.

My preference as an intelligent being is to think my actions through in advance.

Tamper with something less valuable please. I'll be fine without your patented "super seed".

Do you think we are always going to be OK?? in the 60s they predicted mass starvation right across the second and third world. But with an international effort they spawned the green revolution. Instead of the wheat husk falling down from the stem the new husk grew straight up so you could pack more wheat in a field, with that and other improvements in agricultural methods and industrial farming they quadrupled yields.

But now there is another coming crisis as the far east demand more meat and grains. The era of cheap food is under threat, next year because of a drought in one of the food producing areas, North America food inflation will rice from 4 to 10%.

We need another green revolution, cross breading use is exhausted we need GM super seeds it's the only tech that has a chance at succeeding. We have no choice.

Atomicjuicer · 26-08-2012 09:27PM

http://www.thedailygreen.com/cm/thedailygreen/images/JU/SafeHavens_20080422c-de.jpg

My name is URL · 25-01-2013 12:41PM

Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops

http://independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/regulators-discover-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/

How should a regulatory agency announce they have discovered something potentially very important about the safety of products they have been approving for over twenty years?

In the course of analysis to identify potential allergens in GMO crops, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has belatedly discovered that the most common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant fragment of a viral gene (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This finding has serious ramifications for crop biotechnology and its regulation, but possibly even greater ones for consumers and farmers. This is because there are clear indications that this viral gene (called Gene VI) might not be safe for human consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including their natural pest resistance.

steddyeddy · 25-01-2013 01:10PM

My name is URL wrote: »

http://independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/regulators-discover-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/

Virueses are not always pathogenic. Your genome contains thousands of viruses.

Atomicjuicer · 25-01-2013 02:47PM

The opportunity to turn food into intellectual property encourages corporations to spend a lot of money defending GM. That's where the high visibility studies (that science-loving forumites seek) come from.

It doesn't matter what the argument is or whether the product is safe (here's a link with information about GM toxicity http://www.journals.elsevier.com/food-and-chemical-toxicology). The outcome will be determined by and awarded to those with the most power.

As usual, natural resources and individual citizens have no real sway against a powerful profit motive.

Don't question the science - look for the agenda. Ask yourself, who wants to protect the existing food systems and why, and who seeks to change or control them and why?

I have my suspicions about the true safety of GM food products but without knowing for sure I can at least ask myself which I prefer - quality (existing systems) or quantity (GM). That's the non biased argument at least right? Personally I prefer quality.

Conflats · 28-01-2013 09:54AM

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

The opportunity to turn food into intellectual property encourages corporations to spend a lot of money defending GM. That's where the high visibility studies (that science-loving forumites seek) come from.

It doesn't matter what the argument is or whether the product is safe (here's a link with information about GM toxicity http://www.journals.elsevier.com/food-and-chemical-toxicology). The outcome will be determined by and awarded to those with the most power.

As usual, natural resources and individual citizens have no real sway against a powerful profit motive.

Don't question the science - look for the agenda. Ask yourself, who wants to protect the existing food systems and why, and who seeks to change or control them and why?

I have my suspicions about the true safety of GM food products but without knowing for sure I can at least ask myself which I prefer - quality (existing systems) or quantity (GM). That's the non biased argument at least right? Personally I prefer quality.

Quality vs quantity?

Have you heard of golden rice? the quality of that has being improved through GM and even better it isn't under patent the people who developed it got waivers from the companies who helped on it to make it accessible to all especially the poor. The big problem is the anti gm/science movement are against it and are therefore choosing to inflict blindness on the poorest in the world

Quantity? Gm hasnt produced a variety of crop which has yet increased yield over its non gm competiors (due to other known reasons) what it did do was simplify the crops husbandry and made weed/ pest control losses smaller thereby increasing yield through better husbandry.

Why have these companies got the power like the do? because ordinary joe soap public do not want to fund science, they believe that the food will always be there, why has since the 1980's publicly funded agricultural research declined? The former world famous Plant Breeding Institute in Cambridge was sold by Thatcher in her bid to privatize, this institute released many varieties over the years and the research here was done for profit it was done for to put food on the table.

If publicly funded research bodies where doing actual large scale Biotech work what is the problem??

Teagasc is the State agricultural body who recieves money from the taxpayer to do research, the commercialization of there research in GM wouldnt be possible due to the approval process, the public can drive the direction of the research and the ownership of the rights would be owned by the state(people)

So why is it people are using this commercial aspect in their argument when it can be solved by them funding it themselves

5live · 28-01-2013 01:00PM

Colmustard wrote: »

Do you think we are always going to be OK?? in the 60s they predicted mass starvation right across the second and third world. But with an international effort they spawned the green revolution. Instead of the wheat husk falling down from the stem the new husk grew straight up so you could pack more wheat in a field, with that and other improvements in agricultural methods and industrial farming they quadrupled yields.

But now there is another coming crisis as the far east demand more meat and grains. The era of cheap food is under threat, next year because of a drought in one of the food producing areas, North America food inflation will rice from 4 to 10%.

We need another green revolution, cross breading use is exhausted we need GM super seeds it's the only tech that has a chance at succeeding. We have no choice.

Yup, we need another green revolution but who exactly is going to pay for it. Funding for agricultural research has dropped dramatically in the last 30 years and there is no sign of anything changing in the near future.

Until some disease like the new super-virulent rust fungus in the middle east has hit and yields plummet will there be any change but that will mean mass food shortages and starvation.

Atm, GM is the only area of food production that there is any signifigant research and investment in so it is the area that is going to yield the most signifigant results in.

Anti-GM lobby groups are very funny imo as they come from a time and an area of the world where food availability, safety and price and mostly guaranteed.
I wonder if their ideology would change if they were faced with what the vast majority of the world takes for granted, ie food costs taking up more than half of income, no guarantees of availibility of food all year round or even if it was would they be able to afford it

Permission granted to grow GM potatoes in Ireland

Comments