30 Mar 06
Originally posted by RagnorakGMOs are not a monolithic group that I am 'for' or 'against', but some that particularly concern me are the food crops that do not produce new seeds, making the farmer dependent on the company that controls the seed supply.
For or against? And what do you base your decision on?
D
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by richjohnsonThis is the most ... appalling part of the whole GM thing.
GMOs are not a monolithic group that I am 'for' or 'against', but some that particularly concern me are the food crops that do not produce new seeds, making the farmer dependent on the company that controls the seed supply.
Having crops that include a gene making them 'sterile' so that the only way to grow another crop is to buy seeds from some seed manufacturer is just insane.
The potential for abuse of this 'power' is way too big.
I've heard that some GM crops have a kill-gene in their pollen so that if the pollen is taken to 'normal' plants, it kills them - does anyone know if this is true?
If it is, then it'll be one fecked up world in a few years ...
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZhmmm
Cross pollenation is not Genetic Modification.
i think you are not a farmer ...
you are technically right of course, but losing track of the arguement and its terminology.
how about: "selective breeding is is not normally considered to produce a genetically modified organism".
some people may argue with this, but they also argue with themselves in their sleep i suspect.
30 Mar 06
2 edits
Originally posted by flexmoreIf you are going to argue that you have to realise that humans have been genetically modifying plants in that manner for over 11,000 years and plants have been doing it all by themselves for millions.
hmmm
i think you are not a farmer ...
you are technically right of course, but losing track of the arguement and its terminology.
how about: "selective breeding is is not normally considered to produce a genetically modified organism".
some people may argue with this, but they also argue with themselves in their sleep i suspect.
EDIT: The difference being that genetically modified is not the same as Genetically Modified.
30 Mar 06
3 edits
Originally posted by XanthosNZi see a few extra levels ...
If you are going to argue that you have to realise that humans have been genetically modifying plants in that manner for over 11,000 years and plants have been doing it all by themselves for millions.
EDIT: The difference being that genetically modified is not the same as Genetically Modified.
plants amd animals have been modifying themselves for millions,
humans have been modifying them by selective breeding, and cloning, for thousands,
humans have been modifying them by bizarre techniques (imagine a tennis raquet breeding with a camel) for a very short time ... so short that even short term results are unknown ... (products of this are often labelled GMO).
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by RagnorakI am for it where it is done right (good for humanity) and against it where it is missused. One major problem I have with it is the ability for a company to suddenly claim ownership (patent / copyright ?) of the new plant. If you develop a plant / animal via standard selective breeding you dont get the same rights.
For or against? And what do you base your decision on?
D
I think there are many other benefits and disadvantages and each case should be decided individually.
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadI believe that a huge amount of disinformation has been spread about GM crops, as is evidenced in this thread.
I am for it where it is done right (good for humanity) and against it where it is missused. One major problem I have with it is the ability for a company to suddenly claim ownership (patent / copyright ?) of the new plant. If you develop a plant / animal via standard selective breeding you dont get the same rights.
I think there are many other benefits and disadvantages and each case should be decided individually.
I was at a lecture about GM crops the other day, and this is what I learned
1) Genetically engineering is a misnomer. It implies structured processes with clear objectives and very exact measurements, etc. In fact, its a very haphazard process. If, for example, you want frost resistant tomatoes, you get the "anti freeze" gene from a fish that lives in very cold waters, attach it to a virus (the virus is the mechanism by which the introduced genes take hold), and then splice it with a bacterium (this allows you to test whether the new mutation has worked due to being able to treat the crops with antibiotics), and then you put this hodgepodge of genes onto some gold flakes, and then use a mini canon to blast these into a tomato, and cross your fingers. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.
2) There are patents on GM crops. If I start a GM farm next door to an organic farm, and my GM crops pollinate (via wind, animals, etc) your organic farm, you have just stolen my intellectual material, and I am entitled to a cut on your crops, typical settlements in farms in Canada have been $15 per acre. Monsanto (the same corporation behind the growth hormone scandal and the ruling that it is legal to knowingly falsify the news in america http://www.foxbghsuit.com/update.htm) own the rights to about 9,000 crops in Canada alone after the farms were infected with GMO by a passing truck loaded with Monsanto's GMO crops.
3) As somebody mentioned, Monsanto and other large agribusiness corporations have developed crops which produce sterile seeds. Of course, this is great when they also own most of the seed companies around the world. They are creating a yearly market for their seeds. They have successfully sued 100s of farmers who were collecting seeds.
4) Another form of genetically modified foods are modified to be resistant to pesticides. This is great considering the developers of the gm foods also produce the pesticides. Your crop is pesticide resistant? Great, use loads of our pesticides. Of course, this is bad for the end consumer, the environment and ultimately, the farmer as the land is invariably rendered sterile within 6 years. Also, these crops cross breed with weeds to produce super-weeds which are resistant to regular formula pesticides.
5) Another form of genetically modified crops produce their own pesticide. This is great, considering you don't have to buy pesticide. As I mentioned earlier, the pesticide producing genes are attached to bacteria genes during the modification process. As we all know, our stomach is full of good bacteria which breaks down our food. Cases have been found where genetically modified genes have joined with the bacteria in our stomachs. So, suddenly, you are a walking, talking pesticide factory (at least for a while anyway).
6) Once GM crops have been introduced to a landmass, it is impossible to eradicate them. If GM rape seed is introduced to a country, they can cross polinate with the families of vegetables, which include, turnips, carrots, celery, broccolli, etc, etc. Rape seed also grows pretty much anywhere, so the GM rape seed would easily go feral. Once you introduce GM crops there is NO TURNING BACK. Non-GMO and GMO cannot coexist.
7) There have been no long term studies carried out. GMO crops were distributed throughout the u.s. (with no national debate: freedom? ) about 10 years ago. There has been a significant rise in food allergies in the past 10 years in the u.s.. Remember, GMO crops produce 100% new proteins. Animals (including ourselves) have never been exposed to these proteins before, so our body is suddenly faced with something completely new to it. How is it going to react? If studies had been carried out by the agrichemical companies, we'd know. Instead, independant studies are only now being carried out.
8) GM crops are being sold as higher yield, and better for the farmer, in fact GM crops are notoriously unstable, with frequent 100% crop failures. GM crops also rely on heavy use of expensive pesticides, instead of good farming practices. The EU have issued a report which says that GM may cause 40% higher production costs. All the "positives" are pure spin, trying to lure people into taking the step of going GMO.
9) 70% of Europeans don't want GMO crops. As a result, the EU put an embargo on american GMO crops. The WTO, in a secret report, ruled that this was anti free market, and illegal. As a result, the EU were obliged to open its borders to GMO crops. THis is currently being fought at the local level, with 100 regional governments and 3,500 local authorities in 22 EU countries prohibit GMO crops. This is the only way to avoid being sued by the WTO, local level, so you need to get onto your local representative and add your voice to the anti-GMO movement. Wales tried to ban GMO foods, but instead of being supported by their government, they were told that they didn't have the authority to do that. Remember, if GMO crops are allowed to take hold, a few large agribusiness multinationals will own the intellectual rights on every single crop grown throwout the world. This is huge, so the "lobbying" of governments is massive.
Do some research of your own. This is a huge issue, and if left to politicians and multinationals, like Monsanto, we'll have gone too far within the year.
D