Originally posted by RagnorakWell, for example, I have heard about a recently developed GM strain of yeast which, when used in wine production, greatly reduces the content of bioamines in the wine. (Bioamines casue headaches for a lot of people.)
Why not? In what circumstances would you be for them?
D
Originally posted by timebombtedI don't know about Australia, but there are a lot of GM crops in America and Canada, due to their proliferation without any type of national debate in America. Thousands of farms in Canada were "accidentally" "GM'd" by a Monsanto truck driving past them with GM crops.
Whether you are for or against matters not...... they are already all around us and your already consuming them.
As for Europe, the countries with very proud traditions of local foods, like France and Italy, have banned GM foods as much as possible without inviting the ire of the WTO. Ireland hasn't any GM crops, neither does Britain, as far as I know. Foodstuffs have to be labelled if they contain GM ingredients. A lot of the large manufacturers (acknowledging consumer demands), eg: Heinz, exclude GM ingredients from their products.
Having said all that, we could still be (and probably are) consuming GM proteins through eating cattle, sheep and chickens which have been fed on GM meal. But only public pressure can put a stop to that practice as well.
I don't really see the point in the defeatest attitude you display, at least in the quoted post.
D
Originally posted by richjohnsonAre you serious?
Well, for example, I have heard about a recently developed GM strain of yeast which, when used in wine production, greatly reduces the content of bioamines in the wine. (Bioamines casue headaches for a lot of people.)
You do realise that headaches are a method of communication for your body? You are causing damage to your body every time you drink enough alcohol to give yourself a hangover. Killer hangovers are probably the only things that made me cut down on my drinking as I aged. Take that away and people will be able to drink, and damage their body, without limits.
From http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=815882002...
Neil Beckett, an associate editor of Harpers Wine and Spirit Monthly, said: "I am aware of the benefits of genetically modified vines but I am sceptical as it has to be very, very carefully monitored over a number of years to fully understand the benefits.
"One has to be very careful when experimenting with something that multiplies at the rate yeasts do, they tried it on bread and it was lethal."
You're saying that you'd back GM vines (and so do away with non-GM vines), without any longterm studies? I don't understand this way of thinking, and it highlights the powers of the media, IMHO.
D
Originally posted by treetalkI'm not aware of any such plant, but I imagine if any company introduced such a plant there would be a rash of lawsuits.
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 ...
I have heard of GM crops which 'contaminate' regular crops by out-reproducing the regular crops, and which are very difficult to remove once they have been introduced. See http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ for one farmer's problems with this type of GM crop.
Originally posted by darvlayMy Local Nature Conservation Group, who invited speakers from GMO Free Ireland, and An Teagasc, which is the government body that look after agribusiness in Ireland.
Ya, I really don't see it getting that far.
Who put on this lecture?
Why exactly don't you see it going that far?
D
Originally posted by Ragnorak
You do realise that headaches are a method of communication for your body? You are causing damage to your body every time you drink enough alcohol to give yourself a hangover. Killer hangovers are probably the only things that made me cut down on my drinking as I aged. Take that away and people will be able to drink, and damage their body, without limits.
I'm not talking about hangovers caused by over-consumption of alcohol. I'm talking about the 'red wine' headaches that many (mostly female) people get after even half a glass of the stuff (my wife can't even do tastings of red wine without getting a headache).
"One has to be very careful when experimenting with something that multiplies at the rate yeasts do, they tried it on bread and it was lethal."
Agreed. One advantage that GM yeast has over crops is that it can be grown in vats which are sealed off from the environment, unlike plants which are generally grown in 'test plots' that are quarantined in name only.
You're saying that you'd back GM vines (and so do away with non-GM vines), without any longterm studies? I don't understand this way of thinking, and it highlights the powers of the media, IMHO.
No, I'm generally not in favour of GM food crops such as grape vines, and particularly against any such GM crops which would tend to force out non-GM strains.
For example, I was originally intrigued by a new type of canola which could be used to produce fuel in a cost-effective manner. But then I thought about it a bit more, and I'm not too comfortable with the prospect of having to cook with 'high-octane' canola oil if the new type were to take over and force out the non-GM varieties of canola.
Originally posted by richjohnsonAh yes, this is a fairly different kettle of fish alright.
[b]"One has to be very careful when experimenting with something that multiplies at the rate yeasts do, they tried it on bread and it was lethal."
Agreed. One advantage that GM yeast has over crops is that it can be grown in vats which are sealed off from the environment, unlike plants which are generally grown in 'test plots' that are quarantined in name only.[/b]
D
Originally posted by RagnorakThere's no doubt Monsanto is an extremely dangerous multinational with a colourful history of poisonous products and criminal activity, but for a company to have rights on every single crop in the world is an exaggeration, IMHO. Cornering the market on seed supply is one thing but to say that eventually every crop will be owned by a handful of companies is too much of a stretch for me.
Why exactly don't you see it going that far?
Perhaps I'm too much of an optimist. It's something I'm dealing with in therapy since I'm told, on a regular occassion, that the complacency of people like us will be the downfall of this planet.
I'm still on the fence when it comes to Genetic Engineering in general.
Originally posted by darvlayfor a company to have rights on every single crop in the world is an exaggeration, IMHO. Cornering the market on seed supply is one thing but to say that eventually every crop will be owned by a handful of companies is too much of a stretch for me.
for a company to have rights on every single crop in the world is an exaggeration, IMHO. Cornering the market on seed supply is one thing but to say that eventually every crop will be owned by a handful of companies is too much of a stretch for me.
Perhaps I'm too much of an optimist. It's something I'm dealing with in therapy since I'm told, on a re ...[text shortened]... of this planet.
I'm still on the fence when it comes to Genetic Engineering in general.
How so? Monsanto (1 company) already own over 70% of the seed companies, and are successfully suing farmers (the world over) who try to save seeds from 1 crop to the next and they're also trying to proliferate sterile seeds. These seeds are patented, and so are the intellectual property of the patent holder.
I'm not saying that a few companies will own all the crops in the world. I'm saying that every crop will use the intellectual property of these few companies, and so a royalty of some sort would have to be paid on every crop worldwide to these companies.
I'm still on the fence when it comes to Genetic "Engineering" in general.
How so, what are its pros and cons to you? Or do you just not care at all?
D
Originally posted by RagnorakI'm not saying that a few companies will own all the crops in the world. I'm saying that every crop will use the intellectual property of these few companies, and so a royalty of some sort would have to be paid on every crop worldwide to these companies.
[b] for a company to have rights on every single crop in the world is an exaggeration, IMHO. Cornering the market on seed supply is one thing but to say that eventually every crop will be owned by a handful of companies is too much of a stretch for me.
How so? Monsanto (1 company) already own over 70% of the seed companies, and are successfully sui ...[text shortened]... l.[/b]
How so, what are its pros and cons to you? Or do you just not care at all?
D[/b]
How does this royalty system work? What exactly is "of some sort"? Is it per plant? Is it a one-time payment? Can't farmers save their seeds and re-plant the next year?
Please keep in mind that I DO NOT support a company like Monsanto and their dealings but I am not altogether against GMOs.
How so, what are its pros and cons to you? Or do you just not care at all?
D, you dog! Attacking my apathy already, eh? Should've known you'd pull no punches with an Orange descendent.
There are companies like Monsanto, who are obviously evil and could care less about the welfare of farmers and, well, any human really. But then one must consider the limitless advantage that may arise from Genetic Engineering and solving the mystery of the human genome.
I suppose a pessimist would say, how do you know such discoveries wouldn't simply be profiteered by companies like Monsanto, to which I can't provide a satisfying answer but should that stop us from exploring the possibility?
So to answer your second question, YES I DO CARE RAGGY.
1 edit
Originally posted by darvlayHow does this royalty system work? What exactly is "of some sort"? Is it per plant? Is it a one-time payment? Can't farmers save their seeds and re-plant the next year?
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/interviews/schmeiser.php
Quote from a Canadian farmer who brought Monsanto to the Canadian supreme court when Monsanto tried to claim the profits from his entire crop, a technology charge, plus a million dollars in court costs.:
"Our fields got contaminated through direct seed movement from GMO canola blowing in from other farmers' fields, or when farmers hauled it with their trucks it blew off.
...
The first trial judge at the Federal Court of Canada ruled – and this is what made my case become internationally known – that it doesn't matter how Monsanto's GMOs get into any farmers' fields, whether you're an organic farmer or a conventional farmer. If it gets in there, you no longer own your seeds or plants. They become Monsanto's property. The rate of contamination doesn't mean anything. If it's one percent or fifty percent, you no longer own your seeds or plants. And furthermore, he ruled, even though we were seed developers who have been developing our own seeds for over half a century, we no longer could use our seeds or plants and they became Monsanto's ownership.
He also ruled that all our profit from our 1998 canola crop (we had approximately 500 hectares seeded) had to go to Monsanto – even from fields in which tests showed there had been no contamination. He said since we were seed developers using our own seeds from year to year, there was a probablilty of contamination. So basically, he ruled that a farmer ought to and should know when his fields were contaminated. "
Still think its an exaggeration? Just because something is completely horrific doesn't mean that it can't be true.
But then one must consider the limitless advantage that may arise from Genetic Engineering and solving the mystery of the human genome.
The race is on at the moment to figure out the human genome. Why? Because the first company to discover it will be able to patent it. Good thing, or bad thing?
Here's an interesting snippet..."In order to maximize profits from its GM seed business, Monsanto is at the forefront of the push for regulatory clearance for GM products in numerous countries. The company aims to aggressively displace conventional seeds with its patented GM varieties, particularly soy, corn, canola and cotton. It is striving for a world in which the only agriculture is genetically modified, and predicts that “full adoption of GM crops globally would result in income gains of US$210 billion per year within the next decade, with the largest potential gains occurring in developing countries at a rate of 2.1 percent gross national product per year”. " http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/biotech-gmo_world.pdf
D