Europe about to embrace GM?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
For the record, I don't oppose labeling GM food as long as it comes with a clear warning that there is no intrinsic health or environmental hazard associated with GMO's.

Because we don't know what the potential gene interaction will do in a wild species.

1, This is not necessarily true. WHY can we not know of such potential gene interaction? I see no reason why not! What BARRIER would make it impossible for science to rationally and reliably predict what that interaction would be? it is possible to think of and study these things rationally you know!

2, even if or when we cannot predict the interaction, why should we think the interaction from a GM gene would likely and generally be any more harmful than a non-GM gene interaction? does merely making it GM somehow manically curse the gene to make it mysteriously insidious just because it is GM? How exactly does that work?

Even if or when we cannot predict the interaction, this would be true for genes whether they where created naturally by random mutation in the plant or whether they where put there artificially in the plant by us by means other than selective breading (i.e. put there by 'G.M.' ) so we may not know what the potential gene interaction will do in a wild species whether the genes is from GM crop or not!

Therefore, your reasoning still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because, using that same weird 'logic' of yours, we should reject ALL crops, whether they are GM or not! (and probably starve in the process! )

Originally posted by DeepThought
Relevant concerns would be to do with patents and use or non-use of terminator genes as well as possible contamination of related wild species.

It is theoretically possible to patent a gene that was not introduced via GM. Similarly for terminator genes. Layer chickens have had the equivalent of terminator genes for many years (since I was a child at least).
So why not label crops/animal products either 'contains patented genes' or 'terminator'?
And for those who hate Monsanto, we could label products that in some way benefit Monsanto - 'benefits Monsanto'.
Using a GM label as a proxy for something else you don't like is irrational.

As I have said in other threads, the main use of the label currently is for political reasons to stop imports of unwanted foods which has nothing whatsoever to do with them being GM. In Africa, if we could possibly create a law which said 'no American or European foods allowed' we would do it. Your farm subsidies do more damage to the economy of Africa than anything else. If the US and UK were to stop farm subsidies it would do more benefit to Africa than total world aid.

There is no reason to be wary of GM products in general, KazzetyNorra

on the contrary, the Indian farmers who have suffered so much at the hands of unscrupulous companies like Monsanto have found to their chagrin that the native strains were much better suited to the environment than the genetically modified strains they were being encouraged to invest in. They may well have yielded more in the first few harvests but needed more in the way of fertilizers and pesticides afterwards than did the natural strains that they were growing.

One of course only need to look at the devastating effects of modern farming methods with regard to the BSE crisis and the fact that poultry and pigs are fed increasing amounts of antibiotics which may have adverse effects.

Fabian is correct GM should be labeled and Humy should be tied to a whipping post and given a good whuppin for his hysterical portrayal of genuine concerns, clearly he is a mad scientist and has a mind ray hidden far in the hills and will stop at nothing short of world domination.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There is no reason to be wary of GM products in general, KazzetyNorra

on the contrary, the Indian farmers who have suffered so much at the hands of unscrupulous companies like Monsanto have found to their chagrin that the native strains were much better suited to the environment than the genetically modified strains they were being encouraged to i ...[text shortened]... t and has a mind ray hidden far in the hills and will stop at nothing short of world domination.

No farmer is forced to use GM crops.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is theoretically possible to patent a gene that was not introduced via GM. Similarly for terminator genes. Layer chickens have had the equivalent of terminator genes for many years (since I was a child at least).
So why not label crops/animal products either 'contains patented genes' or 'terminator'?
And for those who hate Monsanto, we could label pr ...[text shortened]... e US and UK were to stop farm subsidies it would do more benefit to Africa than total world aid.

Layer chickens have had the equivalent of terminator genes for many years (since I was a child at least).

Keeping them away from the rooster is the standard thing, or are you thinking of something else?

If the US and UK were to stop farm subsidies it would do more benefit to Africa than total world aid.

I don't know enough about the U.S.'s food industry to comment on this. For the E.U. as a whole I have sympathy with your position. From the point of view of the U.K. it's a bit tricky - the U.K. is capable of producing about 65% of its food needs - putting farms out of business by withdrawing subsidies probably wouldn't be the smartest move.

Originally posted by DeepThought

Layer chickens have had the equivalent of terminator genes for many years (since I was a child at least).

Keeping them away from the rooster is the standard thing, or are you thinking of something else?

If the US and UK were to stop farm subsidies it would do more benefit to Africa than total world aid.

I don't know enough abou ...[text shortened]... - putting farms out of business by withdrawing subsidies probably wouldn't be the smartest move.

Where did you get that 65% figure from?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
on the contrary, the Indian farmers who have suffered so much at the hands of unscrupulous companies like Monsanto have found to their chagrin that the native strains were much better suited to the environment than the genetically modified strains they were being encouraged to invest in.

Not only is this not entirely true, but it applies to all imported crops regardless of whether or not they are GM.

One of course only need to look at the devastating effects of modern farming methods with regard to the BSE crisis and the fact that poultry and pigs are fed increasing amounts of antibiotics which may have adverse effects.
Again - nothing to do with GM.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Keeping them away from the rooster is the standard thing, or are you thinking of something else?

In Zambia, layer chickens are obtained from a cross between two parent breeds. If you try to breed the layer chickens themselves you will get inferior chickens. So egg farmers, must buy all their chicks from a specialist rather than breed them themselves. The whole of Zambia has only one or two specialist breeder and you must buy from them. I believe my sister gets her chicks by train from Lusaka which is 500km away.
This essentially is the same effect as terminator genes. I am not saying it is wrong, or it is done for monopolistic reasons, I am just saying that it is very similar - yet nobody is demanding special labelling.

I don't know enough about the U.S.'s food industry to comment on this. For the E.U. as a whole I have sympathy with your position. From the point of view of the U.K. it's a bit tricky - the U.K. is capable of producing about 65% of its food needs - putting farms out of business by withdrawing subsidies probably wouldn't be the smartest move.
It would force them to import from Africa or other parts of the world. But they don't want to do that. Meanwhile they come to Africa and preach 'free trade'.
But the worst is when your subsidies result in a surplus then you offload the surplus on us Africans and ruin our farmers in the process.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In Zambia, layer chickens are obtained from a cross between two parent breeds. If you try to breed the layer chickens themselves you will get inferior chickens. So egg farmers, must buy all their chicks from a specialist rather than breed them themselves. The whole of Zambia has only one or two specialist breeder and you must buy from them. I believe my s ...[text shortened]... lt in a surplus then you offload the surplus on us Africans and ruin our farmers in the process.

The chickens your sister gets are F1 hybrids, hybrid vigour lasts for one generation, they are F2 after that and tend to not be as good. Terminator genes prevent reproduction completely, so I'd regard that as different. I'm not suggesting it would be economic, but if there was some problem with the supplier you can't fall back on F2s.

I look at the country of supply and regularly see labels from Kenya in supermarkets. The subsidies in the E.U. used to be for set aside (they'd be paid for not producing at all). They've changed that and I don't know the current situation. I agree with you about not dumping pointless surplus on the third world, it's just I don't think Britain could do that if it tried, we just don't have the productive capacity to. The E.U. as a whole maybe. Politicians like to moralize, it seems to go with the territory.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Where did you get that 65% figure from?

I've heard it a few times from reliable sources (BBC articles etc.) actually the figure I have in my consciousness is 60% - but I added 5% to allow for my own uncertainty. We import most of our deficit from Ireland, if you look at the British Isles as a unit then it is probably close to self-sufficient. Also it depends on what food. Wheat is over-produced, green vegetables need to be imported. Beef we are at least self-sufficient in, but pork needs to be imported to supply internal demand. I'll see if I can find a reference for you.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No farmer is forced to use GM crops.

On the contrary the Indian farmers were forced and are forced to continue buying seed from Monsanto because of patents and the genetic engineering of seeds with non renewable traits,

As seed saving is prevented by patents as well as by the engineering of seeds with non-renewable traits, seed has to be bought for every planting season by poor peasants. A free resource available on farms became a commodity which farmers were forced to buy every year.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_in_India

so you were saying. . . . . .

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not only is this not entirely true, but it applies to all imported crops regardless of whether or not they are GM.

[b]One of course only need to look at the devastating effects of modern farming methods with regard to the BSE crisis and the fact that poultry and pigs are fed increasing amounts of antibiotics which may have adverse effects.
Again - nothing to do with GM.[/b]

its evidently true in its entirety,

Farmers in India are finding that the "biotechnology revolution" is having a devastating effect on their crop lands and personal debt levels. "In 1998, the World Bank's structural adjustment policies forced India to open up its seed sector to global corporations like Cargill, Monsanto, and Syngenta. The global corporations changed the input economy overnight. Farm saved seeds were replaced by corporate seeds which needed fertilizers and pesticides and could not be saved" Says Vandana Shiva, leader of the movement to oust Monsanto from India in her 2004 article The Suicide Economy Of Corporate Globalisation. "As seed saving is prevented by patents as well as by the engineering of seeds with non-renewable traits, seed has to be bought for every planting season by poor peasants. A free resource available on farms became a commodity which farmers were forced to buy every year. This increases poverty and leads to indebtedness. As debts increase and become unpayable, farmers are compelled to sell kidneys or even commit suicide. More than 25,000 peasants in India have taken their lives since 1997 when the practice of seed saving was transformed under globalisation pressures and multinational seed corporations started to take control of the seed supply. Seed saving gives farmers life. Seed monopolies rob farmers of life"

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_in_India

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
On the contrary the Indian farmers were forced and are forced to continue buying seed from Monsanto [...]

No, they just aren't allowed to produce GM seeds that have been patented by Monsanto. They are free to use non-GM, non-Monsanto seeds.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Where did you get that 65% figure from?

Ok., it seems to be higher, the correct figure is 76%, but this is for "indigenous type food" which implies to me food that can be grown in the U.K.. So the actual figure would be lower as rice, for example, can't realistically be grown here. This is from the report: "House of Commons: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Food security, Second Report of Session 2014-15"
Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmenvfru/243/243.pdf

This figure of 24% [imported indigenous food types] is based on the ratio of indigenous-type food produced to indigenous-type food supplied into the market, and thus a measure of the amount of food available for consumption which could be produced here.
Paragraph 14, The “self sufficiency ratio” or “food production to supply ratio” for indigenous foods has declined from a peak of almost 87% in the early 1990s to 77% in 2012.

The report later states:

We note the low levels of self-sufficiency in the UK fresh fruit and vegetables sectors, at 12% and 58% respectively. While most of these imports, by volume, occur in the out-of-season months of November to June, as the graph below illustrates, import levels of apples, potatoes, peppers, onions and tomatoes remain still relatively high at the height of UK seasonal production. It is likely that the majority of these imports come from other EU Member States which experience similar seasons to the UK

twhitehead should take heart from this:

The Government believes that the CAP, combined with EU trade policy, “has a negative impact on global food security”. It says that direct payments through the CAP provide a cushion to farmers which dilutes the effects of changes in the market prices of their products and inputs and encourages inefficient farmers to remain in the sector. Price support and other market interventions also keep prices higher than they would otherwise be and high agricultural tariffs keep potentially more efficient producers in other parts of the world out of the EU market.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Ok., it seems to be higher, the correct figure is 76%, but this is for "indigenous type food" which implies to me food that can be grown in the U.K.. So the actual figure would be lower as rice, for example, can't realistically be grown here. This is from the report: "House of Commons: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Food security, Secon ...[text shortened]... p potentially more efficient producers in other parts of the world out of the EU market.[/quote]

If I understand the figures correctly it is not about what could theoretically be produced in the UK but what is at the moment being produced and imported. The UK could most certainly produce enough food domestically to feed its populace, although it would require a change of diet. Repealing the CAP (a good idea, in my opinion) would not be such a problem for UK farmers, since it would hurt the most inefficient farmers (mainly in Southern and Eastern Europe) most.