The first thing that occurred to me upon hearing the news today that GM blight resistant potatoes are to be trialed here is that are they the Sarpo variety that individuals have been growing for a couple of years now? Would we have been told the tubers were of a GM variety?
If not, does anyone know what they are??!!
GM potatoes
Moderators: KG Steve, Chantal, Tigger, peter, Chief Spud
They are a standard potato genetically modified with a gene from an old variety in an attempt to make them blight resistant.
The Sarpo potatoes are NOT GM.
The Sarpo potatoes are NOT GM.
-
Mike Vogel
- KG Regular
- Posts: 865
- Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:31 pm
- Location: Bedford
Now this is interesting. My immediate reaction to this when I first read of it was that there should not be the same objection to this form of GM as to others, as it is from a related species. It is doing in a lab what our ancestors did over decades with wild grass to produce wheat and what we still do today in seed selection. I don't see it as inconsistent with organic practices. But what do i know? I'm no scientist.
mike
mike
Please support Wallace Cancer Care
http://www.wallacecancercare.org.uk
and see
http://www.justgiving.com/mikevogel
Never throw anything away.
http://www.wallacecancercare.org.uk
and see
http://www.justgiving.com/mikevogel
Never throw anything away.
Yes it does sound more like nature, but it ain't what our ancestors have done. Check out the science. It's different, it's not been safely tested sufficiently in isolation long enough for safety to humans to be proved, let alone the wider environment. This is interesting science with potential, but it's experiments are being foisted upon our world as 'good science' without proper 'scientific' back-up on long term safety issues. For corporate profit. Ignorant politicians fall for it. As does a naive public.
Mole
Mole
It is well documented over the years that Mole and myself stand in different camps regarding GM. However I am heartened to read in his posting that it is now "interesting science" whereas his prior postings have condemned GM under any circumstance.
I understood originally that the GM Potatoes to be grown were a commercial crop for the production of industrial starch and not for human consumption.
This may well be another crop to be announced later but of this I am a little unsure.
Potatoes do not represent the so called pollen risk that Oil Seed Rape might carry.
To say there is a lack of scientific knowledge is simply plain nonsense because scientists know a considerable amount about the crops that they have engineered and it appears that it is the humble gardeners of this world who only read anti-GM literature that are being naive.
JB.
I understood originally that the GM Potatoes to be grown were a commercial crop for the production of industrial starch and not for human consumption.
This may well be another crop to be announced later but of this I am a little unsure.
Potatoes do not represent the so called pollen risk that Oil Seed Rape might carry.
To say there is a lack of scientific knowledge is simply plain nonsense because scientists know a considerable amount about the crops that they have engineered and it appears that it is the humble gardeners of this world who only read anti-GM literature that are being naive.
JB.
hi jb, the problen with scientists is they are very specialised into there own narrow field. they seem to think that they know it all and what works in their carefully controlled environment will behave itself when released into the outside world. it was "expert scientists" that caused the conditions that "accidemtally" let african killer bees loose in the americas and indeed varoa into the english bee population because they were pusuing their own narrow speciality without applying common sense to the wider issues. they seem to have forgotten the simple fact that if it is possible for something to happen, sooner or later conditions and some idiot will collide to let it happen.
Richard,
I have made a statement and do not intend to open a debate on the subject. Whether you like it or not just about everything you care to touch is there because a scientist has given the OK.
There are too many people who would prefer to listen to unproven theory represented as fact rather than fact itself and the British People are waking up to the idea that what they were told originally was a pack of baloney.
JB.
I have made a statement and do not intend to open a debate on the subject. Whether you like it or not just about everything you care to touch is there because a scientist has given the OK.
There are too many people who would prefer to listen to unproven theory represented as fact rather than fact itself and the British People are waking up to the idea that what they were told originally was a pack of baloney.
JB.
whereas his prior postings have condemned GM under any circumstance.
Not true JB - I have never done that.
GM is an interesting science, so is nuclear fission both deserve to researched safely.
The problem is, GM crops may or may not have unknown quantities which are yet to be discovered. I would rather they were tested in safe conditions for many years until fully understood.
Scientists gave the Ok to many things out here and we know that many are bad and are out there for financial or military gain not the common good.
-
Cider Boys
- KG Regular
- Posts: 920
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:03 pm
- Location: Somerset
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 39 times
I am with John Boy regarding GM foods but in my case would welcome the debate - all of us can learn from healthy respectful debate.
I admit I know very little concerning the science of GM foods but the little I do understand makes me optimistic that civilisation will once again advance due to science rather than witchcraft (including planting by the moon!). I do however find it perverse when the ’green’ lobby (with some justification) criticise many modern intensive agricultural techniques but also jump on the band wagon to criticise a science that could alleviate the need for their much despised chemical solutions for pests and diseases
Barney.
I admit I know very little concerning the science of GM foods but the little I do understand makes me optimistic that civilisation will once again advance due to science rather than witchcraft (including planting by the moon!). I do however find it perverse when the ’green’ lobby (with some justification) criticise many modern intensive agricultural techniques but also jump on the band wagon to criticise a science that could alleviate the need for their much despised chemical solutions for pests and diseases
Barney.
Barney
With respect
The 'green lobby' isn't jumping on any bandwagon (what bandwagon?) - just trying to make the public aware of legitimate concerns over a technology not fully understood or tested long term - nothing perverse about it. These concerns are glossed over by those who profit from producing gm seeds. Just as they always have been by chemical suppliers right up until their product was withdrawn for safety reasons .......
Mole
With respect
The 'green lobby' isn't jumping on any bandwagon (what bandwagon?) - just trying to make the public aware of legitimate concerns over a technology not fully understood or tested long term - nothing perverse about it. These concerns are glossed over by those who profit from producing gm seeds. Just as they always have been by chemical suppliers right up until their product was withdrawn for safety reasons .......
Mole
-
Cider Boys
- KG Regular
- Posts: 920
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:03 pm
- Location: Somerset
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 39 times
Hello Mole
The perverse ‘bandwagon’ I refer to is to be completely negative whenever scientists work towards a practical solution to the world’s many problems.
We need electricity but do not want carbon emissions, scientists provide nuclear power that provides electricity without the emissions,but the green lobby don’t want the emissions or the solution but can never provide a practical alternative.
They also want food production that is not aided by mineral fertilisers or chemical sprays.
GM scientists are working towards a solution; whilst the green lobby moan about both but never provide a practical solution.
Harsh but fair.
Barney
The perverse ‘bandwagon’ I refer to is to be completely negative whenever scientists work towards a practical solution to the world’s many problems.
We need electricity but do not want carbon emissions, scientists provide nuclear power that provides electricity without the emissions,but the green lobby don’t want the emissions or the solution but can never provide a practical alternative.
They also want food production that is not aided by mineral fertilisers or chemical sprays.
GM scientists are working towards a solution; whilst the green lobby moan about both but never provide a practical solution.
Harsh but fair.
Barney
Hi Barney
The green groups I know of all campaign for appropriate technologies to be used for energy production - from windpower to solar water heating - much of it devised by 'scientists'.
Really though, to reduce emissions by an appreciable amount will mean that we all take appropriate action re energy conservation. That's the truth of it.
There are many practical green solutions, but these often only work when applied at a local or personal level - they don't fit with the average persons idea of'the modern world'.
Many people today are passive consumers - disconnected with the practical realities and consequences of our lifestyles. They are unwilling to see that we all, as individuals also have responsibilities to our communities and descendents.
We can (if we want) produce food locally on a small scale, so why not our energy.
The green groups I know of all campaign for appropriate technologies to be used for energy production - from windpower to solar water heating - much of it devised by 'scientists'.
Really though, to reduce emissions by an appreciable amount will mean that we all take appropriate action re energy conservation. That's the truth of it.
There are many practical green solutions, but these often only work when applied at a local or personal level - they don't fit with the average persons idea of'the modern world'.
Many people today are passive consumers - disconnected with the practical realities and consequences of our lifestyles. They are unwilling to see that we all, as individuals also have responsibilities to our communities and descendents.
We can (if we want) produce food locally on a small scale, so why not our energy.
There is only one reason that GM is pushed and that is to control food production and thereby controlling all the governments of the world.
Pete
Pete
skype me on pmrout
"To be a successful farmer, one must first know the NATURE of the SOIL" Xenophon , Oeconomicus 400 B.C.
"To be a successful farmer, one must first know the NATURE of the SOIL" Xenophon , Oeconomicus 400 B.C.
-
Cider Boys
- KG Regular
- Posts: 920
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:03 pm
- Location: Somerset
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 39 times
Hello Mole
I approve with your sentiments and I would willingly embrace them, but unfortunately, in reality the arithmetic just does not add up.
I invite you to read the recent thread regarding nuclear power. I sincerely would prefer the alternatives having lived for decades close to two nuclear power plants and a likely third at Hinkley Point but the ‘green’ alternatives are futile.
As for locally grown food, I absolutely support this initiative and have been actively promoting the philosophy. However again in reality we will never produce all our own local food. You only have to examine the country’s exemplary efforts in producing our own food during the second world war. Dig for Victory - when all our land was used for our food production, but we had a much lower population then with far more available land, and still this country was subjected to food rationing right up until 1952. I can not see the modern generations for all their ‘green’ credentials wishing to survive on those rations!
I like to grow food as ‘organically’ as practical and to supply it to local customers but this is a privilege that some people in the West can enjoy. If we wish to feed the whole world then perhaps GM would enable us to overcome one of the major problems facing the less privileged parts of the world.
My oldest son has recently lent me an interesting book on Local Organic Vegetable Production but I still can’t see how it can be anything other than a ‘deluxe’ food for those that have the money to afford it. However, I will be happy to be proved wrong.
Barney
I approve with your sentiments and I would willingly embrace them, but unfortunately, in reality the arithmetic just does not add up.
I invite you to read the recent thread regarding nuclear power. I sincerely would prefer the alternatives having lived for decades close to two nuclear power plants and a likely third at Hinkley Point but the ‘green’ alternatives are futile.
As for locally grown food, I absolutely support this initiative and have been actively promoting the philosophy. However again in reality we will never produce all our own local food. You only have to examine the country’s exemplary efforts in producing our own food during the second world war. Dig for Victory - when all our land was used for our food production, but we had a much lower population then with far more available land, and still this country was subjected to food rationing right up until 1952. I can not see the modern generations for all their ‘green’ credentials wishing to survive on those rations!
I like to grow food as ‘organically’ as practical and to supply it to local customers but this is a privilege that some people in the West can enjoy. If we wish to feed the whole world then perhaps GM would enable us to overcome one of the major problems facing the less privileged parts of the world.
My oldest son has recently lent me an interesting book on Local Organic Vegetable Production but I still can’t see how it can be anything other than a ‘deluxe’ food for those that have the money to afford it. However, I will be happy to be proved wrong.
Barney
The trouble is that it is fashionable to condemn all science as dangerous whereas the opposite is the truth. Scientists are no fools or they wouldn't be where they are, the trouble is that sensationalism and scares sell papers, steady plodding doesn't. GM in itself is not poisonous at all, I would be quite happy to eat it, it's the side issues that need examinining carefully. I don't see that GM is any different from the manipulation of plant genes that mankind has been exploiting sice the start of agriculture, it's just a device to get us there faster and all crops released have the same stringents safeguards imposed in them.
I am still convinced that the 'on the vine' tomato must have been derived by GM, whatever the technique it is a travesty of what a tomato should be like.
Allan
I am still convinced that the 'on the vine' tomato must have been derived by GM, whatever the technique it is a travesty of what a tomato should be like.
Allan