Genetically modified crops needed

[alan refail]

Good to see a calm approach to GM crops. I note the commenters stick to the old Monsanto mantra!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 78952.html

[Johnboy]

Hi Alan,
It seems that at last we have somebody to give politicians a clear insight into science.
I await the replies from the organics faction.
It will be interesting to see what rubbish they try to throw this time around.
JB.

[Motherwoman]

I would feel happier if they modified a cereal crop to withstand drought or be resistant to disease but unfortunately they seem to concentrate on modifying crops that will withstand being sprayed with their products. It's a great shame that advances in technology are being wasted in this way. No area of science is ever black and white, good or bad, it's how it's used that becomes the issue. At the moment the main use seems to be generating large incomes and when they say 'it is needed to feed the world', which is an emotive statement designed to guilt trip the public, a lot of people quite rightly feel deeply uncomfortable with it. It's hard to reconcile the two.

[peter]

Unless a charity or a wealthy benefactor funds GM then the businessmen who are funding it will want to both get their research & development money back and make to a profit on their investment.

Hence terminator genes, sterility and "hey, buy this with it each year" weedkiller.

[Johnboy]

Hi Peter,
Your comment; Hence terminator genes, sterility and "hey, buy this with it each year" weedkiller.
GM is a serious subject and it matters not how many funnies you use I think you should know better.
There is an international moratorium against the use of the terminator gene as well you should know!
To treat GM in such a way is contemptible.
JB.

[Johnboy]

Hi Motherwoman,
May I with respect ask you to read a little into the science of GM and get yourself up to date.
JB.

[peter]

JB, I trust that you understood the aim of what I said rather than fixating on the words.

Why should anyone except a very wealthy philanthropist, a charity, or a nation state, bother to invest in the science if they will not see a financial return?

Which was why I alluded to previous, ill-judged attempts, - that were at least mooted, if not actually tried, - to ensure an income in return for the investment.

It is all very well you being enthusiastic about the science, but somehow it has to be paid for, so please do not descend to using words like contemptible against me when I am making a reasonable point in a polite manner.

[Johnboy]

Well Peter,
I think that what you have written is in a manner that can obviously be taken in more than one way. Perhaps I have taken it the wrong way
but like Shylock businessmen want their pound of flesh and I took your comments to be critical of such practices. Wrong again.
Knowing the character that you are I very much doubt that this has really offended you but I sincerely apologise for misreading the situation and apologise personally to you.
JB.

PS. You know that I am a grumpy old sod at the best of times!
According to one member of the forum.

[Motherwoman]

Hi Johnboy,

Point taken, so I spent some time this evening trawling the internet to 'bring myself up to date'.

I decided to do a bit of research on varieties of GM soybean. I found a list of 15 which are currently seeking change/approval; 9 are Monsanto; 2 Bayer; 3 Pioneer and 1 BASF. 1 was for insect resistance, 2 altered composition and 12 for Herbicide tolerance. This, at a basic level, appears to back up what I said in my previous post. From what I've read there is an ongoing problem with weed populations becoming resistant to glyphosate (Round-up) and I imagine they will have to start manufacturing new herbicides to combat this problem when presumeably they will have to breed plants which are tolerant of the new herbicide.

On a more positive note I found some research from Germany that indicates bees suffer no ill effects from feeding on GM maize or from feeding it to their larvae although the researcher stated that the next step was to test in field conditions before they could confirm these conclusions.

GM crops have the potential to increase food production in difficult areas but they're not getting there yet. Interestingly Brazil's soybean crop is now 89% GM but they still have a lot of very hungry and poor people.

MW

[Johnboy]

Hi Motherwoman,
There are two trials of Cisgenic GM running currently one into resistance into late blight into Desiree and Maris Piper Potatoes and the other into Wheat the resistance to Aphid in Wheat.
Attempts were made to trash both crops by the extreme organic factions but both attempts failed thankfully.
Their arguments against both GM trials amount to nothing but pure sophism.
JB.

[Motherwoman]

Hi Johnboy,

It's a fascinating subject and has great potential if used in the right way, I'm just a cynical old thing when it comes to large corporations!

I wish I had more to time to read up about it so any pointers to sites with information would be well received.

MW

[alan refail]

Motherwoman

Make a start with this article by Jonathan Jones who is leading the research into blight-resistant potatoes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... /gm-debate

A long forum debate on those trials here

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8457

[Johnboy]

Hi Motherwoman,
Oh how I share your comments.
Because of what really amounted to a pack of lies GM got off to a very bad start in UK and the rest of Europe but I feel the corner has been turned and that only good can come from it.
Criticisms that GM promised so much that it has not lived-up to are false because those making the comments are those who have tried to grow rich on the back of the adverse publicity which they themselves spread and have attempted to halt any field trials and have physically attempted to trash any field trials.
I thought that the comment from The Soil Association that it was costing too much to protect these crops and was a waste of public money just about sums them up.
They and their members are the very reason why the costs are so high!
JB.

[Motherwoman]

Hi Alan,

Many thanks for the link, it certainly brings the uses of modification into focus. As long as research on effects is done and it reduces the use of pesticides which are, in my opinion, more harmful to the wider environment I don't see a problem with it. I can't see anyone objecting to 'wild potato' genes getting out there! They were there long before we started messing about with standard spud breeding.
It highlights how organisations should work together, as groups such as Garden Organic hold a Heritage Seedbank which could be invaluable for sources of original genes.
I still think there is a major problem with the large corporations who also manufacture herbicides/pesticides as they will always put their profits first.
Thanks

Motherwoman

[Geoff]

It would be nice if more of the work was done in publicly / charitably funded research institutes like John Innes. I would like to see a proportion of overseas aid spent this way, better than lining the pockets of corrupt politicians (and their families, particularly in Africa).
If you find the GM debate depressing try this lot!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22002530