The great GM debate

[Johnboy]

Hi NB,
Well from where I stand I am afraid you are tucked up in your own little world. You can post as many threads to the contrary but like me you are concerned but it will be through scientific research that these problems will be solved yet you regularly are in favour of denying scientific research. Science is science and with the greatest respect you cannot see past the Monsanto argument when there is so much to be gained by scientific research and the application of GM. In Agriculture GM costs are made on a by the acreage planted basis and I do not know for sure but I feel that the GM seed would be no dearer than an F1 seed and in fact because the process is so much quicker and easier it is possibly cheaper.
Rothamsted Research Station has applied for field trials on a GM Wheat this very week and already it has been condemned by people who think along the same lines as yourself. This Wheat could save the use of an awful lot of Pesticide but is condemned as soon as the letters G and M appear. This is patently wrong and it is about time you started to study GM rather than condemn out of hand. GM is here to stay and it is only a matter of time before it will be in common use in Europe.
JB.

[Colin Miles]

NB

If Nature really were in balance then there would be no evolution and we wouldn't be here. There may well be eco-systems that are in balance, but it is always a temporary state of affairs. Climate, pests, diseases, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunami, meteor strikes - something eventually disturbs this balance and the eco-system has to adapt. There are always winners and losers. With GM evolution has placed the ball in our court. Will we make a good job of it? Only time will tell, but shutting our eyes and hoping that it will go away won't work. If the goodies don't take charge, the baddies will.

[Geoff]

I guess you didn't watch the botany programme. The GM featured was nothing to do with fertiliser, pests, diseases or herbicides. It was about a microscopic examination of the leaf structure of rice and sweetcorn. Apparently, although they are both effectively grasses, sweetcorn has a much more efficient photosynthesis structure than rice and microscopic examination shows why. The project is aimed at transferring that structure into rice with the hope that yields will rise. An academically funded project, exactly the sort of project that should be happening.

[alan refail]

Nature has served us well since time began, why disrupt what is a proven tremendous workable system, with such diversity, choice, and variety, just to line the pockets of Monsanto. I check all food and reject it if GM.

If Nature really were in balance then there would be no evolution and we wouldn't be here. There may well be eco-systems that are in balance, but it is always a temporary state of affairs. Climate, pests, diseases, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunami, meteor strikes - something eventually disturbs this balance and the eco-system has to adapt. There are always winners and losers.

Food for thought.

[Colin Miles]

If Sir David Attenborough is to be believed, there are too many human beings on the planet. If GM really could feed the starving millions, then maybe it isn't such a good idea. Alternatively, as poor people tend to have more children - the human equivalent of the Raptor food bank with which SpringWatch has made us so familiar, though not as violent - feeding them and raising their standards of living might ultimately lead to a reduction in world population.

Complicated, isn't it?

[Nature's Babe]

Johnboy,I agree we need good scientific research. I do have an open mind, show me some independent scientific research comparing yield in non-GM and GM crops, or on roundup and toxicity, or on the effects on friendly insects as well as the pests, or the possible effects and liklihood of resistence developing. Why are they pursueing 500+ patents on drought tolerant plants, when Israel has already led the way on combatting desertification using drought tolerant natural plants already tough resilient and well adapted to local conditions, if it is not for profit ? The narurally adapted drought tolerant plants don't have the disadvantage of sterility which many GM do requiring more to be purchased from Monsanto each year. Respectfully, until Monsanto is more open to allowing independent research we will get polarisation and division with no independent voice on either the positive aspects of genetic modification or the negative, the public gets PR from the companies and spin from activist groups. As a result the issues around GM crops become more complicated and divisive than necessary. The companies, in their turn, have created a vacuum of expertise and it’s the consumers and farmers who will possibly ultimately be the victims. i just tried to look up some research on GM and toxicity, unless I am prepared to cough up 35 dollars it will remain under wraps. On such an important and sensitive subject all research should be available and open to public scrutiny. I stand on the side of caution until open and independent rigorous research becomes available. Colin is right it is complicated, and Gallotments was wise to say she didn't know enough, it's a big subject with very little research that doesn't have a vested interest. Oh and it seems like I had been misquoted, I actually mentioned a balance between predator and pest, I am well aware we evolve. We are a part of nature and over the years have evolved, and while we do evolve individuals can still be balanced or unbalanced. In nature there is a great deal of interdependence in many areas, as within predation depending on an adequate supply of prey as mentioned by Gallotments with regard to greenfly.

[Colin Miles]

Fear of the unknown, which the media in this country are so good at exploiting, is not a rational response to GM. To link toxicity to GM rather than to ANY new varieties is not the way to go. GM crops have far more rigorous testing procedures than the many hundreds of new 'conventional' varieties that are routinely introduced. There have been 'disasters' with these conventional varieties which have resulted in them having to be withdrawn and I would be far more worried about their potential for toxicity than GM.

Where there may be legitimate causes for concern with GM is in the question of pesticide and herbicide resistance and their effect on 'weeds'. This may force evolution in ways that we cannot foresee.

Another point that is sometimes raised is the question of inserting genes from one species to another, often expressed with horror. Well, genes aren't unique to species. We share 50% of our genes with bananas.

[Nature's Babe]

Pesticide resistence was and is a genuine concern Colin, rather than let it remain as fear of the unknown why not look at the experience of farmers who have been using GM for a long time and the problems they are now encountering, check out Michael Harts farmer to farmer video to discover what it is really like on US GM farms and the problems they are facing now.

http://www.gmcropsfarmertofarmer.com/film.html

It seems no GM supporters can answer my last comment / questions with some rigorous and independent research ?

[alan refail]

It seems no GM sopporters can answer my last comment / questions with some rigorous and independent research ?

It's not entirely clear what the question was.

[Nature's Babe]

I am surprised you could not understand that Alan. The question was can you show me some independent scientific research comparing yield in non-GM and GM crops? or on roundup and toxicity? Or on the effects on friendly insects as well as the pests? Or the possible effects and liklihood of resistence developing? If you watched the video I just posted you would have seen just how far GM can spread causing problems and the US farmer who wanted to use herbicide was told by Monsanto to hand weed as there was no herbicide that would do the job, rather a daunting task on fields of that size. This was farmer to farmer,and farming commercially on a big scale with no particular axe to grind.

[Johnboy]

Hi NB,
For Europe to accept GM it does not have to employ any roundup ready crops.
When GM was first mooted in UK it was Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Soil Association and the Green movement that decided to demonize GM and they used scare tactics that were very untruthful and coupled to the Media who very soon realised that to be anti something sold newspapers and especially the Daily Mail who are absolutely blatant at printing total rubbish. They lobbied the European Parliament until they got a ban on GM.
There were very many small GM research projects that showed great promise at that time and it was to the delight of the anti lobby that these projects were wound-up because there would be no use for the results of their labours in the foreseeable future in Europe.
What that clever lot of untruthful, scare mongering riffraff managed to do was to hand the first generation of GM to Monsanto on a plate. They in turn seized the opportunity to introduce Round-up Ready Crops with no pressure from the whole of Europe. With pressure from Europe and had Europe played its part then Monsanto would not have the hold they have on the world of GM today.
However that is history and we have the future to look forward to and hopefully without Monsanto being the major player. Round-up ready crops were in the first generation of GM and this is being eased out as the second generation of GM is evolving but this must be allowed to evolve without let or hindrance.
Sadly, even this week, when Rothamstead Research Establishment applied for permission to hold a field trial of GM Wheat that would ward off Aphids from Wheat, Friends of the Earth tried very hard to demonize it. The modification employs two genes, one from Spearmint and the other from a vegetative source but because this second gene can be found as common between vegetative and animal sources Friends of the Earth insisted that the gene used was derived from a cow even after assurances were given by Rothamstead that the gene comes from vegetative sources. Friends of the Earth fell short of saying that they didn’t want a cow in their bread but the inference was there to be made.
If people were to know how much Wheat is lost each year through Aphid attacks they would realise that when an attack occurs the only way at present to combat an attack is spraying with an insecticide which in the future would not be needed. The benefits are clear to most rational thinking people except the Anti GM Lobby.
Europe has enough people well qualified to research into the true value of GM to produce our own GM crops and Monsanto Roundup Ready crops can be easily excluded by simply not granting licences. But first the demonizing has got to cease NOW.
To summarise; it could easily be said that the anti lobby are responsible for Monsanto having the hold that they have on GM and rather than continue to demonize GM they must accept that there are types of GM that can play a vital part in the future evolution of agriculture in Europe which have nothing whatsoever with Roundup or Monsanto. They must also acknowledge that GM is a science in its own right.
JB.

[Tony Hague]

Whilst obviously the idea of GM has taken some unfair battering from the objectors, I still think that there have been some spectacular home goals scored in the way the technology has been applied and presented. The roundup resistance is an obvious one.

Prior to that, I presented a poster at a reception for young scientists (yep, some time ago !) at the House of Commons. There was a prize for the best poster which went to a young woman who was developing a GM crop. She used the platform to tell us all in a very earnest manner how this work would feed the starving of the third world. She was working on a GM strawberry that had a longer shelf life. Feed the starving of the world with rock hard strawberrries ? I think not. The work so often did not live up to the rhetoric.

My other point would be that the proponents of GM so often tell the unconvinced layman that they are talking rubbish and don't understand the technology. The fault thus lies with those who do understand it and have failed to explain it.

[Nature's Babe]

Well said Tony!
Johnboy, while i have some sympathy with your arguments, I do think it doesn't help the GM cause to blame the anti GM lobby. Monsanto needs to take some responsibility for their actions, secrecy, and control and GM should be more open to independent reaserch allowing more open dialogue, which would help to dispel the divisiveness. For instance maybe border strips for wildlife to encourage predators, and or interplantiong with spearmint may be as effective and less expensive than GM it would help our bees too, we need to think of the benefits our ecology brings us too, and the cost if we lose those benefits such as pollination, unless there are open and independent trials people will worry. A mature society considers both sides and all options and our environment which supports us, before making decisions.
All this feed the starving rhetoric by GM doesn't help either, the better charities assist areas of poverty to feed themselves, often with very simple technologies, and educate them to develop in their own way. It is quite arrogant of us to think we have all the answers and impose our ideas and technology before they are ready and equipped educationally to understand it.
In some areas where the poor have been helped sensitively they are now coming back to us and teaching us what they have developed when approached from their perspective., they have a right to self determination rather than imposition, In the past we have been guilty of using them for our own ends, even now companies are felling their forests for our palm oil etc, and they deserve better.

[Johnboy]

Hi Tony,
I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph especially the round-up ready crops.
Most of the work carried out on genetic modification is on a commercially
sensitive basis. Research is expensive and whoever is paying the for the research deserves to be at least the first person to read the results.
This is where I believe Natures Babe and myself differ widely. Things must be kept under wraps until the GM has passed the peer review
But what has happened here in UK is that it can take a long time to carry out the research, writing up your paper and presenting for the peer review and then within twenty four hours it can, and has been, totally rubbished by those who should have known better. Even when crops have got to the field trial stage they have been trashed by people who don't even know which is their arse or their elbow where GM is concerned and this is the what I refer to as the Riffraff!
Certainly rock hard Strawberries was not exactly a good example of GM but one presumes that as she progressed she would have gone on to do something useful. Everybody has to start somewhere and if she was a young girl she was probably doing it as an 'A' level project or in the early stages at Uni. However I am sure your poster was better than hers and your poster would at least have been more interesting of that I am convinced.
I am also firmly convinced however that the science of GM must be taken very seriously as a tool in the geneticists armoury and not condemned out of hand which it has been for so long.
JB.

[alan refail]

For instance maybe border strips for wildlife to encourage predators, and or interplantiong with spearmint may be as effective and less expensive than GM.

Hmm! I think you'd find that getting rid of mint in the fields might be very expensive, or call for a lot of Roundup.