Kitchen Garden Forum

the results of a ten year test on gm peas.


www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8347
Pete

thanks for the link , i know i wouldn't have seen the article otherwise. not sure ive got the hang of these kellow gizmos yet!!

Thanks for that. That was very interesting. I think the final comment on how GM crops are generally unlikely to be tested in this way should act as a warning to consumers. A friend of mine has a severe Brazil nut allergy. If she had eaten these peas she could quite easily have been killed by anaphalactic shock. Yet the likes of Monsanto et al continue to beguil the public of how they're feeding the world with their products (and just happening to be making lots of money too.)

Hi Pete,
I too thank you for the link and I feel that it is a very balanced view.
Unlike Jenny I am exceedingly pro GM and to say that her friend, who has a strong allergy to Brazil Nuts,
would have been in trouble had she eaten those Peas.
You should take on board the fact that the rigourous testing of that particular modification, as is with all of the modifications, is a very good safeguard.
Note also that as soon as the fault was found the project was scrapped.
At present, world wide, there are over a Billion acres of GM crops growing and try as they may the anti-gm faction have only had an impact on Europe and even a vote in the state of California went against the Anti-faction and that was only last week.
From all the GM crops produced so far there has not been one report worldwide that the produce has caused anybody any harm.
I think what is needed are more links that put the case, warts and all, instead of the wild and inaccurate claims from Greenpeace and others who have declared GM as Pollution and will not be tolerated ever.
In Europe we suffer from an overproduction of food and may not need GM crops at this present time but there are those worldwide who do very badly need them. I resent that Greenpeace have infiltrated the governments of some of the African Countries especially those countries that are at risk of mass starvation.

It was these points in the article that caught my eye. It seems clear from this that screening procedures at the moment are not rigorous. I stand by my original statements.

Quote "The work underlines the need to evaluate new GM crops on a case-by-case basis, says Paul Foster of the Australian National University in Canberra, who led the immunological work. He also calls for improvements in screening requirements for genetically engineered plants, to ensure comprehensive tests are carried out."

Quote: "He adds that slight differences in protein synthesis might also occur in other plants with other genes, meaning each new GM food should be very carefully evaluated for potential health effects. “If a GM plant is to go up for human consumption, there should be a detailed descriptive list of how one should go about analysing that plant,” he says.

Tager agrees. It is rare for an investigation of the potential health effects of a GM product to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, he adds. “If it had been a private company doing this, it might never have seen the light of day,” he says."

Hi Jenny,
May I respectfully ask you to read the New Scientist Web page again. The Peas had nothing to do with Brazil Nut Allergy it was another experiment back in 1990 concerning Soya Beans.
Now I agree with the testing of GM products but you put a sinister insinuation that if the company producing those particular Peas were aware of the defect would have not told anybody about it. Well thats fine by me because it means that it would have been automatically shelved and being a private company it is entitled to do so without recourse to anybody. So in your mind they are damned if they don't and damned if they do.
CSIRO is an Australian Government funded organization and si exceedingly fair minded.

Okay, I mistook the brazil nut thing but can I respectfully suggest that you read the article and specifically the parts I quoted again. It was not me who suggested that private companies' screening is inadequate and that adverse effects could be covered up.
I am fully aware of the the ethos of the CSIRO as I have friends who regularly work with them.
There has been a lot of controversy recently about the level of adverse results that go unreported by drug companies and legislation is being brought in to force them to publish all the results, not just the ones they like.
I wish I had your blind faith in private industry's philanthropic and altruistic motivations.

hi Jenny, like you i havn't much faith in companies reporting trials which didnt give favourable results. and theres no garentee that the makers will look for a similar problem in other similar products.

Yes, Richard, it seems to me that the whole point of the article is that these results have only turned up through the investigations of a disinterested body: the CSIRO. It saddens me that the companies developing these GM crops are marketing them under the banner of saving the world, when in fact what they most want to do is make money. If they were more honest I would have more respect for them and trust them more.

Very interesting this GM debate whether your for or against,but this is why we grow are own crops so we know what we are eating.

surely if they really wanted to save the planet they would graft edible tops onto all the perrenial weeds so we didn't have to dig and plant, think of all the energy it would save in agriculture

I would remind everyone that new NON-GM crops are NOT tested and that in the past these have caused problems - too much of the green stuff in a potato, irritating courgettes, etc. Given the increasing number of new varieties that are produced every year this really is a very, very big loophole. You could actually be safer eating GM-crops.

Yes, you're right Colin, there have been problems with normally bred and selected crops. And these are the ones where we're mimicking and controlling natural processes. GM is completely unnnatural in that these genes could never normally end up in the plants.
I have nothing whatsoever against the principle of GM. I just concerned that, as has happened in the past, people's health is going to be sacrificed on the altar of the big corporations. I believe that there are currently massive experiments going on, on the populations of third world countries mainly. The article posted shows the CSIRO's concerns about this.

Hi

This looks like the forum of old - as usual on this topic I'm with Johnboy. It's not the technology that is the problem but the uses that are made of it. GM, like electricity has the potential to improve human lives if we use it properly.

Good to see that there is a section on the new forum for debates.

I agree with you Chris. Which means I must agree with Johnboy. How did that happen?