Topic: GM Plants

[thifasmom]

very good debate started thanks Katy, i am not for GM for alot of the reasons already stated here. as it has been rightly said before we really do not know where this science will lead us and what the end result is, hence why i think it should not be realised on this poor brow beaten planet of ours.

Perhaps we ought to remember that the world actually does produce enough food to feed its human (and other populations) well already. The distribution of food is the problem and sorry to say when "western" populations use 7.5 times the world resources to live, someone somewhere loses out.

By the way I agree with being a little scared of multinationals like Monsanto - they are not in this for kind words they are in it to make money. When a monoculture which GM crops will become are eventually attacked by some disease what will the poorer nations fall back on?

The science bits - why do this just because we can?

i agree completely.

[katynewbie]

 :-\

OK, I understand it's a bit of a difficult subject, but you know when we keep seeds for a certain veg, is that not genetic manipulation? We keep it for the right reasons, and I am not saying anyone is up to sommat sneaky...

 ???

[thifasmom]

man has always bred plants and animals to either maintain and improve on a particular trait or to reduce or remove a trait not deemed needed or necessary.

the difference with GM crops is the manipulation of the genes by adding a gene from another plant species or even animal species. now i think that is messing with nature one step to far. a monkey wouldn't mate with a goat and a poppy can't pollinate a courgette and i think there is a good reason for this and if mankind continues with GM production we'll soon find out why nature hasn't done this on its own :-\.

[hellohelenhere]

I agree with the view that it's 'absurdly dangerous' to mess in major ways with the genome of any plant, when we can't possibly know what the outcomes might be - and then growing them in the open where they can cross with wild plants. If a simple change of environment can make a monster of an existing plant like Japanese Knotweed, who's to say what a rogue new plant breed could do? Insanity!

People say 'ah what about the third world?' but the big corporations are out for themselves; engineering plants to be Roundup-ready means that these impoverished farmers will be forced to buy Roundup, which they can't afford. Plus they're forced to BUY seed each year instead of saving, as they always did before. (And what about genetic diversity?) It locks them into an impossible financial trap. It also encourages the most extreme possible monoculture - very bad for the ecology around the crop, and very bad for the soil, therefore leading to erosion, depletion and drought. Disastrous. Topsoil and water are the two most precious things on which we all depend - many great civilisations have eventually failed by destroying the first and thereby messing up the latter. Read 'Collapse' by Jared Diamond for a fascinating account of how the Greenland Norse, the Maya, and the Anasazi of north America did this. (The USA 1930s dustbowl is another well-known example.) We should move *away* from monoculture, not look for a quick agricultural payback that can't be sustained.

My 2p-worth! :D

[littlebabybird]

:-\

OK, I understand it's a bit of a difficult subject, but you know when we keep seeds for a certain veg, is that not genetic manipulation? We keep it for the right reasons, and I am not saying anyone is up to sommat sneaky...

 ???

katy, i think some one might have said this already but...
i keep the biggest or the most preductive or indeed the most disease resistant seeds to use next year that is selective breeding
the new seeds are still the same family that they started as
in gm seeds a chunk of dna has been added, it could be from a fungi, a bacteria, a frog a fish, anything
i dont think i want to be eating sweetcorn with bits of frog genetics in it.



another thing the junk already discussed gets mixed up a bit when something else is added, just because we dont know what the junk is for doesnt mean we dont need it

talking from memory (no great at the best of times)   there is also an issue of geneti switches not  working properly as well.

[Deb P]

What an interesting thread! I have watched a few of Jimmy's programmes before, and have been interested in the views examined, some obviously the opposite his own such a intensive pig rearing on one 'farm' where they had a piglet day because the pigs all gave birth on the same day!

I will have to watch this one, but I agree with many of the above comments on GM crops. I have a friend who worked for a year growing crops which he realised were GM (which was never advertised obviously), done under the umbrella of a University 'project', conducted in huge tunnels. He told me the modified crops needed huge amounts of fertilisers and pesticides to grow at all, control crops without this failed. Students from many countries including a lot from the far east had been sent to investigate these crops to see if they could improve their own countries situation, but it looked unlikely that they did!

Do countries need GM crops? I guess it depends why they are looking at them? If  traditional crops failed because of drought, it is hard to see GM crops requiring huge amounts of chemicals doing well either. Saving seeds form local crops would hopefully result in crops that are the best adapted to that particular  environment, but I can see businesses rubbing their hands together at the thought of all the potential purchases required to crop this stuff; seeds every year, fertilisers and pesticides..... good business or out of the kindness of their hearts..............? Cynical old me......!

[littlebabybird]

I may well be out of date now but there  were some countrys that refused aid from usa because they thought gm products were not worth the risk.

[pigeonseed]

rats fed gm potatoes (ones sold in america right now)
suffered damaged immune systems [...] this was from Pusztai, the world's expert on lectins

I think this scientist's work has some problems with it - he's been derided by other scientists. We do have to be careful as non-experts, because the media tends to give space to bad science if it makes good news - and I say that as someone who works in the media!

I liked the doc on GM. It looks like with any technology - it's what you do with it, and who controls it that matters.
In uganda it's the government funding research,not for profit but to help the country. When big corporations fund it, it will have to be patented and expensive - that won't help poor people so much.

GM could feed the world - if we let it. But food poverty is a political issue in the end. no one need starve with or without GM.

[tonybloke]

just listened to the food and farming awards, (radio4)  check out the final winner, Geoff tansey, and his work on sustainable food (and the aims of seed companies to control ALL of our food) ;)