GM food....

well no-one seems to be wanting it anymore, thank goodness, but consider this...

Apparently, the companies have patented their plants, so if you make the seeds yourself you are infringing property, copyright and patents.

I wonder if its all a big plan...I mean, if one little bit of pollen fertilizes another plant, its now got some GM in it.

taking this further...
The natural plants they fertilize become sterile, die out, and now there are no crops in the world, so you have to buy crops from the GM food producers....scary.

 

Yes, it's all part of the Agchem/biotech industry masterplan to take over the world.

 

Sad but true. GM must be banned worldwide immediately before it's too late.

 

i'm in two minds about gm stuff. the potential for eliminating hunger or even potentially solving the 'peak oil' impending crisis is present within the realm of gm crops. however there seems to be a huge amount of unspecified paranoia concerning things. the human race has risen to the top of the evolutional tree by virtue of their brains, we have moved rivers, connected oceans, created vaccines, irrigated vast tracts of land and changed our environment in numerous ways to allow our species to survive. now people want to turn their back on things like genetic manupulation for reasons that i'm not that clear on but seem to me to be religeous in origin, i.e. 'we're not god so we shouldn't mess with genetics'.
i'm sure there are dangers concerning gm stuff however i'm also sure there are dangers associated with electricity, mobile phones, cars, bicyles, in fact all technology is potentially dangerous. we have made out bed, using technology, we can either stand still and go back to living in caves (eventually) or use technology to move forward and solve the problems we have.
just my opinion. that's not to say we should be reckless about things but sticking our heads in the sand and hoping the genie will go back into the bottle is not going to work either.
cheers


julian

 

I agree in part, julian, I would love to think about the potential of this sort of stuff to solve the worlds problems.

2 points.

I think the fear is not really 'we are not god' sort of thing, that is spouted by religous types and simply anti people.

Its that we may create monsters, nightmares, the stuff of our inner psyche fears to go, and we may not be able to control or kill it, it could become a kind of blade runner society or worse.

2nd point:

They are commercial companies, do you really think now they are going to turn benevolent and anthro....blast forgot the word...

They are out for 100 per cent profit, nothing more, the history of the world tells me otherwise.

Just a point, there was a golf course built a few years ago locally, the council were reluctant until the owners assured them it would be cheap and for local people.

guess what? they built one of those exclusive hotel complexes with a really posh course with hugely select prices and posh types.

GM about feeding the world? hmmmm....maybe ideally, in practise?

 

data,
i'd agree that the risks are present but then when has anything worthwhile been without risk? the trick is minimising the risks. i'd agree that research needs to be structured so that risks are negligable but i have no idea about how to go about this. the thing is of couse (and leading on to your second point) is that if there is a profit in it, it's going to be done anyway - if not here than some 3rd world country that's been chucked a bung. i'd much rather there was responsible legislation rather than none or draconian ones that forced research into unlegislated countries.

your second point is absolutely true however this is the world we live in. the good thing is that after a while technology becomes available to everyone - just 30 years ago the computer was only available to prof frink types or mad people wielding soldering irons within 20 years everyone had one on their desk or in their home - today modern life would be impossible without one - even in developing countries. i don;t actually agree with out and out money uber alles capitalism, but imho it's saving grace is that a comodities price is always forced down (over the long run) by competition - which is the backbone of modern capitalism.

cheers


julian

 

I assume you are joking ... Unfortunately, I think it might be true

 

No, the man is definitely joking, because everyone has the right to keep on growing non-GM crops. It's just a very good way to make money. Monsanto makes glyphosate ("Roundup"), one of the world's most successful herbicides. If you can make crops resistant to "Roundup", you can drench the field with the stuff and only the weeds die. This means (a) the farmer gets a bigger yield, and thus encouraged, buys more of your GM crops; and (b) he buys a whole lot more "Roundup". Result, Monsanto wins both ways. It's a clever strategy - when the weeds become "Roundup"-resistant, which they inevitably will, off you go again with another modification and another herbicide.

 

...and in the meantime over-production continues until the soil is quite dead. Soil erosion continues until it is paper thin. No amount of artificial fertiliser will save agriculture when all the soil has washed away.

 

Companies like Novartis and Monsanto are not charities and the last thing in their minds when creating GM crops was anything as noble as solving world hunger. It's all about making loads of money.

Many farmers who have used GM seeds in the past are getting burned by it. Plants (crops) being the natural things they are, reproduce and create new seeds. So, you buy your seeds to start with, and then when you harvest that lot, you'll also be able to get a lot of seeds from them to plant your next lot.

Monsanto would have none of that though with GM crops. Those seeds where their patented intellectual property so how dare a farmer use offpsring seeds and replant them. I believe some farmers were sued for doing so . Of course, what the farmer should have done is thrown those seeds away (hmm...solving world hunger by throwing seeds down the toilet) and bought a new batch from Monsanto.

To make absolutely sure that "re-planting" wouldn't be a problem they then developed the "terminator" gene such that the crop wouldn't generate any new seeds or so that any seeds generated were infertile so make absolutely sure all those farmers who'd been lured in by promises of higher yields and lower pesticided costs would be coming back, cheque book in hand, year after year whilst Monsanto just sat back and let the cash roll in :inferno: . The "terminator" gene was, thankfully thought to be so outrageous that it was banned in most countries.

Once genetic modifications, whose effects are only poorly understood, are out there in the food chain they're there for good and there's nothing can be done to stop them. That's my big fear. What if some of that pesticide resistance were to cross-pollinate to weeds? We'd end up with "super weeds" that are totally unstoppable.

I don't think it's anything to do with "messing with God's work", it's a fear of tinkering with a staggeringly complex system of life of which we understand about the first snowflake on the tip of the iceberg. Humans, in their scientific arrogance have made mistakes like that before, like thalidomide. At least that was a problem that could be contained. Once new genes are "out there" they're there for good so we'd better be damn sure we know all the possible effects before careering ahead with this stuff.

Michael.

 

Interesting point about the Monsanto strategy, tones - I see definite similarities between their strategy and those of what would usually be referred to in the tabloid press as drug pushers(alongside demands that said drug pusher should be strung up/shot/etc). Strange that marketing prowess allows one to be a successful business whilst the other is labelled as a criminal, don't you think?

 

Michael, your thoughts echo mine almost exactly. I work in an industry where I see at first hand the staggering complexity of natural systems. I find the whole business awesome. However, by introducing genes into plants, we are putting crude unknowns into complex equations, and we really have no idea what we are doing in the long term. The DNA strands between the genes are considered "inactive", meaning, we have no idea what this stuff does. An enzyme has a theoretrical possibility of a million different conformations in space. In fact, it only ever adopts one. Nobody knows how or why.

So into this amazing system we come with our hob-nail boots. The idea of feeding the poor is nonsense, because the poor can't afford either the GM crops or the herbicide. And the argument that "we're only speeding up natural processes" is also nonsense - especially when you're adding fish genes to tomatoes! It's all about a fast buck. Monsanto took the lead and Syngenta (the former agro divisions of Novartis and Zeneca) and others have followed.

And, yes, you're right, farmers are forbidden to collect the seeds for reuse and some have been sued for patent infringement. I don't think I could ever in good conscience work in such an industry.

 

Of course, it all pales into insignificance alongside the foulest, most iniquitous government-industry plot of all - tobacco.

 

it's a bit late to start worrying about the ecostructure surely? we've been messing with that ever since man first lit a fire or farmed a piece of land. as for gm crops being too expensive surely thats more down to western price fixing and paying farmers NOT to produce - never understood that one really.
a gm crop that allowed a fuel oil to be extracted at 1/5 th the cost of traditional rape seed is surely what the world needs about now.
as for the 'terminator gene' surely this is a good thing? especially if you are worried about cross pollination etc?
as for the ground becoming over farmed? why not have a gm crop that will grow in winter that can be ploughed back into the field at the start of spring in order to add nutrients back into the earth - not sure if this is possible but photosynthesis can do some marvelous things and it seems to work for the rain forrests - but then i'm just guessing.
cheers


julian

 

So why are the government so keen ........... (lonely silence)

 

Julian, are you saying, "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die"? Surely not! Surely we have to at least try to preserve the planet for future generations - don't we? So that your kids and mine will inherit something more than a big mess? Mankind has certainly had an impact on the environment, courtesy of resources utilisation and increasing numbers, but with GM crops, we're taking a huge leap into the dark - and all because some companies want to make money.

Because that is the major harvest for GM crops, money for the companies and shareholder value. These are expensive crops, far beyond the means of any Third World sustinence farmer. There is a direct analogy with the pharmaceutical industry - like Tom Lehrer's friend Professor Gall, they specialise in diseases of the rich. Look at their pipelines and try to find drugs for tropical diseases - they are few and far between, because these are poor men's diseases and nobody will put in the money for little return. As Michael said, Novartis, Merck, GSK, Roche, etc. are not charitable institutes, and this unfortunately is a symptom of our world and our desire to increase shareholder value (once known as greed).

AFAIK, the so-called "terminator gene" never worked satisfactorily and has never been used. And the crop scenario you mention, while theoretically possible, does not exist in reality. You have clearly heard the theoretical promises of GM (so have I - as the owner of 5 Syngenta shares (via Novartis out of Sandoz), I get its annual reports), but we're a looooong way from them, and if there isn't a fast £/€/$ in it for the companies, they simply won't do it.

Speaking of money, I see from this morning's "Basler Zeitung" that Monsanto is attacking Syngenta in the USA for patent infringement of one of the "Roundup-ready" maizes. As St. Paul put it 2,000 years ago, the love of money is the root of all evil.

 

Tones,

Old Bean,

Whilst I fully respect your views on GM, you seem to have rather a contradictory position here. On one hand you are saying things like 'I don't think I could ever in good conscience work in such an industry', but on the other hand you part own and share the profits of one of the companies that make GM products.

Anybody heard of Golden Rice?

 

tones,
sorry the point i was trying to make - and poorly, was this: we as a race have risen to the 'top of the tree' by dint of our brains and inventiveness. to suddenly turn our back on technology which could improve our lives and help the environment because of fear is not a healthy trait. i'm not saying we should rush in but something as potentially beneficial as genetic modification should not be dismissed out of hand. certainly if my descendants can live in a world where they have no fear of cancer, diabetes, altzheimers etc. all because of a gm research i'd be more than happy. similarly if they can live on a world where pollution is controlled by a benign gm bacteria or their cars are fuelled by gm diesel then i'd be over the moon.

as i said before the one saving grace of capitalism (imho) is that it forces prices down so that one day those gm crops WILL be within the reach of 3rd world farmers, in fact i'd guess that a lot of gm crops will be specificly designed FOR 3rd world farmers on the principle of it's better to sell a lot for a little than a little for a lot.

in popular opinion gm = evil. this is mainly what i object to, as has been said the consequences are largely unknown but this shouldn't stop us from experimenting as safely as we can until we DO know what will happen.
cheers



julian

 

I agree Jules, it could have its uses, but needs to be HIGHLY regulated and the compnaies placed strict rules on how to conduct.

The way it was done is abhorrent, there is no way it should have been planted outdoors. They reckowned 100 yards around it from other crops....pollen goes miles and miles.

Indoors, tightly controlled, yes.

I used to buy some lovely egg custards from tesco, yet on the ingredients were maize from GM stuff. They just chucked it in, without knowing the long term consequences of it. I found that reckless and even underhand, the stuff was invading our foods en masse. It just appeared.

 

News to me, Robbo, tell me more... AFAIK, I work for a company that makes flavours and fragrances and absolutely nothing else. I know of no connection with the agro business. I once did agrochemicals (herbicides, etc.) and I have no difficulty with that - it's the genetic manipulation that bothers me. Thankfully, I never have to do that - and even if I did, I couldn't, because I'm not a biotechnologist! (Even spelling that last word correctly was a major effort!)