GM crops

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 6:55 am

One of Scotland's top agricultural scientists has warned the country will pay a heavy price if it turns its back on genetically modified crops. :rolleyes:

No GM crops have been grown here since the protests in 2003 & i dont want them to ever be, we've enough enviromental issues to deal with Prof Davies thank you very much.

One of the most attractive things about Scotland compared to many countries is its 'largely unspoiled environment' 10 million other farmers worldwide have their finger in the pie. I'sent that enough? Your thoughts on GM crops?

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:26 am

nahh you don't wanna hear my rant, being from a farming family. :wah:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:30 am

buttercup;653021 wrote: Your thoughts on GM crops?
It goes against nature and is just plain wrong.

I sure don't want any part of it.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:35 am

Sheryl;653057 wrote: nahh you don't wanna hear my rant, being from a farming family. :wah:

Actually Sheryl i would like to hear your thoughts on it.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:38 am

Do ya'll even know what the plants have been altered for?

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:45 am

Genetically Modified (GM) foods are produced from genetically modified organisms (GMO) which have had their genome altered through genetic engineering techniques. The general principle of producing a GMO is to insert DNA that has been taken from another organism and modified in the laboratory into an organism's genome to produce both new and useful traits or phenotypes. Typically this is done using DNA from certain types of bacteria.

That's all i need to know to be against it. I'm still interested in what you think the benefits are, other than money?

Or are farmers not in it for the money? If not, what are they in it for?

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:03 am

Genetically Modified (GM) foods are produced from genetically modified organisms (GMO) which have had their genome altered through genetic engineering techniques. The general principle of producing a GMO is to insert DNA that has been taken from another organism and modified in the laboratory into an organism's genome to produce both new and useful traits or phenotypes. Typically this is done using DNA from certain types of bacteria.

That's all you know, and that's what makes you against it? The altering is a good thing. It helps farmer's be more efficiant. If corn is altered so that it's resistant to European Corn Borer (major pest in corn) means that the farmer doesn't have to spray pesticide on the field.

Alot of people think they know what is involved in farming, but they don't. It's easier to listen to folks rants or raves about the practices of farming.

There are pro's and cons of GM crops. But isn't there pro's and cons on everything else?

Here's some other readings.

Debate 1

a factsheet

and something else

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:26 am

I'm by no means an expert on the subject Sheryl but yeah i know a bit more than what i posted in the post you refer too. I will of course view your links, in the meantime you may be kind enough to ponder these comments whilst i browse your links.

Tests showing that pollen from GM maize in the United States caused damage to the caterpillars of Monarch butterflies. This GM maize is not under test. You ok with that?

If conventional and organic crops are contaminated by GM crops, people who wish to avoid GM food products will be denied choice. You ok with that?

What sort of world do you want to live in? The kind that seeks to work with or against nature?

Who is responsible if there is damage to human health, the environment or both?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:42 am

buttercup;653021 wrote: Your thoughts on GM crops?

We don't know enough about how our environment works now, let alone what might happen if we start making artificial organisms to put into it. Tinkering about with things is not necessary, and could have very nasty side-effects. No thanks.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:51 am

Sheryl;653087 wrote: Here's some other readings.

Debate 1

a factsheet

and something else

The first compares apples and oranges, i.e. selective breeding with genetic engineering. It's irrelevant.

The second is just a "factsheet" about who's using what. Not much use.

The third says that some GM'd things are safe to eat, not mentioning potential environmental damage.

One of the only useful ways we ourselves can prevent GM crops from being introduced far more widely is to boycot consumer products containing them. Guess which group of people is protesting about mandatory labelling requirements!

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:53 am

buttercup;653111 wrote: I'm by no means an expert on the subject Sheryl but yeah i know a bit more than what i posted in the post you refer too. I will of course view your links, in the meantime you may be kind enough to ponder these comments whilst i browse your links.

Tests showing that pollen from GM maize in the United States caused damage to the caterpillars of Monarch butterflies. This GM maize is not under test. You ok with that?
Studies have shown that there was no harm done to caterpillars from bt corn (GM Maize)

In May 1999, a laboratory at Cornell University published the results from a laboratory trial that appeared to indicate that the pollen of genetically modified Bt corn presented a threat to monarch caterpillars. Critics claimed that the popular media was wrong to report that monarch butterflies were threatened because this experiment did not duplicate natural conditions under which monarch caterpillars may come in contact with corn pollen. (Cornell News, 1999)

In 2001 the scientific journal the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published six comprehensive studies that showed that Bt corn pollen does not pose a risk to monarch populations for the following reasons:

The density of Bt corn pollen that overlay milkweed leaves in the environment rarely comes close to the levels needed to harm monarch butterflies. Both laboratory and field studies confirmed this.

There is limited overlap between the period that Bt corn sheds pollen and when caterpillars are present.

Only a portion of the monarch caterpillar population feeds on milkweeds in and near cornfields.

(Sears, et al., 2001)

Monarch populations in the USA during 1999 increased by 30%, despite Bt corn accounting for 30% of all corn grown in the USA that year. The beneficial affects of Bt corn on Monarch populations have been attributed to reduced pesticide use. (Trewavas and Leaver, 2001).

If conventional and organic crops are contaminated by GM crops, people who wish to avoid GM food products will be denied choice. You ok with that?
The organic crops have to be planted extremely close to the Gm crop for that much cross pollination.

What sort of world do you want to live in? The kind that seeks to work with or against nature?

Well I'd like to live in a world where no one went hungry. GM crops have helped Africa increase it's output of food. And I think if scientists can help more people with alternating crops to make them more efficient then it's a good thing. Other scientists are doing same things for medicines.

Who is responsible if there is damage to human health, the environment or both?

I think we both know who would be held accountable IF such a thing was to be unanimously proved.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 9:03 am

Sheryl;653132 wrote: Studies have shown that there was no harm done to caterpillars from bt corn (GM Maize)

This topic is the subject of acrimonious debate, and both sides of the argument are defending their data vigorously. Currently, there is no agreement about the results of these studies, and the potential risk of harm to non-target organisms will need to be evaluated further. Personally i'm for err on the side of caution.

The organic crops have to be planted extremely close to the Gm crop for that much cross pollination.

They are

Well I'd like to live in a world where no one went hungry. GM crops have helped Africa increase it's output of food. And I think if scientists can help more people with alternating crops to make them more efficient then it's a good thing. Other scientists are doing same things for medicines.

Yeah good idea use Africa as the guinea pig where you will get away with safety testing, regulation, international policy and food labeling.

I think we both know who would be held accountable IF such a thing was to be unanimously proved.

Something for you to think about if your involved in it.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 9:06 am

Well we all have our opinions.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 9:13 am

So you prefer to have the crops sprayed with pesticide and herbicide to eat? And secondly you like the risk of having expensive food should there ever be a major outbreak of pests or funges in the fields?

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:17 pm

Sheryl;653072 wrote: Do ya'll even know what the plants have been altered for?

Yes, but you won't like it when I tell you.

They have been modified to maximise corporate profits. To name but one such corporation I give you Monsanto.

Genetically Modified plants are sterile, thus farmers cannot set aside some of their own home-grown seed for use next planting season.

For subsistence farmers in Africa, this is a serious problem as they exist on a shoe-string anyway. If these farmers can't set aside some seed for planting they will have to buy more of the GM stuff, leaving even less money for their living expenses.

That's without looking at the environmental effects of using GM plants. Analysis of the effects of GM crops on the environment would have to be a long term project (50+ years).

As far as your point about spraying fields, why do it? Ditch the chemicals and pesticides, accept a slightly lower yield per acre and you'll find through time that you don't actually need all expensive concoctions you're buying.

In my opinion, the world can't afford GM foods.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:40 pm

Sheryl;653132 wrote: COLOR="SeaGreen"]Well I'd like to live in a world where no one went hungry. GM crops have helped Africa increase it's output of food.

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?ar ... eid=260937

Comments, please.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:42 pm

Chookie;653265 wrote: Genetically Modified plants are sterile

They can cross with other plants:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Stor ... 28,00.html

Chookie;653265 wrote: In my opinion, the world can't afford GM foods.

AOL.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:05 pm

What did we do in the 1800s before we covered everything with bug killer?!

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:17 pm

Bill Sikes;653356 wrote: They can cross with other plants:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Stor ... 28,00.html

Yes, but they can't reproduce within their own species.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:27 pm

Chookie;653265 wrote: Yes, but you won't like it when I tell you.

They have been modified to maximise corporate profits. To name but one such corporation I give you Monsanto.

Genetically Modified plants are sterile, thus farmers cannot set aside some of their own home-grown seed for use next planting season.

For subsistence farmers in Africa, this is a serious problem as they exist on a shoe-string anyway. If these farmers can't set aside some seed for planting they will have to buy more of the GM stuff, leaving even less money for their living expenses.

That's without looking at the environmental effects of using GM plants. Analysis of the effects of GM crops on the environment would have to be a long term project (50+ years).

As far as your point about spraying fields, why do it? Ditch the chemicals and pesticides, accept a slightly lower yield per acre and you'll find through time that you don't actually need all expensive concoctions you're buying.

In my opinion, the world can't afford GM foods.

The majority of farmers don't grow crops for seed. Here's the deal with ditching everything and accepting lower yields, food prices go up. Are you willing to spend more on food?

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:36 pm

Sheryl;653389 wrote: The majority of farmers don't grow crops for seed. Here's the deal with ditching everything and accepting lower yields, food prices go up. Are you willing to spend more on food?

No farmers grow crops purely for seed. Subsistence farmers pre-GM seeds used to put aside a portion of their harvest for re-planting.

Your point about food prices going up is answered by the fact that food quality also goes up. And yes, I am prepared to spend more on food.

What about addressing my concerns about environmental effects?

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:36 pm

Chookie;653265 wrote: Yes, but you won't like it when I tell you.

They have been modified to maximize corporate profits. To name but one such corporation I give you Monsanto.

Genetically Modified plants are sterile, thus farmers cannot set aside some of their own home-grown seed for use next planting season.

No they are not sterile. We have corn that comes up in our wheat crops every year, we refer to it as volunteer corn

For subsistence farmers in Africa, this is a serious problem as they exist on a shoe-string anyway. If these farmers can't set aside some seed for planting they will have to buy more of the GM stuff, leaving even less money for their living expenses.

That's without looking at the environmental effects of using GM plants. Analysis of the effects of GM crops on the environment would have to be a long term project (50+ years).

As far as your point about spraying fields, why do it? Ditch the chemicals and pesticides, accept a slightly lower yield per acre and you'll find through time that you don't actually need all expensive concoctions you're buying.

In my opinion, the world can't afford GM foods.

There is always gonna be pro's and cons of all biotechnology.

Bill Sikes;653353 wrote: http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?ar ... eid=260937

Comments, please.

Like I stated before, there are always the pro groups and the con groups. Link for pro

RedGlitter;653371 wrote: What did we do in the 1800s before we covered everything with bug killer?!

Farming during this time was mainly for families. Farms were alot smaller than they are now.

Chookie;653397 wrote: No farmers grow crops purely for seed. Subsistence farmers pre-GM seeds used to put aside a portion of their harvest for re-planting.

Your point about food prices going up is answered by the fact that food quality also goes up. And yes, I am prepared to spend more on food.

What about addressing my concerns about environmental effects?

My father n law has farmed for over 4 decades, and he never grew crops just for seed. The majority of the crops went to feed for cattle or human consumption.

As to the environmental concerns, that's an unknown. But I'm the type of person who believes if there's more reason for good from something, don't let the possible bad hold you back. Genetic mutations happen naturally all the time. Super weeds already exist, example bindweed or Morning glories.

I just want to say tho, this is and will be an ongoing debate. I don't think anyone is gonna change another person's mind.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:28 am

Sheryl;653581 wrote: As to the environmental concerns, that's an unknown. But I'm the type of person who believes if there's more reason for good from something, don't let the possible bad hold you back. Genetic mutations happen naturally all the time. Super weeds already exist, example bindweed or Morning glories.

Bindweed is a "super weed" in context? Please explain how.

So, genetic mutations happen naturally all the time. How, in nature, do you think that genetic material from a fish might find its way into a plant?

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:56 am

Bill Sikes;653701 wrote: Bindweed is a "super weed" in context? Please explain how.

So, genetic mutations happen naturally all the time. How, in nature, do you think that genetic material from a fish might find its way into a plant?

Well when a plant is almost impossible to kill, it's a superweed. And bindweed will choke out a corn field.

As to your second question, which seed has genetic material from a fish?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:09 am

Sheryl;653795 wrote: Well when a plant is almost impossible to kill, it's a superweed. And bindweed will choke out a corn field.

Bindweed is not a genetically engineered plant, is it.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:14 am

nope, it's wild morning glory

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:47 am

Sheryl;653795 wrote: As to your second question, which seed has genetic material from a fish?

I have no idea. However, in the last few years, animal genes have been used in plants.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:14 am

Sheryl;653389 wrote: The majority of farmers don't grow crops for seed. Here's the deal with ditching everything and accepting lower yields, food prices go up. Are you willing to spend more on food?

Actually ion europe the opposition to GM crops is such that supermarkets at one point were taking them off the shelves because. Organic food is one of the fastest growing areas. So yes people are prepared to pay more for their food. After the BSE crisis caused by some food scientists who thought it was a good idea to feed animal protein to cows it would be fair to say that many are rather distrustful of agribusinesses that tell us they have our interests at heart.

There is also concern about the effect GM crops combined with the insecticide and pesticide would have on the ecology. The UK is one of the most intensely farmed couintries on the planet. It is only now our rivers and streams are recovering from decades of industrial pollution and overuse of pesticides etc on farms. It's slightly worrying when you find out the sex of fish is changing due to oestrogen getting in to the water table.

Our opposition to GM crops and the use of hormones in cattle is one of the big bones of contention between the EU and USA. Thank god we're in the EU because left to Tony we would have the stuff imported. It seems to be portrayed in the US press as anti-americanism. It's not, it's an informed public that is very hostile to the whole idea.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:42 am

Yes Organic farming is a fast growing movement. But it will never be the sole way to farm, because it's to volatile. Billions of people would starve. Also organic foods run a higher risk of making folks sick via salmonella or e coli.

As for the growth hormones in cattle, I can honestly say our cattle were never given hormones. The only animals I've ever heard of getting growth hormones were show animals, which we didn't own or breed. Hormones make for tough meat, and I don't know about you, but I prefer my steaks tender.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:03 pm

Sheryl;653911 wrote: organic foods run a higher risk of making folks sick via salmonella or e coli.

But they run no risk whatsoever of producing a catastrophe such as might be produced by "genetically engineered" products.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:35 pm

ok if you say so... :rolleyes: :wah:

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:24 pm

Sheryl;654020 wrote: ok if you say so... rolleyes: wah:

So am I right, or have you run out of ideas? I only ask because of the meaningless "rollseyes" and "wah" you posted. Which is it?

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:29 pm

it's because I'm tired of arguing a mute point!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:34 pm

People should have a choice in whether they eat them or not. If those who promote GM crops get their way we would not be able to tell which is which. The fact that those who want us to accept these things also oppose clear labelling speaks volumes about their attitude.

posted by sheryl

Also organic foods run a higher risk of making folks sick via salmonella or e coli.

Why on earth do you believe that to be the case? They might spoil a bit sooner but food poisoning is down to storage and cooking surely?

The opposition is in part also due to the effects it has on the environment. GM crops used in conjunction with designer insecticides has a knock on effect on the wildlife that feed on the insects. Recently there has been concern at the decline in the wild bird population as a result.

You have a major problem just now with bees dying off. maybe there is a connection to GM crops and the use of insecticides-who knows

http://abfnet.org/news/honey-bee-die-of ... searchers/

http://www.scitizen.com/screens/blogPag ... bution=703

Not sure how up to date this is

http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/ ... s_meat.htm

A. The European Economic Community banned hormone-raised meat because of questions on the dangers of meat that has been treated with synthetic sex hormones. European consumers pressured the EEC to take this action to protect their health.

This is perhaps more recent.

http://www.preventcancer.com/press/rele ... y31_99.htm

We rather feel the same way about GM crops. US importers have a nasty habit of mixing GM and non GM crops together and them claiming discrimination when EU countries refuse to accept it. American brown rice recently disappeared from our shelves for just that reason.