Public seminar on GM foods next week in RDS

BrendanBurgess

I think it's very important that the proponents and opponents of GM Foods are subjected to critical thinking. Likewise we have to take a sceptical view towards incineration and nuclear power. This should be a reasonably balanced debate. I am planning to go. Anyone else interested?


Institute of Biology Ireland

Seminar on GMO's

RDS Library Tuesday 24th January

6.30 GM Crops and the Threat to Biodiversity. A sheep in wolves clothing
Conor Meade, NUI Maynooth

7pm Can GM crops do the job?
Ewen Mullins, Teagasc

7.30pm Maximising food production, maintaining biodiversity - the debate
Edward Walsh, UCC

8pm Open Q& A Discussion

This seminar is free and open to all.
To confirm a place contact Johanna Suhr, RDS Science Department, 01 240 7255
or Johanna.suhr@rds.ie

lostexpectation

all those ppl are totally pro gm!

that eddie walsh guy claims that gm crops are the answer to world hunger, a dangerously ridiclous claim

Yossie

lostexpectation wrote:

all those ppl are totally pro gm!

that eddie walsh guy claims that gm crops are the answer to world hunger, a dangerously ridiclous claim

From what I hear Walsh is of the opinion that GM can't single-handedly answer world hunger. He pushes for continued money for research for standard plant-breeding - But i might be wrong.

As regards "dangerously ridiclous" claims, it appears to me that the pervailing irrational loony claims are on the side of the anti-GM movement, some of these bordering on extreme-ludditism. (Not that free-reign should be given to Monsanto et al.)

lostexpectation

Yossie wrote:

From what I hear Walsh is of the opinion that GM can't single-handedly answer world hunger. He pushes for continued money for research for standard plant-breeding - But i might be wrong.

As regards "dangerously ridiclous" claims, it appears to me that the pervailing irrational loony claims are on the side of the anti-GM movement, some of these bordering on extreme-ludditism. (Not that free-reign should be given to Monsanto et al.)

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0331/primetime.html

I think he says it three times....

Yossie

I'm afraid lostexpectation, that you are mistaken.

These are two different men. One is a plant breeder from UCD who spoke at the above meeting and who's opinion is as I implied. The other is a geneticist from TCD, who is supportive of GM (and with whom I would agree, although not about the benign nature of multinationals).

http://www.ucd.ie/chf/eddie.htm

http://www.tcd.ie/Genetics/staff/David_McConnell.html


That meeting I would imagine, was quiet fair and objective.

lostexpectation

Eddie Walsh is the guy in the first section I was talking about ? Im not sure now, is that not him, in the report bit not the discussion bit.

Yossie

lostexpectation wrote:

Eddie Walsh is the guy in the first section I was talking about ? I’m not sure now, is that not him, in the report bit not the discussion bit.

Sorry lostexpection, you're right. That is him i.e. Eddie Walsh, in the report. (And McConnell is in the discussion.)

I have seen him (EW) speak before though, where he bemoans the amount of money and research going into GM compared to conventional plant-breeding and that GM can't on its own solve the problem, as I claimed. But he was always in favour of both. As he says in the report that "we need to deploy all of our arsenal of techniques" for future sufficient food production. His Malthusian predictions are a bit on the dramatic side but his point is valid.

I don't think many people believe GM on its own is the answer, a point that is obvious from the fact we have more than enough food to feed the world at the mo and yet it doesn't happen. Plenty of money, politics, distribution problems, etc., in the mix as well.

I just believe there is nothing inherently wrong/bad with GM technologies (whatever about the politics of the ownership of the means of production). And from where I stand it is the claims of the reactionary anti-GM groups that are dangerously ridiculous and who run only a “crying Wolf!” scare campaign.

lostexpectation

Yossie wrote:

Sorry lostexpection, you're right. That is him i.e. Eddie Walsh, in the report. (And McConnell is in the discussion.)

I just believe there is nothing inherently wrong/bad with GM technologies (whatever about the politics of the ownership of the means of production).

well its a little harder for anti-gm to run campaigns and they misconstrued by tabloids too..

but I find it hard to seperate aggresive copyrighting from GM...

samb

Yossie wrote:

As regards "dangerously ridiclous" claims, it appears to me that the pervailing irrational loony claims are on the side of the anti-GM movement, some of these bordering on extreme-ludditism. (Not that free-reign should be given to Monsanto et al.)

I would agree, most of the anti-GM loonies are using scare tactics. The risks around GM food are about Biodiversity not human health. These health freaks are oppsessed with organic food. They think it is so much healthier. You will eat less pesticides, yes (for certian foods, all regulated anyway). But what about chemical fertilisers, these have made food much cheaper and have no health implications. If applied properly also have no environmental consequences. We should have a new label for foods that have no pesticides but where fertilizers have been used. They have stollen the word organic and changed it, I want it back. All life is organic.
Thier are risks with regard biodiversity and control of mulinationals but don't blame the science.

lostexpectation

samb wrote:

I would agree, most of the anti-GM loonies are using scare tactics. The risks around GM food are about Biodiversity not human health. These health freaks are oppsessed with organic food. They think it is so much healthier. You will eat less pesticides, yes (for certian foods, all regulated anyway). But what about chemical fertilisers, these have made food much cheaper and have no health implications. If applied properly also have no environmental consequences. We should have a new label for foods that have no pesticides but where fertilizers have been used. They have stollen the word organic and changed it, I want it back. All life is organic.
Thier are risks with regard biodiversity and control of mulinationals but don't blame the science.

where have the the anti-gm loonies said that gm will affect human health directly more then or to the exclusion talking about biodiversity and control worries?

looking at gm has made me look more at what conventional farming is...

what exactly does "chemical" mean? what are pesticides? I know there is a long history of putting minerals etc on soil etc, but a mineral is natural and so should be allowed under the term organic?? is that what you mean?

where does something like DDT go beyond that?

what word would you use to distinguish what we know of as organic farming?

is this arguement about nitrates about "chemical fertilisers" or organic slurry ? both which can and have afffected the environment/water... due to overuse?

isn't it the gm companies that always frame the arguement to be about science? , and not emotion, or in other words democracy and ethics as I like to call it? which one can't bypass by simply claiming scientific safety...

samb

B]where have the the anti-gm loonies said that gm will affect human health directly more then or to the exclusion talking about biodiversity and control worries?
All I mean is that many anti-gm people seem to me to concentrate on human health concerns. I am not blindly pro-gm, I believe they need to be strictly controlled because of the real and significant risks they could pose to biodiversity.

looking at gm has made me look more at what conventional farming is...

what exactly does "chemical" mean? what are pesticides? I know there is a long history of putting minerals etc on soil etc, but a mineral is natural and so should be allowed under the term organic?? is that what you mean?

Yes kind of. Maybe we should just abandon the ''organic'' word in this context. We could then refer to foods as pesticide free. Chemical fertilizers are artifiacally produced but are the same as organic slurry in terms of the risk to water quality. When/ and how much you spread is important. Organic farms can pollute also therefore if not managed carefully.

where does something like DDT go beyond that?
Well the definition of natural is dodgy. Pesticides are harmfull to all cells (are poisons really) and are therefore undesirable even in small quantities. I know they may be needed, from a human health perspective they are an issue, but GM and fertilizers are not.

what word would you use to distinguish what we know of as organic farming?
an environmental certification that is administered by an teagsc or equivalents in other countries. Certifing that farming is carried out using best practice environmentaly. Such standards exist for other industries.

is this arguement about nitrates about "chemical fertilisers" or organic slurry ? both which can and have afffected the environment/water... due to overuse?

Exactly, both can. A farm certified as organic can pollute just as a conventional farmer.

isn't it the gm companies that always frame the arguement to be about science? , and not emotion, or in other words democracy and ethics as I like to call it? which one can't bypass by simply claiming scientific safety...

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying we should not trust science generally? If it is scientifically safe then that is important. The economic and social issues that could arise are important, I agree. If there is exploitation of farmers by large companies then that is a matter for legislators not scientists. The science has the potential for great good, but we must use it wisely.

DadaKopf

Tom Arnold, the CEO of Concern, and member of the UN Hunger Task Force presents a much more nuanced argument, and says clearly that both sides of the GM debate are being lazy by entrenching themselves in extreme positions.

The reality is that GM can be a force for good - for example, careful science may be able to deliver more robust crops capable of better feeding the world's starving populations without damaging biodiversity - but there is a legitimate question about the source of so-called 'research' on the subject because the vast wealth and power of the biotech corporations are influencing research in their interests and swaying government policies at every level. At the same time, people and organisations who are legitimately concerned, even frightened, at any potential dangers of GMOs sometimes end up producing research that unhelpfully retrenches extreme anti-GM standpoints.

But even if you assumed that the research is genuine, objectively verifiable, good, disinterested research, GMOs may not achieve what its advocates and marketeers say if the world's major corporations fix international trading rules so that they work against things like development, disease prevention, eradication of hunger because these GMOs are still in the hands of the rich countries and, rather than the benefits (wealth) flowing to the users (the world's poor, which GM is supposed to benefit, so we're told), they flow back to the rich countries. So the GM debate is significantly a political issue. As the recent WTO ruling demonstrates. Or this from today's Irish Times:

Monsanto link to trade talks delegation denied
Seán MacConnell

The Department of Agriculture yesterday denied a claim by Independent Senator David Norris that a representative of the chemical company, Monsanto was on the official Irish delegation to the World Trade Organisation talks in Hong Kong last December.

[Article continues ...]

Surely the most important question is the power of the pharmaceutical and biotech TNCs over knowledge creation and governments and multilateral institutions.

I think from a Skeptic's point of view, if Irish Skeptics take themselves seriously, they would call for genuinely independent research on the issue because it damages scientific method and the legitimacy of science itself to allow it to be hijacked by corporate pirates. I do think that high quality research that tends towards concern about the potential effects of GMOs would in general be more trustworthy.