why the Greens hate GM?

ei.sdraob

From an economic (and many other) points of view why do the greens hate GM (genetic modification)?

there are flowers developed that consume harmful gases, or cool factory grounds they are planted on > http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=66761&vf=1

or how about grass that snuffs out hayfever > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3843-genetically-modified-grass-snuffs-out-hayfever.html

or algae that create hydrogen or other fuels > http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=biofuels&id=19438


by banning GM research in Ireland, the Greens are ensuring that a part of the "smart economy" that can produce solutions to todays environmental and humanitarian problems is killed in its tracks


and whats worse is that Genetic modification is same process as farmers employ in selective breeding, except on a more compressed timeline

why kill scientific research and new engineering potentials in this country due to a green dogma and wish to revert to feudal/medieval serfdom?

discuss?

leninbenjamin

because of the fears that the introduction of GM flora could be as harmful to the local environment as the introduction of non-native flora by the British were.

For example: watch how local Irish oak is smothered and entire forests destroyed by runaway Rhododendron.

P. Breathnach

leninbenjamin wrote: »

... the introduction of non-native flora by the British ...

Jaysus! Something else to hate the British for.

bonkey

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and whats worse is that Genetic modification is same process as farmers employ in selective breeding, except on a more compressed timeline

Farmers could create hydrogen-producing algae, if only given a bit more time?

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Jaysus! Something else to hate the British for.

they also chopped down most of the Irish forests the hate list grows

Farmers could create hydrogen-producing algae, if only given a bit more time?

farmers in Ireland can only milk EU grants it seems

Linoge

leninbenjamin wrote: »

because of the fears that the introduction of GM flora could be as harmful to the local environment as the introduction of non-native flora by the British were.

For example: watch how local Irish oak is smothered and entire forests destroyed by runaway Rhododendron.

Thats when uncontrolled, alien plants are introduced. The GM flora are mostly crops that need to be sown.

We already cultivate and protect most of these crops using fertilizers and pesticides. Surely it is better for the environment if we do not use these?

Man has been gentically modifying food for thousands of years through the much slower process of domestication (eg. seedless bananas and grapes). I feel that genetic engineering is just a natural (irony unintended) progression.

ei.sdraob

Linoge wrote: »

Thats when uncontrolled, alien plants are introduced. The GM flora are mostly crops that need to be sown.

We already cultivate and protect most of these crops using fertilizers and pesticides. Surely it is better for the environment if we do not use these?

Man has been gentically modifying food for thousands of years through the much slower process of domestication (eg. seedless bananas and grapes). I feel that genetic engineering is just a natural (irony unintended) progression.

Spot on

what if instead of spraying crops with fertilizers and pesticides, modified crops that are resistant to disease or can grow on marginal soils are used?

how about the newly developed rice that provides vitamin A which is lacking in diets of poor in Asia?

and then theres the whole "organic" produce scam, we cant grow enough "organic" food to feed the whole population, never mind export or feed the rest of the world


like nuclear power the Greens are willing to put a blind eye on technology that can help solve problems today, and instead call for retardation into the stone age one way or another

i fear that the Greens just like moaning about the environment and other issues, but when it comes right down to it they are not willing to accept pragmatic solutions to problems, as a scientist and engineer I believe alto of the problems we face can be solved with technology not by burying our heads in sand and ignoring sensible solutions

making Ireland "GM free" just ensures we opt out of any potential or existing technologies that can solve our problems, thats just wrong

jmayo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

they also chopped down most of the Irish forests the hate list grows

farmers in Ireland can only milk EU grants it seems

Now now, I believe from another post on another thread you are moving to the country ??, so you should learn that most farmers would much rather be allowed produce rather than be hamstrung by EU.
Anyway that is another discussion.

This is probably just the one thing I would agree with greens on (can't believe I agree with those shytes on anything but hey).

AFAIK a lot of the advances being worked on in GM crops is to allow crops flourish in environments where they have major difficulties e.g dry arid, salty conditions, etc.
We actaully, apart from adverse weather, do not have major problems growing crops in this country.
Ok some soils are not suitable for any crops, but I don't think we need to come up with a variety of wheat or maize that grows in a bog just yet.
As regards making crops resistant to pests and not needing pesticides etc it does worry me a little as to what they are doing ?
Maybe I am thinking of triffids :eek:

As someone mentioned the Rhododendron is a bloody good example of what a plant that affectively outgrows everything else can do.
We don't really know what some of these GM crop varieties can do with regard to the natural varieties.

ei.sdraob

jmayo wrote: »

Now now, I believe from another post on another thread you are moving to the country ??, so you should learn that most farmers would much rather be allowed produce rather than be hamstrung by EU.
Anyway that is another discussion.

it was just a joke/observation

i know that most people think CAP is a bad idea, in a world where there are people going hungry to pay money not to grow food is obscene

leninbenjamin

Linoge wrote: »

Thats when uncontrolled, alien plants are introduced. The GM flora are mostly crops that need to be sown.

There's not much difference. Nobody intentionally let Rhodadendron loose in the wild. They were originally used for hedges in the gardens of colonial houses, which was a pretty controlled environment when you think about it.

It only takes one seed for Rhodadendron to kill an oak forest. In the moss that lines the floor of Oak forests their seeds have a 100% success rate. That was the point of my example. No matter how tightly controlled a plant, if it naturally germinates you can rarely account for all seeds if it's in the open air, and that may potentially be enough to do serious damage to the surrounding environment.

With GM you're talking about making plants that are hardier and produce more fruit. That means plants that are more likely to survive if introduced to the wild. That means the potential for increased damage to the environment.

Linoge wrote: »

We already cultivate and protect most of these crops using fertilizers and pesticides. Surely it is better for the environment if we do not use these?

Only if the damn things don't encroach on our own natural flora. In an ideal world it sounds like a great idea, but on paper GM crops have all the attributes to do some serious damage.

ei.sdraob

leninbenjamin wrote: »

There's not much difference. Nobody intentionally let Rhodadendron loose in the wild. They were originally used for hedges in the gardens of colonial houses, which was a pretty controlled environment when you think about it.

It only takes one seed for Rhodadendron to kill an oak forest. In the moss that lines the floor of Oak forests their seeds have a 100% success rate. That was the point of my example. No matter how tightly controlled a plant, if it naturally germinates you can rarely account for all seeds if it's in the open air, and that may potentially be enough to do serious damage to the surrounding environment.

With GM you're talking about making plants that are hardier and produce more fruit. That means plants that are more likely to survive if introduced to the wild. That means the potential for increased damage to the environment.



Only if the damn things don't encroach on our own natural flora. In an ideal world it sounds like a great idea, but on paper GM crops have all the attributes to do some serious damage.

modify the plant so the seeds are infertile

problem solved

thats actually what some companies already do to protect their "IP", this way the customer can only buy the seeds from the producer

leninbenjamin

ei.sdraob wrote: »

modify the plant so the seeds are infertile

problem solved

thats actually what some companies already do to protect their "IP", this way the customer can only buy the seeds from the producer

Well if that's the case across the board then my opinion against them would be greatly softened. I'd still advocate conservatism though towards their introduction at least until they become more established and their interaction with the local environment better documented.

ei.sdraob

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I'd still advocate conservatism though towards their introduction at least until they become more established and their interaction with the local environment better documented.

i understand your point its only good sense, like any technology caution and research is needed

but an outright ban on all GM as the Greens want, will mean no research into positives or negatives

so scientists here cant "document their interaction with the local environment better" or do any research for that matter


to put it into perspective this is like preventing software engineering research because software might fail and cause infrastructure such as powerplants to blow up or software might be used for downloading porno :eek: causing men to go blind :P

Heroditas

leninbenjamin wrote: »

because of the fears that the introduction of GM flora could be as harmful to the local environment as the introduction of non-native flora by the British were.

So no real proof then? Just fears?
How come that these "fears" are tolerated in the area of the environment while empirical evidence is needed in all other walks of life to prove something is harmful?
No wonder the Greens are considered cranks.
Is it any wonder the cry of "but it could be harmful to the environment" is becoming the 21st century equivalent of "but God will be angry"?

BroomBurner

Heroditas wrote: »

So no real proof then? Just fears?
How come that these "fears" are tolerated in the area of the environment while empirical evidence is needed in all other walks of life to prove something is harmful?
No wonder the Greens are considered cranks.
Is it any wonder the cry of "but it could be harmful to the environment" is becoming the 21st century equivalent of "but God will be angry"?

There are plenty of books and reports and scientific journals written about GM crops. There was enough evidence for the EU to ban them (albeit not on a grand enouch scale). Try getting yourself down to your local library, or to wherever the idiots in the Dept of Environment decided to move the ENFO library books to and have a read for yourself.

Just make sure you're not always reading something paid for by Monsanto, or any other major-league GM crop company (the coca-cola/nike/shell/habro of the GM world)

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

by banning GM research in Ireland, the Greens are ensuring that a part of the "smart economy" that can produce solutions to todays environmental and humanitarian problems is killed in its tracks

Hyperbole. There is no evidence that GM foods will solve environmental or humanitarian problems. Look at where there have been serious food shortages in the recent past - all of them have involved significant civil and political unrest.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and whats worse is that Genetic modification is same process as farmers employ in selective breeding, except on a more compressed timeline

Not true at all. There is an enormous difference between selectively breeding plants and altering the genetic make-up of plants.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

why kill scientific research and new engineering potentials in this country due to a green dogma and wish to revert to feudal/medieval serfdom?

I don't agree that GM research should be banned. But blind faith in silver bullets that will save us from ourselves is quite tiring.

Linoge wrote: »

We already cultivate and protect most of these crops using fertilizers and pesticides. Surely it is better for the environment if we do not use these?

You're setting it up as a false choice between
a) huge use of pesticides
b) GM
You really think there is no c)?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

modify the plant so the seeds are infertile

problem solved

thats actually what some companies already do to protect their "IP", this way the customer can only buy the seeds from the producer

Bingo. This is what GM today is really about.

There is no proof that GM crops increase yields but instead they require the farmer to purchase expensive seeds yearly (or the farmer is guilty of copyright infringement) and expensive herbicides that are the only ones that work with that particular GM plant. In fact Monsanto's biggest selling product is Round Up - a herbicide.

Most GM products, including most Monsanto products, are not even food stuffs but are involved in producing greater quantities of raw materials like cotton and soy for animal consumption.

Cross-pollination with other plants is another serious issue. It's like Pandora's box: once it's out there, it's practically impossible to contain. Many plants pollinate by wind - how are you going to protect the produce & fields of farmers and consumers who don't want to eat GM food? They certainly should have the right to choose.

avalon68

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and whats worse is that Genetic modification is same process as farmers employ in selective breeding, except on a more compressed timeline

That is a completely false statement.

marco_polo

While I think that we should adopt a fairly cautious approach to the research and adoption of GM products, it would be folly not to explore some of the potential benefits that it could bring.

I am of the opinion that developments like this should not be simply dismissed out of hand (And yes I can see what company is involved).

Certainly the fact that some corporations are less than wholesome in their operations thus far is very weak argument against GM research. What it is, is a argument for stricter regulations on GM crop producers. Some pharmaceutical giants have been involved in unsavoury practices in the past, and there is no-one would advocate halting medical research.

EDIT: Just to clarify my position further, if the choice was between no GM products and under researched GM products, then I would choose the former.

Macha

marco_polo wrote: »

I am of the opinion that developments like this should not be simply dismissed out of hand (And yes I can see what company is involved).

Sure, dismissing GM is not a good idea at all. But we have to be clear about what we want to achieve and if GM will help us reach those goals.

marco_polo wrote: »

Certainly the fact that some corporations are less than wholesome in their operations thus far is very weak argument against GM research. What it is, is a argument for stricter regulations on GM crop producers. Some pharmaceutical giants have been involved in unsavoury practices in the past, and there is no-one advocating stopping medical research.

There's a difference between the huge field that is medical research and the specific science of GM foods.

I don't think that we should dismiss GM because of who is advocating it but at the same time the question of "who benefits" is an important one. After all, the whole point of GM is to improve food supply, reduce use of pesticides, water etc. If all it's doing is generating big profits for agri-giants like Monsanto then thanks but no thanks.

dvpower

leninbenjamin wrote: »

With GM you're talking about making plants that are hardier and produce more fruit. That means plants that are more likely to survive if introduced to the wild. That means the potential for increased damage to the environment.

I though that one of the major points against GM was that the seeds were incapable of repropagation and that farmers would need to continually go back to companies like Monsanto to pay them again and again?

thb, I've no major problem with GM. I've been eating those new orange carrots for years now.

marco_polo

taconnol wrote: »

Sure, dismissing GM is not a good idea at all. But we have to be clear about what we want to achieve and if GM will help us reach those goals.


There's a difference between the huge field that is medical research and the specific science of GM foods.

I don't think that we should dismiss GM because of who is advocating it but at the same time the question of "who benefits" is an important one. After all, the whole point of GM is to improve food supply, reduce use of pesticides, water etc. If all it's doing is generating big profits for agri-giants like Monsanto then thanks but no thanks.

Can't say I disagree with any of that.

Although I do think that there are certain parallels with certain fields of medical research into genetic diseases for example, one being the patenting of gene discoveries for exclusive research, against the very real argument that it slows down scientific progress - but that is a whole other thread. I will conceed it was for the most part perhaps a teeny strawman

Macha

TBH I hate the environmentalists who have a knee-jerk reaction to all new technology, including GMO - they make us all appear to be Luddites.

Having said that, I don't know enough about it to say a definitive yes or no. Either way, all decisions on new technology must be based on fact and solid research.

brianthebard

dvpower wrote: »

I though that one of the major points against GM was that the seeds were incapable of repropagation and that farmers would need to continually go back to companies like Monsanto to pay them again and again?

thb, I've no major problem with GM. I've been eating those new orange carrots for years now.

I think its more that Monsanto have patented the seeds so that you aren't allow store them to plant later. They have sued many farmers who have consciously or unconsciously been growing Monsanto crops without a contract. They have been working on the so called 'terminator gene' (or something similar) that would stop plants being capable of producing fertile seeds. This has huge, deadly possible consequences. It is also worth noting that almost all GM crops have not been developed as hardier varieties, or bigger harverters, but simply contain a roundup resistant chemical embedded in the seeds dna which means the Monsanto weedkiller doesn't kill the wheat or whatever.

taconnol wrote: »

TBH I hate the environmentalists who have a knee-jerk reaction to all new technology, including GMO - they make us all appear to be Luddites.

Sometimes its ok to be a luddite http://www.themodernword.com/Pynchon/pynchon_essays_luddite.html

(sorry just really liked the article, doesn't have much validity to the debate though.)

bonkey

brianthebard wrote: »

They have been working on the so called 'terminator gene' (or something similar) that would stop plants being capable of producing fertile seeds. This has huge, deadly possible consequences.

Does it?

While I see both merit and risk in GM foodstuffs, but I don't quite grok the threat from a terminator gene.

After all, even if it jumped through cross-pollination...it can't spread. You can't have successive generations of sterile plants...

brianthebard

bonkey wrote: »

After all, even if it jumped through cross-pollination...it can't spread. You can't have successive generations of sterile plants...

Exactly the problem.

toiletduck

ei.sdraob wrote: »

From an economic (and many other) points of view why do the greens hate GM (genetic modification)?

there are flowers developed that consume harmful gases, or cool factory grounds they are planted on > http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=66761&vf=1

or how about grass that snuffs out hayfever > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3843-genetically-modified-grass-snuffs-out-hayfever.html

or algae that create hydrogen or other fuels > http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=biofuels&id=19438

Not to mention the majority of the insulin used worldwide since the 80's being the result of genetic engineering.

Rosette

The guy who invented lobotomies got the Nobel prize.

It is always advisable to read the small print before one is sold hook, line and sinker.

We will reach the stage where copyright is paid on every spud you boil, every slice of bread you butter. That is certainly progress, just not for the ordinary Joe. I don't think that capitalism is collapsing even in current times. I think it will take social equity down first.

With GM and copyright, everything you have is taken off you and sold back to you. Ref Monsanto vs Schmeiser.