GM crops in Ireland

sharepapa

5live wrote: »

Commercial sensitivity perhaps? Like protecting their patented technology:)

Well I guess it comes down to this, you can either believe that a large well funded multi national with a bad track record has your best interests at heart, or you don't. I know you stated in an earlier post that you dislike the idea of our food supply being patentable and licensed so we are really arguing the same issue. Do I trust them? No. Do I like their marketing practices? No. Do I believe they have our best interests at heart and not their profit margin? No. (Definition of a corporation!). So in effect, do I believe they are stopping independent research because of patent issues? Not a chance. It's a marketing thing. Any evidence given independently on this would be bad news, even if it only shows a slight change in the desired outcomes or a major one. Makes no difference because it would still not match their results resulting in a loss of confidence. But this is what the scientific process is. Many results compiled show a trend. Without this, we only have a weighted guess.

In this instance alone, as in these bug scientists being concerned, it makes sense that a plant with an on board poison would kill many insects and not just one. Even the beneficial ones. Im sure any pesticide sprayed onto the plants would cause the same reaction. They just don't want this to be public knowledge as it would show their 'targeted' approach was more like napalm than a sniper rifle.

Pacoa

Biggest problem with GM if you ask me is the whole legal side of things. Farmers should keep layers outside the farm gate as much as possible. Just came accross the following video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWak_bUHDm8&feature=player_embedded

dyer

have to say im with you on this sharepapa, i felt physically ill when i heard ireland were supporting the introduction of GM crops. I've written to Teagasc personally in the past about this issue but i've been completely ignored (no surprises there).

there's a free documentary here for those who would like to educate themselves on the history of GM foods and crops.. basically what everyone should know, but unfortunately don't.

http://www.thefutureoffood.com/onlinevideo.html

windowgobo

nilhg wrote: »

It is interesting though that GM crops have been widely grown in one of the most litigious countries in the world and I'm not aware of any case taken claiming damage to someone's health.

well you must not have looked very hard. L tryptophan (GM) killed 100's. Aspertame is another big one causing untold damage,thats just off the top of my head (im amazing ament i?).Monsanto is allways in leagel battles.
but what is worse is the treatment of some of the farmers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GbS2uLXZh0

Conflats

Guys everyone is talking about how bad GM is look at it this way
are the chemicals used in crop production better for us than NATURALLY occurring genes?
Now I do not support the fact corporations control the market which if the proper legislation and funding was put in place for a state organisation to research it, one example springs to mind in the form of potatoes in current breeding takes around 13 years to breed an new variety where as a GM variety can be breed in as little as 18 weeks, for a genetically modified plant the gene has to be found in usually a wild relative as in the case of blight resistance, however as with darwin showed evolution will take place and the organism such as blight can change and still develop resistance.

Corsendonk

windowgobo wrote: »

well you must not have looked very hard. L tryptophan (GM) killed 100's. Aspertame is another big one causing untold damage,thats just off the top of my head (im amazing ament i?).Monsanto is allways in leagel battles.
but what is worse is the treatment of some of the farmers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GbS2uLXZh0

Well if its on a youtube vid it must be true. .... whenI read and see certain of the Vids on Youtube regarding GM and aspartame the below comes to mind

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!

The Invisible Killer
Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

Dihydrogen monoxide:

is also known as hydroxyl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
may cause severe burns.
contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Contamination Is Reaching Epidemic Proportions!

Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

as an industrial solvent and coolant.
in nuclear power plants.
in the production of styrofoam.
as a fire retardant.
in many forms of cruel animal research.
in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.
Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!

The Horror Must Be Stopped!

The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.

Harrier1980

It has been said before here and I will say it again! Please present peer reviewed papers supporting your arguments.
Not articles from websites, not videos from youtube.
The argument of Monsanto behaving like a large corporation I accept. Because in essence that’s what the company is.
However because one company is making a bad name for a technology we should not ignore the fact that there is a lot of positives to be taken from GM crops. Organic farming is fine for the wealthy but it cannot feed the world. And with a constantly growing population, freakish weather like that which ruined a lot of the wheat in Russia and Ukraine last year, technology’s that will bring agriculture forward cannot be ignored.
I am all for an open debate on GM however most of what I read on this thread is dribble by one man enforcing his opinion which clearly cannot be changed.

Corsendonk

Harrier1980 wrote: »

It has been said before here and I will say it again! Please present peer reviewed papers supporting your arguments.
Not articles from websites, not videos from youtube.
The argument of Monsanto behaving like a large corporation I accept. Because in essence that’s what the company is.
However because one company is making a bad name for a technology we should not ignore the fact that there is a lot of positives to be taken from GM crops. Organic farming is fine for the wealthy but it cannot feed the world. And with a constantly growing population, freakish weather like that which ruined a lot of the wheat in Russia and Ukraine last year, technology’s that will bring agriculture forward cannot be ignored.
I am all for an open debate on GM however most of what I read on this thread is dribble by one man enforcing his opinion which clearly cannot be changed.

Exactly, youtube vids or poorly research websites quoting organisations that when you investigate are working for either side of the argument. It tabloid science, people just read the headline and don't go into the detail.

windowgobo

bogman_bass wrote: »

If people are daft enough to pay a premium for our products because its GM free then I see little benift in bringing it in

depends on what you regard as daft. i find eating chemicals proven toxic daft.

windowgobo

Corsendonk wrote: »

Well if its on a youtube vid it must be true.

there is a lot of crap on youtube both for and against GM and its about wading through it and finding the truth behind it.

as for peer reviewed studies, fine.

the you tube vid:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8391748/GM-soy-The-invisible-ingredient-poisoning-children.html

this is a link to an article full of peer reviewed studies http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=15709

GM saftey
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/Genetically-Engineered-Maize-The-Reality-Behind-the-Myths/
specifically
Myth 2:
GE maize is safe to eat
Reality: The GE industry has for years promoted GE foods
as safe to eat but they have been reluctant to disclose
vital information to the public that clearly shows potential
problems with the consumption of GE foods. In 2005, in a case that was initiated by Greenpeace, a German court
ordered agrochemical company Monsanto to publish
studies of effects on rats that had been fed GE Bt maize
(MON 863). Monsanto’s studies were then re-assessed by
independent scientists, with shocking results.(3) Among
other things the scientists revealed that Monsanto had
failed to disclose negative effects (“signs of toxicity”)
on the internal organs of the rats. Nevertheless, the GE
maize was already approved in more than 10 countries
around the world including the EU, Japan, Canada and
the Philippines. The authorities in all these countries had
completely relied on the genetic engineering industry’s own
research and allowed a high risk product to slip through
the authorisation system. The case again emphasizes the
urgent need for more independent research into the health
effects of GE maize and other GE food crops.


Even the very method of gene manipulation means means its imposable for unknown side affects.

nilhg

windowgobo wrote: »

there is a lot of crap on youtube both for and against GM and its about wading through it and finding the truth behind it.

as for peer reviewed studies, fine.

the you tube vid:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8391748/GM-soy-The-invisible-ingredient-poisoning-children.html

this is a link to an article full of peer reviewed studies http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=15709

GM saftey
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/Genetically-Engineered-Maize-The-Reality-Behind-the-Myths/
specifically
Myth 2:
GE maize is safe to eat
Reality: The GE industry has for years promoted GE foods
as safe to eat but they have been reluctant to disclose
vital information to the public that clearly shows potential
problems with the consumption of GE foods. In 2005, in a case that was initiated by Greenpeace, a German court
ordered agrochemical company Monsanto to publish
studies of effects on rats that had been fed GE Bt maize
(MON 863). Monsanto’s studies were then re-assessed by
independent scientists, with shocking results.(3) Among
other things the scientists revealed that Monsanto had
failed to disclose negative effects (“signs of toxicity”)
on the internal organs of the rats. Nevertheless, the GE
maize was already approved in more than 10 countries
around the world including the EU, Japan, Canada and
the Philippines. The authorities in all these countries had
completely relied on the genetic engineering industry’s own
research and allowed a high risk product to slip through
the authorisation system. The case again emphasizes the
urgent need for more independent research into the health
effects of GE maize and other GE food crops.


Even the very method of gene manipulation means means its imposable for unknown side affects.

I don't understand what most of this has to do with GM, especially as it might be used in this country.

Your first link is mainly about poor safety practices in South America and how the global demand for soya is pushing intensive agriculture into new areas, none of this is new and probably would be no different even if there was no GM, or maybe even worse since they'd be using even more sprays.

The second link is about aspartame which is an artificial sweetener, nothing to do with GM.

Your third link is from Greenpeace, hardly independent?

An example of what GM might be able to achieve is here,

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028113.800-evolutionary-push-could-help-crops-selffertilise.html

You might have to register (free) to see that link.

reilig

windowgobo wrote: »

depends on what you regard as daft. i find eating chemicals proven toxic daft.

Does GM actually mean that the food crop is covered with toxic chemicals?
I thought that GM meant Genetically Modified as opposed to sprayed with toxic chemicals???????

windowgobo

the first one was just the evidence backing you my youtube video,
the second link was ,aspartame (GM), one of the carcinogenics we are eating now. but there are so many similar additives that it just becomes about choosing your food wisely (why there should be GM labeling)

personally i think GMOs do have potential for good but it is a still a technology in its infancy, and is not yet ready to be consumed by anything other than lab rats.
i find green peace one of the more reliable sources of information. all that article says is that the biotech companies cant be relied on to produce totally factual studies, because they lie through there teeth. which it why it is a discrase to let biotech companies do their own testing when they have falsified so many studies

why would you discredit greenpeace? when you (presumable) listen to monsanto

windowgobo

reilig wrote: »

I thought that GM meant Genetically Modified as opposed to sprayed with toxic chemicals???????

thats the idea but it doesnt really happen in reality.
also GM crops are sprayed with round-up, which raises safety issues in its self.
its long but the proof is there.

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice27Mar2011.htm

regarding the reduced use of pesticide

from: http://www.gm.org/gm-organisms/impact-of-gm-crops-on-pesticide-herbicide-use/

Although the main intent why GM crops were first being developed was to improve yields as well as make farming a more sustainable industry in many ways, its impact recently may be showing a somehow opposite result. One of the reasons why some types of GM crops were developed was mainly to reduce the use of harmful pesticides in the environment. This objective has somehow been met with some GM crops as shown by some studies made on the subject. Unfortunately, this achievement may have brought about another consequence- while pesticide use were generally lessened with the use of GM crops such as Bt cotton and corn, the use of herbicides increased, eventually increasing its negative environmental footprint rather than decreasing it. Overall, pesticide use surprisingly increased when using GM crops instead of reducing it.

reilig

windowgobo wrote: »

also GM crops are sprayed with round-up, which raises safety issues in it self
its long but the proof is there.

I have some shocking news for you!!

90% of the non-GM crops grown in ireland are sprayed with Roundup or another type of Glyphosate. So when you go to a local shop and buy bread, cereal etc. There is a 90% chance that it has been sprayed with a Glyphosate (Not Necessarily a Monsanto brand). Some cattle are fed on grass which is sprayed with Glyphosate (Roundup and other brands). A lot of cattle are fed on grain treated with roundup and other brands of glyphosate. The beer that we drink and the breakfast cereals that we eat are very likely to have been sprayed with roundup or another brand of glyphosate.

I thought that one advantage of GM crops would be that they wouldn't need to be treated with a Glyphosate?

Other information is that Roundup and other Glyphosate sprays are Herbicides rather than Toxic Chemicals or pesticides. There is not a lot of evidence to show that their use has a negative impact on human health.

windowgobo

Fair enough, i was unaware.
ill have to be totally organic now suppose that means i have one extra thing to be smug about, now to find some Organic Smithwicks :rolleyes:

GM crops generally produce insecticides and are round-up resistant is for the weeds. but this is short sighted to reckless because weed simply become resistant naturally leaving us with a 'super weed' problem.this is happening much faster than first thought. due to the fact that the 'mutations' that cause this don't seem to be as random as first thought. A bit like the MSRA in hospitals.

Quote: There is not a lot of evidence to show that their use has a negative impact on human health

i wouldn't let that put me of too much, its not uncommon to biotech companies to flood the scientific community with falsified reports.
one example is that over a hundred own studies all finding no problems and the 80 or so Independent studies 90% found serious problems. (i think that was about aspatame, but ill look for it again. probably in that talk below)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94d-KVorSHM

this is a very good lecture, i like for you to watch it and come back with the flaws that we could discuss further.