Permission granted to grow GM potatoes in Ireland

Conflats

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Its not a silverbullet cure all but its better than using the level of chemicals that growers have to use for pesticides and fertiliser at present. Everyone goes on how Ireland is such a great growing country but how come over 14.5% of national potato output, 47% of field vegetable output and 37% of protected fruits, vegetables and nursery plants come from Fingal? Might it have anything to do with the small amount of actual good growing land that we have.

But fingal still has blight, the reason its grown is not solely down to land type but simple economics and the fact the large growers are near the largest market i.e dublin and price pressure from supermarkets (esp tesco on loss leader products like milk and potatoes, and you can be sure tesco isnt taking the loss) and this led to grower rationalisation so equalling the bigger growers are in north county dublin.

xmac1x

Isnt there a bit of a catch 22 being argued here?

On the one hand, crops designed not to cross pollinate create a monopoly where the farmer has to rely on the company for seeds every year. It does remove the risk of cross pollination with native species though

On the other hand, crops that can cross pollinate remove this reliance on one company but can cross with local varieties.

Another point that everyone overlooks is that introducing GM crops on a wide scale reduces the use of natural varieties. This is "unnatural selection" in practice. What is going to happen to interesting varieties of different crops? Example in the US has an almost 85% GM soya crop, where are all the natural varieties being displaced to?

I think the benefits are amazing but as always there are many downsides.

Somnus

andrew wrote: »

So are people against GM food on principal, or just because they think it's dangerous. As in, hypothetically, if there was a 100% proven safe GM food, is there anyone who still wouldn't eat it?

Anyways, GM food is old news. Bring on the lab grown meat!

This is a great point, and I would love to hear peoples opinions on that. My own being that I would definitely eat it.
And I've heard about the lab grown pork as well. So cool! I would love to try some.

lucylu wrote: »

My concern about the GM potato testing in Carlow is on the same Site Dr. Mary Coffey manages approx 100 Beehives
A full working beehive have have 60k plus bees * 100 hives. a honeybee is pollen dependent and will forage on the 1 plant only.
Potato plants produces flowers. GM potato plants will also produce flowers.
A bee will travel for pollen up to 2 miles. There are alot of potato growers that have leased grounds around carlow town outskirts so cross pollination will be my fear.

If the Teagasc batch of potatoes have been modified as to not cross pollinate than there'd be no worry for the bees either, as it's mostly chloroplast transformation that was the method used, and this doesn't insert the gene into the pollen.

Rango555

Conflats wrote: »

A big point which often comes out in debates on GM is why dont we go organic? simple reason is we used to go organic but then we discovered ways to improve production and hence population grew due to the abundance of food in part.

GM crops DO NOT have anything to do with increased food production. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMcropsfailed.php

You are using a strawman there.

My name is URL

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Its not a silverbullet cure all but its better than using the level of chemicals that growers have to use for pesticides and fertiliser at present. Everyone goes on how Ireland is such a great growing country but how come over 14.5% of national potato output, 47% of field vegetable output and 37% of protected fruits, vegetables and nursery plants come from Fingal? Might it have anything to do with the small amount of actual good growing land that we have.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that GM foods are an inherently bad thing. If it genuinely does reduce problems such as blight etc, and is introduced for the benefit of native growers as well as the wider market then it's to be welcomed. I just don't want to see us head down the same road as the US and elsewhere, where GM crops become the mainstay of many regions because of the added expense and massively increased difficulty in growing non-GM crops. It'd be next to impossible to compete as a small farm owner if more and more of your peers are buying into the patented crop idea. Ireland is a small place with an extremely valuable reputation for being an exporter of wholesome and 'natural' foodstuffs... millions are spent each year on selling that idea to foreign investors.

If GM crops and seed reserves became monopolised or even overly commercialised in Ireland as they have in other places, it'd decimate the very livelihoods of the people it is being purported to protect most, ie. small & medium growers, and imo would have a seriously negative effect on our exports and local economies.

Conflats

Rango555 wrote: »

GM crops DO NOT have anything to do with increased food production. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMcropsfailed.php

You are using a strawman there.

SO you are telling me by using gm technology it cant increase the yields of crops grown? Or it can't be used to create plants which grow in marginal lands such as western Australia and guarantee a crop to actually harvest or give disease resistance to plants which do loose yield due to less photosynthesis

And you link shows that the yield drop is from the gene insertion process let me see where i've heard that before oh yes now i remember it happened with wheat when the semi dwarfing gene was inserted to reduce crop height give the gm breeders time and the yield will rise when the genes are inserted into higher yielding varieties

Rango555

Conflats wrote: »

SO you are telling me by using gm technology it cant increase the yields of crops grown? Or it can't be used to create plants which grow in marginal lands such as western Australia and guarantee a crop to actually harvest or give disease resistance to plants which do loose yield due to less photosynthesis

And you link shows that the yield drop is from the gene insertion process let me see where i've heard that before oh yes now i remember it happened with wheat when the semi dwarfing gene was inserted to reduce crop height give the gm breeders time and the yield will rise when the genes are inserted into higher yielding varieties

I'm referring to the facts.. the facts are that GM crops have not increased yield and have increased the need for harmful pesticides. The damage to the areas where GM crops have been grown is irreversable... they have had all the "time" I'm willing to give them to get it right. It is too late for the areas where GM is the norm.

Conflats

Rango555 wrote: »

I'm referring to the facts.. the facts are that GM crops have not increased yield and have increased the need for harmful pesticides. The damage to the areas where GM crops have been grown is irreversable... they have had all the "time" I'm willing to give them to get it right. It is too late for the areas where GM is the norm.

ok you must have picked my point up wrong then, yield drag is a common occurance in plant breeding when selecting for one trait you can cause a drag in another desireable trait its up to the breeder to decide the levels acceptable. GM was introduced in 1996 it has cut costs for farmers making it more profitable to grow crops. The levels of gylphosate used had increased due to the natural phenomenon known as selection pressure from use of the product with the same mode of action (as the glyphosate) when this occurs usually from enhanced metabolism within the plant it requires more active ingredient to kill it hence the increasing levels. And in case anyone is wondering there is plenty of examples of herbicide resistance in Europe we only have to look to the east of the UK to see blackgrass resistance problems

steddyeddy

cruhoortwunk wrote: »

Last time there was a GM trial in Carlow (beet) and Monsanto were financing it. A group of people went in and ripped them up out of the ground.
Hopefully they do the same this time round.

http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/2694

Whoever did that are cretins and the same breed of people who poisoned the golden eagle because they thought they would fly off with cows or god knows what.

steddyeddy

Rango555 wrote: »

GM crops DO NOT have anything to do with increased food production. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMcropsfailed.php

You are using a strawman there.

Are you also against other gm products like insulin and other hormones?

Jhcx

So wait your telling me spuds aint going to be real any more? but what will us culchies eat?

Rango555

Conflats wrote: »

ok you must have picked my point up wrong then, yield drag is a common occurance in plant breeding when selecting for one trait you can cause a drag in another desireable trait its up to the breeder to decide the levels acceptable. GM was introduced in 1996 it has cut costs for farmers making it more profitable to grow crops. The levels of gylphosate used had increased due to the natural phenomenon known as selection pressure from use of the product with the same mode of action (as the glyphosate) when this occurs usually from enhanced metabolism within the plant it requires more active ingredient to kill it hence the increasing levels. And in case anyone is wondering there is plenty of examples of herbicide resistance in Europe we only have to look to the east of the UK to see blackgrass resistance problems

http://www.stwr.org/food-security-agriculture/do-gm-crops-increase-yield-the-answer-is-no.html

Look... you can introduce as much scientific talk as you think you need to answer but the simple reality is that food production has not been increased by the introduction of GM crops. Ask an Indian farmer if GM crops have cut the cost to them.. you are using strawman arguments that have no basis in fact.

GM crops DO NOT produce more food
GM crops HAVE NOT made farming cheaper... those are facts.

My name is URL

steddyeddy wrote: »

Are you also against other gm products like insulin and other hormones?

That's a bit of a fallacious argument in fairness. I bet it even has some fancy Latin description =p

steddyeddy

Rango555 wrote: »

http://www.stwr.org/food-security-agriculture/do-gm-crops-increase-yield-the-answer-is-no.html

Look... you can introduce as much scientific talk as you think you need to answer but the simple reality is that food production has not been increased by the introduction of GM crops. Ask an Indian farmer if GM crops have cut the cost to them.. you are using strawman arguments that have no basis in fact.

GM crops DO NOT produce more food
GM crops HAVE NOT made farming cheaper... those are facts.

You know gm foods like golden rice have spared the sight of millions? I dont know the data on increased food yield but you can be pretty certain when gm technology improves food yield will also improve.

steddyeddy

My name is URL wrote: »

That's a bit of a fallacious argument in fairness. I bet it even has some fancy Latin description =p

Probrably has a latin description but in fairness If people are injecting gm insulin I dont see how they would mind eating gm food.

Rango555

steddyeddy wrote: »

You know gm foods like golden rice have spared the sight of millions? I dont know the data on increased food yield but you can be pretty certain when gm technology improves food yield will also improve.

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/goldenricehoax.html

Thats about the only answer you are getting due to your earlier post to me.

steddyeddy

Rango555 wrote: »

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/goldenricehoax.html

Thats about the only answer you are getting due to your earlier post to me.

What earlier post? Did I insult you or something?

Conflats

Rango555 wrote: »

http://www.stwr.org/food-security-agriculture/do-gm-crops-increase-yield-the-answer-is-no.html

Look... you can introduce as much scientific talk as you think you need to answer but the simple reality is that food production has not been increased by the introduction of GM crops. Ask an Indian farmer if GM crops have cut the cost to them.. you are using strawman arguments that have no basis in fact.

GM crops DO NOT produce more food
GM crops HAVE NOT made farming cheaper... those are facts.

I have told you the scientfic reasons behind the yield drag maybe you cant understand it im not sure but the point is your just anti-gm end of

Yes i do lean on the side not of pro gm but on the side of science proven science.

You ask the people who eat the rice with increased levels of vitamin A how their eye sight is or better still ask the diabetics who rely on insulin to stay alive, gm has created a cheaper more consistent supply of insulin to them and would you believe its made in dear old dublin but not many people would care as long as its saving lives by being there

Do you have any experience of actual farming on a reasonable scale? I do and I can see day in day out the problems associated with it any technology which has not being proven unsafe to use that helps ease the burden of this is a plus in my book. Gm does cut costs maybe not in a country such as the states but you talk to any tillage farmer in ireland who had to spray against fungal disease does he like spraying? he will tell you NO! it costs time and money to do and still causes losses if a variety can be produced to last in the environment long term against disease it will be a great day for agriculture in general, the problem with the varieties used is they start off with a good tolerance to the disease but over time(in wheat usually 4-5 years) weakens and has to start all over again

Conflats

Rango555 wrote: »

http://www.stwr.org/food-security-agriculture/do-gm-crops-increase-yield-the-answer-is-no.html

Look... you can introduce as much scientific talk as you think you need to answer but the simple reality is that food production has not been increased by the introduction of GM crops. Ask an Indian farmer if GM crops have cut the cost to them.. you are using strawman arguments that have no basis in fact.

GM crops DO NOT produce more food
GM crops HAVE NOT made farming cheaper... those are facts.

Also the thing about the indian suicides think with you head about it now at the start of that article it says seeds cannot be saved, Yes that is correct and why do you think the seeds are sterile?
I will answer it for you to make sure you get the picture im about to paint
The reason the seeds are sterile and cannot grow is because the anti-GM lobby wanted the plants in such a way they cud not produce crosses in the natural environment to stop their fears. So the argument your putting forward is flawed and in fact created by the very ones who now complain about this

Rango555

Conflats wrote: »

I have told you the scientfic reasons behind the yield drag maybe you cant understand it im not sure but the point is your just anti-gm end of

Yes i do lean on the side not of pro gm but on the side of science proven science.

You ask the people who eat the rice with increased levels of vitamin A how their eye sight is or better still ask the diabetics who rely on insulin to stay alive, gm has created a cheaper more consistent supply of insulin to them and would you believe its made in dear old dublin but not many people would care as long as its saving lives by being there

Do you have any experience of actual farming on a reasonable scale? I do and I can see day in day out the problems associated with it any technology which has not being proven unsafe to use that helps ease the burden of this is a plus in my book. Gm does cut costs maybe not in a country such as the states but you talk to any tillage farmer in ireland who had to spray against fungal disease does he like spraying? he will tell you NO! it costs time and money to do and still causes losses if a variety can be produced to last in the environment long term against disease it will be a great day for agriculture in general, the problem with the varieties used is they start off with a good tolerance to the disease but over time(in wheat usually 4-5 years) weakens and has to start all over again

What people? That rice is not currently available for human consumption. Read the article posted in reply to steddyeddy. Yet another straw man.

I am against GM crops in it's current form (I have not stated otherwise) as it has NOT helped humanity in any way. All the claims about increased food yield are incorrect... all the claims about less need for chemicals are incorrect... all the claims about reducing costs to farmers are incorrect.

I grow crops organically on 3 acres... I change varieties regularly to avoid diseases etc... the very same way that we have done for centuries.

GM crops will never be acceptable to me in their current form because of companies like Monsanto. They are solely driven by profit and are doing their best to ensure the entire world has to come to them to grow food rather than any of the strawman benefits that you have argued thusfar.

If there was ethical regulating and controlled developement of GM crops I would support it... instead we have huge corporations destroying the food supply of millions of people and the land that it is grown on while we "wait" for them to get it right... I'm not buying it.

Rango555

Conflats wrote: »

Also the thing about the indian suicides think with you head about it now at the start of that article it says seeds cannot be saved, Yes that is correct and why do you think the seeds are sterile?
I will answer it for you to make sure you get the picture im about to paint
The reason the seeds are sterile and cannot grow is because the anti-GM lobby wanted the plants in such a way they cud not produce crosses in the natural environment to stop their fears. So the argument your putting forward is flawed and in fact created by the very ones who now complain about this

That is simply not true... the reason the seeds are sterile is so the corporations can sell the seeds again year after year. Are you seriously trying to say that Monsanto et al are going to patent their seeds (and actually have bought up a lot of seed companies to take their seeds off the market) and then let people have a free supply forever once they have bought them? Your argument is naive....

Ellis Dee

i heard an Israeli scientist is trying to splice some bee genes into a cow.
They're trying to make a land flowing with milk and honey.:):)

Conflats

Rango555 wrote: »

What people? That rice is not currently available for human consumption. Read the article posted in reply to steddyeddy. Yet another straw man.

I am against GM crops in it's current form (I have not stated otherwise) as it has NOT helped humanity in any way. All the claims about increased food yield are incorrect... all the claims about less need for chemicals are incorrect... all the claims about reducing costs to farmers are incorrect.

I grow crops organically on 3 acres... I change varieties regularly to avoid diseases etc... the very same way that we have done for centuries.

GM crops will never be acceptable to me in their current form because of companies like Monsanto. They are solely driven by profit and are doing their best to ensure the entire world has to come to them to grow food rather than any of the strawman benefits that you have argued thusfar.

If there was ethical regulating and controlled developement of GM crops I would support it... instead we have huge corporations destroying the food supply of millions of people and the land that it is grown on while we "wait" for them to get it right... I'm not buying it.

Have you ever thought of using the opinion to actually try change the way gm is regulated?

The changing varieties thing sure its all great on small scale but when the consumer in the supermarket wants a certain type of potato and you give them one they dont want what happens then? farmer is gone belly up,

You haven't listened to the actual scientific arguments put forward by me in relation to the increasing use of pesticides but to state the so called straw man as you call it- resistance this is a naturally occurring fact of life GM will not stop natures ability to overcome the challenges man puts in its way, it happened in this country in 2002 with a disease called septoria on wheat which failed overnight, if you understood scientific principles which i have mentioned to you, you will see why these problems are there instead of insisting they are wrong.
Google enhanced metabolism and see, also try pest and disease resistance, selection pressure you will find millions of peer reviewed journals on these topics to prove these issues are what would happen with conventional varieties too.

My name is URL

steddyeddy wrote: »

Probrably has a latin description but in fairness If people are injecting gm insulin I dont see how they would mind eating gm food.

Well I can't speak for the other guy but personally, I have no problem eating GM food. I'd just prefer that it wasn't produced here in non-controlled enviroments. Eating the stuff would be the least of my concerns about the practice as a whole.

Duggys Housemate

Rango555 wrote: »

Conflats wrote: »

Also the thing about the indian suicides think with you head about it now at the start of that article it says seeds cannot be saved, Yes that is correct and why do you think the seeds are sterile?
I will answer it for you to make sure you get the picture im about to paint
The reason the seeds are sterile and cannot grow is because the anti-GM lobby wanted the plants in such a way they cud not produce crosses in the natural environment to stop their fears. So the argument your putting forward is flawed and in fact created by the very ones who now complain about this

That is simply not true... the reason the seeds are sterile is so the corporations can sell the seeds again year after year. Are you seriously trying to say that Monsanto et al are going to patent their seeds (and actually have bought up a lot of seed companies to take their seeds off the market) and then let people have a free supply forever once they have bought them? Your argument is naive....

However the anti-GM people are opposed to cross pollination. This would help stop it spreading.

Rango555

Conflats wrote: »

Have you ever thought of using the opinion to actually try change the way gm is regulated?

As a matter of fact yes I have (but I'm not going to list how here as I value my privacy)

Conflats wrote: »

The changing varieties thing sure its all great on small scale but when the consumer in the supermarket wants a certain type of potato and you give them one they dont want what happens then? farmer is gone belly up,

How many people do you know that go into a supermarket specifically looking for GM potatoes? I have a small customer base and rely on regular feedback from my customers to help me grow what they want... I realise that under our current industrial way of food production that is not possible but there is no reason that with a change in the current status quo and with farmers actively engaging with those who eat their crops that in a small country like ours it should be very possible. We are not trying to feed 300 million here...

Conflats wrote: »

You haven't listened to the actual scientific arguments put forward by me in relation to the increasing use of pesticides but to state the so called straw man as you call it- resistance this is a naturally occurring fact of life GM will not stop natures ability to overcome the challenges man puts in its way, it happened in this country in 2002 with a disease called septoria on wheat which failed overnight, if you understood scientific principles which i have mentioned to you, you will see why these problems are there instead of insisting they are wrong.
Google enhanced metabolism and see, also try pest and disease resistance, selection pressure you will find millions of peer reviewed journals on these topics to prove these issues are what would happen with conventional varieties too.

You haven't listened to what I am saying...

GM crops DO NOT increas food yield.

That is where you are wrong.

I'm offline for a while but will look at this thread again on my return

Duggys Housemate

Can we categorically state that GM has never, and will never increase food yields? That the scientists can never get that right? Organic farming reduces yields.

Conflats

Rango555 wrote: »

That is simply not true... the reason the seeds are sterile is so the corporations can sell the seeds again year after year. Are you seriously trying to say that Monsanto et al are going to patent their seeds (and actually have bought up a lot of seed companies to take their seeds off the market) and then let people have a free supply forever once they have bought them? Your argument is naive....

Yes this is a point they do sell seed each year but your not listening to the major reason behind it, its to stop gene transfer but also patent. In ireland when you use over a certain amount of seed you pay breeders royalties monsanto are ensuring that they are not defrauded from their technology. Nobody forces you to use GM seed every year you can grow it this year and change back to conventional varieties if you want to please stop with the conspiracy theories.

As regards buying the competition i suppose you would have a problem with ryanair buying aer lingus? its all about being number 1, plenty of other companies do GM bayer are involved, BASF, Sygenta( Pioneer brand)

woodoo

Don't let these monsters in or anywhere near ireland = Monsanto

I would prefer if we stayed away from GM crops. I don't like the idea of a company owning a patent on the food we eat. Or on things like corn as monsanto has in the US. You could have a farmer bring it into his farm and if his farm contaminates the farm next door the farm next door gets sued by the GM crop company. Its crazy and its already happening in the land of the free (laugh up my sleeve... free my arse).

Conflats

Rango555 wrote: »

You haven't listened to what I am saying...

GM crops DO NOT increas food yield.

That is where you are wrong.

I'm offline for a while but will look at this thread again on my return

Yes i have told you the reason they have not and it took years for the genetic lag in wheat to catch up as it will take the GM crops.

But the fact of the BT corn with the naturally occurring insecticide in it has increased yield's (somewhat maybe not in millions of tonnes) due to less losses

Yes no company should hold the gene rights this is why a bodies like Teagasc should be funded to provide GM for the Irish farmer to benefit them and not just for profit, however it will never happen as the investment to bring varieties out would be too great for the exchequer who would be a large contributor to this if it happened, this is why Ireland needs to have put in place a proper regulated system(and please don't say regulatio doesnt work it does in agriculture look at the pesticide control people do a power of regulation)

zenno

Once the packaging states clearly that they are genetically modified which is law to label them as such then I don't care as I just stick to non GM and purchase my organic potatoes from france. Monsanto are a hugely corrupt business and they won't stop till every country on earth uses monsanto's sh1te Frankenstein GMO's. I won't be putting that frankensh1te inside me.

I can also see the farmers that will use this crud and won't be able to sell it here because no-one will eat it so they will be forced to sell it to other countries or third world countries and lose profit, no-one will put that untested crap into them, not in Ireland anyway. So when farmers do try to sell their genetically modified potatoes in Ireland and can't sell them don't cry to the government over it.

Grab some nice German potatoes from lidl and you will be grand and when everyone purchases from outside Ireland farmers will have no choice but to stop the GM growing as they will be out of business. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/03/20/germany-rejects-gmo-food.aspx

http://www.ideaireland.org/gmfoodhealth.htm

Cookie_Monster

Shenshen wrote: »

GM usually means less artificial stuff required to make them grow, so the post is a contradiction in itself.

no it means genetically modified...
in the case of rices it's to increase resistance to disease and add higher levels of VitA to crops.
how exactly does the post contradict itself?

Colmustard

Its about time, hopilly Ireland can be a future developer in this growing industry, it is the future, traditional techniques will not feed the grow world population.

squod

Growing GM crops in Carlow. It's not the fuhken sahara. Spuds will grow without the need for GM. Shit loads of arable land is still not being used like.

The reality is

• we don't need to grow them
• Yeilds won't increase
• Spuds won't become cheaper because of it
• It's possible we could lose some exports and export potential because of it

Bigger picture vs the wants of some money mad loon.

uch

I have OCD when it come's to Potato's, the bigger the better, so if GM can give me the biggest Spud I can get, jesus i'm gonna Germinate tonight

zenno

Colmustard wrote: »

Its about time, hopilly Ireland can be a future developer in this growing industry, it is the future, traditional techniques will not feed the grow world population.

What are you talking about ? Ireland doesn't need to feed the worlds population ? only our own so i don't get what you mean by that.

Also, it will cost farmers more to go the GM way and not only that, Irish citizens always wanted and love the organic way so you can be assured that most Irish people here will not purchase this genetically modified food and thus the farmers will not be able to sell it here as they will have to export it to other countries that want it. It's foolish to bring in this GM stuff to Ireland as it will affect our good clean organic exports. If it goes GM sure who will want second grade food-stuffs ?.

jurahnimoh

Will these spuds taste nice does anybody know?

Nodin

uch wrote: »

I have OCD when it come's to Potato's, the bigger the better, so if GM can give me the biggest Spud I can get, jesus i'm gonna Germinate tonight

Fair enough, but you have to catch them before you eat them

padma

tbh I feel it will harm our reputation in a massive way, whatever way you think of it gm food has a bad reputation and to start an industry of gm potato coming from ireland will surely mess with that reputation in a big way.

If you were in a shop and you saw 2 bags of spuds one was marked gm, the other non gm which would you buy? Now if Irish spuds in international shops became synonomous with gm, they'd be ignored. In truth its a no brainer really.

This whole permission stuff here smacks of big corporations with a few bucks slipped in the right hands and an opening of the doors of a country to start genetically growing foodstuffs. There is a reason why gm foods are frowned upon in Europe and it is simply that people prefer something which sounds and seems natural so hitting the Irish reputation with being synonomous with gm potatoes is defeatist with the current suspicion of consumers towards gm foods.

Colmustard

zenno wrote: »

What are you talking about ? Ireland doesn't need to feed the worlds population ? only our own so i don't get what you mean by that.

Also, it will cost farmers more to go the GM way and not only that, Irish citizens always wanted and love the organic way so you can be assured that most Irish people here will not purchase this genetically modified food and thus the farmers will not be able to sell it here as they will have to export it to other countries that want it. It's foolish to bring in this GM stuff to Ireland as it will affect our good clean organic exports. If it goes GM sure who will want second grade food-stuffs ?.

But the demand of the world sets the market price. If you think the Irish farmer grows food for the Irish market alone you shouldn't post in this debate.
Currently we are in a food inflationary period that we will get worse next year because of an American drought and as the far eastern economies grow. Geddit.

Our only hope in the future for cheap food is industrial farming and more efficient GM crops, forget about traditional techniques they worked when the world pop was under 2 billion we are now 7 billion.

Colmustard

squod wrote: »

Growing GM crops in Carlow. It's not the fuhken sahara. Spuds will grow without the need for GM. Shit loads of arable land is still not being used like.

The reality is

• we don't need to grow them
• Yeilds won't increase
• Spuds won't become cheaper because of it
• It's possible we could lose some exports and export potential because of it

Bigger picture vs the wants of some money mad loon.

If they are Blight resistant spuds, yields will increase and as a bonus we will not have our food tainted with anti blight chemicals.

zenno

Colmustard wrote: »

But the demand of the world sets the market price. If you think the Irish farmer grows food for the Irish market alone you shouldn't post in this debate.
Currently we are in a food inflationary period that we will get worse next year because of an American drought and as the far eastern economies grow. Geddit.

Our only hope in the future for cheap food is industrial farming and more efficient GM crops, forget about traditional techniques they worked when the world pop was under 2 billion we are now 7 billion.

You are missing my point. I am talking about sales only in Ireland but even if this GM potato is exported to other countries it is quite obvious that a consumer will not purchase this GM product as it will be labeled as was already said so sales will be down and sales will seriously be down in Ireland because an organic country producer like Ireland will not tolerate it and of which will not purchase this to eat. It will be the death to the farmers here if they mass produce this GM junk. A good way to putting yourself out of business.

Colmustard

zenno wrote: »

You are missing my point. I am talking about sales only in Ireland but even if this GM potato is exported to other countries it is quite obvious that a consumer will not purchase this GM product as it will be labeled as was already said so sales will be down and sales will seriously be down in Ireland because an organic country producer like Ireland will not tolerate it and of which will not purchase this to eat. It will be the death to the farmers here if they mass produce this GM junk.

There will also be organic food inflation and food is a growing market for reasons I stated above, there WILL be a demand for this spud and at a good price.

It is in our countries interest to become even a greater food exporter, so industrial GM farming is the way to go. Organic is a luxury item it is wasteful farming and no better for us. Some say it tastes better, but I don't think so, it depends on how it is cooked.

zenno

Colmustard wrote: »

There will also be organic food inflation and food is a growing market for reasons I stated above, there WILL be a demand for this spud and at a good price.

It is in our countries interest to become even a greater food exporter, so industrial GM farming is the way to go. Organic is a luxury item it is wasteful farming and no better for us. Some say it tastes better, but I don't think so, it depends on how it is cooked.

I don't agree as i would rather pay the little more for organic food than put GM produce inside me. There is a much larger problem with this as well regarding contamination of organic farmers fields and this will be a huge problem if this GM work is expanded. It won't work anyway as no-one will purchase it, maybe a handful will but the majority imo won't.

Colmustard

zenno wrote: »

I don't agree as i would rather pay the little more for organic food than put GM produce inside me. There is a much larger problem with this as well regarding contamination of organic farmers fields and this will be a huge problem if this GM work is expanded. It won't work anyway as no-one will purchase it, maybe a handful will but the majority imo won't.

You are already purchasing it, do you think the grain in you bread does not come from the American plains, it does. Also all the corn syrup and soya which is in most things we eat is all GM.

I am glad you are in that position to be able to pay a higher price for your food, I am not and I believe in the majority.

How much do you pay for your lets say your organic chicken 20 30 euro. I could not afford that.

steddyeddy

To be honest I would out this mad anti gm stuff up with creationisim. It just seems to be hating it for the sake of hating it.

N64

how many monsanto shills do we have on this thread?

steddyeddy

N64 wrote: »

how many monsanto shills do we have on this thread?

Or people who know what gm actually is?

zenno

steddyeddy wrote: »

Or people who know what gm actually is?

Do you ?...

Look, it's common sense that a consumer is going to go for organic over genetically modified if purchasing food so unless you can brainwash them to think GM is safe then it won't work, and so far there has been feck all long-term studies proving it is safe. If you think for 1 second that Monsanto have the populations health as priority then think again, they won't release the so-called studies on this even in america. It's up to yourself what you want to eat and most people will go organic.

To be honest I would out this mad anti gm stuff up with creationisim. It just seems to be hating it for the sake of hating it.

If this is all you have to add in relation to GM then you haven't done well. Debate it instead of foolish remarks ?.

steddyeddy

zenno wrote: »

Do you ?...

Look, it's common sense that a consumer is going to go for organic over genetically modified if purchasing food so unless you can brainwash them to think GM is safe then it won't work, and so far there has been feck all long-term studies proving it is safe. If you think for 1 second that Monsanto have the populations health as priority then think again, they won't release the so-called studies on this even in america. It's up to yourself what you want to eat and most people will go organic.



If this is all you have to add in relation to GM then you haven't done well. Debate it instead of foolish remarks ?.

No offence meant. Look at my previous posts I made clear my feelings on the subject. I think gm is safe but I wouldnt like the idea of monsanto owning the patent on something.