No GM Crop in the UK "For the Foreseeable Future"...

[Sandman]

I certainly don't think that GM food is inherently dangerous. It's just that it is totally worthless in a society that heavily overproduces food as it is. If we bin farm subsidies (as we should) we can get more food from the developing world, and still not bother with GM. Even a GM-enhanced EU agriculture is unlikely to be able to compete with the developing world's lower labour and land costs.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Going for the artful dodge by changing the subject, huh? Look at the thread title and then read Mobius's first post. The topic is not labelling the topic is how the UK government has effectively outlawed the planting of GM crops.

This dodging has been done by you before. Even if the UK government would "outlaw" the planting of GM crop (which it doesn't), it still could be imported and thus, the interested British customer could still buy it.

And I wasn't dodging at all, if you consider my previous post.

Wouldn't you agree that outlawing something curtails its availability?

No, if importing is still allowed, which it is (labelled, of course).

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


... it still could be imported and thus, the interested British customer could still buy it.

Good

I shall visit the Customer Service desk at my local supermarket and ask them if they have any imported GM food available. I'll post the results here.

[Harovan]

If not, because the majority wouldn't buy it, it's bad luck. That's how free market works. You can still order it over the internet. It doesn't mold that quickly, thankfully.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman
Genetic modification is totally different from selective breeding. Selective breeding is a semi-random process that relies on random mutations and the interbreeding of closely related species. Genetic engineering involves adding, removing or replacing DNA in a controlled process under laboratory conditions. There is no limit to what DNA can be introduced, unlike selective breeding. Fish DNA can be spliced into strawberries, human DNA can be spliced into sheep. You cannot do that with selective breeding.

So, because direct genetic modification works more quickly and effectively...

... it's bad?

The argument that 'we've been doing it for thousands of years' is simply wrong.

Of course we have. Selective breeding and cross-pollination ARE genetic engineering on a massive scale.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman
I certainly don't think that GM food is inherently dangerous. It's just that it is totally worthless in a society that heavily overproduces food as it is. If we bin farm subsidies (as we should) we can get more food from the developing world, and still not bother with GM. Even a GM-enhanced EU agriculture is unlikely to be able to compete with the developing world's lower labour and land costs.

Actually, even without farm subsidies, the US and maybe Europe would easily succeed. US agricorporations are incredibly efficient mass-producers of food.

[Sandman]

So, because direct genetic modification works more quickly and effectively...

... it's bad?

I never said that.

Of course we have. Selective breeding and cross-pollination ARE genetic engineering on a massive scale.

If it is, then demonstrate it.

Selective breeding:

Relies on random mutations.
Takes a long time.
Is imprecise and unpredictable.
Does not require advanced technology or knowledge of genetics.

Genetic engineering:

Can splice any gene from any lifeform into another lifeform.
Only needs one generation to have an effect.
Is very precise.
Requires advanced technology and knowledge of genetic science.

The Babylonians weren't splicing strawberries with fish, or humans with pigs. The ability to change lifeforms probably didn't even suggest itself to them, since selective breeding happens regardless of whether the humans are encouraging it or not. In fact, given that it relies on random mutations, it's got far more in common with natural selection than genetic engineering.

Actually, even without farm subsidies, the US and maybe Europe would easily succeed. US agricorporations are incredibly efficient mass-producers of food.

They're incredibly efficient harvesters of subsidies. Sorry, but I fail to understand why 'incredibly efficient' agri-businesses that would 'easily succeed' without subsidies need them in the first place.

Subsidies go to politically or strategically significant industries that can't compete, but can't be allowed to go out of business. They don't go to efficient, competitive businesses.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman
Selective breeding:

Relies on random mutations.

No it doesn't. Do I have to explain how a sperm cell fertilizes an egg to you?

Takes a long time.

Depends on the timescale.

Is imprecise and unpredictable.

Not really, no.

Does not require advanced technology or knowledge of genetics.

So? Genetic engineering of animals requires more advanced knowledge then we have today. Does that make it not "genetic engineering"?

Genetic engineering:

Can splice any gene from any lifeform into another lifeform.
Only needs one generation to have an effect.
Is very precise.
Requires advanced technology and knowledge of genetic science.

So it works fast and well. Your point?

The Babylonians weren't splicing strawberries with fish, or humans with pigs. The ability to change lifeforms probably didn't even suggest itself to them, since selective breeding happens regardless of whether the humans are encouraging it or not. In fact, given that it relies on random mutations, it's got far more in common with natural selection than genetic engineering.

Well, several of your premises are wrong, but anyways, whether they intended it or not, what they were doing was genetic engineering - they were engineering the genome. Just in a makeshift, indirect way.

Subsidies go to politically or strategically significant industries that can't compete, but can't be allowed to go out of business. They don't go to efficient, competitive businesses.

They also go to industries that could do fine without them, but wield enough political clout that it's politically impossible to remove the subsidies.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Exactly.

None of the anti-GM posters have responded to my earlier point, that previous inventions we take for granted would have been banned under the current anti-scientific atmosphere.

Indeed. If we actually bothered to think these things through beforehand we wouldn't have things like PCBs contaminating every ecosystem and food chain, or a hole in the ozone. But we don't do that, so we just have to take for granted that we'll always be stuck with the consequences of these half-baked 'break-throughs' that no one bothers to think about untill it's too late.

[Sandman]

No it doesn't. Do I have to explain how a sperm cell fertilizes an egg to you?

Rightrightright. So wolves carry all the DNA of all the breeds of dogs ever. The spotty coats (and poor hearing) of dalmatians were NOT a result of random mutation, but there was a fully formed dalmatian genome hiding inside the wolf just waiting to get out.

Exlplain how all the different breeds of dog came about without mutation. You can't, because you're wrong.

Selective breeding happens in the same way as natural selection, just quicker. Random mutations are selected (whether knowingly or unknowingly) and are allowed to reproduce.

Depends on the timescale.

It takes longer than genetically engineering something.

Not really, no.

It involves the reshuffling of countless genes, rather than just a select few. The desired trait may be linked to another, unwanted trait, and may be difficult to shake off. For example, high rates of deafness in dalmations or low intelligence in afghan hounds.

So? Genetic engineering of animals requires more advanced knowledge then we have today. Does that make it not "genetic engineering"?

Now you're just being ignorant. You can't possibly have failed to notice the media coverage given to genetically engineered animals, for example, glowing mice and fish with jellyfish spliced into their DNA.

So it works fast and well. Your point?

Genetic engineering is a different from selective breeding as farming is from hunter-gathering.

Well, several of your premises are wrong, but anyways, whether they intended it or not, what they were doing was genetic engineering - they were engineering the genome. Just in a makeshift, indirect way.

By that logic, if a lion kills a gazelle with a mutation that gives it inferior speed, that lion is doing genetic engineering. Just in a makeshift, indirect way.

They also go to industries that could do fine without them, but wield enough political clout that it's politically impossible to remove the subsidies.

I doubt that's the case with Western farming interests. Wheat and dairy, possibly. The US sugar, cotton and peanut industries would simply vanish overnight though. The US exports cotton at 37 cents a pound, even though it costs 86 cents per pound to produce. There's no way they could compete with the lower labour costs and superior growing climate of the developing world.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Sikander

No, but neither has posting inanities on the internet been proven 100% safe. You seem determined to be the first to fall to this hitherto unknown peril.

Ah so you think questioning the safety of GM is inane, but rushing headlong into its production and trusting these profit motivated companies with your health isn't?

Asbestos, DDT, Thalidomide, CFCs all were deemed wonders in their particular fields, people said they were safe yadda yadda and guess what...?

Hindsight is a beautiful thing but its not like we can suddenly roll things back if a problem eventuates...

As for the Africa GM thing, why can't the US simply supply what these countries want - Angola is different cos they only suddenly changed their minds, but then as your own article states this is a country awash with corruption so they don't exactly have their own populaces best health at heart. So frankly their stance on GM is unlikely to be one about their fear of it and therefore an irrelevant, indeed inane argument...

Maybe it is you that needs to consider your own priorities, cos from where I'm sitting the only mug round here appears to be you...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Sikander

Some of them do want it as evidenced by the responces on this board. But they can't have it, and as a result everyone will end up paying more for food at the point of sale, or in third world destroying farm subsidies, or both.

Someone as bright as you would surely have heard of economies of scale - which is why as more and more people buy organic foods, the prices have come down to such an extent that for many things they are only marginally more expensive than the run of the mill stuff.

But then this just boils down to a quality issue.

Do you buy the absolute cheapest foodstuffs from the cheapest supermarkets?

Which do you prefer concentrated OJ full of added sugar and preservatives, or fresh OJ?

Personally I prefer the fresh stuff - because it tastes better. Because it is better quality!

Have you tried organic foods? Generally speaking they actually taste better than the mass produced stuff because they are better quality.

As for the 3rd world, the west is happily shafting them as it is, so that is a pretty inane argument if you ask me (though enlightened people like myself buy 'Fairtrade' produce from 3rd world countries - my organic dried mangoes from Burkina Faso were nice and tasty today thank you...)

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Oerdin

That's great man and as a consumer I think you should have that choice. Now please explain how removing other consumers' rights to make a different choice is justified. Even if GM crops were on the market you would still be able to pay twice the price for "organic" food.

Other people have the right to make up their own minds about the quality, value, and wholesomness of GM food without luddites trying legislate their options for them.

The moment large scale GM production occurs in this country the effective policing of Organic Food goes straight out the window as pollen etc from the GM crops will potentially contaminate their organic counterparts...

So yes in your own words, please explain how removing other consumers' rights to make a different choice is justified?

As for organic cost, please read my previous post - there was a time when you did pay twice the price for organic, but those days are long gone in the supermarkets here...

People wishing to eat GM here will still have the choice to do so (while the choice of people wishing to eat organic is protected) as some GM foods (labelled!) are sold here - you Americans should be happy, your country will be able to corner the market for all those Europeans clamouring for your wholesome GM foods...!

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Indeed. If we actually bothered to think these things through beforehand we wouldn't have things like PCBs contaminating every ecosystem and food chain, or a hole in the ozone. But we don't do that, so we just have to take for granted that we'll always be stuck with the consequences of these half-baked 'break-throughs' that no one bothers to think about untill it's too late.

This is basically my main point!

Human history is littered with so-called groundbreaking acheivements hailed in their fields.

It's the same lament.

First everyone pats themselves on how brilliant this breakthrough is for whatever reason...

Years pass, sometimes decades...

Then someone works out it is actually BAD!

But this gets covered up, as people with vested interests deny there is any problem - that takes more years...

Finally, overwhelming evidence stacks up that the thing is dangerous/bad and something is done about it like asbestos, DDT or CFCs...

Without proper transparent testing, by the time any problems that are found in any improperly developed GM food might be decades later - kind of a bit late don't you think when you're talking about a potential Pandora's Box?

Saccharin was recently banned as carcinogenic - I avoided that in the way I am avoiding GM and feel vindicated with that choice.

I've just lived through the BSE debacle, I don't want this on my plate as well...

[Solly]

Free trade = fair trade