Why GM crops are vital

[chequita guevara]

What the **** is the point of gluten free wheat? You can't make bread or pasta with it, so why bother with it? If you need a high protein, gluten-free grain, try qinoa or amaranth. The two best grains on the planet that no one uses.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


The ones that bug me most are this one-



Which fails to address the question of why we are seeing such a growth in food allergies in the first place, and how great a role over-exposure to limited food-groups such as wheat may be a contributory factor (aside from the genetic issues). It strikes me that the obvious answer is to seek greater variety in diets by using more oats, barley, millet, maize and quinoa. Funnily enough, the industrial farming industry heavily committed to wheat appears to disagree. Whether that's down to bias due to vested interests, or simple inability to think outside the box, is a moot point.

Secondly, that great statement "this will never happen again" with regard to allergies is a bold one, creating the comfy impression that all the medical issues here, now and forever are fully understood and no mistakes will be made again. That takes some selling to Europe in the wake of the BSE crisis- which wasn't a GM issue, but was certainly a catastrophic failure in intensive agriculture.

The phenomena of increased allergies isn't limited to foods alone. The appears to be a general increase in hyper sensitization of the immune system in general leading to respiratory and skin allergy trends even more striking than the increases in rates of food allergies. A more general explanation than a change in diet is required and so far the so called "hygiene hypothesis" has the widest acceptance and goes farthest in explaining the trend.

Secondly even if it did happen again so what? What happened was someone was going to insert an allergen gene and thought better of it. It is reasonable to assume that if they stopped the effort in time when the threat was not even recognized it will be quite a stretch to fail to do so now that the threat is recognized and people aren't even bothering to start such projects much less have to bother stopping them.

In the development of a polio vaccine faulty methods produced two predecessors to the salk vaccine that actually gave polio to the vaccinated test subjects. Does anybody seriously think this means that we have to worry about someone trying their approach to vaccine preperation again?

Researchers now pay careful attention to avoid the entire list of allergen candidate genes. How will they unwittingly choose one of those genes for insertion?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Odin
Isn't some of the Anti-GM stuff from European farmers who have a vested intrest in keeping crop prices high? I swear I heard that somewhere.

If that was the case, it would be farmers opposing the GM crops, not the general public. However it's the general public where most opposition is coming from.

In the wake of the BSE disaster and umpteen farming pollution scandals, the public just doesn't trust intensive industrial farming, and there's a big move towards organic food. Organic is the big growth area in European farming, and the US-based GM approach just cuts across it.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Geronimo

In the development of a polio vaccine faulty methods produced two predecessors to the salk vaccine that actually gave polio to the vaccinated test subjects. Does anybody seriously think this means that we have to worry about someone trying their approach to vaccine preperation again?

Polio vaccines aren't food, Geronimo. We accept the risks in medical testing because we have no choice. In food production, we do have a choice.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Polio vaccines aren't food, Geronimo. We accept the risks in medical testing because we have no choice. In food production, we do have a choice.

ahh but the point was do you think that by accident the mistake could be repeated or do you recognize that sometimes certain mistakes aren't repeated once they are recognized?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Oerdin

The world needs fewer peasant farmers so that the consolidated farmers which remain are large enough to afford modern methods instead of bunches of poverty stricken people living on plots of land which has zero chance of feeding them much less their families.

In order to make this possible an transfer money to the poorest countries, via a market based system, we need an end to the western farm subsidies and open markets so the rest of the world can sell their farm goods. That more then anything else will lead to economic development in the third world.

While I'm with you on the issue of subsidies, I can't agree with that first paragraph. What the world needs are more people able to grow food locally and sustainably, and that goes for the first world as well.

Let's start by turning half or more of those suburban lawns into vegetable patches- possibly even a couple of chickens. It would be a good thing, I'm convinced.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


While I'm with you on the issue of subsidies, I can't agree with that first paragraph. What the world needs are more people able to grow food locally and sustainably, and that goes for the first world as well.

Let's start by turning half or more of those suburban lawns into vegetable patches- possibly even a couple of chickens. It would be a good thing, I'm convinced.

suburban lawns

vegtable patches!

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Geronimo


ahh but the point was do you think that by accident the mistake could be repeated or do you recognize that sometimes certain mistakes aren't repeated once they are recognized?

In this particular case, yes. I think it could happen again.

I'm willing to take your expert opinion here. Are you fully satisfied that we understand all issues of human allergies and couldn't possibly introduce an allergenic response not yet understood and/or identified?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Geronimo


suburban lawns

vegtable patches!

Damn straight. Organic food on your doorstep. Cut out the middleman. Improve biodiversity in your neighbourhood.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Damn straight. Organic food on your doorstep. Cut out the middleman. Improve biodiversity in your neighbourhood.

What if I want to grow GM crops in my vegtable garden?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It's your right as an American to do so. Just don't let any get into your neighbour's organic crop, or they'll sue your arse off.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
It's your right as an American to do so. Just don't let any get into your neighbour's organic crop, or they'll sue your arse off.

Shall i sue my neighbor if his organic crop contaminates my GM crop? What if I suspect that he has been holding over seed and unrecognized mutations may have arisen in his crops? What if he hasn't done any studies to make sure his crops are safe? Perhaps holding over seed should be banned to prevent the possibility of such uncontrolled mutations being allowed to spread into crops where fitness for human consumption has been soundly established.

And before you roll your eyes in contempt and refuse to respond (as GM detractors are wont to do) consider specifically how you know that anything you eat is safe and free from random harmful mutations. You can't claim that it's been eaten that way for generations because it's been established that simple genetic drift constitutes a larger change in the genome than any transgenic modifications. We assume it's safe because relatively speaking the changes are tiny and slow, but they are also mysterious and they are also no smaller intriniscally than the changes deliberately introduced in transgenic engineering. The difference in visible results is simply because one is blind and one isn't, and blind change is very unlikely to produce visible changes in organisms adapted since the dawn of life itself to adjust to inevitable genomic tweaking.

My point is that my neighbors lawsuit would be based on grossly irrational fears and would thus be totally injust. If I grew a phenotypically different but non-GM "organic" version of the same crop as him, it would surely "contaminate" his crop with the trait in question, but he wouldn't be allowed to sue me over it. Why should he be allowed to sue me if a transgenic trait was instead transferred?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Shall i sue my neighbor if his organic crop contaminates my GM crop?

Go for it, my boy. You'd almost certainly fail, of course- because you couldn't establish any damage has been caused, or that it was your neighbour causing the damage.

Trust me- if that was an option, Monsanto would have already gone down that route.

What if I suspect that he has been holding over seed and unrecognized mutations may have arisen in his crops? What if he hasn't done any studies to make sure his crops are safe? Perhaps holding over seed should be banned to prevent the possibility of such uncontrolled mutations being allowed to spread into crops where fitness for human consumption has been soundly established.

You'd need to pursue the designers of the crops, which would presumably be a slew of long-dead gardeners and Mother Nature. Good luck. And I mean that, because you'd really need it.

And before you roll your eyes in contempt and refuse to respond (as GM detractors are wont to do)

Hey. This is me you're talking about. Why refuse to respond when it's more entertaining to showboat?

consider specifically how you know that anything you eat is safe and free from random harmful mutations. You can't claim that it's been eaten that way for generations because it's been established that simple genetic drift constitutes a larger change in the genome than any transgenic modifications.

Well, firstly I'm in favour of spreading my bets by proposing use of a wider range of crops rather than over-reliance on a narrow GM range.

Secondly, the organic label means less pesticides/herbicide exposure. The GM label does not necessarily carry such safeguards.

Thirdly, it's not just individual health issues at stake here. It's economic and environmental ones too.

My point is that my neighbors lawsuit would be based on grossly irrational fears and would thus be totally injust. If I grew a phenotypically different but non-GM "organic" version of the same crop as him, it would surely "contaminate" his crop with the trait in question, but he wouldn't be allowed to sue me over it. Why should he be allowed to sue me if a transgenic trait was instead transferred?

Simple economics. If your crops prevent him from using an organic label (which carries a premium price), thus reducing the market value of his crops, he could sue you for damages. It's not rocket science.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Go for it, my boy. You'd almost certainly fail, of course- because you couldn't establish any damage has been caused, or that it was your neighbour causing the damage.

Trust me- if that was an option, Monsanto would have already gone down that route.



You'd need to pursue the designers of the crops, which would presumably be a slew of long-dead gardeners and Mother Nature. Good luck. And I mean that, because you'd really need it.




Hey. This is me you're talking about. Why refuse to respond when it's more entertaining to showboat?



Well, firstly I'm in favour of spreading my bets by proposing use of a wider range of crops rather than over-reliance on a narrow GM range.

Secondly, the organic label means less pesticides/herbicide exposure. The GM label does not necessarily carry such safeguards.

Thirdly, it's not just individual health issues at stake here. It's economic and environmental ones too.




Simple economics. If your crops prevent him from using an organic label (which carries a premium price), thus reducing the market value of his crops, he could sue you for damages. It's not rocket science.

I may have misjudged you. It sounds like you are merely acknowledging the defacto consequences of the existing bias against GM crops rather than trying to defend the rationality (or lack thereof) behind that bias. I never disputed that things have gotten so bad that the law suit you described could occur, rather my post was simply an attempt to show that such a lawsuit results from the unjust consequences of willfully ignorant hysteria. Certainly the economic consequences do not represent any real damage rather they represent real losses to individuals (in this case the neighbor who is suing because his GM-free garden was 'contaminated' with GM crops) whose losses are a result of being irrationally avoided by those consumers with an anti-GM bias.

If hypothetically speaking an irrational hysteria arose about organicly grown foods (they spread parasites or some other irrational hooey) would the success of lawsuits against those who grow organic foods be acceptable to you simply because the lawsuits worked?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
You'd need to pursue the designers of the crops, which would presumably be a slew of long-dead gardeners and Mother Nature. Good luck. And I mean that, because you'd really need it.

This is the only part we might disagree on. Why would the designers have to be pursued when people sue, for instance, the owners of a pitbull who attacks them rather than the long dead breeders who 'designed' the breed?