Why GM crops are vital

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Presumably because it's difficult to educate beans?

Come on, Geronimo. You're disappearing off into a fantasy of "what ifs" that bear no resemblance to reality. In order to prop up your GM smallholder example you'd need to establish that this person was determined on a 100% pure GM stock in his backyard- a situation that not even Monsanto's test fields can achieve. It would need to be hermetically sealed against nature.

In the real world, anyone attempting such a lawsuit would either be held to be contributorily negligent, or would be held to be a vexatious litigant.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Now can I draw you back to this one?

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

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?

You'll understand, of course, that in the early 80's scientists assured British farmers that there was absolutely no risks associated with feeding sheep proteins to cattle, and that's made anyone connected to British farming treat claims that "we'll never make another mistake again" with scepticism.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Geronimo

wouldn't matter if it was. What matters is the reasons the public opposes GM-crops and addressing those arguments. It is obvious that most opposition to Gm crops isn't composed of greedy farmers. At worst they play an enthusiastic lobbyist role in the fiasco.

My concerns are quite simple:

1. I really am not conviced, after more than 100 years of trying; that much of modern science isn't as destructive as it is progressive(so i am a luddite in a way).

2. I'm totaly convinced that the fine balance of nature is so much more complicated than we are currently close to understanding.

3. I'm totaly convinced that big-buisness only cares about one thing. And that isn't what will be happening in the world 200 years from now, due to its actions.

untill these concerns are met, then there is no way in hell i'll be happy letting people play god with our (future)food supply.

There may well be some good GM work being done, but untill it(the agri/bio industry) and all the world governments come up with a responsible way(and we have examples of the exact opposite!) to continue with these crops - then i think the price/risks are currently too high to pay.

[Sandman]

1. I really am not conviced, after more than 100 years of trying; that much of modern science isn't as destructive as it is progressive(so i am a luddite in a way).

Throw away your computer then.

[child of Thor]

i'm working on it - well i have been since 1984..............but its so powerfull i cant break the spell of the terribly beautifull but fundimentaly evil goddess of silicon chips

I actually really do belive computers are evil and will be the downfall of mankind.......but that is for another topic i suggest

GM cant exist without computers = GM is evil

.......see its true

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Now can I draw you back to this one?




You'll understand, of course, that in the early 80's scientists assured British farmers that there was absolutely no risks associated with feeding sheep proteins to cattle, and that's made anyone connected to British farming treat claims that "we'll never make another mistake again" with scepticism.

I'm satisfied that we couldn't reduce the risks of a new and previously unrecognized allergen being encountered by using only traditional methods of developing new hybrids. Allergens are molecules that bear an epitope that someones immune system has recognized. The brazil nut example in the pro-GM article you posted would have been just as likely to cause mischief had someone crossed another plant with brazil nuts by traditional methods. Now both traditional agricultural methods and recombinant methods of improving and maintainging crops can hugely bennefit from the fact that all potential allergens are not created equal. The vast and overwhelming majority can be attributed to a finite and recognized pool of "the usual suspects" proteins. This is why people are going to take great care when dealing with plant products like peanuts or brazil nuts when making crosses or when using recombinant techniques to transfer proteins involving such plants. I think when working with plants or proteins which haven't been widely enough consumed to be certain they are free of an unidentified hyperallergen any resulting cross or recombinant product needs to be sold with a new name even if it's just a cute little title like a location or part of the name of the group or individual who made the cross or transferred the gene. That way the public will at least know when trying something they really haven't tried before unlike now where someone could cross a known plant with any random plant in the wild (by traditional techniques or by simply transferring one gene) and sell it as the original familier plant. However, I don't think this should be necessary when working only with familier widely consumed plants that don't have one of the recognized 'hyperallergens' because any related allergy to the cross or transferred gene would be very unlikely.

I think your question boils down to what about someone who falls outside that vast majority and has a unique allergy? Not everybody can develop allergies to unrecognized allergens. However those who do will certainly have become aware that they are easily sensitized just from having tried the wide variety of foods people like to eat. I support giving these individuals a tool they do not currently posses to be able to recognize at the place of purchase the particular pedigrees of the items they are purchasing (it could be a simple unique numeric identifier in fine print) This would be helpful because the hypersensitive who show noticable allegeric reactions to unrecognized common allergens can avoid symptoms simply by sticking one particular cross of the plant that lacks that mystery allergen. In the case of a transgenic plant it would not be allowed to have the same 'pedigree' information as it's pretransgenic cross because it is not quite as similer. Currently eating all organic crops is no more likely to help these hypersensitzed individuals than eating only transgenic crops because in both cases they can't be sure that a product that looks like something they have eaten before without problems will in fact be trouble free for them.

Is this worth all the trouble? Well it would certainly be far more effective than proposals to label products as either "organic" or non organic since that does nothing to make sure that the consumer will not be exposed to a novel unrecognized antigen.

If people really want to let organic farmers off the hook and only force GM products to use special labelling then rather than simply labelling as "transgenic" or something equivalent, they should merely be required to name the product something new as if it were a new variety of fruit ("granny smith" vs "macintosh") and allow the same freedom to avoid trying new things without implying there is something wrong with transgenic crops.

[JohnT]

without implying there is something wrong with transgenic crops.

But that's the point. Your proposal is useless because they want to imply that something is wrong with them.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Creating hybrids is not the same as genetic engineering because you cannot introduce genes from individuals that cannot reproduce sexually with the crops you have.

As discussed before GM crops have huge problems. So we need to look elsewhere - such as start eating algae.

I wish I could get a look at some of the huge problems UR was referring to. It's always nice to discover a new point of view.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by child of Thor

Bribes have always been our downfall(it cost us against the english ) - time to get writing the councils again

How else to get 3 LBM units on turn one?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Geronimo

The brazil nut example in the pro-GM article you posted would have been just as likely to cause mischief had someone crossed another plant with brazil nuts by traditional methods.

Which happens all the time, right? Crossing nuts with cereals, in traditional horticulture? You type it as if that's something that actually happens.

I've got a shiny penny in my pocket. If you can provide just one example of someone crossing nuts and cereals through cuttings, I will send it to you.

I think your question boils down to what about someone who falls outside that vast majority and has a unique allergy?

No it doesn't. It boils down to whether we fully underdstand why increases in allergies are happening, and whether continued reliance on a narrow range of GM cereals is wise.

Not everybody can develop allergies to unrecognized allergens. However those who do will certainly have become aware that they are easily sensitized just from having tried the wide variety of foods people like to eat.

Aha- there we go. The truth is that the variety isn't wide. In the west we're massively over-reliant on wheat and dairy products.

If people really want to let organic farmers off the hook and only force GM products to use special labelling then rather than simply labelling as "transgenic" or something equivalent, they should merely be required to name the product something new as if it were a new variety of fruit ("granny smith" vs "macintosh") and allow the same freedom to avoid trying new things without implying there is something wrong with transgenic crops.

What's wrong with prominently advising consumer that it contains GM elements?

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
edit:

What's wrong with prominently advising consumer that it contains GM elements?

well from my view, what is wrong with it is that in the majority of the world people will leave it on the shelf over a non 'contains GM' product. So thats what that particular fuss is about.
Like i've said the 'current' way GM is being handled is very underhand

[Imran Siddiqui]

What's wrong with prominently advising consumer that it contains GM elements?

Can we label all foods which exist as a result of genetic mutation (ie, just about all of 'em)?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Actually, no, that's not why. The stuff is sterile because companies don't want farmers to be able to save seed from their crops for replanting. Instead, they want farmers to have to buy the initial seed from them, every season. The main GM companies have also bought up many large seed banks and stopped selling non-terminating seed, as well.

Is this a guess or have you found doccumentation somewhere that sterile products were developed to prevent holding over seed?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by child of Thor


My concerns are quite simple:

1. I really am not conviced, after more than 100 years of trying; that much of modern science isn't as destructive as it is progressive(so i am a luddite in a way).

2. I'm totaly convinced that the fine balance of nature is so much more complicated than we are currently close to understanding.

3. I'm totaly convinced that big-buisness only cares about one thing. And that isn't what will be happening in the world 200 years from now, due to its actions.

untill these concerns are met, then there is no way in hell i'll be happy letting people play god with our (future)food supply.

There may well be some good GM work being done, but untill it(the agri/bio industry) and all the world governments come up with a responsible way(and we have examples of the exact opposite!) to continue with these crops - then i think the price/risks are currently too high to pay.

thank you.

would it be fair to characterize your antipathy to science as a matter of personal faith or do you think it is something you could logically defend?

Also, it's appropriate that you recognize how complex ecology is. Why do you assume that GM crops will do more harm to this complex ecology than non GM crops? It's already been noted that even stone age things like goats can be immensely destructive ecologically so why assume specifically banning GM products will make the complex ecologies more robust?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by child of Thor
1. I really am not conviced, after more than 100 years of trying; that much of modern science isn't as destructive as it is progressive(so i am a luddite in a way).

Then you're an idiot. Go back and live in 1906.