Can we talk about GM crops?

[beeanne]

BLX.

I think manmade manipulation of genes is often a Good Thing, and the potential is there for it to be a Very Good Thing (anyone want to cure genetic ailment by finding the "off" switch?).

HOWEVER I don't see why GM plants are a good thing.... not in and of themselves, but becuase of what it would enable us to do. Think about what our farmland would look like if GM progressed to it's conclusion. garden plants that poison slugs/snails/greenfly/whitefly. We can grow vast tracts of the same thing, absolute monoculture. even IF the "anti-pest" effect doesn't pass to non-cultivated plants (and is a big if) the impact on our bugs and beasties would be enormous.

And justifying it with future world food crisis???!!! Double BLX (well, they do come in pairs I s'pose). We already know that kids die from drinking filthy water, and we let it happen....it costs very little to fix, and kills huge numbers NOW. But no, much more important to develop a way of keeping food prices low.

[gavin]

Took me ages to work out what BLX was (they come in pairs, LOL!). Hope Doris isn't watching, I was ticked off for using that word.

HOWEVER I don't see why GM plants are a good thing.... not in and of themselves, but becuase of what it would enable us to do.

And corollary is .... I don't see why they are a bad thing! If plants could fight off herbivores unaided then there would be no need for less discriminating poisons, wouldn't there? The perfect organic solution. The plant does it itself, little collateral damage.

Vast tracts of arable monoculture are already happening and it is nothing to do with GM.

Food crises are coming, that is for sure. So should we let people starve while we think of how to tackle the root problems? Or should we deliberately let those kids drinking filty water die to keep the population lower?

I still think that we are under an obligation to at least attempt to feed the growing numbers of people on the planet while we try to sort out all the other problems.

[Neils]

People who do not want GM should follow the logic of their own thinking. Man made manipulation of genes is WRONG:

So:

no antibiotics.
No stents.
Stop eating wheat and all grain crops and all fruit and veg which are the result of man's tinkering with genes over centuries.


And of course, keep no dogs as a pet: and especially NOT pure breed dogs. Crufts is an abomination.

And horse racing is evil..

All human gene manipulation..

As for drinking cows' milk, give it up now...

Anyone who grows grafted fruit or roses or F1 vegetables of flowers is an evil gene altering monster.

Once they die of food poisoning or the first serious wound infection, the rest of us can use GM crops with a clear conscience.

That's a pretty facetious argument surely?

Maybe the next logical step from inbred dogs is wheat that emits aphid pheromones, but that's a leap along the lines of dog with frog's legs to me.

Even that's not a new idea, we're right back to the idea of the Chimera and that's a pretty deep seated idea with no positive connotations. So it doesn't really surprise me that generally there's a fundamental notion that it's not a great idea.

[beeanne]

...But surely vast tracts of monoculture aren't good for the future of the planet, so why work on technologies that enable htat to happen more profitably in more areas?

Why are we claming that a relatively expensive technology is worthwhile on the grounds of helping the worlds poor in the future, yet access to the easily available, very cheap measures to save lives are ignored. It isn't a question of letting people starve, not really. We already stand by and let people die of easily preventable diseases. It will simply enable us in the west to continue to waste vast amounts of food and for that food to continue to be - realtively- cheap.

[madasafish]

That's a pretty facetious argument surely?


Yes: it is.

But much of the comments on GM crops come from people who know nothing about the selective breeding adopted by humans for at least 5 millennia..(see wheat,dogs and cats) and frankly I would expect anyone who knows anything about GM crops to recognise the fallacies in my argument .

YOU. did..:-)

[The Drone Ranger]

Selective breeding and genetic modification are not just two sides of the same coin.

It seems to me that most people don't object to genetic modification that enables wheat to grow in drought conditions.

They become uneasy when plants are modified to produce toxins which kill insects but they know to some extent that happens in nature.

They do however object strongly to plants being modified to make them immune to particular herbicides so that the crop can be sprayed willy nilly devastating all the other plants in the vicinity in pursuit of monopoly profit.

[beeanne]

Agree entirely with Mr Ranger above. There's modification and modification, and for ther record, I've very little against animal GM. Am sure I can think of exception to that, but generally is fine by me.

Robustly disagree with the view that if you don't like GM then its becuase you're a lentil knitting wierdy who sacrifices (vegan) goats at Stonehenge for the solstice.

[voytech104]

Generally I regard myself as a open minded person but let me ask you a question:

Do you think that modification that allows for large monocultures to be created by spraying and killing ALL other plants and microorganisms, insects, worms that feed on them is good for soil and therefore food we eat?
Do you think that food that is grown on artificial NPK feeds will taste the same as grown on "dung?"

I do not know the answers to that - but lets have some options. As far as I know people in States do not have this option - are they?
You cannot grow non-GM corn there?

I would like to have at least options open.





---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?no1qkm

[Bumble]

Do you think that modification that allows for large monocultures to be created by spraying and killing ALL other plants and microorganisms, insects, worms that feed on them is good for soil and therefore food we eat?

I think it's more complicated than that and it's a bit of a spiral of development, with no easily definable starting point. There were fewer people available to work the land post two horrible wars and mechanisation, which needed fewer people, led to bigger fields so management practices changed and some farmers became dependent on sprays and powders, some of which were quite ghastly.

I'm uneasy about some research, and uneasy about some GM, and would, for example, prefer birds to eat aphids rather than the manipulated crops themselves repelling them. But, what land is available for agriculture has to produce large quantities of high quality food, otherwise it gets thrown away because some people will only eat things that look 'perfect'.

Also, not many people in the western world seem willing to get their hands dirty and work the land, so we're to some extent dependent on those who do. I think all farmers are aware of what can, and could, go wrong if soil quality isn't maintained. Think dustbowl?

[The Drone Ranger]

Agree entirely with Mr Ranger above. There's modification and modification, and for ther record, I've very little against animal GM. Am sure I can think of exception to that, but generally is fine by me.

Robustly disagree with the view that if you don't like GM then its becuase you're a lentil knitting wierdy who sacrifices (vegan) goats at Stonehenge for the solstice.

Thanks for that post very humorous keep up the good work

Here's a thought is it better to manipulate RNA to damage varroa mites reproductive ability
OR
Would it be better to breed bees where the drones only require 24 days to hatch using GM or standard selection

I'm not certain but I lean toward the second option