Genetically Modified Crops

It seems to be across fruit and vegetables because of soil depletion.

www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/

Re less vit C in apples, even if this is true, and I have my doubts, but even if it is, this need not be an issue nowadays when we have access to many many many more fruits and vegetables all year round than we used to have, so the vit C content of a particular kind of apple is not as important as it once was.

I don't think anyone who thinks there is mileage in GM only relies on evidence from multinational companies. That's another mistaken assumption IMO.

I used to buy all organic stuff, even organically produced fabrics. So it's not a case of "sticking to" certain views at all. I've listened to both sides and changed my mind because of better scientific evidence (not to mention political and moral) than I had previously. Just saying because I think it's wrong to make such assumptions that phrases like "sticking to" imply.

Not saying everything is right about GM but I don't think everything is wrong either. In short, I'm no longer opposed in principle to the idea of GMO crops. As usual, I take a middle line.

mineralgoldavenue.com/en/blog-colloides/5_vitamine-depletion.html

Today an apple contains 100 times less vitamin C than in 1950.

We need to try and guard the nutritional quality of our food.

I dont trust the multinationals to do that.

Ana. If you grow your own, there can be a problem with the seeds.

I think this article presents the concerns about GM very well

www.alf.sd83.bc.ca/courses/FOV1-00026269/FOV1-0002628C/Ecological%20Impacts%20of%20Industrial%20Agriculture.doc

The article points out the irony of relying on evidence in favour of GM from the huge multinationals (Monsanto, Novartis, DuPont) that championed the practices that led to the 'first wave' of environmental problems.

It concerns me that most (if not all) the research which presents GM favourably is sponsored by these multinationals. Funding for more impartial research is going to be harder to come by. Like dj I prefer organic food and this will undoubtedly be more difficult to source if GM is more widely grown in the UK and Europe, as it is in the USA.

I think there are those on both sides of this argument who are determined to stick to their views and would not be convinced by any research that doesn't support their position. My own position is one of natural scepticism. Do I believe science is important and valid? Of course. Do I believe it is always impartial? No. Do I believe everything I read? Absolutely not. So my default position is not to accept a new development just because someone tells me it's the best thing since sliced bread but to read and find out more for myself with an open mind. Everything I have read about GM so far tells me not to trust it.

I especially like this bit: "policies based on determined ignorance".

The link above, btw, is from Sense About Science and the letter is from 28 research organisations.

Letter to Scottish Govt from research organisations.

The GM potato I mentioned earlier, had an introduced gene from a wild relative, See www.jic.ac.uk/news/2014/02/gm-spuds-beat-blight/. I really do not understand how anyone could object to it.

That video just shows me why I do not want GM food.

A video about genetic engineering.

www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/tdc02.sci.life.gen.breeding/classical-vs-transgenic-breeding/

"Organic describes a process and GMO describes a product. Excluding an arbitrary clause that says you can’t use GMO seed in USDA Organic production, there is really no reason why the two couldn’t work synergistically." sites.psu.edu/gmoliteracyproject/

There are a lot of questions and answers on this webpage (which defines its aim as "To provide unbiased, factual information about GMOs to debunk myths, educate the general public, and provide resources for further inquiry – compiled by Penn State Students")

I don't understand the chemistry of it exactly but I think there are two kinds of omega 3 oils, and the sort found in some plants is not the same as in fish oil.

Genetic modification should be taken on a case by case basis. Monsanto did a great diservice to science in their arrogant attitude and now no commercial companies are doing research into GM in this country. It is all done by not for profit organisations like The John Innes Institute and the Sainsbury Laboratories, and Rothamsted. The horrendus cost of the recent trial of GM wheat by Rothamsted was partly because of the security they had to put in place to prevent trashing by activists.

The recent GM potato trials look very promising. They are engineered to resist potato blight with no need for fungicides. Potatoes are normally sprayed up to 25 times. The plants are also sterile, so no cross contamination issues. Surely this ought to appeal to organic growers? But I fear not, they are too entrenched in their views it seems to me.

Grow your own, durhamjen. Simples.

I get worked up by GM foods because I buy organic. There will be little organic food if GM is allowed to be planted everywhere in this country.

If you read the comments that American anti vaccinators are posting on facebook you will see that even today people are reacting to vaccination with complete hysteria! I imagine the GM debate will run and run.

I guess progress is always a bit scary. The initial response to vaccination was probably a bit wary.

The thing is that they are producing fish oils to feed fish by genetically modifying flax seed which already contains omega 3s. Why the genetic modification is needed is beyond me.
There's always been a big thing about needing omega 3 from oily fish, but it's just as readily available from plant oils. Fish do not contain it naturally. It depends on how high up the food chain they are as to how much omega 3 they have.
So, as said earlier, I do not see the point.

There is a particular poster who, judging by previous posts on similar threads, understands genetic modification very well and has previously posted some very useful information. I wish she would reappear.

I think the problem is that we don't know whether we should be afraid of it, because all the positive stuff we are told comes from those with vested interests.

I get 'worked up' positively about it, lucky. Frontiers of science and all that. Great stuff and nothing to be frightened of in my view.

I find it hard to get worked up about genetic modification. There seem to be many possible benefits and gene therapy is already in use.

So, a necessary thing in terms of fish farms at the very least. There you have it.

Reading further down about the GM fish-oil plants, it seems the oils are to feed to fish in fish farms because they need them to be healthy but being raised in farms do not have access to the marine algae that 'manufacture' them.

Then, presumably, people who eat the farmed fish will also get the benefit of the fish oils.

So, an improvement in farm fish living conditions and a benefit to the human animals and cats and whatever else eats fish. Two plusses so far in my book.

I don't read all your links. Some I do. Don't suppose you read all mine either.

Re your post of 20:17, I should think a vegetable source of omega-3 fatty acids that are normally only available in oily fish, which not everyone has access to and which some people don't eat even when they do have access to such fish, could be a good thing for quite a lot of people.

Define unnecessary. Bet you've got loads of, strictly speaking and depending on one's definition, unnecessary things in your life. So have I and I don't feel a single scrap of guilt about them. "Our basest beggars are in the meanest thing superfluous" (King Lear; apologies for mistakes to Shakespearian scholars). That something is regarded as unnecessary by some does not make it a bad thing nor even a useless thing.