Genetically Modified Crops

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

Grow your own, durhamjen. Simples.

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.

"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")

A video about genetic engineering.

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

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

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.

Letter to Scottish Govt from research organisations.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

I am not going to guarantee it, but I have told my kids to buy more organic.

Soil depletion is not caused by GM. It's a related but separate issue.

What about people who can't afford organic?

I don't tell my adult kids to do anything! They have good minds of their own.

Introducing a gene from a wild relative is not truly transgenic, though transgenic methodology may have been used.