Genetically Modified Crops

It's in the link title, bags.

Claims of GMO Yield Increases Don’t Hold Up

Perhaps it was. You tell me, dj, what the point of your post was. Clearly, whatever the point was, was not obvious or I would have got the point, which I er... obviously didn't.

Wasn't the point of my previous link that Monsanto roundup ready GM does not increase yields?

Can you tell me why this is necessary, because I cannot see it.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/farm-grown-fish-oil-a-step-closer-following-gm-crop-trial

And increased yields done by Monsanto are not a good thing because people don't like that company or because increased yields that prevent people from starving are not a good thing? Which? If the first, does that mean even when Monsanto does something useful and good it's being bad?

Chekc out Norman Borlaug. He was in at the start of finding routes out of starvation.

Why we'll all learn to love genetically modified salmonella from The Conversation.

www.ewg.org/agmag/2015/03/claims-gmo-yield-increases-don-t-hold

Most of the research that says GMOs increase yields is done by companies like Monsanto.

@Colin_McInnes: Swift apt today "whoever could make two ears of corn, or two blades of grass, to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country, than the whole race of politicians put together".

Good for Scotland.

The usual eagerness of reporters to tell us what may happen as though it will happen.

I think more correct reporting is that he is going to attempt to ban GMOs in Scotland. He's going to make a request. I don't think the Scottish govt can just ban them off its own back.

(First attempt didn't work)

Try again. August 2015 - Scotland to ban GM crops - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33833958

Announcement by rural affairs secretary Richard Lochhead.

Nobel laureate bats for GM crops

And another article from The Society of Biology blogroll.

With no cattle there could be an increase in the amount of artificial fertilizer needed, so that needs to be factored into the equation.

Lecture by Mark Lynas who used to campaign against GM, and why he changed his mind. Worth a read.

Around a billion people are undernourished and millions of people die each year due to starvation. Apparently cattle consume enough grain to feed 8.7 billion people. Food shortages could force the world into going vegetarian scientists have warned. Maybe the outcome will have to be a lot less meat so there is enough food for everyone.

Faye Hardly anything that we eat can be described as Natural. All our fruit, vegetables, cereals and animals have been changed by selective breeding until they would be unrecognisable to our distant ancestors. It may not be GM but it is still not necessarily good for us. Look at the amount of fat produced by domestic cows and pigs compared with game. Any change to an organism, whether by GM or selective breeding is liable to produce unwanted side effects.

Is selective breeding really any better than GM?

Watched Crufts lately?

Or been to a county show and seen what's happened to Fresian Holsteins?

The principle of altering the course of nature by selective breeding or GM is the same - we are changing how things would naturally be for our own benefit. We have always done it and always will - we need the knowledge to distinguish between the good and the bad.

It is not enough to be afraid of GM on the basis of a non-interference principle. Because we fear it does not mean it is wrong - what we need to do is to understand the benefits and the dangers and use it wisely.

Thanks for the info about the difference between GM and selective breeding, nanado. That has helped my understanding. However, I think there's still a case (Monsanto shenanigans aside) for saying that the principle of improving yields – through drought-resistance or reducing the need for pesticides, for instance, by GM, or by selectively breeding from good milk cows – is the same in both cases. Would you agree? The question is open to everyone else, of course.

JessM if the forces of anti-science are on the rise then this is balanced out by the forces of pseudo-science. Truly a little learning is a dangerous thing!

Jess where on earth did I say you supported Monsanto. I said "the poor are being ruined by Monsanto."

when we are discussing food not babies. My grandson wouldn't have survived more than a few days when he was born.

I am talking about messing with Mother Nature using a sledge hammer regarding our food. If I have to spell it out, farmers comitting suicide, millions of farmers suing Monsanto, super weeds, herbicides and fertilisers. How exactly are GM crops helping the poor. I am not anti science but I prefer natural foods and distrust GM foods.

The difference between genetic modification and selective breeding is quite clear and scientifically distinct.

GM provides a way of expressing desirable characteristics in an organism that otherwise would not display them. It is the insertion of a foreign gene into an organism, altering the genetic makeup. This produces a transgenic organism, one that expresses a foreign gene. In animals, a gene is inserted into an embryo, modifying the genome to manufacture the product of this new gene. In plants, a gene is injected into a single cell that is grown from a seed into a plant. This plant expresses the new gene in all its cells.

Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification which doesn’t involve the addition of any foreign genetic material (DNA) into the organism. Rather, it is the conscious selection for desirable traits. Pro-GM campaigners wrongly argue that humans have been ‘genetically modifying’ organisms for thousands of years, albeit without knowledge that the favourable traits they were selecting for were determined by genes. For example, humans have always selected cows with the highest milk yield and bred from these to produce herds with good milk production.
.