Genetically Modified Crops

I tell my kids. Whether they do it or not is up to them.

If you cant afford organic, you cant afford it. Even an extra 30p per week spent on organic could be money well spent. Plus sometimes, the fruit or veg that has a short shelf life left, is organic.

Soil depletion is not caused by GM. It's a related but separate issue.
What do you mean by that?

I do not tell my kids, but show by example. They both use organic dairy, eggs and apples, and other foodstuffs when they can afford them.

This government's mantra in all things is choice.
What about people who can't afford organic? What about people who can?
This country is not big enough to have GM and organic side by side.

How many of these signatories of the article in thatbags link are multinationals, or sponsored by them?
Institute of Food Science and Technology
John Innes Centre
National Farmers Union
National Institute of Agricultural Botany, Cambridge
National Institutes of Bioscience
Public Research and Regulation Initiative
Robert Gordon University
Rothamsted Research
Royal Society of Edinburgh
Society for Applied Microbiology
Society for Experimental Biology
School of Biosciences at the University of Kent
Science Council
Science Team, Eden Project
Sense About Science
The Roslin Institute
The Sainsbury Laboratory, Norwich
UK Plant Science Federation
University of Bangor
University of Dundee
University of Edinburgh
University of Hertfordshire
Wissenschafterkreis Grüne Gentechnik (WGG)

I don't understand how GM crops could cause more soil depletion than non- GM ones. In all respects but the few genes that have been transferred to them, they are the same as the plant they are derived from.

Why do we need to grow GM crops in this country? I can see no environmental or economic gain.

This country is not big enough to have GM and organic side by side

I dont understand what you mean by that either.
They will cross over?

I think I get what you mean now.

S2B soil deletion is caused by plants taking more out of the soil that can be put back in, either by natural fertilisers or man made. In days gone by it was quite common to leave some fields fallow, and perhaps turn sheep, cows, pigs or hens onto a newly harvested field to graze off the stubble and then fertilise through their droppings.

Re cross fertilisation, yes,insect or air-borne pollen from a GM crop, can be carried on the wind or on insects and fertilise nearby crops of the same species. Therefore introduced genes passed on.

Elegran to my knowledge none of the signatories are multinationals, although it is possible they receive some funding from them.

First of all, soon, I meant what I said: soil depletion is not caused by GM. I said that because you seemed to think it was.

It can be caused by erosion (that is common) and sometimes we are directly responsible for the erosion, as with the N American "Dust Bowl" of the nineteen-thirties, long before anyone had done any genetic modification, only cross breeding.

Sorry, anya. I posted before I had read your post. Well, soon, now has two explanations so I hope her understanding is improved.

Yes, quite, elegran. It's easy to see that proper scientists are opposing the Scot Govt plan. It is jot easy to see that such people are opposing GM because usually their 'evidence' does not supply links to scientific evidence, only to the emotions of ignorance.

Well said thatbags. Unfortunately the "organic" movement has laid down its rules and in no way are they going to relax them. I'm not against organics but I do feel that there could be many crops developed by Gm methods which would use fewer chemicals, (and give added health benefits as in Golden rice) . If they could be convinced that cross contamination poses no health risk, I don't see the problem.

The letter was not the result of one study carried out under the auspices of a multinational, where the individuals involved might be suspected of producing a report to please the sponsors (though that wouild be against the ethics of the reputable organisations signing)

It it a letter representing the organisations themselves. At a glance, they seem to be from all sides of sciientific research. Their views ought to count for something.

Sense about Science is an excellent organisation. I would recommend reading the responses in the Plant science panel.

Your post does not make sense, Culag. If you want crops developed that use fewer chemicals, what's wrong with organic? Why is GM needed?
Obviously I am speaking from the emotions of ignorance.

Who fully trusts the multi nationals with our food? And if we trust them now, do we trust them in the future too?

Organics and GM are not mutually incompatable. Organics does not add inorganic chemicals as fertilizers or to repel insects and disease. GM strains are bred to resist those insects and diseases (as the strains we have chosen to perpetuate and modify by selective breeding for centuries have developed resistance over time). Growing GM crops in organic conditions combines the best of both.

The factors that do need considering are

1) The long-term involvement of "owners" of GM strains, licensing the use of them and pricing out those who cannot pay. Short-term patents are a reasonable way of allowing them to recoup their considerable expense in development, but there should be a "statute of limitations" on their monopoly. Perhaps there already is.

2) The ability of modified crops to cross-fertilise (or not) with other similar crops should be made very clear.

3) The price of organic crops is unexplainably high. So is the cost of GM crops.

4) Soil depletion is obviously a worry. The facts about that need to be readily available and explained to non-agriculturalists.

dj I feel that Gm could be a useful method for the organic movement to adopt in certain cases. Breeding with GM could produce crops with added benefits which cannot be created using traditional breeding methods - as in Golden rice containing Vit A. That crop could also be grown on "organic" methods.

Crossed posts, culag.

I suspect organic enthusiasts don't want the ideological purity of the movement threatened by new ideas.

I think you are right Elegran, organics is a religion. But I think there is room for all.

You seem to have taken my earlier post personally thatbags. It was not directed at you. I'm sorry you object to my use of the term 'sticking to'. I was merely suggesting that there are always entrenched views on either side of any debate. Not exactly a new, or radical suggestion.

No one is answering djs question of why GM is needed.

There seems to be a lot of prejudice against organics on here. What happened to live and let live?

Organics and GMs are complete opposites to me. I cant see them getting into bed together. Ever.