Genetically Modified Crops

I think nuclear is on a par with wind when it comes to drawbacks. The marketing is just different. I wish they would do more with solar and water power. The latest must do band wagon is solar. Yet why does it have to be built on greenfield sites? There's a proposal to build a solar 'farm' outside Wroxham in Norfolk on good farming land. Yet Wroxham has numerous boat sheds etc, all with large roof areas which if utilised for solar panels would easily equal the area of the proposed farm. There's a chronic shortage of joined up thinking.

NfK* I agree with your points totally.

Bags Thanks for another interesting science article. I think that in general I agree with the points made in it. I am worried about how the GM companies might exploit people with the way they market their crops but not so worried about GM modification itself.

People have been naturally cross breeding plants and animals for generations to get better food products. Yes there is "no evidence that GM food is safe." Is there any evidence at all it is harmful?

I do have objections to breeding food animals for faster growing heaver milk production etc where this causes harm to the animal.
What is even more objectionable is that some members of the Kennel Club were doing this to particular breeds of dogs to get the "look" they thought was fashionable and were breeding animals to have physical disabilities for reasons of fashion. Not even using the excuse of improving food production.

I think we have to accept that nuclear power is possibly the best alternative solution we have for power generation that does not affect global warming. This article raises a lot of points that in the general terms of the GN debate that need an airing.

Just a little thought slightly off topic. would the anti animal testing brigade refuse to give their chldren life saving drug treatments that have been tested on animals??

Interesting article here that I stumbled upon, the first part of which explains how foolish some Greenpeace activists have been on this issue. This kind of action, as the writer says, were anti-science and have helped to alienate people (such as me).

It seems to me that whenever big business gets involved farmers, fishermen, fish stocks, the land and the animals all suffer from the greed of distant shareholders whose only interest in short term profit. Large corporations are too distanced from reality. Absolute power and all that. Sensibly used GM could do a lot of good, but things always seem to go to extreme. Human nature I suppose.

Breeding chickens that can't walk counts as a scientific reason not to do that in my book. It's also a reason not to buy chicken that has been produced that way. It's not a reason to condemn GM; it's a reason to condemn bad farming – different problem.

GM itself, such as enabling grain to be grown in drought conditions, is good. The problems start when big business gets involved - as it inevitably does as it funds the research. That's when good stops and greed takes over. It's a politically and industrially complex subject. The bankers again!!

So now they're breeding enormous salmon. What are the side effects to the salmon? Chickens were fed steroids to make them grow. Now intensive breeding produces birds fit for Tesco in just over a month. They don't need a lot of space as they can't walk.

I try to eat food produced locally and as humanely as possible and avoid using foodstuffs such as palm oil which involve clearing enormous tracts of land for monoculture.

My daughter who works in GM tells me that several projects which were really promising particularly in prevention of disease have been abandoned because of the anti GM prejudice.

Salmon with genes from two other species passed as safe to eat in the USA. No scientific reasons found why this should not be allowed, the article says. Its advantage? – grows faster and bigger - - > more food for less work - - > improved food production for bigger populations. What's not to like?

There is plenty of food in the world but up to a third of it is lost through waste. In developing countries, poor storage, inefficient markets result in food decaying before it can be eaten. In richer countries wanton waste of food, gluttony and shoppers who will only buy perfect unflawed fruit and veg results again in a third of all food going to waste.

Many pests and diseases are the result of intensive farming and bad husbandry. Organic farming that respects the environment works successfully without pesticides. The charity Practical Action has shown how crop productivity can be increased in developing countries with harsh climates. Let us first see what can be done with methods that respect the environment and can be introduced on a small scale without disrupting the lives of small farmers and driving them deeper into poverty. What price all these wonder crops if the starving cannot afford to buy them. Remember in famine areas there is always enough food for those who have enough money.

Here are a couple of references:

permaculture

permaculture.org.au/what-is-permaculture/

And a farmer who makes a profit by natural methods. I probably would not like the man, but I like what he has achieved.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Salatin

I'm not anti-science, but I prefer natural foods and distrust GM foods.

On other matters the Greens would disapprove of me - I am pro nuclear power for instance, because it is the only low pollution system that will provide enough power for a country's needs.

I love the science of permaculture which is big in Australia.

Of course, it is true that it is easy to grow things here in the sub tropics. (Apart from rhubarb - my failure there has been spectacular)

These are all valid concerns - but crop diseases still destroy lives and livelihoods. I would far prefer the crops have a disease resistant gene in them, than get sprayed with pesticides.
There is still mass starvation across the world and I don't think we should dismiss research into things like disease and drought resistant species - it is a luxury to dismiss GM when we have plenty of food to eat and don't see our grandchildren die because crops have failed.
ALso GM might lead to all kinds of useful things - plants that will produce drugs cheaply for instance.
There is a lot of anti-science sentiment in the world and it is easy just to plonk down on that side of things , at the same time as saying "i don't really understand it."

Does anyone remember 'The Green Revolution' of the 1970s? New types of wheat and rice were developed that had massively increased yields that were going to be the salvation of the poor and starving in India and elsewhere in poor countries. With increased yields farmers would have increased incomes and be able to pay for education for there children and medical care. It was going to be a win, win situation.

However it has all gone sour because to get these increased yields it was necessary to add extra fertilisers. Poor farmers didnt have the money to buy the fertilisers so they had to borrow it at extortionate rates from landlords and loan sharks. Yields are up but Indian farmers are poorer than ever because they are caught in a spiral of endless debt that swallows up all the increased income and more.

I remain very cautious on the GM crops, the law of unintended consequences is almost always activated when huge changes like this take place. In most cases seed for GM crops has to be bought anew every year. Farmers can't save seed from their crops one year to plant the next. Once again poor farmers will not be able to afford this and will again get pulled into debt.

I have seen suggestions that the vector used to transfer genes from one genus to another can mean that pollen from GM crops can transfer that gene to other unrelated plants it lands on. I do not understand the process, but it poses obvious dangers.

There is also no need for it. There have been major increases and improvements in crop yields over the last 30 years just using normal breeding methods. In developing countries agricultural yields have been improved by making simple changes to cultivation methods, introducing new crops. Look at the Practical Action website practicalaction.org/agriculture-answersto see what can be done. These changes do not drag farmers into a cycle of debt and they can benefit directly from their increased income.

That is quite a challenge Joan , avoiding all processed food and I admire your resolve. I assume your climate helps with the veg growing. I don't think there are health risks in GM though - the regulatory agencies like the FDA are pretty fussy.
Canola is what we would call "rape seed oil" Isn't is when these vegetable oils (sunflower, corn, rape) are hydrogenated or repeatedly heated to high temperatures that they are not so good for us. Why has it been demonised in certain quarters? Does anyone know?

I avoid GM foods if I can. This means I totally avoid soy bean products and wheat products, hence no bread, cakes or biscuits, and no soy milk, soy flour, soy protein etc. I have plenty to eat though - lots of protein and vegetables and stuff from my organic garden. I also refuse canola products, hence real butter and olive oil instead of marge and canola oil.

I simply don't trust big food concerns. Where there's mega-money there's mega lies. So I avoid all foods that have to be made in a factory.

The natural way of eating keeps me healthy, and costs a lot less, as processed foods cost far more than simple foods.

Yes it was all awful. Horrible. No wonder the Irish bear a grudge!
I am going off at tangents aren't I though and I am going to stop. This windy weather is a pain and making me argumentative. It only feels right if within sight of crashing waves. I remember when teaching that the kids were very edgy and excitable when weather very windy.

Thanks Bags - as usual, you go to a great of effort to make a lot of sense.

Right. Having calmed down, I think what Cobbett was trying to say is that there was enough food in Ireland to have prevented the famine, but the government of the time chose to do nothing.

I had a book from the library about this some years ago which told the story, and the truth, very well. Unfortunately I can't remember what it was. Part of it was about what happened to the migrants when they arrived in N America. That was pretty appalling too.

People in power can and should help people without power. When they do and when they don't, that's politics.

Hungry people would eat meat if it was given to them! It was known that they needed food and food was deliberately NOT given to them!

Simplistic?

Rubbish.

Farming land quality similar

The population based on the 1841-1851 census was 7.5 million. It's about 6.4m now, so not "much" bigger. The land mass is about two thirds that of
england which had a population of England was 15.8m.

So what part of the anglo-irish elite's monopoly of the food supply in Ireland at a time of starvation isn't politics? The British government could have done various things to help the starving peasants AND CHOSE NOT TO for, um, political reasons. Politics is "how people organise things within their societies".

Bags that is a very simplistic view to say politics got between the food and the growers. The famine was a plant disease. It was the social context and the lack of political response wot dun nit.
The meat production would have been monopolised by the anglo-Irish elite upper classes. Rich English speaking anglican land owners, very much part of the British upper class. Land poor irish catholic peasants - a much bigger population than there is today. There was ample grass. It was not a drought. The poor on either side of the Irish sea would never have dreamed of eating much meat - like poor the world over they survived on a staple starch food and it was this crop that failed in Ireland due to disease.
The rich , who included the politicians, did nothing about it. They would have had to import grain in vast quantities if they were to save lives. They let the Irish starve or emigrate. Population plummeted by several which probably suited them fine.
It is however a stark reminder of what can happen when poor people are dependent on a staple crop that is not disease resistant. But I am not following the point you are making. And I am distracting myself from the long list of things I should be doing...

The food was there. Politics got between it and the growers of it. That is the fear with GM crops, but it need not happen like that.