The GM debate

[sleaterkinney]

Posted because one of the brexit dividends turns out to be GM.

Genetically modified food a step closer in England as laws relaxed | GM | The Guardian

Government removes costs and red tape in go-ahead for more trials of gene edited crops

amp.theguardian.com

People have been selectively breeding crops and animals for thousands of years, Most of what we eat is not found in nature.

Is editing at the gene level going too far?. Is it needed?. Will it just hand over too much power to big agri-gene corps?.

Most importantly for me, will we mess around with the ecosystem too much?. Because we have a bad record on that so far.

 

[platinumsage]

The EU is pretty backward with GM stuff.

I mean it looks good for humans but God forbid anyone should mess with a tomato.

 

[JimW]

As I understand it, the frankenfood objections are probably not very science based but there are genuine concerns about agribusiness creating seeds that require their proprietary inputs tying farmers into a relationship with them, particularly bad for the poorest farmers who maybe won't get to retain their own seed etc as well.

 

[Pickman's model]

Posted because one of the brexit dividends turns out to be GM.

Genetically modified food a step closer in England as laws relaxed | GM | The Guardian

Government removes costs and red tape in go-ahead for more trials of gene edited crops

amp.theguardian.com

People have been selectively breeding crops and animals for thousands of years, Most of what we eat is not found in nature.

Is editing at the gene level going too far?. Is it needed?. Will it just hand over too much power to big agri-gene corps?.

Most importantly for me, will we mess around with the ecosystem too much?. Because we have a bad record on that so far.

Don't worry about the ecosystem because that's so fucked now this will only have a marginal affect

 

[bluescreen]

Isn't there a difference between the sort of GM that's gene editing, basically fast forwarding the selective breeding that agriculture has done for centuries, and the GM that inserts genes from different species, eg glow-in-the-dark genes from jellyfish into cats? The latter sounds much more alarming than the former. Does the EU ban both sorts?

E2A: Yes, CRISPR editing is still banned by the EU but there is pressure to allow it.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

As I understand it, the frankenfood objections are probably not very science based but there are genuine concerns about agribusiness creating seeds that require their proprietary inputs tying farmers into a relationship with them, particularly bad for the poorest farmers who maybe won't get to retain their own seed etc as well.

Yes, monopolies by companies like Monsanto are a problem. But as for GM crops per se, my understanding is that there has always been alot of anti-science misinformation.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

I found this informative video by Kurzgesat very helpful for understanding GMOs better than I used to:

 

[chilango]

I'm not against GM crops in principle, I'm against it being the hands of, and led by, some pretty horrific transnational corporations.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

GM is a potential catastrophe and a potential solution to a lot of problems, but who knows which? Certainly not the proponents of GM who see nothing but good. Opponents of GM are typically seen as being anti-science. I'm sure some are, and many are just unscientific in their understanding and lacking in knowledge. As chilango says above the problem lies in who controls GM and what motivates them. Answer to the motivation: Profits and Power. If GM gets to become dominant it gives up control of our food supply to multinational giants, or worse, to irresponsible adventurers.

What happens if it all goes wrong, if it turns out there are unexpected consequences, knock-on effects which were difficult to predict? Or if the big companies turn a blind eye to problems they do encounter? Or don't look properly? Don't forget how good diesel was for the environment, until it wasn't.

The answer to climate change? If we knew with any certainty how that change would unfold, maybe. But we don't.

 

[cupid_stunt]

glow-in-the-dark genes from jellyfish into cats?

I want a glow-in-the-dark cat.

 

[gentlegreen]

GM tech is a bit of a sticking plaster.
I am very much in favour of it, but the drive behind more efficient production of soy and maize is to support the world's insatiable demand for animal products and junk food .

As for genetics patenting, that has been a thing for a very long time and non-hybrid / GM seeds are still available.
Farmers buy into the technology because it works and at least one oft-cited case involved a farmer who STOLE the round-up-ready genetics.

There is a problem with the next generation of herbicide-tolerant genetics because Dicamba seems to have a habit of drifting ...

"Agent Orange" is never far away from the arguments against "Monsatan" et al, but it was an idea originally dreamed up by Churchill and ICI would have manufactured defoliants to spray on Germany - plus the dioxin story is not nearly as straight-forward as is often stated,

Agent Orange

In 1961, as part of America’s escalating war of counterinsurgency in Vietnam, President Kennedy approved a military plan to use defoliants and herbicide in South East Asia. Operation “Ranch Hand” w…

mylespower.co.uk

 

[AmateurAgitator]

The answer to climate change?

If you're referring to the Kurzgesat video, it said they could be the answer to climate change. Personally I think they could help out (and are not necessarily 'the answer') and have been shown to be very beneficial.

But as always, we have capitalism to contend with, and while we have that highly destructive system then we are very much hindered - hence the horrific transnationals (something the Kurzgesat video acknowledged).

But so far, even with this capitalist system we have, GMOs have done some vital good.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

What happens if it all goes wrong, if it turns out there are unexpected consequences, knock-on effects which were difficult to predict?

There's no evidence that would happen, it's purely speculative - based on no evidence at all.

So why let such irrational fear stand in the way of the benefits?

And in some parts of the world the benefits mean people being fed rather than starving as far as I'm aware.

 

[scifisam]

As I understand it, the frankenfood objections are probably not very science based but there are genuine concerns about agribusiness creating seeds that require their proprietary inputs tying farmers into a relationship with them, particularly bad for the poorest farmers who maybe won't get to retain their own seed etc as well.

Yes. And fining farmers for farming crops that the farmers claimed came into their fields by accident. Some of the big farma (heh) orgs have claimed that even when, if the crop hadn't got there by natural processes, it would have anyway, the neighbouring farmers must have stolen the crops. Doesn't really matter whether they stole them or not - their own crops would have been overtaken by them anyway.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

GM is fine. Capitalism is what will fuck it.

 

[weltweit]

It is the speed with which new organisms can be created that worries me. With old fashioned selective breeding there was more time to back out of a bad outcome. I am not sure there will always be time with GM.

 

[gentlegreen]

It is the speed with which new organisms can be created that worries me. With old fashioned selective breeding there was more time to back out of a bad outcome. I am not sure there will always be time with GM.

For "old-fashioned selective breeding", you may have to go a long way into the past.
Long ago they started using gamma radiation and chemicals to speed up the mutation process ...

 

[gentlegreen]

Yes. And fining farmers for farming crops that the farmers claimed came into their fields by accident. Some of the big farma (heh) orgs have claimed that even when, if the crop hadn't got there by natural processes, it would have anyway, the neighbouring farmers must have stolen the crops. Doesn't really matter whether they stole them or not - their own crops would have been overtaken by them anyway.

The clue is when the farmer sowing his "accidentally" made seed starts spraying glyphosate suspiciously late.
I doubt anyone has actually been prosecuted because of stray roundup-ready canola (rapeseed) pollen.

I don't know whether rapeseed farmers routinely save their own seed as the crop has only become useful since they bred-out a lot of the erucic acid - and that's the sort of thing that might revert.

 

[Pickman's model]

If you're referring to the Kurzgesat video, it said they could be the answer to climate change. Personally I think they could help out (and are not necessarily 'the answer') and have been shown to be very beneficial.

But as always, we have capitalism to contend with, and while we have that highly destructive system then we are very much hindered - hence the horrific transnationals (something the Kurzgesat video acknowledged).

But so far, even with this capitalist system we have, GMOs have done some vital good.

Nothing that could not have been done with a more rational mode of production which prized people above profit, without modifying or editing genes

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, monopolies by companies like Monsanto are a problem. But as for GM crops per se, my understanding is that there has always been alot of anti-science misinformation.

How many small socially acceptable start-ups are there knocking out ethical GM crops?

 

[scifisam]

The clue is when the farmer sowing his "accidentally" made seed starts spraying glyphosate suspiciously late.
I doubt anyone has actually been prosecuted because of stray roundup-ready canola (rapeseed) pollen.

I don't know whether rapeseed farmers routinely save their own seed as the crop has only become useful since they bred-out a lot of the erucic acid - and that's the sort of thing that might revert.

That's the thing - they benefit from the seed being blown over, and they get to grow it without paying for it. But that's the way seeds work. And they're aggressive seeds, so they don't really have any other choice.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

There's no evidence that would happen, it's purely speculative - based on no evidence at all.

So why let such irrational fear stand in the way of the benefits?

And in some parts of the world the benefits mean people being fed rather than starving as far as I'm aware.

There's no evidence yet. I'm not saying that all GM is bad, but potentially very bad indeed.

When GM was first promoted part of its appeal was supposedly that you could introduce genes from, say, fish into, say bananas. That attitude was one of the reasons why there was such opposition. The technique now possibly being allowed, termed gene editing, restricts such gene transfers to within the same organism, supposedly, so not such a threat.

If GM had gone ahead as some of its proponents intended we could have been in a situation now where most of our food crops, and horticultural crops in general, could have been GM'd. That could well have had dire consequences. So one reason why there is no evidence of harm is that the scale of introduction was hugely reduced by popular resistance.

As for GM stopping starvation, where is that happening, with which foodstuffs? (Answer: Nowhere and None). Starvation is nearly always the result of human actions (war, blockades, class society etc) or extreme natural phenomena (floods, droughts, earthquakes, hurricanes) - none of that would be affected by GM technology.

The important point here is that the impact of GM on the whole environment needs to be taken into consideration, not just the impact on humans.

 

[The39thStep]

How many small socially acceptable start-ups are there knocking out ethical GM crops?

Haven’t got the scale of production, the research and the agricultural market is fixed towards the 6 companies that have about 60% of the commercial market. The other issue is that many seed types are copyrighted and owned by the bigger companies. Most farms, food producers in reality end up leasing the seeds from the big companies rather than buying them as seed saving / sharing is prohibited and the companies restrict the brand .
Years ago Coca Cola or a Pepsi tried to sue a load of farmers in India because they sold the type of potato used in Lays crisps as a seed potato rather than one to be grown.
It’s not impossible for an ethical company to produce GM or altered crops but they’d have to source huge amounts of uncopyrighted seeds and find backers .

 

[yield]

And in some parts of the world the benefits mean people being fed rather than starving as far as I'm aware.

Norman Borlaug was apparently pro-GM.
Economist is paywalled so Outline - Read & annotate without distractions

As a boy, he hadn't known what hunger was. He came from a small Norwegian farm in Iowa, the land of butter-sculptures and the breaded tenderloin sandwich. But on his first trip to “the big city”, Minneapolis, in 1933, grown men had begged him for a nickel for a cup of coffee and a small, dry hamburger, and a riot had started round him when a milk-cart dumped its load in the street. He saw then how close to breakdown America was, because of hunger. It was impossible “to build a peaceful world on empty stomachs”.

Crop diseases drew his attention first, inspiring him to turn from forestry to plant pathology under Charles Stakman, a lifelong mentor, at the University of Minnesota. Rusts especially exercised him: how they lived, under the green live tissue of stems, how they spread, travelling for miles on the jet stream, and how they fell from the sky to infect even the healthiest crop, if the moisture and temperature were right. Rust had devastated the Midwest in the 1930s, and Mexico shortly before he went there. So Mr Borlaug first bred wheat cultivars for rust-resistance, a ten-year task, and then crossed them with Norin, a dwarf Japanese variety, to produce a shorter, straighter, stronger wheat which, when properly charged with water and fertiliser, gave three times the yield.

This was the wheat that swept India in its “Green Revolution”, raising yields from 12m tonnes in 1965 to 20m by 1970, causing the country to run out of jute bags to carry it, carts and railcars to transport it, and places to store it; that made Pakistan self-sufficient in wheat by 1968; that almost doubled yields even in Sudan, on the edge of the Sahel. The famines and huge mortality that had been predicted for the second half of the 20th century never came to pass. More food led not to more births, but fewer, as the better-fed had smaller families. Global grain production outpaced population growth, and Mr Borlaug won the Nobel peace prize in 1970 for saving hundreds of millions of lives.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Norman Borlaug was apparently pro-GM.

ditto Tony Blair

 

[AmateurAgitator]

As for GM stopping starvation, where is that happening, with which foodstuffs? (Answer: Nowhere and None).

Well it is true that GMO's can feed more people. And it explained in that video how they have been used to replace fruit that was dying out for example.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Well it is true that GMO's can feed more people. And it explained in that video how they have been used to replace fruit that was dying out for example.

Some GM crops may be more productive, who knows? But that's not the case at the moment. Any such claims are disputed, and there are not many widely grown GM food crops around the world. So don't be taken in by the propaganda of the GM industry.

 

[Ax^]

before Brexit

reason to leave boycotting the EU GMo crops and wrong coloured passports


after Brexit

strangly black looking blue passports and UK GM crops


so much win, you'll be tired of winning

 

[AmateurAgitator]

don't be taken in by the propaganda of the GM industry.

Kurzgesat is neutral and fact based, as is other info I have looked at regarding this.

 

[Spymaster]

What happens if it all goes wrong, if it turns out there are unexpected consequences, knock-on effects which were difficult to predict?

Surely the response to this shouldn't be not to explore it?

If that were generally the case we'd still be living in caves.