GM crops

[mbc]

Well, I'm afraid that the neonicotinoid suspension gave them a good excuse to push this one down our throats.

BS. Its entirely disingenuous to suggest its an 'either/ or' situation.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Really, 101 now that's really is impressive. Lots of good fresh Welsh air I bet.

aye - real son of the soil - never ventured much outside his little patch of paradise (apart from the odd jaunt to Hereford for the autumn auctions)and a bloodline traced back to kings, saints and Welsh heroes (and the odd crusader!) We thought he'd died a few years ago - only to see his photo in the paper last year celebrating his 100th birthday with his little brother (only 97 years old!

 

[Amari]

aye - real son of the soil - never ventured much outside his little patch of paradise (apart from the odd jaunt to Hereford for the autumn auctions)and a bloodline traced back to kings, saints and Welsh heroes (and the odd crusader!) We thought he'd died a few years ago - only to see his photo in the paper last year celebrating his 100th birthday with his little brother (only 97 years old!

Obviously a long-lived family. Looks as though we're going to have the pleasure of your company, wisdom and acerbity on the forum for a few decades yet…….

 

[irishguy]

Personally I believe GM crops could bring mankind, and maybe beekind, great benefits.

You sir, need to do some serious reading. IMO, gm crops have no place on this planet!!

 

[roche]

There is no risk to bees or honey, I wouldn't worry.

I can only hope that was said tongue in cheek...

 

[farbee]

As far as I can make out there is not a single piece of actual evidence in any of the posts that GM is the evil that many of you clearly believe. A lot of fear yes just like people feared cars and trains when they were first made.

With careful testing without hysteria and it could be safe. Whether it is beneficial i.e. better than we already have is another matter. A lot more work needs to be done before we'll know for sure.

 

[jd101k2000]

Hi Farbee,

You have only to look at the research that has been into GM crops to become alarmed. For instance, some versions of GM crops produce only sterile seeds. Those would tend not to work well in the third world, where they tend to keep the seeds from one year to plant the next. (But it does give a huge tie-in to the profits of the seed producer.) Some other versions produce herbicide resistant plants, so that you can blitz the fields with those herbicide. You significantly increase production, but kills all biodiversity.

On the other hand, you can produce plants that glow when attacked by pests. This allows for very targeted use of pesticide. This would reduce the amount of pesticide use. You can also produce plants with tomato genes that produce their own pesticide. Again reducing pesticide use and probably being a 'good thing'.

In other words, GM can go in 'good' or 'bad' directions. So you look at who is doing all the research. You discover a lot of it is done by businesses who have a bad track record and you become very scared. These people are not researching GM for the good of humanity but to make money. (They are in business after all.) They do not care if they dismantle the food chain as long as they get their share of the money. Until we find a way to properly approve/regulate the direction of GM research, I think it is too dangerous to leave in the hands of the seed and pesticide companies.

 

[farbee]

Hi Farbee,

You have only to look at the research that has been into GM crops to become alarmed. For instance, some versions of GM crops produce only sterile seeds.


This could be seen as a good thing so that the GM plants do not get into the natural environment.

Those would tend not to work well in the third world, where they tend to keep the seeds from one year to plant the next. (But it does give a huge tie-in to the profits of the seed producer.) Some other versions produce herbicide resistant plants, so that you can blitz the fields with those herbicide. You significantly increase production, but kills all biodiversity.

This will all depend on economics. If the seeds do not prove their worth i.e. produce more yield and use less in chemicals to controls weeds or insects etc, then nobody will use them. They will simply go back to using what they had that is more profitable. Not unlike buying quality queens.

On the other hand, you can produce plants that glow when attacked by pests. This allows for very targeted use of pesticide. This would reduce the amount of pesticide use. You can also produce plants with tomato genes that produce their own pesticide. Again reducing pesticide use and probably being a 'good thing'.

In other words, GM can go in 'good' or 'bad' directions. So you look at who is doing all the research. You discover a lot of it is done by businesses who have a bad track record and you become very scared. These people are not researching GM for the good of humanity but to make money. (They are in business after all.) They do not care if they dismantle the food chain as long as they get their share of the money. Until we find a way to properly approve/regulate the direction of GM research, I think it is too dangerous to leave in the hands of the seed and pesticide companies.

The same is true of drug companies but nobody complains and there is academic research in this area.

As will all things the devil is in the detail but simply too many people have a gut reaction and are misinformed and hence do not able to really see the the wood from the chaff.

 

[farbee]

Never knowingly underfed.

Made me giggle

 

[pargyle]

As will all things the devil is in the detail but simply too many people have a gut reaction and are misinformed and hence do not able to really see the the wood from the chaff.

That's a nice mixing of metaphors ... The problem is that the people developing these products are financially motivated - their testing and development is not an open book and, as the products are covered by patents, they have a high degree of motivation to see them accepted and put into use. This is not the philanthropic 'we only want to help the world' exercise they would have us believe.

The problem is that they are not letting us see the wood for the trees or be able to sort out the wheat from the chaff ! They only purvey the positive aspects of the stuff - we really don't know what the long term impact is going to be.

Let's face it, the same giants within the chemical industry do not have a super clean reputation within the medical industry ... their past record of putting out drugs that subsequently prove to have damaging side effects is not squeaky clean - particularly in the USA which has, it appears to me, a stronger lobby from the chemical companies than we have here.

The only fly in the ointment I can see is that D..K Owen Paterson who seems to be intent on feathering his own nest ...

 

[Nige.Coll]

my main reason for starting this thread was nothing to do with politics or feeding alarmists .
they are changing the basic genetics of the plants so i was concerned that it could have an effect on bees.
have they changed the protein structure in the pollen ?
have they changed the structure of the nectar ?
as i said i know nothing about GM crops only that the farmer i spoke to said they were being released in england soon. not wales or scotland as i understand they have banned all GM crops .

if the seed manufacturers have altered the protein make up of pollen will it still be ok for the bees to use ?
will the modified plants make the same amounts of pollen /nectar ?

will GM plants be self pollinating and cut the need for the bees/insects out completely ?
will the modifications change the taste of any honey produced from these crops ?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-...ecline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/25950

http://ftmdaily.com/global-issues/global-food-crisis/are-honey-bees-endangered-by-gmo-crops/

http://www.gmeducation.org/farming/p149468-gm-maize:-killing-bees-and-threatened-by-bugs.html

the more i look the more is worries me..

 

[Tdf]

The one thing no one has mentioned here is that gm is a very broad term, it covers everything from taking a quality of one plant and adding it to a plant of the same species eg, new blight resistant potatoes that could in theory be bred naturally from the wild varieties of blight resistant potatoes but could take a over 50 years with no guarantee of success-maybe poor taste.
iI also covers taking genetic material from bacteria,etc for traits like resistance to glyphosate. These are what give gm the bad name and these should only be considered case by case whether they are acceptable to be given commercial approval, to allow gm crops to be grown no matter what was the modification would be foolish.

 

[domino]

my main reason for starting this thread was nothing to do with politics or feeding alarmists .
they are changing the basic genetics of the plants so i was concerned that it could have an effect on bees.
have they changed the protein structure in the pollen ?
have they changed the structure of the nectar ?
as i said i know nothing about GM crops only that the farmer i spoke to said they were being released in england soon. not wales or scotland as i understand they have banned all GM crops .

if the seed manufacturers have altered the protein make up of pollen will it still be ok for the bees to use ?
will the modified plants make the same amounts of pollen /nectar ?

will GM plants be self pollinating and cut the need for the bees/insects out completely ?
will the modifications change the taste of any honey produced from these crops ?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-...ecline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/25950

http://ftmdaily.com/global-issues/global-food-crisis/are-honey-bees-endangered-by-gmo-crops/

http://www.gmeducation.org/farming/p149468-gm-maize:-killing-bees-and-threatened-by-bugs.html

the more i look the more is worries me..

It's not the plants they claim are killing the bees, it's the chemicals they are using on them. The basic structure of the plant should be fine for bees, they have to go through years of testing.

The problem is there has never been a robust public debate around these so fear is sowed by both sides of the lobby one saying the World is doomed to starve the other saying it's doomed to be poisoned.

 

[mbc]

the farmer i spoke to said they were being released in england soon. not wales or scotland as i understand they have banned all GM crops .

Offa's dyke and Hadrians wall arent going to be much protection seeing as weather balloons come down with pollens from all over the World.

 

[oliver90owner]

It's not the plants they claim are killing the bees, it's the chemicals they are using on them.

Really? That reads like the words of a farmer looking for a quick buck, an agrochemical salesman or part of (or under the influence of) the main purveyors of pesticides or frankencrap (b*yer and m*nsanto)

There are both Bt and Ht genetically modified crops and there would, no doubt, be others, up their sleeves just awaiting a GM green light.

Bt means the plants themselves produce toxins which kill insects and other invertebrates - and, yes, bees are just some of the possible victims. Ht are the herbicide tolerant crops - mainly the 'roundup ready' varieties - where increased use of the particular herbicide has been necessitated due to resistant weeds becoming the dominant pest.

Unfortunately glyphosate (roundup) is long known to be toxic to animals and these crops are not allowed into the human food chain (at least not directly). It causes birth defects, among other problems. Feeding our food-chain animals on these poisons is seemingly OK, mind.

Interfering with nature is the name of the game here - and the instigators or perpetrators or purveyors of these dangerous developments are the main winners - which will inevitably, in the above cases, lead to poorer diversity with the incumbent food chain problems of fewer animals in the higher end of the food chain (the predators) or increased pest resistance.

Meanwhile, the purveyors of this frankencrap will be raking in the profits and developing the next round of mutants to try to put right the damage they have already caused to the planet. The likely outcome being just digging a bigger hole.

The pests which the Bt crops are supposed to suppress have, not surprisingly, become resistant to the toxin (similar to varroa tolerance of pyrethroids).

 

[domino]

Genetic engineering is the electronics of this century, some people may not like it but in 50 years people will wonder what the fuss was about.

Just my view, I could be wrong. But, I very much doubt anyone would actually not have a GM lifesaving treatment, drive a car fueled by GMOs, etc.

 

[REDWOOD]

Trying to play god but know not what they do, personally I think they will get it wrong quite a few times before they get it right and by then it will be too late to reverse the damage they have done. My kingdom come

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Genetic engineering is the electronics of this century, some people may not like it but in 50 years people will wonder what the fuss was about.

Only one word for that

B*ll*cks​

 

[Nige.Coll]

the main drive behind the gm crops are the seed manufacturers as the seeds can be copyrighted .
if you harvest seeds and use them for the next year they tend to sue the farmer for copyright breach.
bt is the most common Gm crop and seems to make nutrient deficient pollen linked with ccd in the states.
the farmer i spoke to is reluctant to go into gm crops but he said after neonics ban the next main pest resistant crop was a Gm product.
although they will not plant these for human consumption they will be used for bio fuels and animal feeds. OSR maize field beans and turnips are a few.
the last thing we need in the uk is ccd.

 

[Hivemaker.]

bt is the most common Gm crop and seems to make nutrient deficient pollen linked with ccd in the states.

They don't know the cause of CCD, and it appears not to have been much of a problem recently, there have been many such unexplained events back through history.