GM crops

[pargyle]

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.

Despite Owen Paterson beating the GM Drum, at present, GM crops (apart from some highly controlled experiments) are not permitted in the UK. A farmer wanting to grow GM crops in the UK would need to import GM seed from abroad and the risk, if he was caught, would be to have his crops destroyed. No farmer in his right mind would go down this path when there are legal alternatives available.

This is worth a read:

http://www.genewatch.org/sub-568547

 

[farbee]

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.

This is the way of the world. Everybody wants to make money. Would you work for nothing?

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.

So would you rather go back 100 years? No new cancer treatment no hope for those with rheumatoid arthritis multiple sclerosis. Without the possibility of making profit there would be no progress unless it was state funded. Would people pay for it out of taxation? Yes of course there are disaster eg thalidomide but look at the development by the pharmaceutical industry. Without patents there would be no R & D[/I] QUOTE]

 

[domino]

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.

They are patenting them, not copyrighting them. I'm not sure why legal protection for a product is such a bad thing? After 20 years the patent expires.

 

[Nige.Coll]

They are patenting them, not copyrighting them. I'm not sure why legal protection for a product is such a bad thing? After 20 years the patent expires.

yup sry i used wrong word there.

 

[domino]

yup sry i used wrong word there.

Probably also worth pointing out that there are open sourced GMO crops like Golden Rice.

 

[Hivemaker.]

I'm not sure why legal protection for a product is such a bad thing? After 20 years the patent expires.

It is a very good thing.

 

[madasafish]

It is a very good thing.

Quite.

No patent protection means no incentive to develop anything new.

Despite the (sometimes justified) criticism of the drugs industry, many of those who post on this forum would have been dead years ago if medicinal drugs have stopped evolving after (say) 1945. And deaths in child birth would be higher, artificial limbs impossible as would transplants.. (all possible only through anti rejection drugs and antibiotics).

 

[mbc]

It is a very good thing.

For living things that we have no definite knowledge of how they might evolve ? (as all living things do)

 

[Hivemaker.]

Quite.
No patent protection means no incentive to develop anything new.

For living things that we have no definite knowledge of how they might evolve ? (as all living things do)

Yes... there are patents for many living things, from living things used for medical purposes, right down to such things as apple tree root stocks.

 

[Gribbee]

For living things that we have no definite knowledge of how they might evolve ? (as all living things do)

Hit the nail right on the head MBC!
Evolution is surely the key in all this. WE have all EVOLVED to be what we are and surely the food we eat must have been a major factor in this. To simply change the genetic make up of food at a stroke cannot be right. Yes I here the argument that man has interfered with this that and the other in the past but never at the genetic level. Nature has only allowed us change plants and animals if NATURE deemed it possible NATURALLY.

 

[pargyle]

This is the way of the world. Everybody wants to make money. Would you work for nothing?

So would you rather go back 100 years? No new cancer treatment no hope for those with rheumatoid arthritis multiple sclerosis. Without the possibility of making profit there would be no progress unless it was state funded. Would people pay for it out of taxation? Yes of course there are disaster eg thalidomide but look at the development by the pharmaceutical industry. Without patents there would be no R & D[/I] QUOTE]

I'm not averse to scientific development - I'm certainly not a Luddite but I am very much in favour of an independent and thorough testing of any new drugs coming to market and I think the UK model for pharmaceutical introductions is now at the right level ... almost over sensitive in some cases - but the US model is much more 'lets get it out there and see what happens' than we are over here and they get lots of problems where drug companies come to market too soon in the testing phase.

I feel that there should be similarly extensive and independent consideration for agricides and GM crops ... it's still too soon in my estimation to let GM be released wholesale into the environment ... it's bad enough seeing it splurge into agriculture in other parts of the world - it may be parochial thinking (and selfishness) on my part but let them see what the results on the food chain are (for a good long time) before we let it loose into our small island.

 

[mbc]

- it may be parochial thinking (and selfishness) on my part but let them see what the results on the food chain are (for a good long time) before we let it loose into our small island.

And of course, do we actually need it ?

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

And of course, do we actually need it ?

Well, I'm really looking forward to my first strawberry flavoured banana grown on the blazing Somerset Savahna

 

[pargyle]

Well, I'm really looking forward to my first strawberry flavoured banana grown on the blazing Somerset Savahna

You might have a long wait for that ...

Not sure I'd want to eat much grown on the Somerset Veldt for a year or so at all ... sewage and slurry flowing freely apparently.

Perhaps you could try a few experiments to leave behind in Lesotho .. I wonder what fruit McDonalds put in their banana thick shakes, they taste nothing like my banana smoothies ?

 

[farbee]

I feel that there should be similarly extensive and independent consideration for agricides and GM crops ... it's still too soon in my estimation to let GM be released wholesale into the environment ... it's bad enough seeing it splurge into agriculture in other parts of the world - it may be parochial thinking (and selfishness) on my part but let them see what the results on the food chain are (for a good long time) before we let it loose into our small island.[/quote]

Agree with you 100%.

 

[farbee]

And of course, do we actually need it ?

With population growth and dwindling resources it could be very useful

 

[domino]

I feel that there should be similarly extensive and independent consideration for agricides and GM crops ... it's still too soon in my estimation to let GM be released wholesale into the environment ... it's bad enough seeing it splurge into agriculture in other parts of the world - it may be parochial thinking (and selfishness) on my part but let them see what the results on the food chain are (for a good long time) before we let it loose into our small island.

Agree with you 100%.[/QUOTE]


What's the GM testing process now?

 

[Hivemaker.]

‘World’s first’ farmer trial over GM crop contamination begins in Australia.


A landmark legal battle between two farmers over alleged GM contamination has started in the Western Australian Supreme Court. The case is expected to determine GM farmers’ liability if their crops affect neighboring territories.

The globally monitored legal battle involves local farmer Steve Marsh who sued his neighbor Michael Baxter for negligence over the alleged contamination of the land that Marsh used for growing organic oat and wheat crops at Kojonup, 250 km south-east of Perth, Western Australia.

Lawyers say it is the world’s first trial over GM contamination and will set a precedent for future cases.


http://rt.com/news/gm-crop-contamination-australia-371/

 

[Hivemaker.]

Nineteen EU states vote against GM maize proposal
Commission to allow crop cultivation despite opposition by countries, including Ireland.

The European Union strayed into the contentious issue of genetically-modified crops (GM) today, with member states opting not to back a proposal to allow the cultivation of a GM maize seed product in the European Union.

However, the intricate EU legislative system means that the European Commission will nonetheless go ahead with its plan to allow the cultivation of a genetically modified (GM) maize.

Ireland was one of nineteen countries who indicated their opposition to the approval of the crop at a meeting in Brussels today. Britain, Spain , Finland, Estonia and Sweden were in favour.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...ates-vote-against-gm-maize-proposal-1.1687657

 

[alanf]

‘World’s first’ farmer trial over GM crop contamination begins in Australia

Interesting legal argument. Is the problem really as quoted? The Australian organic certification is withdrawn if a neighbour's OSR has self seeded in your "paddock"?

I can see the point if you are growing OSR yourself and saving seed. Your seed stock has genetic elements you don't want in it through no fault of your own. If you grew wheat instead, why is that a problem? Other than weeds in your crop, obviously. There's no suggestion of any wheat you grow being genetically crossed with OSR from next door. It seems to be a very restrictive Australian organic rule. Organic crops will have non organic seeds drifting into them from neighbours all the time, is it even possible to prove none of it is ever GM?

In theory an entire farm could lose certification if a malicious neighbour fed GM maize (legally imported, even if not permited as a crop) to the local wildlife knowing a few could sprout over the fence.