Genetic Modification (GM)

[Snadger]

Did I hear right , and did Boris mention the Government were going to jump on the GM crops bandwagon once we left the EU?
As far as I know, most people are against GM crops and to me this is quite worrying.

Am I being an auld stick in the mud by thinking this.

For goodness sake play nice though folks, or else VC might be tempted to wield her pointy stick.

[veggiechicken]

As the "auld stick in the mud" says, play nice and don't discuss politics or else we'll have to close the thread.
There have been some very well reasoned discussions on here in the past, let's have another one now please.

My two penno'th is that I understand that GM crops have been banned in Wales, Scotland and North Ireland by their respective governing bodies. This may mean that relaxation of the GM rules could only apply in England, whatever the PM proposes. I hope that is the situation anyway.

[Snadger]

An interesting link. https://naturalrevolution.org/list-c...modified-food/

According to the above site "Britain officially supports GM crops and has trials of GMOs like potatoes planted. However, there is widespread public distrust of the crops and Prince Charles has been a vocal opponent of GMOs."

[Martin H]

The thing about GM is that the modifications aim to achieve lots of different purposes. Including, off the top of my head:
1) changes that make the crop more nutritious, e.g. increasing the vitamin A content in rice;
2) changes that make the crop unpalatable to insect pests, so that the farmer doesn't need to use insecticides;
3) changes that make the crop resistant to herbicides, so that they can spray the whole field with Roundup and kill the weeds;
4) changes to make the seed sterile, so that the farmer has to buy new seed each year instead of saving his own;
5) changes to introduce a genetic marker that is patented, so that the seed company can prosecute farmers who grow from saved seeds without paying a fee;
6) improvements to yield, drought tolerance or other features that no-one has managed to achieve by selective breeding.

I'm dead against some of these for various reasons (2 to 5), while others sound perfectly reasonable to me (1 and 6). So I'd like to see a fully independent panel assessing the features of any proposed GM crop and deciding on a case by case basis whether to let it loose into our countryside.

[greenishfing]

My gut instinct to GM crops is I don't trust the people who are developing them and their motives.

I also think that we cannot possibly know all the direct and indirect side-effects of growing them and consuming them.

Given a choice I would never eat them. I just hope I get the choice

[Snadger]

I am with Prince Charles on this one. We cannot tell what the long term effect of some of these modifications will be. Adding animal DNA to plants just doesn't sit well with me. It could give crop improvements yes, just as cloning could utilise the best animals, but at what price? It's a step into the dark as far as I am concerned.

[Bren In Pots]

^^^ I'm against it for the same reasons Snadger, I can't see anyone who grows veg thinking this is a good idea.

[Aberdeenplotter]

I'm totally with Snadge on this.

[burnie]

If it only removed the need to use damaging sprays, I'd be all for it, but I think we know that is unlikely, I don't think it would be Frankenstein food that would be any more harmful than the muck that is currently being sprayed on potatoes to kill the tops, or the muck sprayed on cereal crops to ripen it, never mind the insecticides and herbicides that I am sure is linked to the rise in cancers in the population. But it's the same people making the stuff and the people making the decisions aren't that trustworthy to be honest either. Hopefully we can still grow our own fruit and veg and avoid most of the money spinning rubbish coming our way.

[rary]

I am against GM crops because of all the reasons stated above, though the main reason is No4 in Martin Hs list, we, like the farmers are beginning to find it harder to obtain seeds that can be kept year on year with the farmer it GM crops for the gardener its F1s at present but no doubt if GM is accepted it won't be long till the seeds for the home gardener are GM also, and with all the reasons that are given for GM, to "feed the world" I think it is greed (for money not food) that is driving the push for GM

[Babru]

I think for me the most concerning thing would be the irreversible nature of introducing GM. If it turns out at a later date that such crops are harmful, how could we identify and destroy all the plants now colonising hedgerows, railway sidings etc, interbred with other non-GMs etc. Such plants would not respect geographical boundaries, if they were introduced in England they are in effect being introduced UK-wide.

I really hope this does not happen.

[Snoop Puss]

The thing about GM is that the modifications aim to achieve lots of different purposes. Including, off the top of my head:
1) changes that make the crop more nutritious, e.g. increasing the vitamin A content in rice;
2) changes that make the crop unpalatable to insect pests, so that the farmer doesn't need to use insecticides;
3) changes that make the crop resistant to herbicides, so that they can spray the whole field with Roundup and kill the weeds;
4) changes to make the seed sterile, so that the farmer has to buy new seed each year instead of saving his own;
5) changes to introduce a genetic marker that is patented, so that the seed company can prosecute farmers who grow from saved seeds without paying a fee;
6) improvements to yield, drought tolerance or other features that no-one has managed to achieve by selective breeding.

I'm dead against some of these for various reasons (2 to 5), while others sound perfectly reasonable to me (1 and 6). So I'd like to see a fully independent panel assessing the features of any proposed GM crop and deciding on a case by case basis whether to let it loose into our countryside.

Ditto (thanks for saving me the effort of writing a long post, Martin )

[ESBkevin]

I have a standard distrust of GM because the big agro chemical firms don't have our interests front and centre and have a proven record of enviromental damage for profits.
BUT, if they can produce crops that survive in arid areas and are resistant to common pests perhaps we should not prevent poorer populations from benefitting from cheap abundent food. the question I guess is who controls this and how the resultant food stuffs interface with the food chain.
So while I might stick with what Americans now refer to as 'heritage' seeds (non GM for them because GM is allowed over there), I would not go as far as to say a flat no to the idea.

[Babru]

I would feel happier and less distrustful if the research was being carried out by a not-for-profit organisation rather than Monsanto and the like.

[Gillykat]

If it only removed the need to use damaging sprays, I'd be all for it, but I think we know that is unlikely, I don't think it would be Frankenstein food that would be any more harmful than the muck that is currently being sprayed on potatoes to kill the tops, or the muck sprayed on cereal crops to ripen it, never mind the insecticides and herbicides that I am sure is linked to the rise in cancers in the population

Thank god I'm not the only person who queries the possible connection between the amount of poison sprayed on our food crops nowadays and the rising levels of cancer and dementia/alzheimers in the population! I've been saying it for years - ever since a farm worker told me how many times potatoes are sprayed!