Have we done GM crops?

[piskieinboots]

All the rumblings on News just lately that we may be running out of food got me thinking about this topic, not least because we touched on it in studies, so -

Advantages (I use the term losely)
Pest resistance
this will help get crops to market more cheaply which, can be argued, is much needed as world population continues to grow at an unsustainable rate
Herbicide tolerance
see Pest resistance
Disease resistance
ditto
Cold tolerance
yes but, do we really want our food injected with anti-freeze?
Drought tolerance/salinity tolerance
as land available for growing is getting reduced by development, crop producers will need to grow crops in places previously considered unsuitable

Disadvantages
Unintended harm to other organisms
Studies showed that corn eaten by the Monarch butterfly seriously damaged its health - in fact, it killed the chaps!
Reduced effectiveness of pesticides
They will, surely, develop a resistance - they always do


I still looking into disadvantages to us!

But then isn't just about everything we eat and grow, at some point, already been GM'd?

[blackkitty]

GM crops have never been about feeding the world, they're about making money for a few companies. (I'm not saying that GM doesn't have potential, just not as its happening at the moment). GM crops have a terminator gene which makes them sterile, this traps farmers and growers into having to buy new seeds each year from large multi-national companies, who can eventually charge what they like. Experiences in South America and Africa have shown that in the long run they don't produce that much more anyway and are so much more expensive that they do nothing to aliviate poverty and improve health etc while doing huge enviromental damage.
Remember that the best way to increase the food available is to stop throwing so much of it in the bin. (I know grapes aren't guilty of this ).
Right off the soap box now....

[HeyWayne]

Let's face it, if Bob Geldof couldn't feed the world....

[SarzWix]

I agree with everything blackkitty says. I don't think this about feeding the world, I think it's about lining pockets...

Plant breeding has always been the way to get disease resistance/pest resistance etc, and it's worked quite well for hundreds of years... We now are seeing blight-resistant potatoes, club-root resistant brassicas, and rust resistant alliums, all through breeding and selection. I think it's bad enough having to buy F1's, without being tied to GM's through sterile plants

I just hate the whole thing, and try and save seeds for everything I can.

[zazen999]

I just hate the whole thing, and try and save seeds for everything I can.

What she said...plus what BlackKitty says.

It's wrong.

Simples.

[bluemoon]

Everything Blackkitty said. Plus, many of these crops have a gene from a totally alien species spliced in, it isn't just crossing corn with corn it's putting genes from things such as jellyfish into corn. There's a good chance that any organism with a non-self gene manufacturing non-self proteins will manufacture defensive proteins against it and, as we do not know what those proteins are likely to be, we have no idea if they are going to be harmful to us if we eat them. After all, 20 years ago who'd have thought sheep scrapie would have found its way into the food chain in the way that it did or with such disastrous results?
I think the main argument against though is that, far from feeding the world these crops hold the world's food producers to ransom.

[Alison]

If anybody disagrees with the comments made above re the lining of pockets then I'd like them to answer the question as to why farmers were made to give away their old corn seeds (which they'd been saving for years) for the new wonder seeds that needed constantly replacing and now often don't reap the harvests first promised. Basically as already said, the whole think stinks.

[piskieinboots]

darn scary isn't it!

How the heck can 'they' get away with saying things like this:
GM crops are no more harmful to the environment than conventional plant varieties, a major UK study has found.

I wish I hadn't started reading....

[bluemoon]

The whole thing is just so sinister. Especially the way the world's poor farmers, having used these things once (and they're initially often given a 'free' trial) are tied into it forevermore. Even if they decide to change back to a traditional variety, their land is already drenched in a chemical that only the patented plants are resistant to, so the traditional variety would fail. It's wrong, all so very wrong.
Another problem (at least I think it's a problem) is that most animal feeds are now made using GM crops, so even if we don't knowingly eat them we're likely to ingest them in other ways. I've just started keeping chickens and you wouldn't believe the problems I had just trying to get a GM-free feed. I managed in the end, but it costs around 25% more so your average poultry farmer - who is probably working with tight profit margins as it is - isn't going to use it. Even free-range chickens are fed GM ingredients, the only way you will be certain to obtain eggs without is to buy organic. Ditto milk, cheese and meats.

[Hilary B]

There is a comment in there about EU rules requiring permission or not being based on 'science, not public opinion'. So the public are to be told what they can have (AGAIN) rather than being able to make our own minds up?
When are we going to be forced to accept beef with hormone growth promoters in? Not so many eyars ago (but before the BSE scare) public realisation that beef animals had hormone implants to accelerate economic growth drastically reduced sales, until the practice was banned, initially in UK, then EU.
Reason American beef is not available is because they won't distinguish whether it is growth-promoter free, and customers here like to make up our own minds, regardless of whether it is 'scientific'

[bluemoon]

based on 'science, not public opinion'.

Ah, like last week's little gem when organic food was stated to be no better for you, when they completely disregarded the presence of chemicals in the non-organic. That sort of 'science'?

[Hilary B]

Ah, like last week's little gem when organic food was stated to be no better for you, when they completely disregarded the presence of chemicals in the non-organic. That sort of 'science'?

Yeah, and like ignoring that 'good for you' (ie the consumer) is a long way from the whole story about organic anyway.....
What happened to 'the customer is always right'?

[Bramble_killer]

How much GM are we talking about here? A lot of the edible crops we grow have been crossed and selected for specific traits. These are also genetically modified as they aren't originals. Everytime a bee cross pollinates a plant, they are genetically modifying the product that could be potentially produced.

[Bramble_killer]

Ah, like last week's little gem when organic food was stated to be no better for you, when they completely disregarded the presence of chemicals in the non-organic. That sort of 'science'?

Nutrition wise, there was no difference. That's clear and proven. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong. They didn't look at chemicals because that wasn't the remit of the study.

ETA: I'm a real life scientist (whatever that may be worth) and it really pains me that people disregard science in a manner like this.

[Hilary B]

How much GM are we talking about here? A lot of the edible crops we grow have been crossed and selected for specific traits. These are also genetically modified as they aren't originals. Everytime a bee cross pollinates a plant, they are genetically modifying the product that could be potentially produced.

Nope, that is selective breeding. Genetic Modification (with capitals) is when genes are spliced in with the aid of a laboratory, often from different (sometimes unrelated) species.