G M Food - Crops

[Anonymous]

I dont think it is a question of if it will happen (as it already is happening) but Gleeber is correct the guidelines need to be clear and well defined.

[Geo]

Squidge, heres a mugs veiw of genetic modification.

When something is genetically modified the scientists take the genetic material from one organism and stick it into another organism. These 2 organisms dont have to be the same species. I remember a report a couple of years ago when someone took the genetic material from a fish and inserted it into the genetic material of a tomato. Not sure of the purpose but as you can see the fundamentals of GM are quite scary so the wise guys on either side of this argument need to get it right.

I remember years ago when genetic modification of food was first being spoken of a fishing magazine did an article about a trout being genetically modified with genes from a banana to alter the fish's growth. The trout grew in the shape of a banana with its head upturned toward the water's surface so it could more readily see flies and hence the fisherman would be more successful! It was an April fool and raised a smile. However when you hear about tests or trials that involve putting animal genes into fruit and vegetables and vice versa it doesn’t seem quite as funny anymore…

[jjc]

Earlier this year an international team of scientists completed a project to map the entire human genome sequence. The data represents huge benefits to those researching illnesses that affect us all. It is possible that this research will allow scientists to discover the genes that cause cancer, diabetes, even eczema. A little genetic tweak here, a prod there, hey presto – a cure!

We don’t appear to be overly concerned by this idea that genetic modifications in humans are just around the corner (although, Gleeber, I hope they don’t involve fish), yet here we are arguing the case for genetic modifications in Maize and Cotton. Why?

Personally, it all boils down to commercialism and trust.

When those involved in the human genome project had, after fifteen dedicated years, come as close to a complete map of my building blocks as they possibly could they did something for which I am eternally grateful. They told the world – and they did it unconditionally.

When companies such as Monsanto discovered the breakthrough that allows third-world countries with inhospitable climates to grow more Maize did they also recognise the benefits that their knowledge could offer to mankind? Did they hold a press conference and tell the world the secret to feeding the hungry?

Nope.

They patented their discovery, made it impossible to grow without them, and set up stall.

Before anybody says, I do recognise that they are a company with shareholders to please, profit margins to improve (perpetually), and markets to dominate… but that’s just the point. We are talking about a commodity as basic as food.
Not croissants, or custard creams, or Bovril, either. These are the basics, the foodstuffs that have been around for centuries: potatoes, apples, bananas, maize, and rapeseed.

How can somebody claim ownership of my tomato?

I hear what you’re saying. ‘But they only own their GM modified design’. Drutt hit it on the head. Once GM crops start to be commercially grown it won’t take long before they dominate the market. Take Old MacDonald and Farmer Giles…

Farmer Giles and Old MacDonald grow rapeseed. Farmer Giles decides to get this year’s seeds from Monsanto, Old MacDonald sticks with the seeds from last year’s crop. Both men plant their crops and sit back to watch. Old MacDonald spots a problem with insects so he goes out and sprays the fields with expensive insecticide, Farmer Giles sits and watches. Old MacDonald sees he has a lot of weeds taking the nutrients out of the soil so he sprays some costly herbicides, Farmer Giles watches. Come harvest time the two men compare crops and Farmer Giles is pleased to see that he has a bumper harvest. Old MacDonald, with the usual harvest, doesn’t bother to collect seeds for next year – he’s going to Monsanto.

Simplistic, I know (and probably not a reflection of how you actually grow rapeseed), but market forces will take hold and that is what will happen. Either farmers will bow to the GM master or they will go bankrupt.

Before too long we will find that the vast majority of our ‘natural’ food products are owned and controlled by a handful of companies. Worse, those companies will hold enormous political influence. We can already see the effects of that influence with the US threats to cease aide to Zimbabwe unless they accept GM products, and the threat to take Brussels to the WTO over the decisions made on GM there. The political influence of these companies will only get worse as they get a tighter and tighter hold on our food supplies.

[Anonymous]

Actually bananas are a good example, they have been modified to meet the market and are under extreme pressure from disease and pests - the environemtnal problems associated with banana farming are significant. All to meet our requirements, dont think that the "natural" banana growing on the tropical paradise is what you get in the shops, the actual proper fruit is inpalettable.

[Geo]

Actually bananas are a good example, they have been modified to meet the market and are under extreme pressure from disease and pests - the environemtnal problems associated with banana farming are significant. All to meet our requirements, dont think that the "natural" banana growing on the tropical paradise is what you get in the shops, the actual proper fruit is inpalettable.

I'm not with you. Bananas have been eaten since long before GM ever raised its ugly head. There are loads of vairieties though, some of which are not that nice to eat I'm told.

[squidge]

Squidge, heres a mugs veiw of genetic modification.

I remember a report a couple of years ago when someone took the genetic material from a fish and inserted it into the genetic material of a tomato.

Thanks for that Gleeber!

Hmmmmmmm not even the cleverest botanist could pollinate a rose with fishy scales so i start to see the difference. Maybe I should do some reading

[gleeber]

I still maintain you guys are talking side issues. The main issue (for me) is that scientists are able to modify and change a species (in theory anything with genes can be modified) which may have evolved over millions of years.
Give them half an hour in the laboratory and they will have a tomato eating out of the hand of a cod.
Its frightening stuff but i put my trust in science.
Everything else, for me, is a side issue and as is normal side issues breed conspiracy theories which after all are just genetically modified side issues.
In other words.......your all at it, but thats what makes the world go round.

[Anonymous]

aye and it is good crack aint it gleeber

[George Brims]

A few misconceptions are creeping in here.

Reduction in genetic diversity is not a result of GM techniques *alone*. It has been the trend in farming for many many years, since who's going to buy seed potato variety A if he can get 10% bigger crop with potato variety B?

They are not putting genes for antibiotics in plants as far as I know. They *are* putting the antibiotics in the feed given to animals, which makes them grow bigger faster, but risks the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Of course all those twits who badger their doctor into giving them antibiotics every time they have a scratchy throat are the worst culprits in that problem.

What they *are* putting in crop plants are genes that allow the plants to survive pesticides. Once your crop plant isn't killed by weedkiller, you can spray the field and kill only the weeds. The risk with this idea is that the crop plants may cross-pollinate with closely related weeds, so we end up with "superweeds" that can't be killed off (but which food crops are related closely enough to which weeds, I ask myself).

The other major GM tactic is to put in a gene that allows the crop plant to produce a natural insecticide. This gene comes from some other plant - check your can of fly spray and it may well have pyrethrins, which come from plants of the pyrethrum family, and are quite literally organic pesticides (yes I believe they're allowed to use them on food crops and then label them "organic" at point of sale). The upside of this ploy is that you don't have to spray vast quantities of pesticide, so the environment is safeguarded. Farmers growing GM maize in the US report greatly increased numbers of butterflies, other insects, and birds since they've started spraying less, or not at all. One farmer reported his elderly grandfather said he hadn't seen it like that since he was a small boy. A problem that has cropped up is that maize, being a grass, has windblown pollen, and that pollen seems to be affecting some insect species, notably the monarch butterfly. Monarchs live for years, unlike some butterflies that live a few days, breed, then die, so I would guess maybe they eat pollen as a protein source.

Like any new technology, my guess is there are going to be some teething problems like that, and although I might argue against the knee-jerk Luddite reaction against it, it's as well there are people keeping an eye on the "mad scientists" to make sure they are careful.

Oh and the bananas - there are hundreds of wild varieties. The main reason most aren't used commercially is they don't ship well. If you live in the tropics you get a much better variety at the market than in a temperate zone supermarket. And they taste a lot better.

[Geo]

Of course all those twits who badger their doctor into giving them antibiotics every time they have a scratchy throat are the worst culprits in that problem.

To be fair the doctors could have said no. I'm not saying it's their fault either though, they probably didn't get proper advice from the drug companies selling the stuff.

[jjc]

They are not putting genes for antibiotics in plants as far as I know. They *are* putting the antibiotics in the feed given to animals

They are also putting genes into many GM crops (including Maize and Corn) with inbuilt resistance to antibiotics and there is concern (including amongst the Government's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes) that this resistance could be passed along the food chain. There may be 'twits who badger their doctor into giving them antibiotics' but at least they, and their doctors, are making a decision to put the antibiotics into their systems.

With the pesticide/herbicide/insecticide resistance, we have moved past 'may cross-pollinate'…

During trials (in the UK, France, and the Netherlands) the Sugar Beets that had been modified with a resistance to one herbicide were sprayed with a second type. Although they were not genetically modified with a specific resistance to this second type, 0.5% of the crop survived (doesn't sound like much, but imagine an entire field of little plants…). The cross-pollination took place in the seed factory before the seeds were shipped for the trial.

In Canada, it took two years for the weeds to pick up the immunisations from three different crops against three different herbicides. However, more powerful herbicides did, eventually, do the trick.

Potatoes modified with inbuilt insecticides to repel sap-sucking insects (such as Aphids) were actually found to attract other insects.

In the US they found that insecticides in GM Maize 'leaked' into the soil and was still potent after 25 days.

I agree with you, George, that there are problems with all new technology, but we aren’t talking a bug with Windows 2011 that stops your modem working on a Tuesday – that's a 'teething problem'. We are talking about our food supply and our environment. This has to be fully tested and we have to know the long-term side effects before we swap food supplies.

But then again, we now have an onion that doesn't make you cry when you cut it… progress has its advantages

[Anonymous]

Bananas - from the good old BBC News Website (thank you all for paying your TV licences so I can recieve such a great service for free )

Edible bananas may disappear within a decade if urgent action is not taken to develop new varieties resistant to blight.
A Belgian scientist leading research into the fruit loved by millions, and a staple for much of the world's poor, has warned that diseases and pests are steadily encroaching upon crops.

The problem is that the banana we eat is a seedless, sterile article which could slip the way of its predecessor which was wiped out by blight half a century ago.

But Dr Emile Frison, who heads the French-based International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain (INIBAP), says the biotechnology and genetic manipulation it might take to save the fruit could put off consumers with GM concerns.

The Cavendish banana now being eaten across the globe lacks genetic diversity, he argues in an article in New Scientist magazine, and its survival is threatened by:


Panama disease, caused by a soil fungus, which wiped out the Gros Michel variety in the 1950s

Black sigatoka, another fungal disease which has reached global epidemic proportions

Pests invading plantations and farms in central America, Africa and Asia alike.
New Scientist compared the current threat to bananas to the potato blight which caused the devastating Irish famine of the 1840s.

GM fears

Fungicides are proving increasingly ineffective against the diseases, and black sigatoka especially.

Favoured fruit

First edible bananas date back 10,000 years to South-East Asia

Half a billion people in Africa and Asia depend on them as a staple food

One hybrid developed with great difficulty turned out to taste more like an apple

"As soon as you bring in a new fungicide, they develop resistance," Dr Frison said.

"One thing we can be sure of is that the sigatoka won't lose in this battle."

A global consortium of scientists led by Dr Frison last year announced plans to sequence the genetic blueprint of the banana within five years.

They will focus on largely inedible wild bananas, which are full of hard seeds, since many of these are resistant to black sigatoka.

But the team's work is being hampered by a lack of support from the large producers, who fear that consumers will not accept a GM banana.

The Belgian scientist, who is based in Montpellier in southern France, pointed out that the research would be directed towards bananas eaten in Africa, where consumption is up to 50 times greater than that in a nation like Great Britain.

"Work on the banana genome will be concentrated on finding ways to improve the varieties on which Africans depend for their survival, rather than the one you and I buy off supermarket shelves," he said.

[George Brims]

Just read of something that worries me. They have bred (not sure whether through GM or conventional techniques) a coffee bean that has 70% less caffeine. What if that gene escapes and crosses into the other kinds! I would prefer one with 70% MORE.

[jjc]

Never fear, George - there's always Irn Bru

[Anonymous]

Just goes to show how much diversityis required George. To be honest I can never get my head round the concept of decaff coffee/tea and alcohol free beer Surely those involved in the manufacture are plain evil

[MadPict]

The point I was trying to make was not about increased yields but about trying to reduce the use of chemicals and fertilizers used in farming - kinda the other side to the coin.

Errrrr, isn't that what organic farming is all about???

Some very good points made - the fish genes in the tomato thing was, if my memory serves me, to help stop the tomato from ripening too quickly improving shelve life.

The US threatening Zimbabwe and the EU over it's stance on GM crops really for me shows it all up for what it really is about - $$$$$$$$$$$

Tests in the US have shown that GM crops can infect non-GM crops up to hundreds of miles away, in Mexico I believe the instance to be.

It may be too late for putting the genie back in the bottle - the field trials in this country have been just that - field trials - out in the open, next to non-GM crops and within drift distances of organic farms.

Why were they carried out like this?

Why were they not carried out under controlled conditions in greenhouses with safeguards in place to prevent accidental release?

I fear it is again down to money - farmers are approached by the likes of Monsatan, oops Monsanto, given a nice big wodge to give over some of their fields to crop trials and they can sit back and not worry about the bills for a couple of years.

Where I live we are surrounded by fields with little bits cordoned off by a few stakes and some brightly coloured string - hmmmm, very secure conditions for GM crop trials. Must be a new type of force field!!

Man has totally screwed up pets with their desire to breed the perfect specimen as has been pointed out - now they want to do the same with crops.

If I was a parent then I would be very very worried for the future for my kids and grandkids - they are the ones who will have to suffer the consequences of the drive for profit by companies who are being allowed to do this to nature. And this government is being led by the nose by the likes of Monsatan - just wait a few years and see how many MP's end up with jobs sitting on the boards of these GM companies.........



MadPict

[Anonymous]

To a point Mad Pict, but they still need to add Nitogen to the soil, whether it is in the form of man man fertilizer or from animal made slurry (containing urea) - they are chemicals either way.