Results of GM crop study

[JagLover]

One of the myths of the so called 'environmental movement' is that GM crops are harmful to the environment

Farmers in a Chinese farm trial of GM rice report pesticide use down by a massive 80% while yields rose 10%.

[Plotloss]

So nothing to do with GM rice that is resilient from pest from seed.

Its a bad thing, fundamentally.

[planetdave]

Do you work for Monsanto?

[Plotloss]

planetdave said:

Do you work for Monsanto?

I was offered a job there some time ago, I did some reading, they've invented quite the array of nasty stuff in their time havent they?

I didnt take it...

[JagLover]

planetdave said:

Do you work for Monsanto?

No but I cannot stand the hysteria that surrounds many such issues.

GM crops would result in less pesticide use-surely something that is environmentally friendly.

So what do the 'environmental' movement do-they leap on the media bandwagon and whip up some hysteria.

>> Edited by JagLover on Friday 29th April 13:03

[parrot of doom]

I have no problems with GM crops. They might just enable 3rd world farmers to more easily cope with bad weather.

Why shouldn't we muck around with nature?

[einion yrth]

Every crop is genetically modified. The only difference is that in the past it has been done via selective breeding. Gene splicing's quicker, that's all.

[yertis]

Meddling with nature's building blocks is not a good thing.

Genetic Engineering = evil. There's something of the 20th Century totalitarian scientific arrogance about it.

[Plotloss]

The problem is that they dont fully know what will happen as a result of genetically modifying crops long term.

Metabolic changes potentially introduced as a factor of the modification could feasibly change a plants nutritional status.

Whilst it may sound funny it is a serious question:

What defines a tomato?

[catretriever]

einion yrth said:

Every crop is genetically modified. The only difference is that in the past it has been done via selective breeding. Gene splicing's quicker, that's all.

but the difference is that gene-splicing allows you to see what would happen if a tomato mated with a jellyfish!

[JagLover]

einion yrth said:

Every crop is genetically modified. The only difference is that in the past it has been done via selective breeding. Gene splicing's quicker, that's all.

Exactly-it is simply a change in method using new technology.

[einion yrth]

yertis said:

Meddling with nature's building blocks is not a good thing. Genetic Engineering = evil. There's something of the 20th Century totalitarian scientific arrogance about it.

Luddite cobblers

[Plotloss]

Selectively breeding two types of a given crop is in no way the same thing as introducing algal genetic material into far more complicated plants in order to achieve resiliance/yield improvements.

They are in no way similar at all.

[catretriever]

einion yrth said:

Luddite cobblers

Now there's a profession you don't hear much of anymore!

[JagLover]

Plotloss said:

The problem is that they dont fully know what will happen as a result of genetically modifying crops long term.

and we won't be able to find out as long as 'environmental'campaigners trample any GM crops that have been planted.

There is a battle raging between science and obscurantism.

Before you decide on which side you stand-look who would stand alongside you in the anti-GM camp.

[catretriever]

JagLover said:

Before you decide on which side you stand-look who would stand alongside you in the anti-GM camp.

jag, that is a crap argument and you know it!

[Plotloss]

My reasons for not wanting GM crops are borne out of an interest in biology.

I dont care about other peoples reasons and the fact that I do potentially stand with a load of yoghurt knitters does not dilute my view of GM in any way shape or form.

Like drugs, GM food should have to go through long and rigourous testing cycles before being sold on the open market.

[yertis]

einion yrth said:

yertis said: Meddling with nature's building blocks is not a good thing. Genetic Engineering = evil. There's something of the 20th Century totalitarian scientific arrogance about it. Luddite cobblers

So you think mankind is so clever we can write off millions of years of natural evolution and say "we can do it better". Unbelievable arrogance.
Pride comes before a fall... etc.

Rather than arse around with nature, we should be breeding less.

[JagLover]

catretriever said:

JagLover said: Before you decide on which side you stand-look who would stand alongside you in the anti-GM camp. jag, that is a crap argument and you know it!

I wouldn't say so-As part of the battle of ideas you would look at who is proposing those ideas.

In the case of GM crops tha antis are the usual suspects-'environmental' groups and their allies in the ignorant media.

>> Edited by JagLover on Friday 29th April 13:18

[einion yrth]

yertis said:

So you think mankind is so clever we can write off millions of years of natural evolution and say "we can do it better".

Who's writing anything off here, I don't know whether or not we can do better, but we'll never find out unless we try.

yertis said:

Unbelievable arrogance. Pride comes before a fall... etc.

Oh don't give me the old 'playing god' rubbish, if we all had attitudes like you we'd still be living in caves.

yertis said:

we should be breeding less.

We can at least agree on this.