| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| jocorless |
Exposed: the great GM crops mythGreat Article in todays Independent about GM Crops (thanks to Spicy Cauldron for pointing me in its direction)http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html Think this could be some of the best news I've heard recently |
||||||
| Rob R |
That says it all really. I failed to be convinced when they claimed it would solve world hunger & yet Monsanto weren't exactly rushing to give away the technology to those who actually needed it.  Though I'm pretty sure that being beholden to Monsanto isn't what the world's poorest really needs, they need sustainable agriculture that they can replicate & multiply themselves.
|
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Over time I changed my opinion on GM. I can see the benefits that it should bring and why we shouldn't be scared of the technology. However, my opinion of those who peddle it just seems to be hardening. 
|
||||||
| vegplot |
Being cynical I'm suprised this report actually saw the light of day. | ||||||
| orangepippin |
Totally agree on both counts. |
||||||
| JB |
I was willing to be convinced on the basis that if it reduced pesticide and herbicide usage it could be beneficial. But if it is reducing yields then I'm even less convinced now than I was before. |
||||||
| tahir |
Me too, more than anything else. |
||||||
| Rob R |
Being scared of the consequences is irrational, being concerned about them is sensible. | ||||||
| orangepippin |
The article focusses on the reduced yields but doesn't comment on the presumably reduced pesticide / herbicide usage on the GM versions. I thought that was one of the benefits of GM. | ||||||
| Jamanda |
I would have thought that where GM technology came into it's own was under less than optimal conditions - drought etc. | ||||||
| orangepippin |
Depends what the variety has been "bred" to do, but integration with herbicide and pesticides has been a big driver I believe. | ||||||
| RichardW |
I though it was resistance to the sprays so more could be used? Could gm be better over all if you take into account that more land could be sowed with gm seed as it will be protected by the chemicals? justme |
||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
What a rubbish report. It is basing G.M. technology just on Monsanto's Round-up Ready Soya. There is far more G.M. could be doing than this. The report doesn't surprise me in the least because I am sceptical that Round-up is safe in the soil, so drenching crops with it in my opinion can only effect results. | ||||||
| Northern_Lad |
There's a whole range of different types of GM - some have resistance to pests built in, some go for drought tollerance, some for low light or cold, .... The one's talked about in the article are immune to defoliants produced by the same company. |
||||||
| Northern_Lad |
True, but if it makes companies responsible for proper (ie honest) reporting of their effects it will be a good thing. |
||||||
| Rob R |
The GM debate is so complex that you have to look at each part of that on it's own merits. You can't just lump the benefits/disadvantages together because there isn't one single GM product out there yet that tackles more than a couple of the 'problems' at once. | ||||||
| Jamanda |
Exactly - I'd find it hard to defend Monsanto and their round up resistant stuff, but there are many other applications. | ||||||
| gnome |
the main problem that this report poses is that it undermines the financial investmnet that has been put into GM crops. the minor drawback of decreased production can be easily reversed by just conducting another survey, and manipulating the results to give a more positive outcome. all that has to be done then is discreditting the negative report in some way. you can do anything with statistics. | ||||||
| cab |
What myth was the article referring to? Has anyone claimed, ever, that GM crops will always have higher yield? More to the point, has anyone claimed that this crop should always have higher yield?
GM soy isn't about increasing yield, its about increasing revenue per unit area by reducing costs (using a single, relatively safe herbicide applied at the most advantageous time). Like it or lump it, this article completely misses that point. Badly titled article, a little shoddy, but I suspect that the Indy included it and titled it that way 'cos it was also running the article on 'organic myths exposed'. |
||||||
| Treacodactyl |
Strange that Monsanto use the phrase "maximum yield potential" then. |
||||||
| cab |
Take that up with Monsanto. GM soy isn't about yield, its about profit. |
||||||
| Rob R |
That just about sums it all up. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
Surely most farmers in it to make a profit (or at least earn a living)? Is there something wrong with making a profit out of farming? | ||||||
| Rob R |
Yep. You have to make a profit to make a living, although you can make a profit with a living but you'll never make a living without making a profit.
Not at all, quite the opposite in fact (profiting rather than profiteering).  However there is something wrong with hiding that fact behind marketing a technology/product as something which will feed the world.
|
||||||
| gil |
and re OP's post above : Nothing wrong, as you say, with farmers making a living / profit. But I suspect it's more to do with profit for Monsanto, not for farmers. Bit like F1 hybrid seed corn once was in the US. (bit of agri history there). Higher yields, but farmers had to buy new seed every year instead of being able to save their own from one year to the next. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
It sounds like the argument then is primarily against Monsanto taking too much of the potential profit for themselves. There is nothing wrong with Monsanto making a profit, after all they will have put a lot of investment and risk into these new products, which are still it seems rather unproven (both unproven in the ground and unproven with consumers). If the farmers don't think the price of the GM seeds is justified by the likely benefits of reduced pesticide use or whatever then presumably they will plant something else?
I think the statement "it is about profit" is exactly right - but that is not just Monsanto, it is about how the profit is going to be divided up between all the players in the supply chain, from Monsanto, to farmers, to processors etc etc. I don't think anyone in that supply chain can consider themselves above any of the others. |
||||||
| cab |
The technology may well turn out to be most useful in resolving food security problems, right across the world. It isn't the be all and end all of course. |
||||||
| Rob R |
I'd say it's about power, rather than profit. The link in the chain with most power tends to be the one that takes most profit. If that link is also a very narrow one then there are two main dangers;
1) the link may suddenly be gone, leaving the many who rely upon it in the lurch or 2) they may use that power to exploit other links in the chain. With many technologies the short term effects are known about & tested, so it is allowed onto the market. The long terms effect tend to take several decades to materialise & are often unforseen, in the meantime if people have come to rely upon the product/technology then they tend to forget the skills & techniques they used to use before the technology became available. A prime example of this is AI & "improved" breeding programmes, the ones that brought us Holstein milk factories & Belgian Blue cattle- both rely upon a high level of technical expertise to work. In the meantime we lost some, and almost lost many important rare breeds by the time the RBST was set up in 1973. |
||||||
| gnome |
i think deception is a better word than myth. when the media railed against GM crops as being "frankenstein" food, and public opinion was against it, the arguements put forward in defense of GM was that the future of mankind depended on them, because our increasing populations would doom us to starvation, as conventional crops were of not sufficiently high yeild, and not pest resistant enough. the promise was that GM crops would feed the world, be able to grow in harsh environments, be pest resistant, and give a higher yeild, and a better quality produce.
that was never what it was really all about. any seed supplier can sell seeds of a natural plant to a farmer, and that is all he has sold - the seeds. the farmer can do what he likes with those seeds - they are now his. but GM crops offer a new and lucrative concept to the supplier - whoever creates the modified DNA owns the copyright to that plant - he has total control of how it is used. he can sell the seeds to the farmer, but the farmer does not own the seeds - he only has license to use those seeds within the terms of the contract - they are never his. the promises of food for the starving, pest resistant crops, have not emerged, and experts now claim that GM crops are unlikely to play a major role in feeding the hungry. admitedly, the havests do seem more consistant, and some would say the fruits are bigger and tastier. Quite how vegans feel about eating fruit that is technically 20 % meat is another matter |
||||||
| Jamanda |
Could you explain that last sentence please? Given that plants and animals have a large part of their genome in common anyway. | ||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Golden rice (remember the hype around that) doesn't appear to be feeding the world either.
|
||||||
| Jamanda |
I read somewhere (probably here  ) that it was linked to cancers in life. I'm going to have to try and find that now aren't I?
|
||||||
| orangepippin |
So what? Outside of farming that is not an unusual business model. Why should farming be different? |
||||||
| Jamanda |
Here's one bit of "so what?"
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MonsantovsFarmers.php |
||||||
| orangepippin |
Not sure that really answers the point I was making ... it's quite normal in many markets to add value and re-sell someone else's product with your own mark-up. Why do farmers have to "own" the seeds? What is so different about farming? | ||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Well, they can never generate self-sufficiency for starters. And if we're talking about subsistence farmers in places were starvation and malnutrition are the biggest killers, then I guess it's a big deal. | ||||||
| Jamanda |
I don't quite see how it's different. If I buy a packet of biscuits or a hen or a table from Ikea, they are mine. I own them. I can do what I want with them. Ikea have bought the wood and added value by making it into a table, but when I buy it it is mine. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
This is, potentially, important technology for the world – but it costs a lot to develop it and bring it to the market. Someone, somewhere, has to make that investment. Logically that could be either national governments, the farmers themselves, or commercial businesses.
I think the analogy about “owning” the biscuit is deliberately inaccurate. The real argument is about copyright and intellectual property. Think of the farmer as a bookshop. He buys in the latest Harry Potter novel, but does that mean he “owns” it? He puts it on display in his shop and it sells out immediately because it has some unique feature that his customers want. Do you think he should be allowed to go out and print more copies because it is “his” book? Well, that is what the farmers seem to want to do with GM - little or no involvement in the creative process - yet expecting to reap all the rewards. I think that is called a free lunch! If the argument is about solving starvation then it is similar to the argument for the use of anti-AIDS drugs in the third world. The UN and governments have, rightly, brokered a deal with the drug companies to make their technology available at a fairer price in places where the local economy can’t afford the “western” price. I personally think the drug companies could have been a bit more willing and required a bit less pushing to do this, but at least it has happened. That approach could equally happen with GM technology. However I don’t think it applies to western farmers who in general are running businesses in societies that for the most part do not allow their citizens to starve. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
I don't have a problem with farmers in developed companies chosing to use that technology. But for use in the developing nations I think it's a very dangerous path for them to take. | ||||||
| Aeolienne |
Monsanto once owned the patent for a biodegradable polymer made from GM bacteria - Biopol. What happened to that? | ||||||
| Rob R |
Joel Salatin has something to say about this: 
|
||||||
| Rob R |
As a farmer in a developed nation I see no difference. Either way it represents an erroding of what it is to be a farmer. To me farming & fertility go hand in hand, reproduction is the most important part to me. Any technology that means I cannot replicate it on my farm is making me dependant upon a far off shareholder & an 'expert' in a secret technology- like relying on a single supermarket buying contract that is putting me in a very vulnerable position that I have had the power of knowledge erroded so that I can't get myself out of it. The analogy I would favour is the pig, how about I sell you a pig? Now you must eat that pig as fresh pork, I don't want you making bacon or sausages out of it because I make sausages & bacon- would you stand for that? The answer, I would guess, would be no, because you could go to any other pig farmer & buy a pig off them. With these 'supertechnologies' there isn't that option, there is so little diversity in them. The analogy is more closely applicable to pig breeding. What if I sold you a super-pig that I stipulated you couldn't breed from? You have to come back to me for weaners each time. In the meantime every one else sees your super pigs & thinks they must have super pigs because they are so much bigger & better. Soon everyone has super pigs & the poor rare breed farmer has noone to buy his stock, so he gets less & less pigs, meaning his gene pool is severely limited, almost to the extent of the super pig. Now you have no choice, you are stuck with me & my super pigs, which get more & more bland & tasteless, then it turns out that if you spend 20 years eating super pigs it makes you infertile. The customers want normal pigs again & the traditional pig farmer only has one sow & one boar- he can't replicate them fast enough, and when he does they are so genetically limited that they develop similar faults to the super pig. Monsanto may not have started out with the intention of doing this, they may even have started out wanting to feed the world but, as they develop, they get bigger & bigger. Now, the biggest they can get is limited by the number of potential customers there are in the world. It is a question of appropriate scale. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
Doesn't exactly inspire confidence that what follows is going to be a rational examination of the facts does it. |
||||||
| Rob R |
What? | ||||||
| orangepippin |
A more credible start might be something like: "Can farm friendly food be genetically engineered?" | ||||||
| Rob R |
That just makes the statement disingenuous, dressing it up as a question & pretending the author doesn't know the answer. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
The implication in the original version is that the author has a great story to tell - and no intention of letting the facts get in the way of it. | ||||||
| Rob R |
That IS the relevant fact, which is why it is a statement, not a question. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
YOU might think it is a fact. I don't.
The rest of the article is in the same vein as "top organic myths exploded". Interesting yes. Right in places, probably. A balanced and credible review of the evidence base ... err, no. |
||||||
| Rob R |
I KNOW it is a fact. You think it isn't. That is because there is one fundamental difference between us.
By all means discuss the content of that extract, build a case for homogenity in food being a good thing, if that is what you think, but do not try and rubbish others experience based upon your own undocumented thoughts. Edit: for the record, it is well known on here that I am in support of GM research & development, genetics is one of my key areas of interest. What I disagree with is that we should rely upon this technology & apply it across the board. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
If that is your view then fine, it isn't mine. I would rather think than know. Let’s leave it there and agree to disagree.
Just noticed your edit, which I fully agree with. |
||||||
| Rob R |
No, please give your evidence why you think it would be friendly to the long term future (in decades, not years) of my farm (and its patrons) to embrace the GM crops technology & I will consider that evidence (it may even be of use to others).
I would rather know than think when making important personal decisions about my life. |
||||||
| gnome |
there is an old saying - "don't put all your eggs in one basket." GM companies are trying to create a world where the farmers only have one basket - theirs. if they succeed then all those farmers who got into GM crops early will have the comfort in knowing they backed the right horse. if they don't succeed, then those farmers who got into GM early will probably lose out to the farmers who are still able to sell people what they want.
True - this is not a black and white case of all GM crops are bad and all non-GM good, but there is something fundamental about human psychology. study Milgram, and you will see that whilst an idividual working on their own may have a moral compass, a vast organisation doesn't. a company has a duty towards it's shareholders and making a profit - that is the limit of it's morality. there is no percentage in pity. the problem is one of containment. if seeds from a GM crop get blown over into another farmers field - say for instance an organic farm - not only can that organic farmer no lnger claim his crops are organic, but he is also in breach of copyright for growing GM crops ilegally - so he loses out both ways. It's a lot like nuclear power - we were promised back in the fifties that nuclear power stations would eventually mean an end to electricity bills - but instead there waqs a rise in electricity prices. it wasn't the wonderful miracle that the proponants sold it as, but the government had invested and committed to it, so all research into alternative energy sources were suppressed for thirty or forty years. now big companies and governments have similarly committed to genetic modification, so it will be defended to it's hilt no matter what it's failings. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
The analogy with nuclear is a good one. As with nuclear, there is potentially a big win for humanity with GM ... but a big down-side if it doesn't work out.
I don't fully agree with your morality example. I've worked in several big companies and they can and do have a moral compass. And the individuals in them are no different to you or I. But I see where you are coming from. Remember that there can be money in being "ethical" these days and companies and shareholders know that. Genetic modification has been with us since the dawn of time. The methods might be different now, but the concept is not new. I don't think the world is as gullible over GM as it might have been over nuclear. Good idea to keep the options open. |
||||||
| Rob R |
GM is fine if we can contain it if all goes wrong.
Farming is fine if we can carry on on our own. |
||||||
| cab |
Contain it? Do you propose the same level of care for conventionally bred crop modifications? |
||||||
| Rob R |
I didn't propose, but it would depend on the nature of the modification. | ||||||
| cab |
And should that also be the case with GM crops? |
||||||
| Rob R |
Yes | ||||||
| cab |
Then on the overall philosophy of determining whether or not each GM crop is worth having, we're in complete agreement. It all comes down to what the crop is, what the modification is, what problems are addressed by the crop modification, and what the risks are. Do you agree with me that far too little is done to assess the impact of conventional crop modicification on the environment? |
||||||
| Rob R |
I guess so. For a second there I was imagining you were implying that we'd been in disagreement.
Yes, though not just on the environment. |
||||||
| cab |
Agreed (I didn't have a better all encapsulating term than 'environment') |
||||||
| gnome |
i agree - there is nothing new about crop modification. we have been cross polinating, breeding, and introducing new strains of crops for thousands of years, and in most cases, it has been for the better.
i say most cases - there have been a few god almighty screw ups that have been ecological disasters. introduce any new species (be it animal or vegetable) into an environment and you are taking a risk. it would be naive to believe that the same could not happen with GM crops. this is a genie we will not be able to put back in the bottle. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
Exactly. If our distant ancestors had not decided to do something about the productivity of the original emmer wheat we would not have lasted this long! Would they recognise the stuff we grow today? The genie was out of the bottle thousands of years ago. | ||||||
| Rob R |
Don't agree with your second sentence. And by any stretch of the imagination, rearranging genomes is not in the same league as natural selection (though the latter has given us some horrors over the years).
Like any technological advance, I want to retain the option to avoid it if I wish. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
I can see that GM manipulation is different from natural selection in some respects, but I don't think natural selection was involved in the process of creating modern wheat from the original uncultivated plant. It was artificial selection by humans, along with the creation of artificial monoculture environments by humans in which to grow it. It might not have been called "rearranging the genome" but that was the intent and the result. | ||||||
| Rob R |
Sorry, for natural selection I was referring to natural sexual reproduction as opposed to transgenics. Monocultures are relatively modern, in historical terms, as we've gained more tools to allow us to reduce diversity. | ||||||
| orangepippin |
Yes, the older style "breeding" of varieties is not transgenic, although the intent was similar. Is a donkey though? I'm not sure where inter-species reproduction stops and transgenic starts. | ||||||
| Rob R |
I take it you mean is a mule/hinny? If so, no, same as a geep, it's an F1 hybrid. | ||||||
| gnome |
my point is that a sensible person might have learned from the mistakes of our past. the wheat grown by our iron age anscestors was in many ways superior to the wheat of today - it was high yeild, and we got two crops a year out of it. it wasn't as suitable for bread, but it was ideal for thatched roofing. if we still had it today, it would probably be very useful. people bred a wheat that gave bigger grains so they could make more bread - but our anscestors didn't know about gluten intolerance.
changes to plants have been gradual and slow - GM not only speds up the process, but also introduces new elements - such as combing animal DNA with plant DNA. before you say speeding up the process is good, think of a runaway train. stopping before we hit the brick wall would be desirable. |
||||||
| cab |
Unless you're on the tracks in front of the train, in a tunnel, and the train is some of the worlds problems... |
||||||
| orangepippin |
The runaway train is not GM technology, it is human population growth. | ||||||
| cab |
And the tracks are GM technology? Whats the brick wall now?
|
||||||
| Rob R |
And do you think that will stop if we produce more & more? |
||||||
| cab |
No, but is the alternative better? |
||||||
| gnome |
and how will GM crops slow down population growth? will it feed the hungry in third world countries? experts say not. will it make space in our crowded cities? will it provide houses for the increased population? it's not the answer then , is it? unless some GM disaster goes horrbly wrong, and starts wiping people out by their millions, it isnt really going to tackle the real issue is it? |
||||||
| Rob R |
Yes. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
Given that we agree there is a runaway train, what is your solution? |
||||||
| gnome |
i dont think we are both worried about the same train.
GM is a reality - it's not going to go away, and newly developed strains are inventions, so it would be ludicrous not to expect GM companies to hold onto the copyright (btw - ever heard of open source programming), but lets be honest - this is a new science. what is being done today was science fiction 20 years ago, so we can't deny that we are still in the nursery as far as genetics is concerned. i have no exception to GM crops being grown under glass and under proper supervised conditions. i have no doubt that one day GM crops will be the organic crops of the future, but without the benefit of hindsight, we can only guess what their impact on the environment and social structures they will have. there will be mistakes - what we must do is prepare for them and ensure they are contained. as for the population train - that's already taken care of - i wouldnt worry about it if i was you. |