GM lobby can butt out

53 comments on “GM lobby can butt out ”

• Comments are now closed

1. tc 1

   5 September 2012 at 11:03 am

   ‘Or watch our exporting lifeblood soar as we provide to big anti-GM market segments ‘ you’ve nailed it, we got the isolation and environment to be very successful in this segment.

   Premium niche product getting the margins, like our top end wine does, with plenty of markets. Once people wake up to the poor nutritional and other factors (chemicals etc) this segment will boom.

   Boss (S1, E5 I think) had a swipe at it in an episode with a farmer standing in his destitute fields as the seeds don’t propogate forcing them back each season to purchase from the only provider, Monsanto I believe. The politicians response was honest and sad.
2. Jared 2

   5 September 2012 at 11:06 am

   You are under the assumption that GE is only beneficial for business and is detrimental to society and the environment. This is wrong. Unfortunately Agribusiness like Monsanto have used GE appallingly and created a stigma against it. There is nothing wrong with the technology only how it is employed.

   Would you be surprised to learn that diabetics are still alive today because of GE? 30 years ago the increasing numbers of diabetics almost depleted the world supply of insulin. Insulin used to be derived from pigs, but this was problematic since some people were allergic to it and it also carried viruses from pigs to humans. Then scientists engineered a E. coli bacterium which secretes human insulin and viola! Mass produced insulin with no side-effects. This has been going on for 30 years.

   Also, GE technology is being used to make “Golden rice”, which contains Beta-carotene. Beta-carotene is the precursor to vitamin A. In the third world child blindness is a major problem because of the lack of vitamin A which is required for sight. By making golden rice, and easily grown staple with beta-carotene in it, scientists hope to help prevent blindness from developing from a lack of vitamin A.

   These are two examples of how GE has been used properly. I think we can use GE to our advantage, and anyone who thinks it is unhealthy or unnatural obviously has no knowledge of the science behind it.

   In the future GE may become necessary to develop crops which can withstand climate change… I wouldn’t be so ready to dismiss it.
   • r0b 2.1

     5 September 2012 at 11:19 am

     Would you be surprised to learn that diabetics are still alive today because of GE?

     I wouldn’t be surprised at all. As per the original post, I am not universally opposed to GM. I’m quite happy to take it on a case by case basis. But in the case of NZ agriculture I think that any large scale move to GM crops should be resisted.
   • Lanthanide 2.2

     5 September 2012 at 11:30 am

     Bacteria producing a specific medicine is quite different from crops with increased resistance to herbicides that allows farmers to spray more herbicides on the crops to kill off the weeds.
     • Jim Nald 2.2.1

       5 September 2012 at 12:35 pm

       Indeed. GE/GM medicine or laboratory-produced and controlled pharmaceutical is one thing and GE/GM food, crop or agriculture is quite another thing.

       Tell the globally corporatised GM food lobby to keep their greedy fingers off our food production and distribution.

       They ran the line more than a decade ago that GM food would feed the poor and hungry around the world. But then they got shown up for, putting it politely, being quite contradictory. They have been driving for world domination and super-profiteering by wanting to push technologies like terminator or suicide seeds down our throats and GM merchants such as Monsanto have been trying to make people stomach their so-called “non-toxic” Roundup weed spray.

       Post-script: Having said that, the practices of the Big Pharma industry have been questionable enough, revealing damning track record in the court of law, and pharmas do not need any more help to be further tainted by associating with the GM food lobby.
     • insider 2.2.2

       5 September 2012 at 2:47 pm

       We have been getting that resistance through selective breeding for thousands of years. GE is not a requirement, so it’s not helpful to connect the two as if it were.

       I’m not sure I see an inherent difference in creating a GM product that people inject into their bloodstream and creating a GM product that people chew and swallow. Can you point it out for me?
     • blue leopard 2.2.3

       5 September 2012 at 3:27 pm

       Yes, the distinction between the development of medicine and food need to be made very clear.

       “Insertion of genes into the genome can also result in unintended effects, which need to be reduced/eliminated by selection, SINCE SOME OF THE WAYS THE INSERTED GENES EXPRESS THEMSELVES IN THE HOST OR THE WAY THEY AFFECT THE FUNCTIONING OF THE CROP’S OWN GENES ARE UNPREDICTABLE. This may lead to the development of unknown toxic/allergenic components, WHICH WE CANNOT ANALYZE for and seriously limiting the selection criteria. Current testing methods need radical improvements.”

       http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html

       It is a cowboy mentality to proceed with the introduction GM modified crops into our food chain without the ability to test for the toxicity of this technology.
   • weka 2.3

     5 September 2012 at 11:41 am

     Golden rice isn’t an example of appropriate technology. It’s an example of hiding the stupid, as well as justifying western greed by using non-western poverty. 

     Have a look at this picture.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vitamin_A_deficiency.PNG

     Notice how India features? That’s the country that’s fighting agribusiness for the rights to grow its own multiple varieties of rice and other grains. That’s right, agribusiness is undermining the ability of local people to grow their own food. 

     Vandana Shiva, an Indian anti-GMO activist, argued the problem was not that the crop had any particular deficiencies, but that there were potential problems with poverty and loss of biodiversity in food crops. These problems are aggravated by the corporate control of agriculture based on genetically modified foods. By focusing on a narrow problem (vitamin A deficiency), Shiva argued, the golden rice proponents were obscuring the larger issue of a lack of broad availability of diverse and nutritionally adequate sources of food. Other groups have argued a varied diet containing foods rich in beta carotene such as sweet potato, leafy green vegetables and fruit would provide children with sufficient vitamin A. However Professor West (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) has argued that foodstuffs containing Vitamin A are either unavailable, or only available at certain seasons, or that they are too expensive for most poor families in underdeveloped countries.
      
     Because of lacking real-world studies and uncertainty about how many people will use golden rice, WHO malnutrition expert Francesco Branca concludes “giving out supplements, fortifying existing foods with vitamin A, and teaching people to grow carrots or certain leafy vegetables are, for now, more promising ways to fight the problem”.
      
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice 
   • Clashman 2.4

     5 September 2012 at 1:14 pm

     GM crops have largely been, at best a dissapointment, at worst a disaster. There are a myriad of reasons NOT to go down this path, economic, enviromental and social.

     “Farmers in South Africa have suffered millions of dollars in lost income due to the failure of their genetically modified (GMO) corn to produce kernels. The three varieties of plants look lush and healthy from the outside, but when the husks were pulled back there are no kernels. Monsanto’s GMO corn was planted on 82,000 hectares of farmland, an amount that equals over 202,000 acres.”

     Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/025992_Monsanto_food_GMO.html#ixzz25YMFAPWg

     “soya growers in Argentina and Brazil have been found to use twice as much herbicide on their GM as they do on conventional crops, and a survey by Navdanya International, in India, showed that pesticide use increased 13-fold since Bt cotton was introduced.”

     “Ten common weeds have now developed resistance in at least 22 US states, with about 6m hectares (15m acres) of soya, cotton and corn now affected.”
     http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/19/gm-crops-insecurity-superweeds-pesticides

     “Industry figures confirm GM food is a commercial flop in Europe”
     “Widespread public opposition and environmental concerns expressed by several European governments, scientists and farmers have made GM food a commercial flop in Europe,”
     http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2012/GM-figures/

     Ill stop here but lets face it, I could list page after page after page of these sort of reports.
     Maybe in the future when (if) all the problems have been overcome we can look at it, but not now.
     Its a genie that is very difficult, if not impossible, to put back in it’s bottle once released.
     • Draco T Bastard 2.4.1

       5 September 2012 at 3:14 pm

       …and a survey by Navdanya International, in India, showed that pesticide use increased 13-fold since Bt cotton was introduced.”

       Interesting considering this article in the Guardian:

       Bt cotton is one type and now makes up 95% of China’s vast plantations. Since its introduction in 1997, pesticide use has halved and the study showed this led to a doubling of natural insect predators such as ladybirds, lacewings and spiders. These killed pests not targeted by the Bt cotton, in cotton fields, but also in conventional corn, soybean and peanut fields.

       Of course, it’s entirely possible that not killing all insects with pesticides would have resulted in the same benefits without the GE. As I say, Nature been doing this a lot longer than we have and is a hell of a lot better at it.
       • Clashman 2.4.1.1

         5 September 2012 at 4:53 pm

         Yep initially pesticide use will drop but…
         “Over time, scientists have learned, initially rare genetic mutations that confer resistance to Bt toxins are becoming more common as a growing number of pest populations adapt to Bt crops.”
         http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120620133359.htm

         “Rootworms from several fields were collected, and their larvae, reared in the laboratory, were introduced to Bt maize. Turns out that the larvae whose parents came from fields with a longer history of growing Cry3Bb1 maize exhibited a higher survival. In fact, the survival correlated nicely with the number of consecutive growing seasons of this type of maize”
         http://www.science20.com/curious_cub/resistance_gm_crops-81313
   • mike 2.5

     5 September 2012 at 2:05 pm

     Comparing the safety and effectiveness of insulin made in a lab for diabetics, with the safety and effectiveness of allowing biotech corporations to genetically modify crops, the food supply of a population, makes no sense.

     Do biologists have perfect knowledge? No. Can anyone foresee all of the unintended consequences which might result from GE foods at all stages from production to long term health? No. Can anyone fully understand and predict the unintended consequences of interactions between these crops and other species in the eco-system? No. Do profit-driven multi-national corporations have a documented history of lying about the safety of their products? And of using fear and scare tactics to sell products that people don’t need? Yes and yes.

     Is the above a good enough reason to err on the side of caution and extend a big fat f*ck off middle finger to the US Government’s bio-tech trade envoy and the vice-president of US giant DuPont Agricultural Biotechnology when they fly over to our country to give us a buy in to our irreversible product, which is making your food obsolete, or die scaremongering ultimatum talk?

     Yes Jared, it really is.
     • mike 2.5.1

       5 September 2012 at 7:12 pm

       “…give us a ‘buy in to our irreversible product, which is making your food obsolete, or die’ scaremongering ultimatum talk?”

       That sentence was not very clear, maybe the above will clarify.
3. Dv 3

   5 September 2012 at 11:20 am

   >>These are two examples of how GE has been used properly. I think we can use GE to our advantage, and anyone who thinks it is unhealthy or unnatural obviously has no knowledge of the science behind it.

   BUT the problem is you cant trust them!!!
   • Jared 3.1

     5 September 2012 at 11:32 am

     How exactly? Where do you get your information to come to a conclusion that you can’t trust GE?

     If you base it entirely on Monsanto then you have a point, they are corrupt and have ruined GE tech.

     However, you rely on technology derived from science so at what point do you draw the line to say “I don’t trust this”? My experience is that people will only say that when they do not directly benefit from it. Example: Cars are a huge source of pollution, and are wholly unnatural things. Yet we quite happily use them and accept them because they benefit us, but they are more damaging that any GE tech.
     • Dv 3.1.1

       5 September 2012 at 11:57 am

       Jared It is not GE i don’t trust, it is the spin and manipulation by the big companies such as Monsanto as you elaborated.

       I was not clear I agree.
   • kiwi_prometheus 3.2

     5 September 2012 at 11:41 am

     “anyone who thinks it is unhealthy or unnatural obviously has no knowledge of the science behind it.”

     Remember when nuclear energy was the promise of infinite clean cheap energy forever and ever?

     Or when thalidomide was a wonderful new drug that cured mum’s morning sickness?

     Genetic engineering of food production is in the interest of the likes of Monsato. What are all the consequences going to be of smashing down the genetic evolutionary barriers between species genera, kingdoms and domains? Can the scientists really be so sure its all so fantastic.

     There’s too many human beings, 10 billion coming up. We need to depopulate fast. But all the scientists want to do is find ways of producing more food, thereby encouraging further overcrowding on this rock.
     • Jared 3.2.1

       5 September 2012 at 12:05 pm

       And yet Nuclear technology continues to evolve, have you read about Liquid thorium reactors? Or nuclear fusion.

       Your examples are valid but you neglect to mention the successes of technology, like vaccination. Without it we would still have Polio and Smallpox. If you focus on mistakes you forget all the good.

       “Genetic evolutionary barriers”. You do realize there is no such thing. DNA is a promiscuous mistress. DNA is the same in all organisms, be it plant, fungi, bacteria or human. DNA is shared between different bacterial species all the time, as well as between plants and fungi, fungi and bacteria…this list goes on. The human genome is FULL of viral DNA, over 10% of the whole human genome is viral in origin. o\One of the genes controlling placenta formation “ERVWE1” is actually viral in origin, but was incorporated into the human genome eons ago.
       • kiwi_prometheus 3.2.1.1

         5 September 2012 at 6:13 pm

         “DNA is shared between different bacterial species all the time, as well as between plants and fungi, fungi and bacteria…this list goes on.”

         What, like taking a “glow in the dark” bit of jelly fish DNA and sticking it in other critters and plants to make them glow?

         I don’t think so. What scientists are doing is way way beyond what happens through nature.

         “incorporated into the human genome eons ago.”

         Yeah, exactly, over gazillions of years of evolution. Not a scientist chucking it altogether like a tossed salad, on a boring Sunday afternoon.

         “If you focus on mistakes you forget all the good.”

         The problem is the exact opposite, the mistakes are erased from memory in our technocratic civilization, to be repeated again and again.

         Can you remember, Jared, a grinning Ronald Reagan proclaiming that “Progress is our best product!”.
     • mike e 3.2.2

       5 September 2012 at 6:17 pm

       Don’t worry some sort of disease will wipe us out and only the genetially modified will survive
       • kiwi_prometheus 3.2.2.1

         6 September 2012 at 1:05 am

         Yeah like that SARS in the lab – they made it an air born variation as research “to see how it might mutate”.
4. Roy 4

   5 September 2012 at 11:39 am

   http://discovermagazine.com/photos/07-frankenfoods-that-could-feed-the-world
   • Clashman 4.1

     5 September 2012 at 1:23 pm

     We produce enough food for the planet now, its politics that causes famines not a lack of food.
     The claim in the Herald article that we need GM crops because the global population will double by 2050 is actually laughable, food is going to be the least of our problems if we get to 12billion people.
     • weka 4.1.1

       5 September 2012 at 1:47 pm

       Or if we get to 2050.
     • blue leopard 4.1.2

       5 September 2012 at 2:00 pm

       @ Clashman

       “We produce enough food for the planet now”

       Absolutely, and it makes my blood boil that the pitch that promote-GM-food-industry STILL
       includes the fallacious argument: “the world’s best hope of feeding a population expected to double by 2050” What bollocks!

       I had thought that this argument regarding GM and “providing food for the starving” was well discredited 20-30years ago when the last round of promotion was evident in our country.

       The first 2 sentences of WFP “Causes of Hunger” page:

       1. “Food has never before existed in such abundance, so why are 925 million people in the world going hungry?”
       2. “In purely quantitative terms, there is enough food available to feed the entire global population of 7 billion people. ”

       http://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes

       One would hope that the population were well aware of the simple fact that Clashman relays by now.
5. blue leopard 5

   5 September 2012 at 3:14 pm

   Interesting to note the incredible DOUBLE STANDARDS when comparing the topic that Penny Bright introduced to Open Mike yesterday regarding a hospital refusing high-dose intravenous treatment of Vitamin C on patients’ requests and this issue regarding GM FOOD.

   One standard disallows a treatment that is highly likely do no harm at the very worst, yet could improve health for the patient. Information available indicates that some people have benefitted from the treatment in the very hospital that is refusing it. I take it this is based on the understanding that this treatment has not gone through rigorous scientific tests that prove that it has more than a placebo effect.

   The other standard allows the introduction of food that has an entirely new constitution prior to rigorous scientific tests being developed that can test for whether this food is introducing new toxins into our food chain. The issue regarding testing for this toxicity is very very complex-not only involving direct toxicity, also involving the potential toxicity of the combined effect of the added constituent with every other constituent of the food product.

   This move to allow such into our food chain is nothing more than a cowboy approach that I thoroughly disapprove of. It is highly immoral.
6. Murray Olsen 6

   5 September 2012 at 3:39 pm

   The way genetic engineering of food plants happens, I can’t see it as anything but an attempt to control the world food supply. Imposing terminator seeds on a population which lives by subsistence agriculture, such as in large parts of the 3rd world, is an absolute obscenity. The corporates have largely achieved control of energy, they’re trying with water and education, they control the financial system and communications networks already. We’d have to be idiots to give them control over our food supply, which is exactly why NAct will fight tooth and nail to do it.
   • blue leopard 6.1

     5 September 2012 at 3:47 pm

     I view it as the inevitable unthought-out consequences of the ad hoc system we have developed which encourages monetary profit and the pursuit of narrow self interest to be the guiding forces of our system and society.

     It is yet another symptom of money-which is meant to be the servant-becoming the master.
   • Draco T Bastard 6.2

     5 September 2012 at 3:48 pm

     We’d have to be idiots to give them control over our food supply, which is exactly why NAct will fight tooth and nail to do it.

     QFT.
   • Clashman 6.3

     5 September 2012 at 4:55 pm

     That’s the ultimate goal Murray.
7. feijoa 7

   5 September 2012 at 4:18 pm

   Absolutely. This is not about feeding the world. It is about money, and Agribusiness OWNS the genome of these things.
   We shouldn’t touch the stuff
8. yeshe 8

   5 September 2012 at 8:37 pm

   I’ve said it here before, and repeat it again — best we beware the hidden terms of the TPP. We may need to call again upon the perfection of Te Tiriti to save us.

   Weeds in USA are now so resistant to the oceans of Roundup used on food crops, the use of — get this Kiwis — the widespread use of 2 4 D has now been approved for use on food crops in USA due to failures with Roundup !! Yes, 2 4 D. And the D stands for Dioxin. Simply unbelievable what these agri-chemical companies will foist upon our fragile planet. And millions and millions of acres of once-productive farmland has been abandoned due to superweeds.

   Watch for the report to appear about how much it is costing us not to have GM crops — remember this is the study that Nick Smith denied exioted when he didn’t even know it was being done within his own department !!

   This is truly the worst, most dangerous and deleterious guvmint New Zealanders have ever elected.
   • Colonial Viper 8.1

     5 September 2012 at 8:44 pm

     No water, so no corn or wheat grown in US therefore no need for 2 4 D. Perfect.
   • blue leopard 8.2

     6 September 2012 at 1:08 am

     Further to Yeshe’s comment re TPPA:

     “When New Zealand’s chief negotiator was asked what were “the top local impediments” to concluding a TPP agreement, the first item he listed was the nation’s GMO regulations – and cited Monsanto’s unhappiness with these.”

     http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/news_item.asp?sID=236 (pdf)

     **Nice to know that Monsanto is privy to the TPPA negotiations where the NZ public are not**
     • yeshe 8.2.1

       6 September 2012 at 8:29 am

       Thx Blue Leopard — your ** nice-to-know statement — what a superb question to be asked in the House.

       And anyone wanting to be truly spooked — search Morgellon’s Disease .. more than 40,000 confirmed cases in USA, and NIH and CDC admit they have no idea what it is. Alternative practitioners understand .. most are certain the painful and multiple hair-like strands growing out of peoples’ skin are protein strands directly related to proteins inserted into GM food crops. Watch for proof to appear.

       “Citovsky’s team took scanning electron microscope pictures of the fibres in or extruding from the skin of patients suffering from Morgellons disease, confirming that they are UNLIKE ANY ORDINARY NATURAL OR SYNTHETIC FIBRES “.(see Fig. 1, assembled from Citovsky’s website [8]).

       http://www.i-sis.org.uk/agrobacteriumAndMorgellons.php

       Search Google for Morgellons images but maybe wait until after breakfast.

       and
       …..Sufferers include folk singer Joni Mitchell, who has complained of ‘”This weird incurable disease that seems like it’s from outer space… Fibres in a variety of colours protrude out of my skin: they cannot be forensically identified as animal, vegetable or mineral. Morgellons is a slow, unpredictable killer – a terrorist disease. It will blow up one of your organs, leaving you in bed for a year.”

       So it’s new, frightening and profoundly odd. But if you were to seek the view of the medical establishment, you’d find the strangest fact about this disease: morgellons doesn’t exist.

       http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/may/07/morgellons-mysterious-illness
9. Glg 9

   6 September 2012 at 6:21 am

   If GM growers cannot contain the pollen from their plants, there we have a problem. And thats just what the US has. NZ had to change regulations to allow GM contaminated corn into NZ, ie less than x% contamination doesn’t count as contamination.
   Also there is evidence that GM pollen is implicated in bee hive collapse, although this could be the dodgy insecticides that use on GM crops.
   Continued high use of Roundup eventually kills the soil bacteria, then plants do less well, then weeds gain resistence, more weedkiller, farmers in India now have very high levels of suicide, GM led them straight into poverty.
   GM is not safe for the environment, and Manufacturers hate it that Europe wants nothing to do with their crap, NZ has to be smart enough to do the same.
   • yeshe 9.1

     6 September 2012 at 8:37 am

     Sad that the longest straight line in the known universe is the one running between our NAct guvmint and the word “smart”. Terrifying.
10. BLiP 10

    6 September 2012 at 12:36 pm

    .

    Call this latest kerfuffle “inept and blatant lobbying” if you must but, really, its just a distraction from the fact that its “game-over”. Know the history, observe what’s happening overseas, and read between the lines and its apparent that, rather than “lobbying”, we are seeing an announcement of the inevitable. Genetically engineered food and its concomitant frankenstein farming was introduced by deceit ten years ago. thanks Labour. National Ltd™ has further assisted the process by trashing any public regulatory enforcement and monitoring. Our kiwifruit producers know all about that aspect. Today, all National Ltd™ has to do is stand silent while the multinationals finish the job. Now its just a matter of selling the idea to the public without letting on that its fait accompli. Hey presto, dire TINA threats and PR pipedreams about health/economic benefits based on voodoo science and make-believe economics.

    Protest, piss and moan all you like but it might be a better idea to dig in your own veggie garden, and sooner rather than later. Hopefully, “already existing domestic production” will not be made illegal, although the distribution, even gratis, of any produce probably will be.
11. Tamati 11

    6 September 2012 at 2:25 pm

    It seems to me that the left is at risk as being seen as anti-science, as is the Republicans in the US. How can you be so skeptical of science, on one hand, then adamant about it when talking about global warming? – You can have it both ways!

    Why does New Zealand have to choose between GE and non-GE anyway? Surely individual farmers can make their own decisions, as they are ones who are taking   the risks, and will reap the rewards.
    • blue leopard 11.1

      6 September 2012 at 2:43 pm

      @ Tamati

      Because if your neighbour chooses to have a GM crop on their land then your plants may become contaminated; meaning that we are not entitled to simply choose as we see fit-one person’s choice is going to effect another’s freedom to choose.
      • Carol 11.1.1

        6 September 2012 at 2:49 pm

        Not to mention , the corporatisation of farming that’s been going on….
      • Tamati 11.1.2

        6 September 2012 at 3:05 pm

        Sure, but we could easily employ mechanisms to prevent or reduce this. And it’s not likely to be a problem for livestock, only crops. So a blanket ban would seem premature.
        • blue leopard 11.1.2.1

          6 September 2012 at 3:21 pm

          @Tamati,

          Whom gets to choose whether it is the GM food producers who are enclosed in a giant plastic bubble (to ensure no contamination) or the people wishing to keep their food uncontaminated?

          (I wouldn’t worry about spending too much time on thinking about the answer to this question, we won’t get the opportunity to choose now that it is clear that Monsanto has more influence on our successive governments than ordinary NZers.)
          • Tamati 11.1.2.1.1

            6 September 2012 at 3:26 pm

            Producers choose what they wish to grow. Consumer buy and consume what they wish. (And there are plenty of organic options out their already) 
            • Carol 11.1.2.1.1.1

              6 September 2012 at 3:28 pm

              Tamati, that just sounds naive and out of touch with the reality of the dictatorship of the corporates in the “market”.
              • Tamati …

                6 September 2012 at 3:32 pm

                I’ve bought organic produce many times at they Taka farmers market. Not once have I felt Monsanto breathing down my back. 
                • Carol …

                  6 September 2012 at 3:35 pm

                  [sigh]

                  Could to use farmers’ markets, but you’ve really missed the bigger picture.
                  • Tamati …

                    6 September 2012 at 3:36 pm

                    How? 
                     
            • blue leopard 11.1.2.1.1.2

              6 September 2012 at 3:37 pm

              +1 Carol

              Tamati, Both types of producers do not get to choose what they wish to grow in this scenario when contamination is a reality. This leads one person’s choice to be mutually exclusive to the others.

              I suggested a giant plastic bubble in order to avoid the contamination and I’m asking you:

              Who gets to choose whether they live inside the bubble or in the open air-the GM Food growers-to-be, or the Real Food growers?
              • Tamati …

                6 September 2012 at 3:43 pm

                GM producers would obviously pay for and provide the mechanism to prevent spread of genetic material from one farm to the next. It terms of live stock, a common farm fence would be fine. 

                Most GM seed is hybrid anyway, so incapable of reproducing. 
                • Colonial Viper …

                  6 September 2012 at 3:44 pm

                  Wait until those seed killing genes spread.
                • blue leopard …

                  6 September 2012 at 4:09 pm

                  @Tamati

                  How would GM producers prevent negative effects of genetic material when it is not yet known what the negative effects of GM Food is (therefore how does one protect oneself from it)?

                  “The SSC highlights the rapidly increasing complexity of the changes in plants arising from the insertion of a variety of genes and a variety of combinations of genes. Current evaluation methods regarding human and animal health and the environment, suffer from different limitations when dealing with the variety of issues which might emerge from the development and introduction of new GMPs..”

                  p13 ~European Commission report on Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Plants (2000)

                  Are you aware that those wishing for this business to be expanded are also against food being labelled to indicate that it contains GM?
    • Colonial Viper 11.2

      6 September 2012 at 3:43 pm

      Tamati said

      Surely individual farmers can make their own decisions, as they are ones who are taking the risks, and will reap the rewards.

      BS

      We’re all taking the risk because we are all living in the same biosphere. Get with the programme.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS