Selfsufficientish.com

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ood-potato

when are we going to stop tampering with our own darn food!

we do not need to increase food production! we need to lower food waste and make better use of those lovely but useless lawns in our back yards!!

Well, the excuse that's being used is that these potatoes AREN'T food - they're for industrial starch production. The fact that they can (and therefore WILL) cross-pollinate with real potatoes seems to have escaped the powers that be (again).

Italy and Austria have told the EU to sod off - perhaps we'll follow suit? (Ho, Ho, Ho).

Mike

They also seem to have craftily sneaked 3 maize strains as well - which presumably are for food use!

I'm so dissapointed this has been allowed

Am also disappointed but terribly unsurprised unfortunately

What did anyone make of the Horizon episode on BBC featuring Jimmy Doherty on GM foods? I just watched a recording of it tonight.

Regarding those 3 maize strains.....

http://organicgarden.org.uk/?p=5143

It seems GM crop usage over in US is pretty widespread and hard to avoid, right? What do people think about restricted useage in places such as Uganda when GM is used to create local banana type staple food much less prone to disease and therefore dramatically reversing the trend of many crops dying?

Not sure what to make of research into GM tobacco:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=gm+tob ... =firefox-a

It seems GM crop usage over in US is pretty widespread and hard to avoid, right? What do people think about restricted useage in places such as Uganda when GM is used to create local banana type staple food much less prone to disease and therefore dramatically reversing the trend of many crops dying?

I don't think Ugandas problems can be solved with a GM banana. They often make the case for GM in countries with similar problems, food insecurity however rarely comes down to the sucess of failure of one crop. Surely growing cash crops such as coffee, tea and cotton for a Western market rather than a diverse range of food is one of the problems a country like Uganda has?

Small scale subsistance farming can mean the farmer produces a range of crops bred to their environment and therefore resistant to disease.

Part of the Irish potato famine was the English forcing the Irish to survive one crop - what happens if the GM banana fails?

GM only benefits the companies that make them, don't be fooled into thinking they are altruistic philanthropists who want to solve world hunger!

Dave wrote:Small scale subsistance farming can mean the farmer produces a range of crops bred to their environment and therefore resistant to disease.

Okay call me a cretin, call me a moron, call me whatever - i don't know enough about it which is why i am on this forum to learn these sorts of things but if i a completely off the beaten track banish me forthwith but... isn't producing a range of crops bred to their environment in effect genetically engineering their crops?

southeast-isher wrote:

Dave wrote:Small scale subsistance farming can mean the farmer produces a range of crops bred to their environment and therefore resistant to disease.

Okay call me a cretin, call me a moron, call me whatever - i don't know enough about it which is why i am on this forum to learn these sorts of things but if i a completely off the beaten track banish me forthwith but... isn't producing a range of crops bred to their environment in effect genetically engineering their crops?

Growers of all ilks have over the generations modified their crops to produce better yeilds, bigger, tastier, more drought resistant crops by interbreading and cross polination with other types of the same plants. For instance my mother used to buy two different tomato plants and two different cucumber plants and hand fertilize them with a paint brush. She swore down blind this gave better fruits than if she left it to the bees so that could be odifying the plants.
What I object to is the missuse of laboritory technology where genes from [ for example] scorpions being put into the genome of a tomato in order to make it have a longer shelf life so less waste is incured by the shop owner.

I defy enyone to put forward any reasonable argument to defend the above when all the shop need to do is buy in season or buy local but if you want to put forward an argument please do.

I was studying genetics in the mid 90's and one lecturer had a tomato that had been modified. It was 12 years old when it was finally incinerated as clinical waste...

.... do we need tomatos that last that long?

I agree that kind of useage is something i know i would be against.

I have nothing whatsoever against genetic modification in principle - it is, as has already been pointed out, no different (once again, in principle) to "generation" modification which has been the norm in agriculture for many centuries. What I do object to is the inescapable fact that it is driven by commercial rather than humanitarian concerns. Inevitably, then, GM products are rushed to the market place with inadequate testing and a woeful disregard for long-term effects.

Coupled with that is another great risk - an efficient (even a safe) GM crop will quickly become a monoculture - that's human nature. The Great Famine SHOULD have taught us that this is not a good idea. Monocultures lead to crop failures eventually - something will get it.

So no. Until the human race becomes responsible, GM should be shelved.

Anyone spot that pig flying overhead?

Mike

I, on the other hand, have everything against GM on principle.

Using a paintbrush to cross-pollinate two different strains of the same species in order to hopefully develop something with better disease resistance or sweeter taste is nothing like genetic modification, no matter how often companies like Monsanto try to convince us it is. It is a long, uncertain process and generally nature will control it - like mules being sterile. Splicing DNA and inserting elements from the animal kingdom into a vegetable is not something that could ever happen in nature and it's long-term effects cannot be predicted.

Inserting genes from viruses or insects or whatever to extend shelf life or to allow greater use of pesticides and weedkillers to increase monoculture production methods is not only potentially very dangerous but also immoral.

OK - rant over.