Most of the crops under development are not round-up ready varieties that tie you to a herbicide (bad GM in my opinion) but contain engineered resistance to late blight, wilts, rusts, etc. (possibly very useful GM). Please stop assuming that both types are the same.

This is what I was getting at – but “under development” isn’t the same as “ready to plant”. I’d be all in favour of a targeted ban on bad GM, but exactly how that’s implemented gets difficult.

Then there’s the simple marketing message of being able to say that all Scottish produce is non-GM.

I’m a member of the Green Party, by the way – not all of us are anti-science!

Oh comei]on[/i]. Elected government delivers on longstanding pledge and you say “we didn’t get a choice!” What level of choice would satisfy you?

As I pointed out somewhere up above, it was not mentioned in the SNP’s 2011 manifesto. Nor was it a commitment in the independence white paper. I’m not sure how that makes it long standing or something on which consultation has been adequate.

I’d be all in favour of a targeted ban on bad GM, but exactly how that’s implemented gets difficult.

+1 my main issue is a lack of testing (or even recognition that it is required) around the impact to eco-systems and the large agri-business corporates poor record around overly influencing legislators to approve products that are under-trialled or tested to get returns on their investment by a rapid speed to market. Who will have to pay for their errors?
A lot of our eco-systems are under strain already; is this a risk we can afford to take?
Given the lowly position of the ecology on the political and corporate agenda, I’m in the No GM camp.

This is what I was getting at – but “under development” isn’t the same as “ready to plant”. I’d be all in favour of a targeted ban on bad GM, but exactly how that’s implemented gets difficult.

One of the problems with the “no to all GM” stance is that it doesn’t promote investment in low return crops such as pest resistant crops (coupled with the potential loss of pesticide revenue). Round-up ready crops were developed to generate profit from the use of the propriatory herbicide not the selling of the seed. As a result many of the more beneficial types of GM are only “under-development”, usually by academic labs, in the hope that legislation will change in the future and allow them to be competitive in the industrial marketplace.

my main issue is a lack of testing (or even recognition that it is required)

thats simply not true EU regs mean that GM crops are tested more rigorously than any other new crop

+1 my main issue is a lack of testing (or even recognition that it is required) around the impact to eco-systems and the large agri-business corporates poor record around overly influencing legislators to approve products that are under-trialled or tested to get returns on their investment by a rapid speed to market. Who will have to pay for their errors?
A lot of our eco-systems are under strain already; is this a risk we can afford to take?

This is something that needs to be addressed for any crop regardless of GM status. Just because something is GM doesn’t mean it is inherently riskier that a new crop from a breeding program. Arguably more is known about the GM crop because it is usually the same as an existing variety with one more gene rather than a hybrid with altered gene expression across the whole genome from crossing during breeding.

To the OP – to implement policies to the right of new labour!!!

So here’s old Andy challenging the SNP to join him in putting the entire British mainland rail network back into public ownership – “Last year they could have put ScotRail back into public hands but instead too the Tory route of handing it over to a private sector company from abroad”.

So which is the left and which is the right party in all this?!?

Still with 62% ratings and a landslide insight, they won’t have any further excused. Those ratings look mighty impressive when compared with satisfaction ratings in the Herald today.

TNS shows “modest levels of satisfaction with the SNPs performance in government, with no more than a third of voters believing the Nats had done well in four key policy areas.”

Good job people focus on what they say not on what they do!!

oldbloke – Member

I’m not sure how that makes it long standing

The EC began moves towards these changes in 2010, the SNP responded “We’re simply not persuaded that the oft-promised advantages of GM cultivation are worth the risk for an untested technology when Scotland is renowned for healthy, quality produce”. It couldn’t be any more longstanding really.

Northwind – “Not persuaded” is absolutely clear. It means no unless persuaded and the rest makes it a statement about the present, leaving the opportunity for the future to be different. This new position removes the possibility of persuasion being possible in future, no matter the evidence of safety or benefit. That’s a major change.

my main issue is a lack of testing (or even recognition that it is required)

thats simply not true EU regs mean that GM crops are tested more rigorously than any other new crop [/quote]
and you see how people deliberately miss the point 😕
I’ve not been able to see any of their testing methods actually address the issue of long term ecological/environmental impact.
e.g. It’s about quality not quantity 100 tests are irrelevant/useless if they miss the 1 important test

oldbloke – Member

This new position removes the possibility of persuasion being possible in future

It really doesn’t, and tbh I have no idea why you’d think that it does.

“Scotland is known around the world for our beautiful natural environment – and banning growing genetically modified crops will protect and further enhance our clean, green status”. Richard Lochead

A moratorium and / or a set of tests to pass first would mean future possibility. A ban doesn’t.

I’ve not been able to see any of their testing methods actually address the issue of long term ecological/environmental impact.

And how do you propose they do that if they’re not allowed to carry out the very tests they would need to do to establish that?

oldbloke – Member

A moratorium and / or a set of tests to pass first would mean future possibility. A ban doesn’t.

This is getting pretty absurd tbh, of course it doesn’t- it can be changed in future, like any other government policy.

It feels like you just want to find fault and aren’t too bothered if what you say makes any sense

Who wants to be owned by Monsanto?

it aint about feeding the world or cheaper food, even science, it’s about very few companies owning the seed for everything we grow as food. Think that through a little. See what’s happening in the US already, its coming here soon.

Have a look at Neil Youngs film here http://neilyoung.com/?frontpage=true

And how do you propose they do that if they’re not allowed to carry out the very tests they would need to do to establish that?

They would need to build an expensive test environment.
The trouble with GM’s, like DDT, is that once the pandora’s box is open it’s pretty hard to shut it.

Scotland is renowned for healthy, quality produce”

you see I was right to bring it up

If the SNP should be banning anything…… 😉

The trouble with GM’s, like DDT, is that once the pandora’s box is open it’s pretty hard to shut it.

exactly like it is with any new breed of crop, no matter what technique is used to develop it

will they be issuing similar bans for all conventionally bred new crops?

This is getting pretty absurd tbh, of course it doesn’t- it can be changed in future, like any other government policy.

It feels like you just want to find fault and aren’t too bothered if what you say makes any sense

Now you’re just being rude. After some time (in the past) as a Director of a public body trying to apply the various soundbites emanating from politicians I’m painfully familiar with how they work.

Of course future change is possible, but any policy statement and the nature of the language used is taken as a statement of intent and direction which is why there’s been so much adverse reaction to it from several sectors. It will influence investment decisions and the ability of research institutes to attract work and expertise. And by putting a ban in place, the political cost of a changed policy is high. A stated policy which allows room to wriggle is what politicians like if they have any inclination to change later.

That’s why I find fault with the notion of cutting off possibility unnecessarily. Had Mr Lochead stated that the use of any GM in Scotland would require the passing of the most stringent set of precautionary principles then there’d have been no complaint from me.

oldbloke – Member

Now you’re just being rude.

If it’s rude to point out that someone is wrong, especially when they end up backpedalling and (for example) admitting that it doesn’t remove future possibility of a policy change after all, then I think I’m going to go and live in a cave.

It isn’t rude to say that you think someone is wrong. How you do it can be rude.

And I’m with oldbloke on the interpretation and implications of the SG position on this. Ban isn’t a word used lightly by politicians if they have any intention of overturning it in the future.

There’s no “I think” there, sorry, his post was simply false- arguing black is white. His revised argument does make more sense but completely misses the point, and ignores the reasoning for the ban.

It’s clear they have no intention of changing their minds for the foreseeable future, that’s true. Nothing’s really changed for the last 5 years on that front either since they first took this position. But any big enough change in attitudes to cause a change of policy, would also inevitably be enough to justify it to the public.

But even if it never does, some other party might become electable some day and do something different. Til then, I suspect they will carry on doing things they said they’d do and people will carry on being shocked by that.

It’ll be interesting to see what other countries choose to do.

I’m not sure where you get all that from Northwind. No backpedalling nor arguing black is white. I’ve given you more of the logic for interpreting the language as I have but that’s it and explained what a credible politician would have said to achieve the same anti-GM message while leaving room to avoid negative business or political consequences later.

I’m afraid I don’t understand your reasoning for why a ban is somehow inherently flexible, but I’m not going to be rude about and I can’t imagine Mr Lochead is going to care what either of us think.

@Shackleton

While I agree that both GM and traditional plants require access to water, the real issues are;

How are the farmers expected to actually pay for these GM seeds?

would switching to GM strains be relevant in parts of the world be relevant where security of water is problematic.
I’m not referring to water used to irrigate plants, but actual proper cholera free water for us humans to drink.
Your link to the seawater greenhouse is intriguing but many areas facing water problems are also landlocked. The recent earthquake in Nepal springs to mind. Or even in a developed country like the UK we have water problems in Lancashire at the moment.

Then there’s issues of war, economic instability, and disease.

I’m not arguing against the science of GM, but the pros and cons are really just academic until many parts of the world emerge from centuries of environmental and economic devastation.

The major difference there is permanence; this decision today can be revoked.

Now why does that ring a bell? Generation or lifetime, can’t remember?

would switching to GM strains be relevant in parts of the world be relevant where security of water is problematic.
I’m not referring to water used to irrigate plants, but actual proper cholera free water for us humans to drink.

I’m a bit uncertain as to what you mean. I’m interpreting this as could GM plants help us to produce cleaner water?

Could you clarify and I’ll have a ponder on my way home and try and answer later?

oldbloke – Member

No backpedalling

You said that a ban takes away future possibilies. Then, when challenged you admit that’s not true, and that “of course” future change is possible. You accept that the ban can be changed or overturned but claim it permanently takes away future possibilities. But no backpedalling obviously, you stand by both contradictory positions.

(I also think it’s fundamentally weird that you object so strongly to politicans saying clearly what they think, and acting accordingly, and not giving themselves room to squirm out of that decision. I suppose that’s a sign of the times, that being credible means being untrustworthy and evasive.)

Then, you apparently:

oldbloke – Member

explained what a credible politician would have said to achieve the same anti-GM message

When in fact what you gave was a completely different message to the scottish government’s.

The basis for the ban is of course not a perceived risk of GMOs as you claim, but a potential risk to food exports, due to public perception of GMOs. These are not the same; GMOs can be completely safe, and under the EU regs almost certainly are- but that’s no help if they’re perceived to be dangerous by key markets (like the 57% of americans who don’t believe that GMOs are always or usually safe), or the work of the devil, or a tool in the armory of the illuminati or whatever else it may be.

At the risk of being told I’m rude again… considering how you’ve dissected the wording, it’s really hard to understand how you could innocently get that so wrong. Talk about putting words in people’s mouths.

Lastly,

oldbloke – Member

I’m afraid I don’t understand your reasoning for why a ban is somehow inherently flexible

I’m afraid I don’t understand why you’d think that’s what I’m saying. The ban is not inherently flexible, but it’s inherently changeable. As I’ve said all along, and as you accepted already but now seem to want to deny again.

And as I say, any change strong enough to overcome the logic for the ban, inherently will also be enough for the scottish government to justify a change of policy. That’s the nice thing about compelling reasons, they’re compelling.

@shackleton

I’m not saying that GM plants could produce clean water…how?

It’s about whether the human population has access to clean drinking water, a level of economic stability, freedom from diseases like malaria, a resilience to natural disasters, freedom from war, etc

Question like “shall we adopt GM crops?” Come a long way behind these more fundamental, pressing concerns.

Or more simply, arguing the toss as to which crop has the most drought resistance is irrelevant if the farmers have no clean water to drink.

clean drinking water, a level of economic stability, freedom from diseases like malaria, a resilience to natural disasters, freedom from war

OK, thinking out loud:

In the face of starving to death the debate wouldn’t be GM vs non-GM but food or no food. I think the GM vs no-GM question is the wrong one anyway as it is way too simple a question to have any meaningful answer. As you can probably tell from the length of these posts.

Clean water
“Dirty” water can be used to water crops but not drink. The ability to provide clean drinking water in these situations is vital but a separate argument about which crops to grow as we do need both. If there is clean water available but it is limited then drought resistant varieties leave more water for human consumption.

Reed bed water purification systems can do a lot to clean water to the point where it is easy to make fit for human consumption but I can’t see any means by which we can disaster proof humanity in it’s current form.

Economic stability and freedom from war
At the subsistence to local economy scale having a crop that is more likely to survive will allow you to eat, stabilise prices so you can predict better what you will get at market, etc. It is maybe a stretch to say it will stop war but if people in general are better fed and happier with their lot I suspect that war would be less likely or more difficult to recruit for and sustain. Maybe I’m naive…..

Neglected diseases
Yes a big problem, particularly if we cure them as we would then have an awful lot more people to feed in regions of the earth least suited to current agricultural practices. One of the biggest contributing factors to surviving the recent Ebola outbreak was how well fed you were when you caught it. Similar trends have been seen for Malaria and sleeping sickness. So arguably having a well fed population could go a long way towards limiting the effects of these diseases.

resilience to natural disasters
I’m going to interpret this as “things affecting us that are largely out of our control”

Tsunami – agricultural land affected will be contaminated with salts of one form or another for many years and will be inimical to most crop plants. Salt tolerant varieties, if made available, would allow agriculture to resume much faster and enable semi self sufficiency. (also useful for heavily irrigated areas where salt build up causes sharp declines in productivity)

Topsoil erosion – plant varieties able to grow in thin, nutrient poor soils, often with little water could do a lot to maintain agricultural productivity by stabilising the soil structure and ultimately enriching it over years.

Flooding – plants able to cope with anoxia would allow areas subject to known but unpredicatable flooding to be retained in more productive cultivation. Current crop varieties can do water loggged or normal soil moisture but I can’t think of any that do both.

Freezing – Frost/freezing/cold damage, becoming more frequent and unpredictable due to climate change, is damaging more crops and in unexpected areas. Plants able to acclimate to cold conditions faster or introduce the ability to frost tender species would open up new areas of land for cultivation, expand the growing season and reduce unpredicatble crop loss (economic, starvation etc.) For example 16% of Mexico’s maize harvest was lost in 4 days of unseasonal frost in 2011 leading to the price of maize flower rising and riots in many cities.

Drought – More drought tolerant varieties (higher water use efficiency) mean less irrigation so more water to drink. Similar to frost tolerance in the main for yield effects.

So…….
While conventional agriculture could mitigate or deal with some of these scenarios it may not be able to do so with the speed or resilience that GM could bring. Many of these traits that could address all the points above exist but maybe not in the plant that you want/need to grow. This couldn’t be done in the main by natural breeding methods and certainly not in the time scales we are now dealing with. GM in its many forms is likely the only way. I suspect that many of the truly game changing GM will come from academic research and be put out through non-profit organisations (similar to how the Wellcome trust are tackling Malaria) rather than Monsanto and their ilk rolling over the horizon (unless they feel the need to rehabilitate their image).

Even in the absence of disaster, potato or soy bean (for example) that needs less water or could cope with salinity or sub-zero conditions would expand their cultivation range and bring much needed dietal variety to many people and allow cultivation in previously uncultivatable areas. My favorite here would be nitrogen fixing cereals such as sorghum to improve soils in warmer climates (primarily africa and india) while wheat doing the same would reduce the need for nitrogen fertilizer at a stroke. Given that 1% of global energy use is for making nitrogen based fertilizer I reckon that would be a Nobel prize to rival Norman Borlaug!

So in short (!), given that eating is essential for our survival, I think the question of how we reform agriculture is right up there with all your other questions and GM is an inescapable facet of possible solutions.

I think this is also going a little off the original thread topic too……..

How are the farmers expected to actually pay for these GM seeds?

Sorry, missed one.

Depends on where they originate from. If they are agri-business then likely the same place as current seed. They will be operating in a competitive market – if they overprice farmers will go elsewhere or not buy in the first place. In theory they could charge more up front as farmers will spend less on fuel, fertilizing, spraying or whatever the GM is designed to mitigate.

In the case of not for profit produced varieties the model is that they would be distributed through aid organisations and farmers would keep a seed stock back as they do now from each years harvest so it should be self sustainable. GM crops designed for the first world are unlikely to gain traction in the 3rd world due to the costs and the fact that the first world crops often don’t overcome the barriers that prevent reliable harvests.

@Shackleton sorry busy day yesterday.I probably could agree with continued research inside laboratories. No test crops planted outside and definitely no relaxation of restrictions on gm food

No test crops planted outside

Can I ask why? If you are never allowed to do real world test you will never know whether they are of any value.

definitely no relaxation of restrictions on gm food

Again, why? What is inherently more unsafe about GM than non-GM? There is no reliable evidence whatsoever that being “GM” is bad for health. Some specific GM crops may cause some people some problems (for people read lab rats and the evidence is very, very ropey. The Royal Society has since stated that one study ‘is flawed in many aspects of design, execution and analysis’ and that ‘no conclusions should be drawn from it’: for example the authors used too few rats per test group to derive meaningful, statistically significant data.). But then the same goes for peanut crops or potato varieties with higher than normal glycoalkaloid content. Everyone shows some level of reaction to everyday wheat gluten, with the more severe end being classified as coeliac disease. GM crops currently undergo an approval process more related to, and a rigourous as, medical treatments than food whereas conventional breeding has almost no oversight. So with a GM crop you are probably more certain of what you are eating!

@Shackleton 1)Because despite the shortage of bees I am still concerned about the risk of cross pollination

2) I don’t have a scientific background nor am I a crofter, but I do live and work in a fairly remote part of the Highlands my farming and crofting friends are struggling to make a living due to high costs poor access to slaughterhouses etc. one thing they do have in their favour is the quality and perceived safety of their produce through a “farm to fork” application of strict controls on food standards. if we relax or remove controls on gmo then there will be a lot more cheap food making life more difficult for them and they will also no longer be seen as providing a product with a level of assured quality.If it is more difficult to make a living in areas such as the Highlands or Dumfries and Galloway people will leave those areas and we will lose another bit of a culture and way of life that shaped the landscapes we claim to love.

Because despite the shortage of bees I am still concerned about the risk of cross pollination

With what? I’m struggling to think of a proposed GM crop that has wild relatives in the UK that could be cross pollinated.

2. I’m not sure I agree, particularly from a greater good perspective. GM is unlikely to affect high end food production as that isn’t a major market for seed companies. The cheap food argument I think is also wrong. GM may stabilise prices through more reliable harvests but I don’t see how bulk crop production would impact small scale high quality production prices. Farmers aren’t going to grow more than they can sell or is needed as they would just be losing money.

@Shackleton I bow to your greater scientific knowledge, however you haven’t convinced me and I clearly haven’t convinced you. As a matter of interest though what effect if any do you think gmo might have on crops sold as animal feed?

Depends what the GM was. If it was moving a pathogen resistance gene from one variety to another then I’d say the chance of bad things happening are identical to the original variety.

If it was making a toxin against an insect pest then the toxin would need to be approved for consumption (eg BT toxin).

If you were altering the metabolism to introduce a new compound into the plant (say improve unsaturated fatty acid content or increase a vitamin) I would want to be sure that there weren’t inadvertent effect on other compounds that could make the plant less nutritious or in the worst case harmful.

If the plants were GM herbicide resistant I’d want to know what the effects of herbicide residue consumption were and whether it was concentrated down the food chain. But then I don’t think this type should be grown anyway for sound ecological reasons.

There are so many different types of GM that it impossible to have a blanket answer, hence why many scientists and farmers are “disappointed” with SG no compromise approach .

Thanks for that Shackleton cleared up some things