Cameron's science advisers call for expansion of GM crop

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/14/scrap-dysfunctional-gm-regulations-uk-government-science-advisers-food

Don’t really believe this is the answer

More pesticide producer sponsors please. 🙄

Here you go a spoon full of pesticide … yammy.

“If we don’t use GM the risk is people going unfed.”

That’s unconvincing imo. The greatest cause of people going unfed has historically been lack of money – rich people don’t die of hunger. If we are going to be struggling in the future to feed the world’s population then birth/population control would be the logical answer.

At the current rate of global population growth, how long will it be before it’s impossible to feed the world without resorting to some sort of genetic modification?.

Just a thought.

LOL Yeah a spoon full of Sugar helps the GM foods go down

Presumably “at the current rate of global population growth” it will eventually be impossible to feed the world even if we resort to some sort of genetic modification ?

Nobeerinthefridge – Member
At the current rate of global population growth, how long will it be before it’s impossible to feed the world without resorting to some sort of genetic modification?.

Just a thought.

Well maybe those whom have stopped growing crops for Rape seed are contributing to your Answer.

As a crop scientist I feel a bit uneasy weighing in and could fill page after page but GM use likely has to increase to feed global populations in current climatic conditions. It is however only one of many changes that need to be made. GM itself isn’t good or bad it is the use it is put to that is good or bad. Conventional breeding has pretty much reached it’s limit and GM allows us to produce pathogen or stress resistant varieties 20 years faster than normal breeding even if the genetics allowed us to do so.

When I read some of the projections of food availability at work and the effects that even minor changes in climate, plant pathogens or war could have on global food availability it is truly terrifying. The really worrying part is that we are almost certainly too late to do anything really constructive about preventing mass starvation.

Others changes that are likely required include stopping building on agricultural land, decreasing post-harvest losses during transportation and storage, growing crops suitable to the local environment rather than cash crops, stopping growing seasonal crops for consumption elsewhere and concentrate on feeding local populations, reduce land area given over to animals that could be used for crops (upland grazing could be increased if animals were required for food), stop non-food use of agricultural land (hops, barley….), etc, etc, etc.

Anyway I’m going to go and have a beer and try and not think about it…………

No Shakleton
First you get rid of the BOG OFFS and you farm correctly but on a Global scale.
We eating on fruit that is on average of Three years old as it is, including most veg

The first answer would to be freeze, has its proven that Frozen veg is better than fresh Vegetables
that can lay on the shelves longer and that nearly all the nutrients would be gone whilst the food
perishes.
Then you would correctly farm globally rather that it is at the Moment.

Obviously been dependent on the Farming in Zimbabwe in which has been a lose to us.
We also need to farm under closed enclosures rather than crops getting ruined in open fields due to flooding.

Shackleton – Member
The really worrying part is that we are almost certainly too late to do anything really constructive about preventing mass starvation.

I don’t think you can play “god” in order to prevent death (by mass starvation) when the actual fact is that you are merely prolonging suffering. Let it be. Eat less.

Homosapien will have to learn to stop multiplying if there is not enough to eat otherwise starve.
🙄

“If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million,” David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

I have no issues with gm being used to improve seed stock but then it has a lot of baggage such as being controlled by huge multinationals, the first gm that I heard about being roundup resistance, patenting life and companies wanting to have as much control and making as much money as possible not about’feeding the world’

GM itself isn’t good or bad

That is debatable
Personally i would prefer it if humanity and in particular money making corporations did not enter the evolutionary race.

They are not doing it to feed anything but their own hunger for money

for me the salient point is this

Professor Jim Dunwell, at the University of Reading and another report author, said it cost $10-$20m more to put a GM crop through the EU approval process than for conventionally bred new crops.

no one gives a shit that all our other crops are developed by huge multinationals, fertilised by chemicals produced on an industrial scale , sold by international monopolising supermarkets etc etc

objection to gm is based on tabloid scaremongering and scientific ignorance and luddism

According to the bit you copied and pasted the issue is “the EU approval process”, not tabloid scaremongering and scientific ignorance and luddism.

objection to gm is based on tabloid scaremongering and scientific ignorance and luddism

That is proper science FACT…lolz at the irony [ emotive scaremongering post alert].

if anyone can show me how a gene introduced via GM has more potential to cause harm than a gene introduced through conventional crossbreeding has, then ill retract my luddism statement and issue a full and frank heartfelt appology

Grantway – while correct I don’t see global farming as a viable solution given that politicians seem incapable of acting beyond the next election result or economic growth forecast. Aiming towards platonic ideals is lovely but isn’t going to happen anytime soon. If you can make a viable political platform to do that I will vote for you.

chewkw – also agree(ish) in the longer term, but as we could feed everyone now if we changed farming, eating and distribution habits it seems morally wrong to do so. I dare say our diets would get a bit less varied though.

ernie – the EU approval process is largely a result of scaremongering and lobbying in Germany and Holland in the late 90s with very little input from scientists as to what constituted a genuine threat and what was hyperbole (followed by other member states not being able to stand up to the will of the people as communicated by the media and lobbying groups – only said partly tongue in cheek).

Not all GM is controlled by big multi-nationals. The money grabbing stuff yes but I know of lots of trials going on where the IP is controlled by charities or benevolent research institutions. It is just that very few of these would benefit us, our farming practices or nutritional needs at the moment so we don’t hear about them in the popular press.

GM is not good or bad in the same way that chemistry used to modify or create antibiotics isn’t good or bad. It is merely a tool, how we use it is what creates the good vs bad debate.

Do I approve of round up ready crops or terminator seed technology? No.
Do I thing that moving or stacking resistance genes against pathogens from wild relatives into cultivated species that couldn’t be moved by conventional breeding is a good idea? Probably.
Would enabling wheat or rice to fix nitrogen be beneficial through reduced fertilizer use? Almost certainly.

No black and white, it’s all grey scale just like the output of pretty much every human endeavour.

ernie – the EU approval process is largely a result of scaremongering and lobbying in Germany and Holland in the late 90s

So all the other member states were GM friendly but bullied by two ? And that includes two members states such as France and Britain which have historically had strong views about farming (France having a backward agricultural sector and Britain having an advanced one) ?

From what I know of the EU that surprises me.

No, many states, including Britain, were pro-GM or ambivalent. They then became anti in the late 90s media storm as a political move to go with the will of the “people” and backed themselves into a corner that they are struggling to leave. Germany led the way but didn’t do any bullying. Governments just capitulated to media driven scaremongering in their own countries.

To be fair many of the early GM efforts of Monsanto, etc. probably should have been stopped but not for the reasons used or cited.

So does Britain approve or oppose ?

Kimbers if you can prove there wont be an evolutionary reaction to an environmental change and/or you can predict what it will be then i will retract my objection.

Who is Britain?

As a nation it appears not but I think there is so much lacking in general education and awareness around these issues that the opinion of the people is meaningless in terms of getting an informed answer.

Politicians of the main parties acknowledge that GM is probably useful but currently political suicide to welcome with open arms. But it is getting better in terms of trialling crops to see if there is a benefit or health risk rather than blanket “no”.

I have yet to meet a plant scientist who doesn’t think that there is at least some merit to GM crops be it nutritionally, reduced fertilizer, persticide, herbicide use, better water use efficiency, more biomass, longer growing season, etc.

Thee is so much more to it than the papers report………………..good news doesn’t sell papers after all.

but JY why would mixing genes via crossbreeding be any different from mixing genes through GM?

Who is Britain?

I’m sorry I thought we were having a sensible debate, Britain in this context is the EU member state, obviously. But probably best to leave it there 🙂

Junkyard – you can’t predict what will happen with conventional breeding either. The degree of genome perturbation and epigenetic change resulting in knock on biochemical effects after hybridisation is startling and unpredicatble. Look at the variations produced in F2 hybrids of closely related garden plants. And these are plants that are almost genetically identical. Now picture crossing different species and you get an idea of the outcome.

Arguably with GM you only get one gene changing where you know exactly what it does.

Okay so maybe I have simplified it a bit (but only a bit) but why shouldn’t both undergo the same screening process to check for detrimental effects on human health and the environment?

Yields from breeding of wheat have plateaued and are now starting to fall. Breeders have bred varieties to the point where they have no variation left to play with. GM could achieve in 10-20 years what it has taken 150 years of targeted breeding to do and still leave the wiggle room needed to adapt to changing environments and threats. The same falling yields due to no variation to work with are true of potato and rice and getting to the point with sorghum, millet and maize.

I’m sorry I thought we were having a sensible debate, Britain in this context is the EU member state, obviously. But probably best to leave it there

Sorry if it sounded facetious or a bit philosophical but I wasn’t sure whether you meant the people, the state, the government, etc.

Currently Britain the EU member state is officially in the mostly No but could be swayed camp but shuffling over to look at the Yes more frequently.

GM is part of an evolution in science that will allow for better production methods if used right. Same as a lot of other powerful discoveries the application is key. The merits also need to be evaluated by scientists in that field (pun intended) there is enough stick when non climate scientists start ranting on about climate change, this is the same thing.

The other part about fixing worldwide agriculture is important too, not buying beans from africa of lamb from New Zealand would be a start. Educating people about seasonal produce. Having moved to Tasmania which has tighter bio security than Australia you can tell when something is out of season and needs importing as the price doubles.

Currently Britain the EU member state is officially in the mostly No but could be swayed….

It seems that it has been swayed and officially Britain is fully in the yes camp.

From the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs website :

As Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the UK, I have four priorities – growing the rural economy, improving the environment and safeguarding both plant and animal health. I firmly believe that the benefits of GM to farmers, consumers and the environment are an important part of achieving all of these objectives.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/owen-paterson-speech-at-europabio

So it seems that “scaremongering” perhaps isn’t such a problem after all.

maybe I have simplified it a bit (but only a bit)

I think we both know I am out of my depth here after that explanation and I definitely dont want the complicated version 😉

its late I will think on what you and Kimbers said

More food is produced per person now than 30 years ago according to Oxfam and I don’t see many empty shelves in UK supermarkets.

GM would help 3rd world countries produce locally but for the UK and Europe its about animal feed and profit margins, not altruism.

That was one of the “stray to the yes” (and look at the target audience) but is a move towards an open debate on the matter. And the opinion of SoS for EFRA is not necessarily the same as the one the Govt put forward at EU summits. They are always much more cautious. But I applaud Owen Patterson for trying to get GM back on to the EU agenda.

The scaremongering was all about the EU procedure in the late 90s, people appear to have begun to get bored of it now. Maybe too much crying wolf by the press and not being eaten by triffids. 😉

And the opinion of SoS for EFRA is not necessarily the same as the one the Govt put forward at EU summits.

Well the British government put forward exactly the same opinion at an EU summit a week ago.

GM would help 3rd world countries produce locally but but for the UK and Europe its about animal feed and profit margins, not altruism.

While what you say is true for the 3rd world GM could also help western Europe produce locally. It wouldn’t get us our Asparagus spears in December but it could make us self sufficient in grain and potatoes, etc. something likely to become an issue in the not too distant future.

The problem with GM as used at the moment in the west is that it is a way to make money for AgriChem firms not feed people in a sustainable manner.

And something else that hasn’t been mentioned – edible pharmaceuticals and plants as bioreactors. Plants can be engineered to make pharmaceuticals more cheaply than most current non-synthesised medicines that are purified from GM fungi and bacteria. Would this be a problem? Could certainly be a good way of getting vaccines to far flung parts of the planet for a start.

Brain going to sleep now, off to bed………..

Well the British government put forward exactly the same opinion at an EU summit a week ago.

Hadn’t seen that, will have to have a read, but good news in terms of getting a debate (assuming that it isn’t just a money making exercise for agrichem pals of Dave et al.). Do you have a link?

Cheers.

EU member states back compromise to allow GM crops-diplomats

The deal was welcomed by Britain, which hopes it could allow for more rapid approval of GM crops in the EU, and leading GM opponent France.

“This proposal should help unblock the dysfunctional EU process for approving GM crops for cultivation,” Britain’s farming and environment ministry said in a statement.

[tabloid voice]I think I speak for most people when I say

robust, science-based safety assessment,

have no place in this sort of debate [/tabloid voice]

Meanwhile
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-07/organic-certifier-defends-role-in-landmark-gm-contamination-case/5506816

An organic certifier that was blasted by a WA Supreme Court judge for being unscientific and unreasonable says it has no need to apologise for its actions.

Justice Kenneth Martin brought down damning findings against the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture (NASAA) and its certifying arm, NASAA Certified Organic (NCO), saying the zero tolerance for GM was “unjustifiable”.

Cheers, will have to rummage more.

GM itself isn’t good or bad it is the use it is put to that is good or bad.

I don’t think that sentence will be bettered however many pages this thread ends up with.

[tabloid voice]I think I speak for most people when I say

robust, science-based safety assessment,

have no place in this sort of debate [/tabloid voice]

I don’t read tabloids so I would take your word for it except that a quick search quickly contradicts your suggestion :

It’s time to get real on GM foods

Uk Agriculture plc could be largely self-sufficienif we farmed more scientifically. That means embracing GM crops, not harking back to some Thomas Hardy golden age of bucolics aarrhing about in smocks, making “organic” grub that’s too expensive to buy.

Timid Environment Secretary Hilary Benn should authorise widespread trials of the food of the future and protect farmers who grow it.

So a tabloid paper in its opinion page urging the government to embrace GM crops then.