A Conversation for Genetically Modified Foods
Henry Started conversation Sep 5, 2001
Hi Wazu. Just read your GM is right piece. I'm sure you already know this, but the 'resistance' of GM crops is not only resistance to naturally occuring blights, but also resistance to a new brew of extra strong pesticides. Either way you view it, stronger pesticides are bad news for insects which, in turn, is bad news for birds. I'm of the opinion that the producers of GM are geared towards making profits, and not the greater good of mankind. I'd be interested in your opinion, as I've yet to speak to someone who thought GM was a good idea. Small farms which promote greater diversity are perhaps a way out, rather then increasing genetic instability and the amount of chemicals in a local habitat.
GM is here
Aunty Lindsay Posted Sep 6, 2001
The GM piece was interesting, but it's a very tricky argument to boil down into a few hundred words.
Frogbit is mentioning the profits angle - I think that's what you have to bear in mind: who profits? The big companies who are making GM products might like to say they want to feed the world, but they want to feed their shareholders more. That's why GM crops are protected from certain pests and diseases - because they need the right fertilizer and pesticide to go with them. And guess who makes them? That's right; the same company!
And if farmers in fragile systems plant just one crop they are in more danger from weather changes. It used to be that small farmers in, say, India, would plant two or three varieties of the same grain. Then if there was flooding, or drought, or blight, probably only one variety was lost and they still had a harvest. But if they plant all one, say, short plant, and there's a flood, then the whole lot gets washed away.
Anyway, I could go on and on. If you're reading this Wazu, please don't feel I'm knocking what you wrote - just you got me on one of my soapboxes!
GM is here
Researcher 33337 Posted Sep 6, 2001
On the subject of profits, there were plans to make GM plants that don't leave fertile seeds or something. From what I know (Which isn't much) It was something to do with farmers keeping some of the grain for replanting so they could order less from the grain company. A Modification woudl stop this because grain harvested woudl not grow again. I consider thsi a good example of "Bad GM"
GM is here
LL Waz Posted Sep 6, 2001
Hi, I've been caught for putting off 'til tomorrow what I thought I had a couple of weeks to sort out.
It isn't my entry. This is Aurora's work, she kindly credited me because she used some words I put in a post. In peer review I think. The bit near the end about the foodchain and GM being a shortcut etc.
I share the worries you've expressed about GM, although I've been trying to find out more about it after running into one or two researchers here who are not against it. The only reason I didn't contact the eds and say the credit given me shouldn't be there
a) because 98% of this is Aurora's hard work.
b) the slant of the entry isn't mine
c) it really isn't necessary, I was quite happy for the words to be used and didn't expect my name to on the edited entry.
Congratulations Aurora on an edited entry
GM is here
Ste Posted Sep 6, 2001
Your referring to the 'Terminator gene'. Something that sounds that scary should be bad; the grain from the crops cannot be used to sow another generation of plants. This is the worst example of agribusiness using GM for profit and profit alone.
Key: Complain about this post