GM Crops now allowed on our shores

I see that since the Greens pulled out of government the Minister of Agriculture has changed our voting position on Genitically Modified crops and ingredients coming to our shores.

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/press/...,51105,en.html

This is one thing people should be questioning when canvassers are looking for votes as it has the possibility of becoming something worse than the plague along with the potential of all our seed crops being owned by large multinationals who can charge what they want for them as they hold the patent on the gene.

Allowing these products will eventually lead to something like this happening here
http://www.afaa.com.au/pdf/17-Schmeiser.pdf

This case was appealed to the top but Monsanto won out at all levels.

So they suddenly decide after two and half years they have no mandate for their banking policy and then a week later reverse their position on something like this? GM should be resisted, as you say it gives complete control to these large multinationals not only costs but other inputs.

Meh, if GM makes food cheaper and more plentiful it's fine with me. It's not like the old non GM stuff will just disappear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

Meh, if GM makes food cheaper and more plentiful it's fine with me. It's not like the old non GM stuff will just disappear.

---

I mostly agree. The Schmeiser case linked to in the first post is worth reading though. It involves a farmer whose crop was contaminated by Montesano's seeds. He was found to have infringed on their patents. Now, it's not as simple as that, but the document there seems like a good summary from my recollection of the case, and it raises interesting questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

Meh, if GM makes food cheaper and more plentiful it's fine with me. It's not like the old non GM stuff will just disappear.

---

I thought that might be one of the dangers? Contamination, etc

It may make food cheaper for a time but it is the wider picture people should be looking at as eventually with cross pollination the GM crops will over power the heirloom varieties and the GM company who produces the seed would own the seed produced by your crop leading to the grower having to purchase the seed to grow a new crop. Companies are developing these for mass profit in the long term

Another link http://www.irishseedsavers.ie/news-events/

Although they didnt win this case in the end this link shows huge problems with patents on food genes

Apologies for old cases but cant find the full version on this one Basmatti Patent



Remember we don't own the world we only borrow it from our children

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennocelt

I thought that might be one of the dangers? Contamination, etc

---

Hmmm, maybe, but I can't see it wiping all of them out just like that.

I'd be feckin delighted if parsnips were wiped out for a start.

I remember a group from NUI Maynooth going somewhere in Kildare (1998) for a protest against Monsanto and they were arrested. Since then I've not noticed any push on GM crops. Anyone from a farming background would worry about the downsides (especially from reading the links) and do we really want cheap food? Does plentiful mean better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spudulika

Anyone from a farming background would worry about the downsides (especially from reading the links) and do we really want cheap food? Does plentiful mean better?

---

Asking a farmer about the downsides of GM crops is like asking a van driver about the consequences of Ferrari's new lower diffusion deck. He may have an opinion, and eventually it might even affect him (rather less likely in this example, it must be said), but he doesn't know what he's talking about. The downsides I've read about fall into two categories. Firstly, modern intellectual property law is a shambles, meaning that Battery Rover is correct about the plans of the companies developing these products. This is a concern mainly because companies the size of Montasano have never been well-regulated by democratic governments, or the solution would be trivial. And secondly, the kind of people who think that the solutions to all of life's problems revolve around hemp think that GM crops are going to attempt to destroy Tokyo.

And yes, cheap food is good. Christ on a bike, what's that about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

Asking a farmer about the downsides of GM crops is like asking a van driver about the consequences of Ferrari's new lower diffusion deck. He may have an opinion, and eventually it might even affect him (rather less likely in this example, it must be said), but he doesn't know what he's talking about. The downsides I've read about fall into two categories. Firstly, modern intellectual property law is a shambles, meaning that Battery Rover is correct about the plans of the companies developing these products. This is a concern mainly because companies the size of Montasano have never been well-regulated by democratic governments, or the solution would be trivial. And secondly, the kind of people who think that the solutions to all of life's problems revolve around hemp think that GM crops are going to attempt to destroy Tokyo.

And yes, cheap food is good. Christ on a bike, what's that about?

---

You're being rather derogatory about farmers in this, who would know a fair bit more than most about the subject, mainly because to survive as a farmer you have to at least get to grips with modern technology. Now I admit that some old Granny up a hill in Bosnia with a plot of grapes and a few goats, she might not be au fait with how to increase her holdings returns, however any farmers I know are kind of good with what's best for making sure their crops or stock flourish. Or maybe that's incorrect? If you know better I apologise but would appreciate enlightment.

I don't understand what you mean about cheap food? Sorry, maybe it's sarcasm but I don't get your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spudulika

You're being rather derogatory about farmers in this, who would know a fair bit more than most about the subject, mainly because to survive as a farmer you have to at least get to grips with modern technology. Now I admit that some old Granny up a hill in Bosnia with a plot of grapes and a few goats, she might not be au fait with how to increase her holdings returns, however any farmers I know are kind of good with what's best for making sure their crops or stock flourish. Or maybe that's incorrect? If you know better I apologise but would appreciate enlightment.

---

I have plenty of relatives who run farms. I know exactly how much the average farmer in this country knows about the subject. You're being very generous about them. They're a very conservative breed. Farmers who are GM activists now, they'd usually be a little better informed, but mostly they buy the anti-GM scare stories uncritically because it fits in with their conservatism. (In fairness, most of us are guilty of that in some area or other.)

Quote:

---

I don't understand what you mean about cheap food? Sorry, maybe it's sarcasm but I don't get your point?

---

Sorry, I was probably being a little oblique. Cheaper anything raises the standard of living. (Cheaper and lower quality is different, but that's just not the case here.)

Call me paranoid, but I would be concerned about a multinational developing, say, a type of wheat resistant to a certain parasite, then releasing vast quantities of that same parasite on the sly. It wouldn't be the first time a large corporation tried something underhand.

Completely aside from the business aspect outlined above, firing a new GM crop into the fields isn't the equivalent of throwing a new phone out on the market, and the viewpoint that cheaper food is the be-all and end-all is immature at best.

I've no problem with GM foods as long as they've been tested for 100 years in a complete quarantine. Humans have done enough damage as it is without throwing more crap at the ecosystem so a few large corporations can make a few quid. When they're tested, and the patent system is reformed in a big way, then I'll be happy to partake.

And finally, to get back to the start of the post, lest ye all forget again: Corporations are only answerable to their shareholders. They don't have to care what happens to the rest of us, and because of the way corporations are configured, particularly as they grow, they don't care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

Completely aside from the business aspect outlined above, firing a new GM crop into the fields isn't the equivalent of throwing a new phone out on the market, and the viewpoint that cheaper food is the be-all and end-all is immature at best.
I've no problem with GM foods as long as they've been tested for 100 years in a complete quarantine. Humans have done enough damage as it is without throwing more crap at the ecosystem so a few large corporations can make a few quid. When they're tested, and the patent system is reformed in a big way, then I'll be happy to partake..

---

fantastic post. Agree 100%. Particularly with the underlined portion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Battery Rover

I see that since the Greens pulled out of government the Minister of Agriculture has changed our voting position on Genitically Modified crops and ingredients coming to our shores.

---

I'm not up to speed with the sciency stuff on GM, other than having a vague notion that tampering with nature might not be a good idea, and fairly sure that giving any corporation ownership of plant species is reprehensible. But it strikes me that within weeks of the Greens pulling out, we have FF pulling this stroke (at the behest of a business lobby like Monsanto - shurely not!), and FG promising to overturn the staghunting ban. Could it be the Greens actually weren't as bad as we thought? Naive and inexperienced, yes, but maybe with something like policies and principles? Just wondering....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eminence Grise

Could it be the Greens actually weren't as bad as we thought? Naive and inexperienced, yes, but maybe with something like policies and principles? Just wondering....

---

The greens aren't bad, they were just feckin nuts going in FF. Their time in Government has been bookended by FF approving a motorway through Tara and Ireland supporting GM crops. That worked out well for them.

People are completely deluded if they think GM is about cheaper or more plentiful food. It is all about big business profit.

Apart from the obvious issues of who wants non plant gene's in their food, I'm not sure quality will be much down. Quality of commercial crops is already way down due to the hybrids breed for ease of harvest and storage/transport rather than taste anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

Cheaper anything raises the standard of living.

---

Except for those who are trying to sell and make a living. An argument that blunt basically supports the Walmart explosion in America, reducing prices and reducing half* the population to minimum wage.

* - or whatever the percentage is.

To be fair, and I wish I'd included this in my first post, in the ideal situation, GM crops aren't just about bigger profits for the patent holders or cheaper food, they're also about bigger profits for farmers, who need them in this day and age. The problem is that with patents, those profits might not actually appear and they might actually get worse; and without proper, long-term testing, there could be far, far more harm done than good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Except for those who are trying to sell and make a living. An argument that blunt basically supports the Walmart explosion in America, reducing prices and reducing half* the population to minimum wage.

* - or whatever the percentage is.

---

That's about screwy labour law in a country that hates and fears progressive social programmes, and so lets unchecked capitalism drive the cost of unskilled labour through the floor. Cheap food and goods mean that their standard of living would still be excellent if it weren't for the massively unfair healthcare system there. I think we're talking about two different things - cost of labour and cost of goods. Granted, cost of labour is an element of the cost of goods, but I wasn't talking about cheaper goods by paying less for labour. If I were, I'd be arguing for everything from outsourcing abroad to slavery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

To be fair, and I wish I'd included this in my first post, in the ideal situation, GM crops aren't just about bigger profits for the patent holders or cheaper food, they're also about bigger profits for farmers, who need them in this day and age. The problem is that with patents, those profits might not actually appear and they might actually get worse; and without proper, long-term testing, there could be far, far more harm done than good.

---

Yep. You make a fair point about careful testing, which again requires governments that can stand up to big multi-nationals.

Short term maybe farmers might make more profit - and I have no problem saying that farmers are too often all about the short term - but longer term they are ripe for profit taking by the seed producer. Their own traditional seed is no longer available or corrupted, so that they are tied to the supply of GM seed. The multinationals have tied most farmers to chemicals for fertilizer and pest prevention, the logical follow on from their point of view is to tie them up with more and more inputs with seeds and feeds.