Rising food prices a boon for GMO

[bruce]

Rising food prices will encourage worldwide acceptance of genetically engineered crops as more consumers set aside health concerns for the lower prices that biotech crops may deliver, a leading seed company executive said.

Governments that have been slow to accept biotech crops, or GMOs, will find it increasingly difficult to deny access to the technologies as food costs are poised to continue climbing.

Pioneer sees GMOs gaining global market acceptance | Special Coverage | Reuters

Good stuff

[forfi]

While I am not against the principal I do have reservations about the practice.
The ownership of the rights to seeds is not acceptable
The potential for undesirable hazards to wild life have been airbrushed over and dismissed.
Far too many food crops have been displaced across the globe by non-native species ,to the detriment of local food and nutrition requirements.There is a danger that wealthier nations will cause land wars in places where tenants will be thrown off land to facilitate large scale growing of wheat ,for example, to supply wealthy nations with food for non-food use such as bio-fuels.This is happening already.

PS I would not knowingly eat anything GM or fed on GM,but I have no inclination to force others to do likewise.

[Cricket Tragic]

Forfi, while I think the seed merchant involved is being overly bullish, some GM crops contain distinct production and health benefits, which is why more than 10 million farmers worldwide are growing them. It is after all only a technology. If it isn’t any good, no-one would bother with it. The problems and benefits arise from the traits included, not the fact that it is GM.

Taking your points one at a time.

The ownership of the rights to seeds in not acceptable. No-one is forcing any farmer to use these seeds. This is a choice that farmers make. The complaint about companies owning seeds is really a non-complaint, because farmers do not have to participate. Such a complaint is like going to McDonalds to eat and then complaining it is not Cordon Bleu. Where choice exists, farmers will choose the products that suit them best. In Canada for example, most farmers never kept their own seed because the seed they bought from seed merchants was always superior and came treated with fungicide. The advent of GM canola made no difference at all to this behaviour. However, Monsanto charges a TUA of $15 an acre. About 50% of Canadian canola growers pay this to have access to the seed every year, even though they could get conventional canola seed without having to pay this amount. To these growers Roundup Ready canola is worth more than $15 an acre.

The potential damage to wildlife. This area has been researched more for GM crops than for any other technology introduction. There are literally thousands of papers in the literature. If I could quickly sum up the results, I would say that the risks identified are miniscule because the probability of them happening are miniscule. In fact, the worst environmental disaster that can be predicted for GM crops is that they will result in too few weeds in fields in the UK. Somewhat strangely, politicians in the UK expect their farmers to grow weeds in their crops, but there you go. Most crops are highly domesticated and so don’t charge off invading wild lands, strangling small furry animals and so on. They are actually quite well behaved. The same cannot be said for pasture or amenity species, but that is another story. At the same time, the environmental benefits of some GM technologies are overlooked. Bt cotton leads to greatly reduced pesticide application – up to 80% less in some places. Roundup Ready crops lead to less soil active herbicides and less damaging cultivation.

Crops displaced by non-native species. Here I agree that crops across the world have displaced native food sources. However, there are good reasons for that. I think I have previously pointed out that no major crop grown in Ireland is native to that area. Clearly you believe these should all be abandoned and something else grown instead, but what?

Land wars etc. The current events are largely being precipitated by policy decisions made by governments and really have nothing to do with GM crops. Soybeans in the Amazon basin are a direct result of European decisions about importing non-GM soybeans and choosing to source those from northern Brazil. Burning rainforest for palm oil plantations in Indonesia is a result of EU biofuels policy. However, these events always have a local character as well. Rainforest in Indonesia and Brazil was always going to be burnt and replaced with agriculture because of local pressures. It is just that European policy decisions have influenced the crops grown and the speed of destruction.

I knowingly eat processed corn products from the US whenever I can because I know it will be Bt corn and have less cancer-causing fumonisins in it. Of course, that is my choice and you can choose whatever it is that you like to eat.

[forfi]

Groups like GM-Free Ireland argue that GM crops could be genetically unstable, and that they will invariably contaminate traditional crops by wind blown pollen and seed dispersion. There is the well-documented case of the Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser who faced a patent infringement lawsuit and - incredibly lost ownership of his seeds and crops - after contamination by Monsanto s GM seeds. EU and Irish law offers no protection to Irish farmers whose crops could potentially be contaminated in this way.

So what happened here?

Lord Taverne, Liberal Democrat peer and founder of Sense about Science, alluded to the importance of evidence, stating that when it comes to understanding the GM debate, he would rather consult plant biologists and geneticists than the likes of Greenpeace. He reminded the audience that not a single plant scientist has been found to date who says that GM food is unsafe

I have a friend who is a thalidomide victim so I may be biased when it comes to assurances from any scientist that something that we eat ,drink or medicate ourselves with is safe.

[JamesM]

"Lord Taverne, Liberal Democrat peer and founder of Sense about Science, alluded to the importance of evidence, stating that when it comes to understanding the GM debate, he would rather consult plant biologists and geneticists than the likes of Greenpeace. He reminded the audience that not a single plant scientist has been found to date who says that GM food is unsafe"

Thats a bit like saying that no car manufacturer has ever stated that it's cars are unsafe. Rising food prices, according to experts is something that is expected to be resolved within the year. Good news on other fronts though the controversial embryo issue has been resolved by a group in Japan using mature cells and a French company has created artificial cell lines to reduce the need for animal testing. Probably a better approach for scientists to innovate their way out of controversy rather than try a continual banging of their heads against the brick wall of public opinion method. GCT's anyone?

Personally I don't understand why they are so coy about this contamination issue. Take a few samples from wild related plant populations around GM fields and do a simple PCR reaction for GM constructs and they could resolve the entire issue of a) is contamination occurring and b) to what extent. The two papers I saw were contradictory and almost led to one researcher losing his job. Hardly scientifically conclusive or indicative of an unbiased research community. To fail to do full and conclusive studies creates the suspicion that something is being hidden.

[Cricket Tragic]

Originally Posted by forfi

So what happened here?

Percy Schmeiser grew 1000 acres of canola that tested more than 95% Roundup Ready. 1000 acres of Roundup Ready does not happen by accident. You can read the court judgement here Federal Court - Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser . Justice MacKay described Percy Schmeiser as an “unreliable witness” in his judgement.

A number of other claims that Percy Schmeiser has made are also suspect. http://www.biotec.or.th/Biosafety/We...h/rad1C722.pdf I suggest that Justice MacKay got it pretty much right, but suggest that you read the court transcript to verify.

Originally Posted by forfi

I have a friend who is a thalidomide victim so I may be biased when it comes to assurances from any scientist that something that we eat ,drink or medicate ourselves with is safe.

And it was scientists that showed thalidomide caused birth defects. You are wise to question what an individual scientist says because it is the data that matters. In this case, all of the data is assessed by regulators. Regulators around the world have assessed GM food as being as safe as conventional food. Secondly, there are simply no identified cases of GM in commercial operation causing a health problem. Not even Starlink corn, despite that being a debacle. I suggest the evidence is in on that one. It is the modification that matters with respect to human health issues, not whether that modification occurred through chemical mutagenesis or by genetic engineering.

[forfi]

Not having had much in the way of legal training I may well miss the finer points of patent law.However what I read here is that you buy seeds from Monsanto one year and then.......you buy seeds from Monsanto the next year and so on.Never heard of any of the traditional seed people pulling a stunt like that. I can get seeds of old varieties of most veggies that have a lineage going back almost to Victorian times,these all perform well in the conditions in these parts and are available free in most cases,you just pass on any surplus that you have.The fact of there being a legal issue in the first place shows where we are heading with this.

[forfi]

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

And it was scientists that showed thalidomide caused birth defects.

So science creates a disaster and then when they find that this is so they should be given the Nobel Prize?

[UrbanFarmboy]

Originally Posted by forfi

While I am not against the principal I do have reservations about the practice.
The ownership of the rights to seeds is not acceptable
The potential for undesirable hazards to wild life have been airbrushed over and dismissed.
Far too many food crops have been displaced across the globe by non-native species ,to the detriment of local food and nutrition requirements.There is a danger that wealthier nations will cause land wars in places where tenants will be thrown off land to facilitate large scale growing of wheat ,for example, to supply wealthy nations with food for non-food use such as bio-fuels.This is happening already.

PS I would not knowingly eat anything GM or fed on GM,but I have no inclination to force others to do likewise.

They own the gene not the seed.

[UrbanFarmboy]

Originally Posted by forfi

Not having had much in the way of legal training I may well miss the finer points of patent law.However what I read here is that you buy seeds from Monsanto one year and then.......you buy seeds from Monsanto the next year and so on.Never heard of any of the traditional seed people pulling a stunt like that. I can get seeds of old varieties of most veggies that have a lineage going back almost to Victorian times,these all perform well in the conditions in these parts and are available free in most cases,you just pass on any surplus that you have.The fact of there being a legal issue in the first place shows where we are heading with this.

The producers sign a contract with Monsanto before buying the seed. The agreement basicaly states that the farmer can not save the seed because the technology is passed to the progeny. Again, to Crickets point, farmers do not have to sign this contract and they do not have to buy the seed. There are many conventional hybrids out there for farmers to choose from, but the acceptance of GM among the farming community should indicate to you that farmers see giving up their rights to save seed and paying another years technology fee is worth it to them.