GM wheat vandalised

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

A man has been charged with criminal damage following a break-in at the Rothamsted Research centre where a trial of GM wheat is being held.
Rothamsted said that crops had been vandalised, causing "significant" damage.
The incident took place on Sunday morning at the centre's test site in Harpenden, Hertfordshire.
The project aims to see whether the modified crops can deter aphids - a major wheat pest.
Rothamsted has previously pleaded with anti-GM campaigners not to destroy their experimental plots, which they say could help reduce pesticide use.
But opponents of GM technology claim that planting the crops in the open air would allow modified pollen to get out into the surrounding environment.

(More at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18140957 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18140957))

Wider debate about GM in general?

[The Jay]

Unless scientific evidence can be drawn to indicate that GMOs are dangerous, I am fine with them. All the anti-GMO rhetoric stands on similar ground to the anti-vaccine rhetoric.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The scientists at the facility had previously released an open letter addressed to activists:


27th April 2012

Dear Take the Flour Back,

We have learned that you are planning to attack our research test site on 27th May. Please read the following in the spirit of openness and dialogue – we know we cannot stop you from taking the action you plan, nor would we wish to see force used against you. Therefore we can only appeal to your consciences, and ask you to reconsider before it is too late, and before years of work to which we have devoted our lives are destroyed forever.

We appeal to you as environmentalists. We agree that agriculture should seek to work “with nature rather than against it” (to quote from our website), and that motivation underlies our work. We have developed a variety of wheat which does not need to be sprayed with insecticides. Instead, we have identified a way of getting the plant to repel aphids, using a natural process that has evolved in mint and many other plants – and simply adding this into the wheat genome to enable it to do the same thing.

So our GM wheat could, for future generations, substantially reduce the use of agricultural chemicals. Are you really against this? Or are you simply against it because it is “GMO” and you therefore think it is unnatural in some way?

Remember – all plants in all types of agriculture are genetically modified to serve humanity’s needs, and the (E)-β-farnesene compound our wheat produces is already found in over 400 species of plant, many of which are consumed as food and drink on a daily basis (including the hops used in beer, to give just one example). To suggest that we have used a ‘cow gene’ and that our wheat is somehow part-cow betrays a misunderstanding which may serve to confuse people or scare them but has no basis in scientific reality.

You seem to think, even before we have had a chance to test it, that our new wheat variety is bad. How do you know this? Clearly it is not through scientific enquiry, as the tests have not yet been performed. You state on your website: “There is serious doubt that the aphid alarm pheromone as found in this GM crop would even work.” You could be right – but if you destroy our test, you and we will never know. Is that what you want? Our research is trying to shed light on questions about the safety and the usefulness of new varieties of the staple food crops on which all of us depend. As activists you might prefer never to know whether our new wheat variety would work, but we believe you are in a minority – in a democratic society most people do value factual knowledge and understand that it is necessary for sensible decision making.

You have described genetically modified crops as “not properly tested”. Yet when tests are carried out you are planning to destroy them before any useful information can be obtained. We do not see how preventing the acquisition of knowledge is a defensible position in an age of reason – what you are planning to do is reminiscent of clearing books from a library because you wish to stop other people finding out what they contain. We remind you that such actions do not have a proud tradition.

Our work is publically funded, we have pledged that our results will not be patented and will not be owned by any private company - if our wheat proves to be beneficial we want it to be available to farmers around the world at minimum cost. If you destroy publicly funded research, you leave us in a situation where only the big corporations can afford the drastic security precautions needed to continue biotechnology research - and you therefore further promote a situation you say you are trying to avoid.

We end with a further concern. You may not know much about Rothamsted. You may not know that our institute is the site of perhaps the longest-running environmental experiment in the world, with plots testing different agricultural methods and their ecological consequences dating all the way back to 1843. Some of these plots are very close to the GM wheat test site, and we are extremely worried that anyone walking onto them would endanger a research programme that has been in operation for almost two centuries.

But we also see our newest tests as part of this unbroken line – research never ends, and technology never can nor should be frozen in time (as implied by the term ‘GM freeze’). Society didn’t stop with the horse-drawn plough because of fears that the tractor was ‘unnatural’. We didn’t refuse to develop better wheat varieties in the past – which keep us well-fed today – simply because they were different from what went before and therefore scary. The wheat that we consume today has had many genetic changes made to it – to make plants produce more grain, resist disease, avoid growing too tall and blow over in the wind, be suitable for different uses like pasta and bread, provide more nutrition and grow at the right time for farming seasons. These agricultural developments make it possible for the same amount of food to be produced from a smaller area of land, meaning less necessity for farmers to convert wildlands to agriculture, surely we should work together in this?

When you visit us on 27 May we will be available to meet and talk to you. We would welcome the chance to show you our work and explain why we think it could benefit the environment in the future. But we must ask you to respect the need to gather knowledge unimpeded. Please do not come to damage and destroy.

As scientists we know only too well that we do not have all the answers. That is why we need to conduct experiments. And that is why you in turn must not destroy them.

Yours sincerely

J. A. PICKETT DSc, CBE, FRS (Professor) Michael Elliott Distinguished Research Fellow and Scientific Leader of Chemical Ecology Toby Bruce (Scientist specialising in plant-insect interactions, Team Leader) Gia Aradottir (Insect Biology, Postdoc ) Huw Jones (Wheat Transformation, Coinvestigator) Lesley Smart (Field Entomology) Janet Martin (Field Entomology) Johnathan Napier (Plant Science, Coinvestigator) John Pickett (Chemical Ecology, Principal Investigator)

[emphasis added]

Original letter (http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/Defend_Science/Appeal_Letter.pdf) | YouTube video (http://youtu.be/I9scGtf5E3I)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm not a huge fan of GM crops.

I'm not sure how I feel about this issue in terms of the big picture, though.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm not a huge fan of GM crops.

Why is that?

I'm sure you're clever enough to realise that when companies like Monsanto use GM in a predatory manner, the fault lies with Monsanto and not GM, right?


I'm not sure how I feel about this issue in terms of the big picture, though.

Attacks on publicly funded research are something we should all condemn.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Thread moved

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I would much rather have organic, genetically modified food tastes bad.

Monsanto is a place in Portugal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_%28Idanha-a-Nova%29

[#FF0000]

However, the laboratory said the account was anecdotal and might not be accurate. In a statement, Rothamsted commented: "The intruder caused significant, random property damage, but failed to disrupt the experiment in this attack."

Lucky.

People who rage on about GMO are basically the worst.

[Offbeat]

When the green lobby shows me some empirical evidence that GM crops have adverse effects, I'll consider opposing them. I don't expect to receive that evidence though - I'm still waiting for the same group of people to provide me with incontravertable evidence that homeopathy works.

[Zav]

Here we go again.
He had good intentions. The company really should not have experimental crops out in the open. If they were grown in a more secure way, tested for a good while, and then shown to be safe then there would be no issue. The company may be trying to better humanity, but creating plants that will serve to starve out aphids will truly screw up the food cycles where the wheat is planted. Instead they should be making the plants able to grow in drier and less fertile land, and produce more grain with more nutritional value. The focus on eliminating all pests is a flawed position used by the big GMO companies to maximize profit, not the value of the food.


When the green lobby shows me some empirical evidence that GM crops have adverse effects, I'll consider opposing them. I don't expect to receive that evidence though - I'm still waiting for the same group of people to provide me with incontravertable evidence that homeopathy works.
Take a look at bee and worm populations. GMOs are generally made resistant to pesticides so that they can be drenched in Round-Up for the goal of maximum profit. The GMO's themselves do not necessarily harm them, but the pesticides are killing the two most important kinds of animals: pollinators and decomposers. Without them, pretty much everything dies. I suppose you don't deny the harmful effects of ingesting pesticides. With many plants it is nigh impossible to remove them all, especially in apples, potatoes, and the like. Therein lies the harm. Scientific environmentalists oppose the companies behind GMO production, their practices, and the products they've created, not the concept of GMOs themselves.
Equating Environmentalism with New Age bullshit is nearly flaming.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I don't understand why some comrades here can't see the problem.


Our work is publically funded, we have pledged that our results will not be patented and will not be owned by any private company - if our wheat proves to be beneficial we want it to be available to farmers around the world at minimum cost. If you destroy publicly funded research, you leave us in a situation where only the big corporations can afford the drastic security precautions needed to continue biotechnology research - and you therefore further promote a situation you say you are trying to avoid.

The above, is really all you need to hear. By attacking these research plots you're harming rural workers whose very livelihood rests on having a bountiful crop to feed, clothe, shelter, etc. their families and themselves. This is to me constitutes not only a grievous blow to scientific research but also to rural workers and I don't understand how anyone here or any leftist in general that's not a fucking moron could support this. Presumably this would be of great benefit to farmers because A) they wouldn't have to waste money on harmful insecticides which also could ruin their land and prevent them from farming their crops in the following season and B) it would increase their chances of having a successful and bountiful harvest which would put money in their pockets and food on our tables.

It's really as simple as that, if you want "organic," food, fine, buy your bourgy shit on your own dime. Don't take away money from farmers, food from regular working class people and ruin centuries old scientific research because you allegedly think GM food "tastes bad." That's pure lunacy and it's a narcissistic selfishness which shouldn't be tolerated.


Here we go again.
He had good intentions. The company really should not have experimental crops out in the open. If they were grown in a more secure way, tested for a good while, and then shown to be safe then there would be no issue. The company may be trying to better humanity, but creating plants that will serve to starve out aphids will truly screw up the food cycles where the wheat is planted. Instead they should be making the plants able to grow in drier and less fertile land, and produce more grain with more nutritional value. The focus on eliminating all pests is a flawed position used by the big GMO companies to maximize profit, not the value of the food.

I would argue, that the scientist would have factored in any potential harm starving out the aphids may have and would have taken this into account in their research. Further, it isn't to say they're not also doing the above and I have heard of GM companies doing just that by helping farmers keep their crops in I believe in India in drought and flooding or something of the sort. They're still in the research phase and we'll never know if people keep destroying said research plots.

[Zav]

I would argue, that the scientist would have factored in any potential harm starving out the aphids may have and would have taken this into account in their research. Further, it isn't to say they're not also doing the above and I have heard of GM companies doing just that by helping farmers keep their crops in I believe in India in drought and flooding or something of the sort. They're still in the research phase and we'll never know if people keep destroying said research plots.
The scientists working for every other GMO manufacturer have not. This creates pressure, and remember, the people don't give the scientists their money. It comes from the corporate government.
There have been such efforts, but not enough. There are trees that absorb heavy metals from polluted earth. That's a positive advancement.
Most GMO projects have not fulfilled their promises at all, and have been in the research phase for decades. Furthermore, the companies are allowed to do their own research, which is a very very bad thing. It's like giving the pope the power to teach science in schools.

[#FF0000]

good thing no one here is saying Monsanto's style of GM is okay.

What we are saying is that it is profoundly stupid to paint all GMOs with a wide brush.

[Offbeat]

Scientific environmentalists oppose the companies behind GMO production, their practices, and the products they've created, not the concept of GMOs themselves.
Equating Environmentalism with New Age bullshit is nearly flaming.
Perhaps I should have been more specific: I'm referring to the bourgeois-liberal green movement, which tends to oppose all GMOs on principal.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I would much rather have organic, genetically modified food tastes bad.


Given a large enough sample I'm pretty sure you would not have a clue which is which.

[Psy]

The above, is really all you need to hear. By attacking these research plots you're harming rural workers whose very livelihood rests on having a bountiful crop to feed, clothe, shelter, etc. their families and themselves. This is to me constitutes not only a grievous blow to scientific research but also to rural workers and I don't understand how anyone here or any leftist in general that's not a fucking moron could support this. Presumably this would be of great benefit to farmers because A) they wouldn't have to waste money on harmful insecticides which also could ruin their land and prevent them from farming their crops in the following season and B) it would increase their chances of having a successful and bountiful harvest which would put money in their pockets and food on our tables.

GMO won't put money in farmers pockets, the USA over produces food to the point farmers can't grow food without massive subsidizes due low food prices due to massive surpluses of food compared to demand. It won't put food on our tables as we already produce enough food to feed every in the world the problem is capitalism doesn't allow that food to end up on all our tables.




It's really as simple as that, if you want "organic," food, fine, buy your bourgy shit on your own dime. Don't take away money from farmers, food from regular working class people and ruin centuries old scientific research because you allegedly think GM food "tastes bad." That's pure lunacy and it's a narcissistic selfishness which shouldn't be tolerated.

But we are paying for the GMO through massive government subsidizes, Americans pays $14 billion a year through taxes to pay farmers to grow corn as the food lobby wants to keep their costs low. This corn is turned into high-fructose corn syrup that is bad for our health and the leading cause of obesity.

[Revolution starts with U]

If they were grown in a more secure way, tested for a good while, and then shown to be safe then there would be no issue.
Hard to do that when "activists" vandalize every experiment.


The company may be trying to better humanity, but creating plants that will serve to starve out aphids will truly screw up the food cycles where the wheat is planted. Instead they should be making the plants able to grow in drier and less fertile land, and produce more grain with more nutritional value.
They are doing that, and anti-GMO "activists" are against it too.


Take a look at bee and worm populations. GMOs are generally made resistant to pesticides so that they can be drenched in Round-Up for the goal of maximum profit.
No. They're made resistant to pesticides AND bugs, so you need neither of them; creating "GM organic." Did you even read the letter?

Scientific environmentalists oppose the companies behind GMO production, their practices, and the products they've created, not the concept of GMOs themselves.

I've seen nothing matching the reason you are suggesting. I see simply "all GMO is evil and must be destroyed, even if it starves people in Africa."


Equating Environmentalism with New Age bullshit is nearly flaming.
No.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

People need to understand that GMO foods are not a new phenomenon. Humans have genetically altered plants and animals for thousands of years.

The wild carrot is not orange, the wild banana looks nothing like a banana found in shops, and dogs are wolves.

The only difference is, that in the past this alteration was done by selectively breeding or crossing for desired traits.
Now, we can genetically engineer crops for many kinds of environments directly.
Basically these principles are the same, so if you're against GMO's then you also have to stop eating carrots, bananas, cow-meat, lamb-meat the list goes on.

[Psy]

People need to understand that GMO foods are not a new phenomenon. Humans have genetically altered plants and animals for thousands of years.

The wild carrot is not orange, the wild banana looks nothing like a banana found in shops, and dogs are wolves.

The only difference is, that in the past this alteration was done by selectively breeding or crossing for desired traits.
Now, we can genetically engineer crops for many kinds of environments directly.
Basically these principles are the same, so if you're against GMO's then you also have to stop eating carrots, bananas, cow-meat, lamb-meat the list goes on.
The problem with GMO is they make the crops the intellectual property of capitalists.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

The problem with GMO is they make the crops the intellectual property of capitalists.

This is true, but this was not what I was addressing, I only talked about the science behind it.

[Revolution starts with U]

The problem with GMO is they make the crops the intellectual property of capitalists.

This is the only valid argument against GMO's, that I can see.

But this is an attack on intellectual property rights, not GMOs.

[Psy]

This is the only valid argument against GMO's, that I can see.

But this is an attack on intellectual property rights, not GMOs.
What about the fact GMO's won't put more food on tables because there already is a glut of food in the market and the US government is already subsidizing farmers $14 billion dollars a year due to farmers unable to get enough from the crops to pay for harvesting it.

The market is drowning in food commodities so why would Marxist support GMO's to increase food production in this market environment? GMOs are clearly a tactic of the large capitalists in the food industry to annex property of farmers by further driving down food prices.

There is a clear class struggle with GMOs between the bourgeoisie and petite-bourgeoisie.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

The socialists should support GMO's because of the technological benefits that can be accomplished by it. For example it will in the future be possible to grow crops in what today seems like desolate places.
But this is dependent on the fact, that the GMO's are implemented in a socialist system.

[Revolution starts with U]

What about the fact GMO's won't put more food on tables because there already is a glut of food in the market and the US government is already subsidizing farmers $14 billion dollars a year due to farmers unable to get enough from the crops to pay for harvesting it.

The market is drowning in food commodities so why would Marxist support GMO's to increase food production in this market environment? GMOs are clearly a tactic of the large capitalists in the food industry to annex property of farmers by further driving down food prices.

There is a clear class struggle with GMOs between the bourgeoisie and petite-bourgeoisie.

All I'm seeing here is problems with property, not GMOs specifically.

And really? Are you suggesting I jump on the side of the PB's?

[Psy]

All I'm seeing here is problems with property, not GMOs specifically.

And really? Are you suggesting I jump on the side of the PB's?

Historically the farmers have gotten sucked into revolutions. For example in June 1935 Regina (Canada) farmers fed the 1,600 protesters. Farmers in revolutions want to see their capitalist masters overthrown the only sticking point is they want land reform that gives them full ownership of their farm land that in the short term of a revolution is doable.

Thus a revolution can make a quid pro quo with farmers (and many have), we support their property rights (in the short term) and they support our taking away the property rights of capitalists.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya except that usually leads to both of them keeping both of their rights to property... historically anyway.

No alliance with capital, period! :marx:

[Psy]

Ya except that usually leads to both of them keeping both of their rights to property... historically anyway.

No alliance with capital, period! :marx:
No because the property rights of farmers are insignificant compared to that of industry and farmers still are beholden to the power of industry. So as long as the workers control industry private farmers are stuck in a subservient relationship with industry thus a subservient relationship to the workers of industry.

Now the fact we have class relations by giving farmers ownership over their means of production simply means that eventually we'd have to come back to farmers and deal with the situation yet from a strategic standpoint that would be after all the industrial capacity on Earth has been liberated from the hands of capitalists.

[Revolution starts with U]

This is largely off topic. In short, I have no trust for those willing to compromise with the original property, just because capital is bigger. I think historically, it has not lead the abolition of capitalism, or landed property.

Suffice it to say, I see no reason to stop supporting GMOs and research into them. I just see reason to get property rights out of the way of GMOs.

[ProgressiveThought]

opposition to GMOs seems to start to be falling under the same sort of anti-science that denies global warming, opposes vaccines and upholds creationism.

[Psy]

opposition to GMOs seems to start to be falling under the same sort of anti-science that denies global warming, opposes vaccines and upholds creationism.
There is objection to GMO but those against capitalists like Monsanto from consolidating means of agricultural introduction and reject GMO based on they are all patented thus you can't save and share GMO seeds.

[Ocean Seal]

Well for the most part. This thread came out to be what I expected. The revleft technology fan club came out to defend GM without considering the context under which GM exists under capitalism. As some other posters said earlier GM crops are the property of capitalists who in turn drive the third world into further property and despair. GM research exists to be patented and sold to GM companies. Anyway I don't oppose genetically modifying food, but seriously these threads turn into a technocrat jerkfest. In before someone calls me an intellectual primme.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well for the most part. This thread came out to be what I expected. The revleft technology fan club came out to defend GM without considering the context under which GM exists under capitalism. As some other posters said earlier GM crops are the property of capitalists who in turn drive the third world into further property and despair. GM research exists to be patented and sold to GM companies. Anyway I don't oppose genetically modifying food, but seriously these threads turn into a technocrat jerkfest. In before someone calls me an intellectual primme.

Actually we came out and said "hey guys, it's not a problem of GMO's but a problem of property" first so...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well for the most part. This thread came out to be what I expected. The revleft technology fan club came out to defend GM without considering the context under which GM exists under capitalism. As some other posters said earlier GM crops are the property of capitalists who in turn drive the third world into further property and despair. GM research exists to be patented and sold to GM companies.

That could be said for almost any field of enquiry as of right now. So what's your solution? Oppose all research on the grounds that it might get patented/copyrighted?


Anyway I don't oppose genetically modifying food, but seriously these threads turn into a technocrat jerkfest. In before someone calls me an intellectual primme.

Beyond you calling it that, there's nothing in this thread to indicate a "technocrat jerkfest" is going on. Would you mind substantiating your whinging with relevant quotes, or are you going to admit that you were simply having a temper tantrum because people don't share your opinions?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Geneticaly modified is not natural, organic is the way to go!

[Revolution starts with U]

Agriculture is not natural, foraging is the way to go! :rolleyes:

[Psy]

Agriculture is not natural, foraging is the way to go! :rolleyes:
What do you mean agriculture is not natural? Crops naturally grow in the ground, humans just plant them in fields so it is easier to harvest.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

What do you mean agriculture is not natural? Crops naturally grow in the ground, humans just plant them in fields so it is easier to harvest.

Humans also affect artificial selection and therefore it is just as "unnatural" as gene-modified crops that our friend Read Post 52 find so unnatural, not to mention irrigation, fertilisers...

[Revolution starts with U]

What do you mean GMO's aren't natural? Genes mutate everyday. Humans just speed up and direct the process so it's easier to grow.

(Hint: I was being sardonic)

[TheRedAnarchist23]

And now for something serious:


The fact that plants are placed on the ground to grow does not make them (the plants) unnatural, but plants modified at a genetic level are unnatural.

Our organism can only digest organic compounds, not chamical compounds, therefore working with chemicals like pesticides hurts you.
Geneticaly modified food doesn't take chemicals, but it might create new organic compounds that our organism cannot process, thus making them as bad as a soda.

[Revolution starts with U]

So now genes aren't natural?
You should inform all of life that it is artificial. I like Carlin's stance on this "nature/artificial" debate. Everything is natural. There is no world but the natural world. Your idealism betrays you.

And also; "maybe," "might," "possibly..." But in reality there is no evidence which suggests this is so, or will ever be.

It should be noted that cows were not much larger than dogs naturally, and natural corns are teeny tiny, like those little corn things you get in chinese food. We've significantly altered the genes of many plants and animals already. I really don't see what the difference is.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Revolution starts with U

Genes are natural, modifying them like that is not.

That corn was conditioned to grow that way due to many years of conditioning, modifying the genes directly can go wrong.

Can you explain genetical modification to me so I can prove my argument better?

[Revolution starts with U]

I think if you understand GM more, you will quickly see that your argument is not going to work. The idea that there is some fundamental difference between modifying genes over time, and doing it rapidly, is not tied to the complexity of actual reality.
In traditional agriculture you keep seeds based on favorable genes; ie, keep your best crops for seeding, and consume/sell/etc the worst. Over time those favorable genes become the dominant population, leading to even more genetic modification in the future.
In GMOs you just skip this time process and "lace" the genes with genes from other species that will do the job for you. For instance, a certain type of algae may be resistant to pests, so you take that gene which causes that and put it into a strain of corn... etc, this can be done in many ways for many reasons. It's the same process, just faster and more efficient.

You can start here, or just google "How do gmos work" or something along those lines;
http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4895758_gmos-work.html
(Note that I have not read this article)

[TheRedAnarchist23]

So genetical modification is putting genes of a living being into another living being to make him better, doe that work?:confused::confused::confused:

[Revolution starts with U]

Not always, but if done correctly, sure.
The point isn't whether GMO's in general are good or bad. The issue is if we should condemn them generally, or specific types from specific companies, allowed by specific capitalist companies.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I also must point out that arguing for or against something based on whether it is "natural" or not, however defined, is fallacious. Sunshine, rainbows and sugars are all natural, but then again so is scorpion venom, shit and uranium. The deciding factor as to which you put on your cornflakes has nothing to do with whether it is "natural" or not.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

So genetical modification is putting genes of a living being into another living being to make him better, doe that work?:confused::confused::confused:

Oh yes, this is very much possible, and has been done with tomatoes where Cod genes have been inserted, to make the tomato more cold resistant.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombinant_dna

[cynicles]

There are different types of Genetic Modification that takes place each with variable consequences. To be honest I'm disappointed in both sides on this topic, the fact that the organic food movement refuses to use actual science when they could and resorts to using the "natural" argument and all of the technophiles don't see fit to do research.

Plant Reproductive Sterility is bad GM mean't to allow Monsanto to monopolise seed markets and drive up the price of seeds.

There are other forms of GM aswell such as making the plants immune to the insecticide/herbicide that the farmer is spraying. This may sounds nice until you realise the consequences of killing off biodiversity that helps enrich the soil with nutrients. In addition to that these genes have been known to cross into weed species thus new herbicides are needed and it begins a nasty cycles.

Another GM is to inject the pesticide directly into the plant making it toxic, this has been known to kill local bee populations and other wildlife thats essential and one has to wonder what the effects will be on humans with prolonged exposure.

Virus resistant GMOs are also produced, this one debateable, there's also the so-called "Golden Rice" which is supposed to be for solving starvation which could be more easily fixed with some sensible economics and finally some modification of certain food( only maize and canola so far) to have more nutrients in them. Contrary to popular belief GMOs may sound like some impressive scientific fantasy but the vast majority of increases in crop yields can be attributed to traditional cross breeding techniques and farming techniques used and NOT GMOs.

The more relevant question is what to do about soil erosion by mono-culture farming.

Please don't think you're pro-science/rational just because you support something invented by scientists or that uses flashy science, equally, would the organic movement please stop talking using psuedo-scientific bullshit and words like "fresh" and "natural" to try and make their point.

[Fawkes]

There are different types of Genetic Modification that takes place each with variable consequences. To be honest I'm disappointed in both sides on this topic, the fact that the organic food movement refuses to use actual science when they could and resorts to using the "natural" argument and all of the technophiles don't see fit to do research.

Plant Reproductive Sterility is bad GM mean't to allow Monsanto to monopolise seed markets and drive up the price of seeds.

There are other forms of GM aswell such as making the plants immune to the insecticide/herbicide that the farmer is spraying. This may sounds nice until you realise the consequences of killing off biodiversity that helps enrich the soil with nutrients. In addition to that these genes have been known to cross into weed species thus new herbicides are needed and it begins a nasty cycles.

Another GM is to inject the pesticide directly into the plant making it toxic, this has been known to kill local bee populations and other wildlife thats essential and one has to wonder what the effects will be on humans with prolonged exposure.

Virus resistant GMOs are also produced, this one debateable, there's also the so-called "Golden Rice" which is supposed to be for solving starvation which could be more easily fixed with some sensible economics and finally some modification of certain food( only maize and canola so far) to have more nutrients in them. Contrary to popular belief GMOs may sound like some impressive scientific fantasy but the vast majority of increases in crop yields can be attributed to traditional cross breeding techniques and farming techniques used and NOT GMOs.

The more relevant question is what to do about soil erosion by mono-culture farming.

Please don't think you're pro-science/rational just because you support something invented by scientists or that uses flashy science, equally, would the organic movement please stop talking using psuedo-scientific bullshit and words like "fresh" and "natural" to try and make their point.

The whole point behind the "technophiles"'s argument is that we need to be allowed to do the research necessary for determining what kind of adverse effects various GM crops could have on humans. That letter Noxion posted says exactly that. Nowhere did the scientists say "This is science, if you don't 'believe' it, you're stupid". They simply said "Let us do our research so as to determine whether a given GM crop poses a threat to humans".





The issue here is with property, not technology. When workers strike to prevent job loss due to automation, they're not protesting technology, they're protesting capitalism. They're protesting the fact that they are disadvantaged by the private ownership of certain technological advancements, just like many farmers are disadvantaged by private ownership of GMOs. Advocating against GMOs because they hurt farmers is akin to advocating against automatic exchanges because they hurt telephone operators.

[cynicles]

The whole point behind the "technophiles"'s argument is that we need to be allowed to do the research necessary for determining what kind of adverse effects various GM crops could have on humans. That letter Noxion posted says exactly that. Nowhere did the scientists say "This is science, if you don't 'believe' it, you're stupid". They simply said "Let us do our research so as to determine whether a given GM crop poses a threat to humans".





The issue here is with property, not technology. When workers strike to prevent job loss due to automation, they're not protesting technology, they're protesting capitalism. They're protesting the fact that they are disadvantaged by the private ownership of certain technological advancements, just like many farmers are disadvantaged by private ownership of GMOs. Advocating against GMOs because they hurt farmers is akin to advocating against automatic exchanges because they hurt telephone operators.
I was refering to technophiles in general not in the specific thread. Also I wasn't taking any specific position just trying to bring to the fore some facts about exactly how GMOs are used and what they do since their are a lot of people who see to believe that GMO trippled crop output and made magic fruits.

[Fawkes]

I was refering to technophiles in general not in the specific thread. Also I wasn't taking any specific position just trying to bring to the fore some facts about exactly how GMOs are used and what they do since their are a lot of people who see to believe that GMO trippled crop output and made magic fruits.

I know, and that ignorance most likely stems from the necessary secrecy surrounding GMO development as a result of the intense (unfounded) opposition to it.

[Revolution starts with U]

It's like being against electricity because Ohio Edison charges me for it :lol:

[Psy]

It's like being against electricity because Ohio Edison charges me for it :lol:
Not really it is like being against Digital Right Management technology since GMOs are meant to do the same for the large agricultural industrial to ensure farmers don't "pirate seeds".

[Revolution starts with U]

ugh... no. It's not like that because the anti-GMO position is against GMO's in general (for the most part), not necessarily how they are used by the ruling class. In your analogy it would be more like being against digital information because of the above.

[Psy]

ugh... no. It's not like that because the anti-GMO position is against GMO's in general (for the most part), not necessarily how they are used by the ruling class. In your analogy it would be more like being against digital information because of the above.
Yet GMO is all about protecting intellectual property we have had food over production since the end of WWII were the US government subsidizes harvesting so crops don't rot in the fields then buys surplus food to destroy so that food doesn't rot in store houses.

GMOs don't improve the availability of food it just produces more food so more taxes go towards dealing with the over production of food in the USA.

[Qavvik]

.

[cynicles]

What would be your opinion on wheat that has been genetically modified to contain a spermicidal substance? (this has actually been done by scientists, btw)

(open question to anyone)

I consider all the spermicidal crops to be an abomination, and I'mm not using that word haphazardly, I really mean it. The Idea of removing seed control from farmers is abhorrent to me, especially in areas where subsistence farming is prevalent and those genes always seem to end up working their way into the surrounding crops via pollination.

[homegrown terror]

Unless scientific evidence can be drawn to indicate that GMOs are dangerous, I am fine with them. All the anti-GMO rhetoric stands on similar ground to the anti-vaccine rhetoric.

i'm not convinced there's any danger, but why spend all the money making wheat aphid-proof when a bag of ladybugs (a natural aphid super-predator) could do the job just fine?

[homegrown terror]

What would be your opinion on wheat that has been genetically modified to contain a spermicidal substance? (this has actually been done by scientists, btw)

(open question to anyone)

now THAT is just fucking wrong in ways that words can't even start to express.