Article on GM crops

[gtarman]

And wot's with the sudden influx of femi-nazi's.

Why don't ya just get yer dicks cut off and so go the whole hog about tbecoming fully fledged feminists..

That way you'll have a garanteed power position when the femi-nazi's take over.

Dude, if you're not going to contribute or treat people with respect, do everybody a favor and keep your mouth closed.

I'm not a "feminist" by any means. If you actually bothered to read a post before you declare yourself better than whoever wrote it and make extremely disrespectful remarks, maybe you would have realized I was saying that feminism in OUR society HAS pretty much run it's course.

I'm talking about cultures where women get beaten bloody with big fucken sticks for trying to get a job so they can feed the umpteen children they were more or less forced to have. If you think that being against that kind of shit makes me a card-carrying feminist rather than just a decent human being, I really don't know what to tell you.

EDIT: sorry to have taken it off topic guys, but that really rubbed me the wrong way.

Edited May 8, 2013 by gtarman

[gtarman]

To take it back to GM - Whitewind, I think you are right that GM crops are very much a matter of treating the symptom and not the underlying cause - namely that there are too many mouths to feed, and that we're screwing up our climate and environment to the point where this kind of thing is seen as necessary.

As far as drawbacks, the most unsettling one to me is the corporate element and the absurd idea that you can patent and own a living thing or it's DNA. It sets a scary precedent and I don't think private, profit-driven companies should be trusted with important things of this nature.

I can see possible issues with biodiversity, but I wouldn't say I know anywhere near enough about biology or ecology to make any firm statements either way.

Edited May 8, 2013 by gtarman

[Evil Genius]

Mycot, i removed your post because it was phrased very sexistically. Everyone is entitled to have his own opinion about things and i usually dont moderate that but i cant keep sexist posts...especially not if they are phrased so aggressively. I have no problem with passionate posts but that was a little bit too much swearwords for my taste. Besides i dont like when people play the nazi card everytime they have a problem with something. bye Eg

[Stillman]

Monsanto Dupont Syngenta etc all have patents finishing up. This will open the field for GM and we may see a lot more positive humanitarian work done in the field once dominated by Mega companies. For example The Golden Banana project of QUT actually set up and educated Ugandan scientist in Uganda, were they have developed their bananas for there communities which will then help neighbouring countries in the same microdeficiencies. Micro deficiencies. After Aids and Malaria microdefinecies is the third highest cause of death in Africa. In India microdeficiences particularly in Iron are prevelent accross every level of society due to many Indians being vegetarian. Saga Mundree of QUT and James Dale have produced Iron fortified chickpeas and also golden bananas with iron fortification.

As for my feminist comments. You can't compare feminism in a developed nation to feminism is a developing one. My comments were related to developing nations, where women are not looking for equality, but just to be on a par with the livestock they tend.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Stillman

[gtarman]

The humanitarian stuff sounds promising I think, and that kind of work in a perfect world would encompass the whole of GM development and research.

I watched that docco "Patent for a Pig" on Youtube last night to see if I could get a better understanding of the issues, which can be watched here if anyone is interested:

 

It did seem a little one-sided, but overall I was shocked at some of the possibilities open to Monsanto that I hadn't considered before - for example, that they could modify strains of animal feed to make the animals infertile and seem to have already done so (most likely playing around with the phyto-hormonal traits of some plants like soy I guess). The implications of that is horrifying - and especially if they can make these crops particularly vigorous reproducers that means potentially they could do something like make a crop that would spread it's genes to all non-GM crops that had traits that could cause mass infertility not only in food animals (where Monsanto would of course most likely create animals that were resistant to these feeds and would thus monopolize the market), but it could possibly be turned on human populations as well.

It seems far-fetched to believe they might actually do something like that, but the kind of power that would give them to manipulate society is unheard of....

[Stillman]

You would be amazed and horrified what can be achieved, thankful ethics boards stand in there way. Many of you may roll your eyes at that but from an Australian prospective our ethics boards are fierce, the moment animals are involved the scrutiny is increased ten fold.

[Stillman]

Again back to the bananas they are still not allowed to try the bananas yet in Australia until further testing is done. SO late this year will be the first time for many of these people to actually taste the "fruits of there labour", something they have been working on since 2005. They have to adhere to this regulation otherwise they could potentially jeopardise the entire project. There's nothing in the banana that is dangerous mind you just beta carotene levels higher then what commercial varieties have. Commercial banana varieties in Australia may have beta carotene of say 4-9 Golden banana have around 20 to 25

there are some inedible varieties in New Guinea that have levels up to 50. You cant OD on beta carotene however vitamin A deficiencies kill 2 million children a year globally under 5 each year.

[whitewind]

The overall picture I am getting here us that monoculture supply of food simply doesn't work. An indigenous culture would never live on just bananas and neither would I wish that on anyone, what's wrong with a varied diet? The problem belongs to the fact that they dint have access to one, not that we make bananas and rice a complete food in themselves. Shit that's so boring.

We need to take a step back and see what's really necessary here, and it's not to continue mass producing th same old shit and destroying the environment to continue to do so, but to start working with the environment and increase genetic diversity by planting different types of crop and have them develop it locally so it works with the local conditions and doesn't significantly impact what's left of the native vegetation.

[whitewind]

Other dietary problems occur anyway when living on a single food. I know how difficult it was training myself to avoid wheat products in food, wheat is so prevalent in our diet it even turns up in sausages and Lipton ice tea! What happens if people start developing allergies to golden rice or golden bananas? I personally can't stomach bananas if I was forced to live on them I would probably starve!

[whitewind]

Uganda again! Let them have some peace for a change so they can develop a fully functioning diverse agriculture system. If the wars had been stopped back in 2005 golden bananas wouldn't even be necessary! All that time, money and effort and still their misery will be prolonged, but at least they won't die of malnutrition just waiting for the next bullet.

[gtarman]

The overall picture I am getting here us that monoculture supply of food simply doesn't work.

I agree with you, but I don't think monoculture farming practices are tied to GM specifically - we've been growing plants in monocultures for hundreds, if not thousands of years with fields of just one thing. It's evident how bad this is for the land especially when you visit places like the WA wheat belt and see how much of a desert the place is and how much the soil has eroded.

Unless we're using the term monoculture in different ways?

[whitewind]

No I just think GM crops are developed as an extension to and as part of monoculture crop thinking, and therefore hurtles us even faster in the wrong direction.

[whitewind]

They don't have to be developed for this purpose(monoculture) but if they aren't, there is no real need for them as diversified cropping and therefore nutritional lacks can and will be met by the very nature of such diversified food systems, which makes them unnecessary. I would suggest the time, money and intelligence used to develop these crops would be better spent on developing diversified agriculture, permaculture, and better environmental management instead.

[Stillman]

Nearly a 3rd of the world is suffering from not having the access to a varied diet which causes these micro deficencies. This is brought about by the fact that most of us even in developing nations don't have the opportunity or don't see necessity in subsistence living we are forced to work etc and are reliant on the food available. Food security is a countries ability to produce nutritious food to all of its citizens equally, unfortunately even developed nations struggle at doing this. Compound a situation with drought, famine extended war etc and there goes alot more option. Just eating Rice is boring but 3 billion people rely on it every day. East Africans eat bananas 3 times a day as a starch like their potatoes. If its all thast is available shouldn't try and alleviate these micro deficiences as best as we can, and then through education improve diets. Its the horse and the cart thing I guess which comes first.

[Mycot]

I see no genius. Only evil.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Mycot

[Mycot]

I was going to share some new information on a number of Australian shroom species that are active but not previously seen as such.

But guess what. Someone is bound to take offence.

They either do not like it or its not to their taste.

Oh, well.

[gtarman]

Stillman and Whitewind - I reckon that both of you are onto something...probably just two different sides of that something.

I think that it's probably unreasonable to expect countries to abandon the intensive mechanized agricultural methods (the otherwise unheard-of yields of which it could be argued is one thing that has allowed the human population to expand so greatly, and allows us to artificially maintain it at those levels) for more sustainable practices, so GM could definitely be part of a broader solution insofar as making the best of a bad situation depending on how well it can be made to work.

But I think that this broader solution also involves localized food movements, and not only the introduction of GM crops but also of obscure regular crops that grow well in adverse conditions but provide decent amounts of nutritional value (thinking Moringa spp trees, Lambsquarter bush, NZ spinach etc, just to name a few).

Edited May 9, 2013 by gtarman

[Stillman]

Mycot I didn't see what you posted and it doesn't matter either way. Its all good were having a discussion on the internet. Were not changing the world. Stress less.

[Stillman]

gtarman I agree there is no room for pure ideology in the world every situation requires Hybrid logic.

[Mycot]

Mycot I didn't see what you posted and it doesn't matter either way. Its all good were having a discussion on the internet. Were not changing the world. Stress less.

That is a great pity that you missed my post, you may be able to recover it.

Of course your not changing the world. You just want to go yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, ...............ad infintum.

In the meantime people are getting poisoned by franken-foods and instead of driving a nail into someones head, we have to engineer an organism to do the same thing.

And whats the obsession with bananas. Like em so much, why don't you fly over there where they have it and offer yourself as their test guinee-pig.

And your really gonna feed this franken-shit to the wife and your just-weaned daughter who you supposedly "love" ???

And to your friends also??? Yeah right, they should all stress less about being poisoned.

When you've done with bananas, you can move on to golden rice..

Golden rice has been out for a while now?

Wow. How much of that shit did you actually get to consume. ??

Edited May 9, 2013 by Mycot

[whitewind]

Mycot, you are being exceptionally rude and aggressive again. It's really difficult to appreciate your points when you are accusing some one of supposedly not loving their young daughter, and so on. Stillman clearly believes these projects are going to or should have a positive impact on society and actually help a lot of people, that doesn't show the signs of someone who doesn't care for his own family. We are having a serious discussion here, and Stillman is arguing a good case - not from evilness, but from a different perspective which you should respect even if you strongly disagree, as I do.

I'm really enjoying this argument myself, I think its the only time I have discussed GM crops with my biggest objection - major corporations - being sidelined in favour of humanitarian issues. It doesn't mean that they've gone away from the big picture but it can put a different slant on the issue which is much more positive, and allows me to focus better on my other objections i.e. the basic science of GM and the environmental consequences of introducing it.

Mycot, can you post some links outlining your objections to GM please rather than just simply being rude? I might help both our cases.

[whitewind]

Stillman and Whitewind - I reckon that both of you are onto something...probably just two different sides of that something.

I think that it's probably unreasonable to expect countries to abandon the intensive mechanized agricultural methods (the otherwise unheard-of yields of which it could be argued is one thing that has allowed the human population to expand so greatly, and allows us to artificially maintain it at those levels) for more sustainable practices, so GM could definitely be part of a broader solution insofar as making the best of a bad situation depending on how well it can be made to work.

But I think that this broader solution also involves localized food movements, and not only the introduction of GM crops but also of obscure regular crops that grow well in adverse conditions but provide decent amounts of nutritional value (thinking Moringa spp trees, Lambsquarter bush, NZ spinach etc, just to name a few).

I posted a link on here recently that showed the use of soil-born bacteria can yield massive increases in crop production, someone else posted a link showing similar results with fungi. Increasing the carbon content of soils helps the ability of soils to retain moisture and nutrients and significantly increase yields (look up Terra Preta). Planting methods can increase yields as shown in another link I posted. These methods all focus on improving environmental conditions whereas modern agricultural methods tend to decrease the ability of soils and need constant inputs of chemicals which frequently attack micro and macro organisms and pollute the wider environment through runoff and poor application methods. In the short term, modern agriculture increases yields but over the long term has serious deleterious affects on the environment and yields will fall, except with the continuing and increasing use of destructive methods to keep the yield high. Which is why we apparently "need" GM crops. We must look at the reasons why GM is required, and in Stillman's case it is overpopulation coupled with the inability of people to grow a diverse crop because of conflict. Then we look at the consequences of GM which doesn't tackle the basic causes but ultimately negatively impacts the environment, and we can see it's a short term, expensive solution which will need to be continually upgraded to deal with continually increasing population levels coupled with increased land degradation.

In other words, I think we need to try alternatives. Better land management, greater crop diversity, decreased population levels and reduced conflict. All of which are long term solutions but all of which will significantly improve the lifestyle of the people in question, or their offspring.

I'll post links to the studies I mentioned when I have time.

Edited May 9, 2013 by whitewind

[Stillman]

Hey Whitewind I know a PHD student who is actually specialising in symbiosis of bacterial fungi and and nitrogen uptake in plants or something along those lines , I'll see if she is willing to fill me in on some details.

The reason why I am so interested in Golden Bananas is because it was created where I study by people I have the opportunity to actually talk with. People like James Dale and Saga Mundree will polarise people. I personally think they are brilliant men, trying to do positive things from their scientific perspectives. And Mycot I would eat the bananas and I would feed them to my family. beta carotene isn't toxic and that is all that has changed in these plants.

http://www.ctcb.qut.edu.au/

[gtarman]

I posted a link on here recently that showed the use of soil-born bacteria can yield massive increases in crop production, someone else posted a link showing similar results with fungi. Increasing the carbon content of soils helps the ability of soils to retain moisture and nutrients and significantly increase yields (look up Terra Preta). Planting methods can increase yields as shown in another link I posted. These methods all focus on improving environmental conditions whereas modern agricultural methods tend to decrease the ability of soils and need constant inputs of chemicals which frequently attack micro and macro organisms and pollute the wider environment through runoff and poor application methods. In the short term, modern agriculture increases yields but over the long term has serious deleterious affects on the environment and yields will fall, except with the continuing and increasing use of destructive methods to keep the yield high.

I saw that bacteria thread actually - thought it was really cool.

I guess my point is more along the lines that the seriousness of our predicament necessitates that we pursue not solely GM, or alternatives to GM, but everything we possibly can, inclusive of all options to give us the best possible chance. I also see this as the case when it comes to clean energy sources and most of our more serious issues but that's another discussion entirely.

So I guess the real point of contention here is whether or not there is a place for GM foods in the big picture, and how they fit.

I think the move to more sustainable systems should be the overall goal...but I also don't think that with the current size of the world's population that a mass return to sustainable practices would be entirely feasible. I remember reading somewhere that if we lived hunter gatherer lifestyles the planet would only have enough resources to support...geez I can't remember the number, but ballpark I think it was a couple hundred million tops.

Now with basic sustainable agricultural practices instead of hunter-gatherer lifestyles, that number increases. But it was the "green revolution" and the transition to modern agricultural practices that allowed our population to get to this size from where it topped out with those older practices, and for that population to remain fed by the massive yields it produced.

And I agree that those massive-yield practices are very much a short-term and overall unsustainable thing, but I guess I'm saying that at least for the time being we may not have another choice than to continue them, at least without decreasing our population size or seeing a lot of people go hungry - and in that regard that GM could help as one part of an overall transitional strategy (and if handled correctly, for humanitarian purposes and not corporate world-domination).

Edited May 11, 2013 by gtarman

[whitewind]

Increasing plant growth and alkaloid production with Azo bacteria
Fungus and Microbiomes better than GM for increasing crop yields, cold, heat, salt and drought resistance

System of Rice Intensification (SRI)

Terra Preta (Wikipedia)