Poo help please!

[stoice]

Did any body see this?

 

Really made you think hard about whether GM is ok or not. Non Gm crops need more pesticides that contaminate the soil, GM crops don't. But then GM is new and not tested throughly so it may be harmful to us and other wildlife. But then GM crops could feed more of the starving populations of the world and save lives. Tricky. Good program. Good ol' Jimmy

[Chook n Boo Mum]

I saw it & considered dashing out to post a thread last night, but fell asleep in the news instead!!

 

I am now as confused as ever, more info needs to be gleaned I think, before we can settle on an opinion.

 

Very good programme, well presented to show both"camps" & their reasons for being there, I thought.

 

Sha x

[stoice]

I am now as confused as ever, more info needs to be gleaned I think, before we can settle on an opinion.

 

I know!

Especially when we also discover that even the Amish use GM Crops and have been doing so for years!

 

Made you think about the genetic side of things too. Man has created so much fruit and veg from a wild plant through years and years of selective development etc - so the veg we eat has technically been modified already, nature didn't create it that way. So is the science lab method any different? Dunno. Confusing, need more info

[Old Speckled Hen]

We do indeed need more information but would that ever be forthcoming and from whom?

The likes of Monsanto?

 

Who would fund a balanced, thorough and fair trial?

 

We also need to distinguish, in our discussions, those plants bred for more prolific production and resistance to disease and those bred with a resistance to a particular pesticide.

It is the latter perhaps that have had such bad press with the inventors charging a huge premium for the plant and the pesticide

 

More importantly, I think, is to consider what the impact banning GM products would have on LEDCs. Is there a study anywhere that compares husbandry tuning with the use of GM?

[milli]

I think there also needs to be a distinction between GM crops that are modified with other plant genes and the possibility of using animal genes in plants etc. I think a lot of this debate got completely sidetracked when people decided putting animal genes in plants was wrong and then the whole thing gets tainted without any proper testing and consideration of the facts.

[Guest]

......

I am now as confused as ever, more info needs to be gleaned I think, before we can settle on an opinion.

 

...

 

even he said he wasn't sure which way to go, I found it very confusing because there was nothing concrete either way to help us make a decision. I still think that selective breeding of a crop and tinkering with its DNA are two entirely different matters. Who knows what that tinkering might lead to

[ubereglu]

I personally agree that GM is right, but only in certain circumstances. If it reduces pesticide usage then it's really good as pesticides contaminate water supplies and are really bad for the environment and cost lots so it means the farmers make less money-I seriously know how little they make and have had long discussions with some of them.

[rachel19]

GM crops are ok in moderation - when they start putting genes from an octopus in a plant I think I have to draw the line - however, there are a lot of good things that could come from GM crops like the 'golden rice' they wanted to distribute in the 3rd world to help with vitamin deficiencies. Not a solution for world poverty but it would stop people dying in the meantime. Plus we have lost most of the diversity from out crop species so that one disease could wipe them out completely and then we'd be in a lot of trouble - genetics could play a big part in restoring the diversity needed for these crops to survive and be sustainable long term.

[Mutrix Farmers]

Really enjoyed this programme. I can see the argument for less pesticides etc, that would only be a good thing, as would drought resistance in Africa where water is scarcer each season.

 

On the downside - cross polination problems (how will it impact on native species), further reduction in plant species (like we haven't diminished the variety enough already), long term impact on human health (as yet unknown but could manifest soon in USA), environmental impact (if insects have nowhere to feed, the birds go hungry etc). If these products are grown so extensively in USA and other areas, surely we don't need to grow them here to test them, simply test what is already growing worldwide.

 

I know there has been genetic modification over the ages, it's from where all our modern food stuffs are derived. What I don't like is the idea of forcing a genetic change with non-plant related DNA, a change that would never happen in a million years outside of a lab.

 

And I thought the purple tomato was spooky. We should just be encouraging people to eat a wide variety of healthy foods and live healthy lifestyles instead of developing this type of food stuff. We need to look at societies with low incidences of modern western killers and learn lessons from them. I bet they're not all eating purple tomatoes!!

[Guest]

well said mutrix.

 

 

I think we'll get to a point where we've tinkered so much with the natural way of things that we'll have tinkered ourselves out of existence.