New GM debate in UK

[ianben]

For Charlie and others interested. Our ag
minister has tried to get GM trials started again.
Here are a few links to the response

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-
2346246/Why-did-Tories-change-tune-GM-
food-We-expose-secret-summit-slick-
lobbyists-bio-tech-giants-seduced-willing-
Ministers.html

Farming forum
http://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?
threads/g-m-seeds.6524/

[ianben]

My links do not work as usual but if you search
GM on both sites it will come up.

[charliep]

Thanks Ianben,

Not wanting to stir the pot too much as the issues
here that important today are the growing crop and
the challenges raised by the floods in Southern
Alberta. We/I haven't realized all the realities of this
for a lot of families including farm families.

Having said, still an interesting topic for me.

When I read, I realize a tough road to go in Europe in
introducing genetic engineering a. Whether this is
good or bad is a subject of debate.

what I don't understand is consumers and European
urban dwellers understanding of technology. When
they see GMO, are they focused on genetic
engineering/transgenics or are do they see a whole
wide range of the new/novel plant breeding
technologies as threats? Their opinion of modern
farming practices?

I know organics are growing in popularity in Europe
but what is consumers understanding of farming. I
see Europe is toted as being ahead of North America
in yields/production in spite of being non GMO. My
thoughts this is likely the result of better climate and
more consistent rain in Europe versus the challenges
we face here. French yields are 2 to 3 times higher
but I assume these crops have to be fed the inputs in
terms of fertilizer to attain these yields. Wetter
conditions likely mean higher fungicide use. You can
address the issues around pests and required
pesticides.

My take (you will correct) is that European farmers
use all the technologies available to grow good crops
with the only exception not having access to
genetically engineered crops.

[charliep]

It is too bad this debate gets focused on one
company and one technology.

[rkaiser]

Maybe "modern" farming practices instead of one company or one technology Charliep? It seems however, that continual allowing leads to continual allowing and the world has decided to stop at GMO's.

Kinda like our red meat protein industry that has decided that enough may be just enough at the ractopamine stage.

There is always a tipping point, and the GMO technology, which is about all the "modern farming" technologies boiling up in one pot, may be it.

I used copiace amounts of fertilise on my hay crops back in the early 80's and then started to wonder on my own why my cattle herd was showing signs, despite additional "non" natural supplementation, of immune system dysfunction.

No peer review study would show me why and when I simply stopped using these "modern practices" of fertiliser and unbalanced non bioavailable supplement, our immune response was dramatic.

Started thinking about this on the larger scale of "modern agricultural practices" and the rest was history.

And learning that the excuse for "modern agricultural practices" is based on the biggest lie on the planet has me passionately looking to support, and practice choice.

Even though I will continue to be attacked as a hypocrite and a supporter of faulty science which I fully expect will cut loose again on this thread.

[rkaiser]

As for Europe Ianben, where a lot of this modern stuff started, it is obvious is came from fear of lack. Caused by war and hoarding and waste far more than by being physically incapable of growing enough food to feed the people.

The times will change in Europe as the people who lived through those painful times move on and those who have never ever experienced hunger move into positions of power.

[checking]

All that red meat, organic, holistic, conventional is awful for human health. Terrible, just horrible for earth's atmosphere with the methane belching cows that Kaiser produces. I think his practices are worse than Monsanto's on human health, and the environment. Need to clean up your own act, Randy boy. Then preach, if you must.

[oneoff]

Maybe the "kaisers" only see what they want to see.

It's just possible there was no "immune system dysfunction" (whatever that is ) or that it was grossly misdiagnosed as fertilizer related.

Maybe the cows are allergic to an owner's ***** ideas; but no one will ever know for sure as people such as kaiser jump to their firmly held beliefs as the sole cause of all health problems.

This unsubstantiated nonsense does nothing to further the progess of sience; nor the advancement of knowledge.

I again ask "At what exacct date would kaiser roll the clock back to; in order that he may be satisfied"

I predict an answer along the lines of "The only way to satisfy me is if nothing had ever been done".

And it is possible to attach that quote to the original author.

[ianben]

Very true Charlie. We have everything except GM
and use it.
In our crops we some times travel through them
a dozen times, 2 slug pellets 4 fertiliser and 6
herbicide and fungicide plus seed dressing with
insecticide.
It is a treadmill imposed by chem/seed
companies, but it has doubled yields in my life
time and we do make a margin above cost.

I am not sure any of this is sustainable long term,
GM or not, as everything evolves to beat the
chemicals and the new chemistry is not there.

I am sure R D depts at all these so called greedy
multi nationals are flat out to find a solution and
of course make a buck or two.

Without profit there is no R D and I died 60
years ago.

Like you I do not understand how people see risk
They only see unknown in the future but fail to
see the succeses of the risks taken in the past
without which their life would be so much worse.

[grassfarmer]

IanBen yields have doubled in your lifetime and you
make a margin above cost but what is the net
profit/acre now compared to 40 years ago?

Would you still be making a margin above cost if you
deduct your single farm payment?

As for people not seeing the success of risks taken in
the past without which their life would be so much
worse - maybe ask some of the thalidomide victims
about that?

[Hopalong]

Asking what is sustainable is like asking how far
back to roll the clock.
Progress means we move ahead rather than
back.

[oneoff]

Its very easy to pick out the relatively rare mistakes in chemistry.

That can be used as the basis of fear mongering; as well as a serious warning of being absolutely as careful as possible before releasing to the general population or into mother natures back yard. Its a matter of risk to benefit ratio; and should be greatly i favor of the benefits side.

But no one but a slim minority have any intent on discontinuing today's modern life; rather than turning back the clock many decades or centuries.

Myopia and dumbness at its worst???? If only they would consider modern treatments.

[rkaiser]

Not about turning back anything oneoff. An definitely suggesting new techniques with more of a natural approach. If they seem old to you, that's your perception, not mine.

Collateral damage from modern chem techniques based on the ultimate lie just simply ain't cutting it any more oneoff,. Even with all your twisting and turning and trying to make Kaisers of the world into backassward dummies...LOL

[wd9]

It would seem its the kaisers making the
kaisers backassward dummies, not the
oneoffs.

[oneoff]

Long past the time for the kaisers to come up with some actual evidence.

There are no arguments being provided.......only unsubstantiated suspicions.

Anyone wo wants to believe; go right ahead. But your propaganda and unsubstantiated lies are only that; and they will/must be challenged.