Let's be honest.

[Fransisco]

Have you bought invigor canola?

They're GM too.

[Fransisco]

If this is the case you have had quite a benefit from GM. Maybe not the RR varieties, but without GM there would be no invigor.

I use both kinds and don't see the problem. Some people complain about having to add some 2,4-d or something else to spice up their spring burn off. But so what. The gain we've made using the GM canola far outweighs the cost or minor hassle of adding some 2,4-d.

[Choice2U]

I have a few questions:
In 1974, there was about 4B people on earth. In 2009, there is about 6B. Without the growth of pesticides in the 70/80s and without the growth of GM in the 90/00s, how would we have fed the extra 1.5B assuming the percentage of starving people in this world has stayed about the same? Is organics, no GM, no pesticides, etc. going to feed the 10B projected by 2050? Did eliminating DDT in parts of the world where Malaria killed thousands of people make since before any viable alternative was found? Is there any value to GM products if we can prevent blindness in kids with deficient vitamin diets? As a society, we move ahead...not correctly on every issue....but in general, many people around the world are much better off. Do we throw the baby out with the bathwater?

[ianben]

So where is the future.... technicalities or
principles?

An example from the past.

I live on the right hand side of the railway track in this link.
http://www.rainhilltrials.com/index.cfm/page/article/id/50/listid/27/title/The%20Trials%20Map%20–%20Points%20of%20Interest

If you click the global impact link also it shows the significance of railways today.

1829 GM.

There was much debate even then on the effect on mankind and wether it was a good idea. The person that owned the land we now farm ran a stagecoach from Liverpool to London,he was a looser as the train soon replaced his business.

However he saw the opertunity took the risk and invested in the railways and became a winner again for a while.
Then of course the railways where superceeded and there where winners and loosers again.

It really is just luck and good judgement.

If third party worries and concerns are given too much weight it stifles inovation and progress.

Principals a fine but they cant turn back time.

[parsley]

1. If you want to argue that science experimentation is fun, that science is the nature of man, that science is simply not going to stop... I agree.

2. If you want to argue that GM food will feed the starving masses, well your argument sounds just plain foolish.

Even organics target rich people, not poor. The masses cannot afford to buy ordinary grain grown on small plots in third world countries let alone imported designer grain from G8's. Not only that, but I don't have an obligation to feed the masses of starving. I have a duty to feed MY family. Sigh.

3. GM products can provide options for the wealthy. GM prenatal manipulation. Science can be magnificent. But scientific revelations and alteration-fixes provided as a cure, or as a mend, or as a relief,....yes.....wait for it...... should be your CHOICE.

Those attending a fertility clinic realize the options can provide great joy. In vitro manipulation? GM virus fixes? I am the sort of woman who pierces living bugs with pins on a ninety degree July afternoon because I am interested in examining them.

4. Who can benefits from GM? Influenza scares rage right now. Not many are waiting in line in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia to get their H1N1 immunization, right? Yet they probably are lined up in Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Belgium. Why is that?

5.Tactics: Btw, ianben, I got an H1N1 last week, it was my CHOICE. Releasing genetically modified food in the population without labelling is not offering me a choice. Inferring I am a horse and buggy'er because I do not agree with your position doesn’t fortify your position.

6. Ethics: Genetic modification of our food supply through corporate backdoors is deceitful at best and most likely dangerous in the long run, not because it will run amok, which any system is bound to, and I accept that errors are part of progress, but because the system will be conjugated with cover-ups

a) by people who have no alliance to our country;

b) by the smart but not intelligent elite who have no appreciation for considering the long term ramifications of tinkering with nature, or respectfully anticipating the unintended circumstances;

c) by the opportunists who initiate and thrive on deceptive practices in order to avoid accountability;

(d) by weak governments ruled by partisanship who's only goal is to get
re-elected.

(f) and lastly because it seems to me, there seems to be lacking altruistic views in the food industry/ food production in comparion to say, the pet industry.

Choice 2u asked: "Do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? "

My position was, and remains, that we must throw out the GM food the baby eats unless it is identifiable, and I have a choice, and that includes the GM bathwater if the baby drinks it.

The principle of choice should underpin Canada. That kind of principle never goes out of fashion.

[agstar77]

Too late , the Genie is out of the bottle. Just like when the first atom bomb was dropped.

[charliep]

In a world of gene mapping, what do you define as genetically modified? Do you consider mutagenics breeding techniques as non GMO/safe (there is a whole range of processes used here by the way)? Would you label food products with mutagenic bred crops included in them? Europe uses mutagensis in plant breeding by the way and seems to consider safe or at least applies a different standard. No issues with importing clearfield crops.

If genetic engineering/transgenics is what you are talking about? Does it apply to all processes including inserting genes from closely related crops? Example, what is the way to achieve the perrenial food wheat you suggest is taking a closely related grass species and inserting a gene? Would this be acceptable?

Is there no level of scientific evidence that would convince you that any genetically engineered crop is safe?

Science is moving at an extremely fast pace. Should agriculture not use it? Does Canada want to be at the back of the line or the front in terms of being innovative and creative? Europe is using biotech in a broader sense looking outside a narrow definition of GMO (or perhaps genetic engineering).

[parsley]

Not necessarily.

There are thousands of other EVENTS coming out the GMO's ass.

Some with color. Some with elements. Some with, well you name it.

What if the seed has restrictions on it? Cannot be exported? Cannot cross provincial boundaries unless crushed, for example/

Triffid is out. It can be cleaned up if there is transparency.

But growing a new trait when it suddenly appears from some brainwave trying to make a name for himself, and confining it to an area, can indeed set a standard. ID. And labelling.

[parsley]

It is moving fast charliep. And under the covers as most well know.

And accountability is zero.

And most know full well that the farmers is fast becoming the "accountable" goat when the $%^t hits the fan and there is liability

Class action teams are lining up for the gravey. Pars

[charliep]

So in your opinion, the plant with novel trait from CFIA in Canada or the European Food Safety Agency in the EU processes are inadequate assessment of the technology and the risks associated with its release.

Will note on the triffid issue, it did move through the plant with novel trait regulatory process in Canada (CFIA)/was found safe within a reasonable risk level. The question was never fully answered in Europe as my understanding was pulled before the regulatory review process in Europe was completed (a flax industry decision not based on safety but rather market access). If Canada presented the technology to the EU via the process for approving genetic events in the EU, would you be satisfied it was safe.

As noted, canola genetic events are moved through the EU regulatory process and approved. Similarly, four GE corn genetic events (won't use GMO because not specific) have been approved by the EU so it doen't stand in the way of importing soybeans/soybean meal (which also have genetic events approved and therefore full import status).

Always curious if your definition of GMO includes mutagenic crops and from there, why mutagenics as a scientifict process is safer than all forms of genetic engineering.