http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2148452.stm

I know it is an old story, and things have already played out, but at that time did the government of Zimbabwe have a moral responsibility to feed its people, despite long term problems?

I think that, considering it's the government of Zimbabwe, this particular moral question is moot. Mugabe is pretty much immoral in everything he does.

However, I don't think it's necessarily a fair proposition that just because a people are in need, they should be compelled to accept as charity something that is suspect and controversial among people who aren't starving.

Says me. I didn't follow that story closely enough to know who all the players are. Given that we've already seen gene spills (http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/2000/f00v6n4.html) despite assurances that such events won't happen, there are some reasonable concerns about turning genetically-modified products loose in Africa.

It amazes me how stupid people can be. What does they think corn is..a genetic modified crop! Native American Indians engineered that plant and it has been continually engineered ever since.

What does they think corn is..a genetic modified crop! Native American Indians engineered that plant and it has been continually engineered ever since.

Oh, come now, Joe. Are you suggesting you see no difference between selective breeding and laboratory tampering with the genetic structure of an organism?

Nope I don't, the lab is just more efficient.

Nope I don't, the lab is just more efficient.

Well, sorry to have to break it to you but there's a TREMENDOUS difference! Selective cross-breeding could NEVER insert genes from fish and other animal life into corn or any other plant.

I know, I eat fish too...no big deal.

They are not genetically engineering crops so that they will do harm. They are trying to improve crops. So I have no issues with engineering as long as you have disclosures so that people who may be allergic to the atlerations are warned.

I know, I eat fish too...no big deal.

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. Nothing at all.

They are not genetically engineering crops so that they will do harm. They are trying to improve crops. So I have no issues with engineering as long as you have disclosures so that people who may be allergic to the atlerations are warned.

But therein lies the BIG question! It's not a matter of allergies, either, that also has nothing to do with it. And of course they aren't purposely developing them to do harm to humans - BUT many of them ARE developed to produce toxins that kill insects. It's that and several other factors that have people concerned.

Face it - you seem to know almost nothing (from the things you've clearly said) about genetic engineering.

there are basically 3 reasons why I have a problem with GM products

1) its unethical to give infertile grain to a poor farmer so they are constantly dependent on the developer

2) what are the pesticides ect produced by the plants going to do to the human body

and

3) since drug companies are using plants to produce there products, how do people know that these crops arnt going to cross breed with food crops

Well those are MY problems with it anyway

But therein lies the BIG question! It's not a matter of allergies, either, that also has nothing to do with it. And of course they aren't purposely developing them to do harm to humans - BUT many of them ARE developed to produce toxins that kill insects. It's that and several other factors that have people concerned.

Face it - you seem to know almost nothing (from the things you've clearly said) about genetic engineering.

Yep, I am an idiot. You hit the nail on the head. But I am not an alarmist. Pyrethrins are natual plant produced toxins. Plants producing toxins, again, not a new thing. Plants have been producing toxins for longer than mankind has existed on the planet. So show me something new here.

joe when was the last time you ATE a dasy?

Thats the plant that produces it

there are basically 3 reasons why I have a problem with GM products

1) its unethical to give infertile grain to a poor farmer so they are constantly dependent on the developer

2) what are the pesticides ect produced by the plants going to do to the human body

and

3) since drug companies are using plants to produce there products, how do people know that these crops arnt going to cross breed with food crops

Well those are MY problems with it anyway

A couple of things, in the industrial world, farmers buy their seed annually from a seed provider. This is a way of ensuring crop quality and productivity. And it works well in the industrial world.

If the third world wants to use their own grain, fine. But their crops quality and productivity will vary annually. And the farmers will have no control over that variability. In the industrial crop productivity has improved by more that 28 percent over the last decade. So if that is immoral, ok. But it does not cause me any issues.

Pesticide toxcity to humans. It makes no sense to breed a plant that is toxic to humans. Why would anyone do such a thing. Toxins are well understood, nothing new here.

Your last item, controling plant breeding (your first issue) also presents unwanted and uncontrolled breeding.

umm i hate to tell you but most farmers keep a percentage of seed aside in order to plant the NEXT crop. Maybe in the US where this production is alowed they dont but in australia where GM crops are banned they do. As i have posted before CSIRO are evaluating each crop on a case by case basis before alowing any to be grown in australia. I dislike Mugabe but this time he may well have a point. After all the EU wont alow any to be sold there, its not alowed in Australia, the US seems to be the only place its accepted

Yep, I am an idiot. You hit the nail on the head. But I am not an alarmist. Pyrethrins are natual plant produced toxins. Plants producing toxins, again, not a new thing. Plants have been producing toxins for longer than mankind has existed on the planet. So show me something new here.

No, I don't think you are an idiot - just considerably less than well-informed on genetic engeneering.

Of course, MANY plants produce toxins!!! And that's why we don't eat a lot of things including most members of the nightshade family along with rubarb leaves, some very decorative flowering plants and scores of others.

But once again, that's NOT the point at all. We're talking about plants now producing toxins that never did before - plants that are a direct and indirect part of the human food chain. Are you unable to undertand that important distinction??? :bugeye:

A couple of things, in the industrial world, farmers buy their seed annually from a seed provider. This is a way of ensuring crop quality and productivity. And it works well in the industrial world.

If the third world wants to use their own grain, fine. But their crops quality and productivity will vary annually. And the farmers will have no control over that variability. In the industrial crop productivity has improved by more that 28 percent over the last decade. So if that is immoral, ok. But it does not cause me any issues.

Pesticide toxcity to humans. It makes no sense to breed a plant that is toxic to humans. Why would anyone do such a thing. Toxins are well understood, nothing new here.

Your last item, controling plant breeding (your first issue) also presents unwanted and uncontrolled breeding.

See? I told you you weren't an idiot. You actually DO know several things - just that you know next to nothing about genetic engenerring.

Also, you could have included some other impotant information about hybrid seeds produced each year and bought by Western farmers: not only do they produce significiantly larger crops, the plants are more insect-resistant, more drought tolerant and mature quicker. In some areas it's possible to produce two crops per year. In others, a full crop can be grown with time left to grow enough to be cut and stored and used as silage.

There are still a few open-pollinated (meaning non-hybrid) varieties of corn, for example, available BUT they are little used for obvious reasons. And if the poor farmers want to use them, there's nothing stopping them. They can save some seed every year and never have to buy it again. But in doing so, they cheat themselves and their families in the long run.

No, your comment about toxins being well understood is incorrect in the case of the ones being produced by GM crops. They are unique and their long-term effects on both humans and food animals has NOT yet been done. They've not been around long enough yet for that.

read only, just because they are cross breed doesnt mean they are infertile and seed cant be reused where as delibretly breeding infertile crops and then saying "we are giving these to you to help you out, arnt we great" IS unethical

Personally, I want to see glow in the dark cereals. :) just think how much fun breakfast will be with glow in the dark foods.

there is glow in the dark sausages not sure if i will be able to find a link for them but i might try later if i can be bothered. It was on one of those morning shows

that would be cool!

you mean it is dont you, the artical said they were feed grain that glowed in the dark and the substance passed into the meat, whether thats true or it was just a case of them painting it on who knows. Now glow in the dark cows would be wierd

better living through better genetics :)

umm not really, you do realise that if the substance can pass from the grain to the cow then it can quite easierly pass from the cow to the person EATING the cow. After all this means that it is small enough a compound that it can pass through the intestines without being digested. That is BAD!!!!!!!!!!

read only, just because they are cross breed doesnt mean they are infertile and seed cant be reused where as delibretly breeding infertile crops and then saying "we are giving these to you to help you out, arnt we great" IS unethical

Sorry, but that is incorrect when speaking of hybrids. Very, very few will produce true to the plants that grew the seeds. Rather, they will produce plants from both that went into making the hybrid (or more than two which is often the case) and not one of those will have all the desired the desired advantages. Using corn for an example since that's what I grew a lot of when I was in fairly heavy beef production, you will have some plants that are VERY stunted - they may have been the ones that gave the hybrid it's drought tolerance. There will also be many that will be very tall, slender and have weak stalks and will cause considerable lodging during harvest - they contributed some other desirable feature to the hybrid.

No farmer - and I mean NONE - will save seeds from ordinary hybrids.

If you are interested enough, try this little experiment at home. Buy a couple of cherry tomato plants in the spring and grow them. (I chose them because they take little space and effort.) Grow them and save the seeds from a single tomato. Now plant those and grow them. You'll be amazed at what you get! Some will be red, some yellow, some high-acid, some low-acid, some will be elongated like watermelons, etc.

There WILL be some that are just like the one you took the seeds from. BUT - no commercial farmer in the whole world - I don't care if it's Australia, the U.S. , Europe or wherever - is going to risk that because they CANNOT predict in advance what any individual seed is going to do! And by the time it's grown and made fruit, it's too late to go back and pull up all the bad ones individually (which will be WAY over two thirds of them!) and try to start over. Whoever would do such a thing on a commercial basis is NO farmer!! (And even people who have a home garden each year would not put up with it either.)

i will respond to this tomorow, want to check it out. If im wrong i will apoligise but im sure that wheat farmers DONT buy seed every year. what would be the point, if enough seed was grown to produce that many plants every year then why not just sell it to the supermarkets

i will respond to this tomorow, want to check it out. If im wrong i will apoligise but im sure that wheat farmers DONT buy seed every year. what would be the point, if enough seed was grown to produce that many plants every year then why not just sell it to the supermarkets

I'll save you a bit of trouble but still feel free to research more on your own.

Here's an EXCELLENT example of why!! http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:8d2Lj6rO1i0J:english.peopledaily.co m.cn/200504/04/eng20050404_179330.html+hybrid+wheat&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Using this hybrid can easily double or possibly triple the amount of wheat produced. Why would anyone in their right mind not use it? The seed is NOT that expensive.

Ah found it. Now this first quote is from a blog so i cant be sure of its reliability

Its a blog talking about Iraq


The FAO estimated in 2002 that 97% of Iraqi farmers used their own saved seed or bought seed from local markets. Their main crops are wheat, barley, date and pulses which is a big part of their diet and very much at the base of their food network. But under the new regime, states the report, “farmers can neither freely legally plant nor save for re-planting seeds of any “protected ” plant variety” that enters the country. The rights of corporate plant breeders, (seed corporations who develop seed using genetic engeneering, who own the seed, all or part of their gene sequences, lease genes and seeds as a software, and shamelessly harvest royalties worldwide), extend to harvested material, including plants product obtained from the protected variety. For instance, if the protected variety is a type of wheat, a registered cultivar, that requires less kneading as flour to make bread, then the seed company could claim rights over the final product, in this case it could be a “copyrighted” french stick, brioche, croissant, or pizza base.

Viewed 02:30 on 26\01\08 (http://blog.anarchy.org.au/?p=46)



The next ones should be much more reliable

This one is from an organisation associated with the federal goverment



c) make sure the seed you keep for planting the next year is of the highest quality. Good quality seed sets up good crops.

Viewed 02:30 on 26\01\08 (http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/handbook/pulses.html)



And this one is from the ABC Radio national and does seem to surport you though its about them trying to fix the problem


Oh, the seed company would want to do it because in essence it would cut down their production costs quite a bit. I mean, seed companies don't make a lot of money making seeds, the margins are very, very, very slim, so if they could be able to make a plant which was engineered to make its own seeds generation, after generation, after generation, the seed production company would only have to make the hybrids once and it would be fixed forever. So it would benefit them in terms of lower production costs but it will also benefit people in the developing world because they'd be able to get these hybrid seeds, they'd be able to plant them and then they'd be able to make hybrids generation, after generation, after generation. So the seed companies then could turn to the business of making more and more hybrids, better and better and better, which they've been doing for the last 75 years. And the farmer wants the best seed, I mean sure, they want to plant them back and get the best crop but if the seed company comes up with something that gives the farmer you know 30% increase in yield, 40% increase in yield, 50% increase in yield, the farmer is going to want to buy those seeds, even if it's only once and then plant them back every single generation, they're going to want the best technology. I mean, farmers always want the best technology and actually they're going to recoup most of the profits rather than the seed company, because they're going to get and realise the increase in yield.

Viewed 02:30 on 26\01\08 (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2002/554435.htm)



This is from landline another ABC program

A profit-making company is telling farmers they can't do what they have been doing for generations.

That is, save seeds from their crops to plant out the following year.

Reporter Prue Adams asked: "So it's quite common for you to keep your seed?"

"Yes ma'am, I've done it for years ever since I took over my daddy's part," Mr Ralph said.

Viewed 02:30 on 26\01\08 (http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2004/s1234011.htm)



It seems to me we are both right, some farmers do and some dont.

Ah found it. Now this first quote is from a blog so i cant be sure of its reliability

Its a blog talking about Iraq




The next ones should be much more reliable

This one is from an organisation associated with the federal goverment





And this one is from the ABC Radio national and does seem to surport you though its about them trying to fix the problem




This is from landline another ABC program



It seems to me we are both right, some farmers do and some dont.

Nope, not a one of those supported your side of the question at all, sorry, but they're useless for your position.

I've just finished reading completely through each of them:

The first one is a fanatic - can't believe a single word he says.

The second one isn't even addressing hybridized plants at all.

Third one is so-so.

Last one isn't addressing hybrids either - it's talking strictly about GM crops, not hybrids. (Remember, there's a HUGE difference in the two.)

So none of them helped you one bit. Besides, you specifically said you were going to check about wheat farming in Australia.

i said i would try. Its not exactly the easiest thing to google search which is all i can do untill i can get to a libary. But i am starting to think your right, that hybrids are sold year to year where as normal crops are kept. I will keep looking but unless i find something else i am willing to concide the point. I wont concide that people dont keep seed aside each year from there previous crops to grow next year though but it could be unhybridised crops:)

i said i would try. Its not exactly the easiest thing to google search which is all i can do untill i can get to a libary. But i am starting to think your right, that hybrids are sold year to year where as normal crops are kept. I will keep looking but unless i find something else i am willing to concide the point. I wont concide that people dont keep seed aside each year from there previous crops to grow next year though but it could be unhybridised crops:)

Yes, your last statement is the real fact. And that was exactly the case with the second link you posted. People certainly DO save seed from open-pollinated (non-hybrid) plants. It makes good sense to do that and there's no reason not to.

But for hybrids, it makes NO sense and is very wasteful as I explained in detail several posts ago.

fair enough:)

Im big enough to admit im wrong:)

fair enough:)

Im big enough to admit im wrong:)

Good job! Proud of you!! :)

did you ever look at that thread on the girl who's blood changed in Bio and Genetics?

did you ever look at that thread on the girl who's blood changed in Bio and Genetics?

Yes, I did. And I meant to comment, sorry. That WAS very interesting! I've read more about it from several news sources lately. And it's still quite interesting.

But in the case referenced here. The genetically modified grain was for food. And the grain is used in the United States as food. Now given the choice of using that genetically modified food which has been approved for human consumption and is being consumed in first world countries to feed its populations, why turn it away instead of using it to feed starving people?
I repeat, it was a stupid decision at best and at worst a cruel and heartless decision.