Grow your own wants to know how you feel about gm crops

[Pumpkin Becki]

Thanks Sarz. I'm not going to vote on this one, I don't feel I know enough about the subject and I find it a slightly bizarre thing for GYO to be asking us...I thought GM crops were about industrial scale farming, not Growing Your Own for your own consumption. But thats just my opinion.

[SlugLobber]

I voted - No, because it would go against my organic gardening principles.
Although I'm not a strict organic gardener so it would more accurately it be: No, because it defeats the whole purpose of growing it yourself, if I was going to grow GM crops it'd be easier to just buy them in a supermarket

I also voted this option. Partly for the reason Ollie gavem but also because garden pests are an important part of the eco-system. I don't go for this approach of, 'It's inconvenient to humans, let's waste it'.

[HeyWayne]

I know GM are in trouble - but I never realised they were talking about manufacturing crops!?

These bladdy large conglomerates eh! Think they can sell us rubbish cars for years, then when that doesn't work out, they try seeds!

Un-funky-believable!

That's it - I'm going to pop down to Vauxhalls tonight and shout loudly outside their "plant". It's all becoming clear now why they've been calling these manufacturing facilities plants now! I might even make a placard.

Whyeyoughda!

[HayleyB]

I can see the headlines.......

Big Man Arrested in Luton Protesting against Serial Production

[TEB]

I would say that all or most of us has eaten food that has genetically modified material in it in some form or other, cheese being a prime example.
Quote:
Cheese: Chymosin is an enzyme that causes milk to curdle. It is estimated that 80 to 90 percent of cheese produced in the US and Great Britain is made with chymosin produced by genetically modified microorganisms.
Source: Dairy Products, Eggs, and Genetic Engineering

[Alison]

I'm fully aware it's found IN things but that doesn't mean that we have to actively grow GM crops when we have a choice.

[TEB]

I'm fully aware it's found IN things but that doesn't mean that we have to actively grow GM crops when we have a choice.

But we have been growing genetically modified crops and for years, or does crops altered by gamma ray's or chemicals to change/manipulate plant genes not count.

Myself, I lean towards the NIMBY but mainly because I dont like the ethics of the companies pushing it.

Going off subject, does Chymosin that used to be obtained from a cows stomach but now can be grown on a fungus - does it make it vegetarian even though the source so obviously wasn't.

[Alison]

But we have been growing genetically modified crops and for years, or does crops altered by gamma ray's or chemicals to change/manipulate plant genes not count.

It's fundamentally different in that traditional breeding breeding techniques are restricted by natural barriers that stop unrelated organisms from breeding with each other. Genetic modification is entirely different. It allows genes to be crossed between organisms that could never breed naturally. A gene from a fish, for example, has been put into a sweetcorn. As you can see, very different.

[susieq100]

"It's fundamentally different in that traditional breeding breeding techniques are restricted by natural barriers that stop unrelated organisms from breeding with each other. Genetic modification is entirely different. It allows genes to be crossed between organisms that could never breed naturally. A gene from a fish, for example, has been put into a sweetcorn. As you can see, very different."

Totally agree. Plus the points made above about firms like Monsanto not being involved for the greater good of humanity. And the fact that the plants are sterile and we would then all be 'in hock' to the producers of the GM crops.

[Hilary B]

I'm going for 'No, other reasons' and the 'other reasons' are numerous (and include options in the poll) but top is "because I believe 'gene splicing' to be WRONG as well as opening Pandora's box", closely followed by "I will not be contributing to the profits of Monsanto and similar companies".
The Unknown Effects one is why I don't believe they should be grown ouside of labs AT ALL.

[Capsid]

I'm more relaxed about it. Us humans have plenty of foreign DNA inside us, some of them are absolutely essential for us to live too. Our mitochondria our really parasitic bacteria with their own DNA in every cell of our body. Many retroviruses are part of our DNA too, one of them is responsible for forming the placenta, without it we'd still be laying eggs.

The counter argument is that this all took millions of years to happen rather than the few years that GM has taken. Whatever, DNA of itself is not harmful.

[weekendwellies]

I voted no as it goes against my organic gardening principles.
Whilst I would get, for example, blight resistant potatoes, white rot resistant onions, etc. I would want them to have been developed by breeding the 'right sort' of crops, not by being genetically modified.
I understand that you cannot save seed from GM crops, which is a major part of back yard gardening as far as I am concerned.
Natural selection has been operating very successfully for thousands of years and is the reason that we have such a wide variety of fruit and vegetables now.
A single bod, dabbling with mixing their own crops to come up with a hybrid is a lot different to major companies developing this stuff purely for profit.
Just because we can develop GM crops doesn't mean that we should.

[maytreefrannie]

When I was growing up, there was widespread opinion that chemical fertilizers and pesticides would result in bigger yields and be instrumental in feeding many poorer countries.

What happened to that theory? As far as I know, widespread use of chemicals caused depletion of soils, reducing capacity. That's not to say that everyone who uses chemicals is wrong, just that we must be cautious and careful in how we treat the earth.

For that reason, I voted the second option - I think for sure we don't know enough about the possible effects of GM.

[its hilly]

It sounds wonderful to produce massive crops from less ground to feed the world.
BUT, am I the only one to think that we would end up (ultimately) with poor countries with short food supplies in hock to the producers? And all diversity of plant type reduced? Therefore affecting all life which is dependent on that variety, from bugs upwards. And it still doesnt explain how anyone is going to get nomadic cattle/goat dependant cultures to stop overgrazing and destroying the topsoil they do have, settle in one place and grow stuff! Its taken so long to get the little advances that have been made up to now.

When I was growing up, there was widespread opinion that chemical fertilizers and pesticides would result in bigger yields and be instrumental in feeding many poorer countries.

What happened to that theory? As far as I know, widespread use of chemicals caused depletion of soils, reducing capacity. That's not to say that everyone who uses chemicals is wrong, just that we must be cautious and careful in how we treat the earth.

Yup in spades MTF