The NFU backs gene editing. Do you ?
- Thread starter delilah
- Start date
ollie989898
Member
That is a BS statement.
I'm still hoping that someone on here can give a clear yes or no answer to the question I have asked earlier:
Can GE crops be grown by a farmer without there being any potential impact on a neighbours ability to farm how they wish ?
That for me is a deal breaker. The LWA are saying that no, it isn't possible. Are they correct ?
Can GE crops be grown by a farmer without there being any potential impact on a neighbours ability to farm how they wish ?
That for me is a deal breaker. The LWA are saying that no, it isn't possible. Are they correct ?
Why should a niche market stop the rest of us having access to scientific advances?
That doesn't answer my question.
Every farmer should have the right to adopt whatever technology they wish. Right up to the point where it impacts on their neighbours ability to do the same.
Does GE cross that line ? I don't know, that's why i'm asking the question.
I don’t think it does cross the line,the benefits far outweigh any negatives from the technology from what I have seen
ollie989898
Member
It's genetic modification, forget for a while what benefit it gives to the grower or wider environment, does your customer want to buy and eat it is the more prominent question.
Hasn’t stopped them eating cornflakes or anything where gm has been used as a feed source,it is as usual a small vocal group stop it when the majority don’t care
ollie989898
Member
Are cornflakes made using GM material?
As far as I know they are,they certainly cannot put gm free on the packets
Still doesn't answer the question I asked.
Can GE crops be grown by a farmer without there being any potential impact on a neighbours ability to farm how they wish ?
FARMERJERRY
Member
- Location
- devon
Recent court case in US with GM dicamba resistant crops (could have been corn or cotton)-sprays drifted and killed fruit trees in neighbouring farms-chemical company lost and has huge pay out for loss of crops and future sales.
New regulations introduced to control spraying of dicamba (whch is very volatile in American formats ) and still there were problems
There were issues with legality of seed being sold as well to confuse the picture because seeds were sold before permission granted for their use.
So cases of Farmers being forced to use dicamba resistant genetically modified varieties because neighbours were-so loss of independence on varietal choice.
Dicamba gene added to control weeds not controlled by roundup, rather than being resistant to roundup-like cow parsley isn't controlled by roundup.
- Location
- Kent
I am more for it being up to the individual to choose if they want to grow it or not just as it is up to the buyer if they wish to buy it.
I can not see how it is different or any less difficult or risk to do than growing a conventional crop next to a neighbour's organic farm or vice versa or even just a different kind of crop to theirs. You take precautions so that you don't spray off their crop killing the weed in your field and vice versa.
With the dicamba issue it was a royal screw up the companies were told they needed to alter the formula to stop mega drift seen as it wasn't just neighbouring fields it was drifting for miles. Rather than halting the sale of their dicamba ready seed they shipped it out feeling to formula would be ready and approved as the EPA said it wouldn't need full certification their courts ruled differently by which time farms had already planted it and thought screw it I still have some of the old stuff left.
@milkloss if you want a good explanation of the differences I found Know Ideas Media's videos on the subject interesting along with his ones on glyphosate including about the articles of it found in breakfast cereals. I believe Myles Power from the UK who has done a couple of videos with Farmer Tom has also covered the subject along with a breakdown on the IARC report though he covers a lot more including quackery, AIDS denialism and conspiracy theories as well.
Out of interest we do say no then should we then ban sweetcorn and yams as both were created by actual mutagenesis (GM) both naturally occuring and during the atomic bomb tests?
I can not see how it is different or any less difficult or risk to do than growing a conventional crop next to a neighbour's organic farm or vice versa or even just a different kind of crop to theirs. You take precautions so that you don't spray off their crop killing the weed in your field and vice versa.
With the dicamba issue it was a royal screw up the companies were told they needed to alter the formula to stop mega drift seen as it wasn't just neighbouring fields it was drifting for miles. Rather than halting the sale of their dicamba ready seed they shipped it out feeling to formula would be ready and approved as the EPA said it wouldn't need full certification their courts ruled differently by which time farms had already planted it and thought screw it I still have some of the old stuff left.
@milkloss if you want a good explanation of the differences I found Know Ideas Media's videos on the subject interesting along with his ones on glyphosate including about the articles of it found in breakfast cereals. I believe Myles Power from the UK who has done a couple of videos with Farmer Tom has also covered the subject along with a breakdown on the IARC report though he covers a lot more including quackery, AIDS denialism and conspiracy theories as well.
Out of interest we do say no then should we then ban sweetcorn and yams as both were created by actual mutagenesis (GM) both naturally occuring and during the atomic bomb tests?
Useful summary of where it's at.
ollie989898
Member
Can you explain this part of your post for me?
We had this kind of claim back years ago when we were discussing GM crops being trialled in the UK- suddenly someone grew a GM crop and his neighbours field turned into triffids/became GM also etc etc etc. I don't know if there was a scientific basis for this complaint or not.
I observed years ago that surely transgenes had limited utility in wild plants and would die out because the ability to tolerate glyphosate is of no use to a hedge or verge plant that never gets sprayed with the stuff. Carrying a fitness penalty would surely mean these genes were self-selecting their own extermination in the wild.
FARMERJERRY
Member
- Location
- devon
An explanation of the point about lack of varietal selection-this was specifically answering @delilah question and does only relate to the dicamba issue, but it has created a massive issue in places like Missouri and Arkansas where the question has come down to the influence, and lack of concern shown by agribusiness to anything which stands in the way of their business plans.
https://jc6kx1c9izw3wansr3nmip8k-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-cont… · PDF file
producers lack competitive alternatives to Monsanto’s dicamba-tolerant technology because they must buy dicamba-tolerant soybean seeds or risk massive crop losses. In commercializing its dicamba-tolerant traits in soybeans, Monsanto is capitalizing on a problem it created by irresponsibly commercializing its dicamba-based crop system.
The issue arose because roundup didn't control all the weeds, and these became a problem, it isn't down to low application rates as @Exfarmer was trying to say.
We know there is a potential issue with cross pollination with some species and the debate comes from a presumption that off types will not survive, but there is probably the same chance that off types will survive, and that is why there is a concern. We can already see an issue with resistant blackgrass, ryegrass and csfb all of which multiply rapidly, whereas a wheat plant only reproduces once a year, but how do we control the volunteers/survivors?
ollie989898
Member
An explanation of the point about lack of varietal selection-this was specifically answering @delilah question and does only relate to the dicamba issue, but it has created a massive issue in places like Missouri and Arkansas where the question has come down to the influence, and lack of concern shown by agribusiness to anything which stands in the way of their business plans.
one line from the article-Two farmers who grow non-GMO soybeans for Malden Specialty Soy told McBroom that they may be forced to grow dicamba tolerant GMO soybeans to protect their farms from dicamba drift.
https://jc6kx1c9izw3wansr3nmip8k-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-cont… · PDF file
producers lack competitive alternatives to Monsanto’s dicamba-tolerant technology because they must buy dicamba-tolerant soybean seeds or risk massive crop losses. In commercializing its dicamba-tolerant traits in soybeans, Monsanto is capitalizing on a problem it created by irresponsibly commercializing its dicamba-based crop system.
The issue arose because roundup didn't control all the weeds, and these became a problem, it isn't down to low application rates as @Exfarmer was trying to say.
We know there is a potential issue with cross pollination with some species and the debate comes from a presumption that off types will not survive, but there is probably the same chance that off types will survive, and that is why there is a concern. We can already see an issue with resistant blackgrass, ryegrass and csfb all of which multiply rapidly, whereas a wheat plant only reproduces once a year, but how do we control the volunteers/survivors?
Ah I see, so you are highlighting an issue not with genetic modification but with pesticide drift.
the fact is this technology no matter how good it is, will be monopolized by the chemical and seed giants, continuing vertical integration into farms. we will be the grunts taking even more risk, doing the work and losing more autonomy. it will not make us richer. there is generations of farmers that cannot see a solution to any agronomic problems that don,t involve buying the answer from someone, to treat symptoms of the problems and not the causes, and so the cycle continues.
FARMERJERRY
Member
- Location
- devon
It is the link with GM that makes drift an issue, but the use of that chemical increased massively when the GM gene was introduced-because it wasn't previously able to be used on the crops. You cannot just say 'oh its drift' and pretend it isn't an issue because the court case came about AFTER a change in spraying regulations for Dicamba.
it is the same as roundup use near seed potatoes- if we had Roundup ready seeds in UK, are farmers going to not buy them if their neighbour grows seed potatoes?
Last edited:
Exfarmer
Member
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds
An explanation of the point about lack of varietal selection-this was specifically answering @delilah question and does only relate to the dicamba issue, but it has created a massive issue in places like Missouri and Arkansas where the question has come down to the influence, and lack of concern shown by agribusiness to anything which stands in the way of their business plans.
one line from the article-Two farmers who grow non-GMO soybeans for Malden Specialty Soy told McBroom that they may be forced to grow dicamba tolerant GMO soybeans to protect their farms from dicamba drift.
https://jc6kx1c9izw3wansr3nmip8k-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-cont… · PDF file
producers lack competitive alternatives to Monsanto’s dicamba-tolerant technology because they must buy dicamba-tolerant soybean seeds or risk massive crop losses. In commercializing its dicamba-tolerant traits in soybeans, Monsanto is capitalizing on a problem it created by irresponsibly commercializing its dicamba-based crop system.
The issue arose because roundup didn't control all the weeds, and these became a problem, it isn't down to low application rates as @Exfarmer was trying to say.
We know there is a potential issue with cross pollination with some species and the debate comes from a presumption that off types will not survive, but there is probably the same chance that off types will survive, and that is why there is a concern. We can already see an issue with resistant blackgrass, ryegrass and csfb all of which multiply rapidly, whereas a wheat plant only reproduces once a year, but how do we control the volunteers/survivors?
It is incorrect to say that it is not down to low rates of the spray causing the issue.
There was no plant totally immune to Glyphosate delivered into the plant.
However odd species can tolerate very high levels, this is excluding plants with very waxy leaves such as Ivy which require the product applied with a carrier to break through the wax.
one conventional species grown occasionaly as a crop is Evening promrose shows very high tolerance of glyphosate as do several weed species.
overcoming this tolerance means spraying the plant at the correct concentration at the correct growth stage.
Reducing concentrations will probably knock out 95% of these weeds to a level where they pose absolutely no threat to the crop, particularly as they will be very likely to be stunted by the spray.
There is also the fact that the crop can only stand a certain concentration of glyphosate even when it is GM .
However the problem come after a few generations of these weeds hybridise them selves. In a monoculture situation they will have no competition except the crop and will rapidly naturally develop a greater resistance to Roundup.
it was noticed in early Sugar beet trials here that several weeds posed a threat if glyphosate was used at reduced rates .
some of these trials were deliberately done to see how Low levels could go with out reducing yield Frim competition. The results were quite interesting and I think from memory 2 x .3 l/ hectare gave good weed control in the beet. Those weeds who survived were of no economic importance.
When some beet trials were trashed by FOE / greenpeace/ anti GMO activist vandals, they actually destroyed the wrong plots as they assumed the weedy plots were the traditional Non GMO beet .