Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
The NFU backs gene editing. Do you ?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Exfarmer" data-source="post: 7067884" data-attributes="member: 1951"><p>I would be very suspicious of claims f failure of GM crops. The amount of money pumped into the Anti groups is astonishing and frequently comes from some very unlikely sources.</p><p>At one time Gene Watch had 20 times the budget of the Monsanto advertising budget.</p><p>in the main it was funded by other chemical companies who were worried that this technology would wipe them out. I am certain it was Dupont who pushed vast sums there way. Then of course there were the usual brigade who have stood in the way of progress ever since the Romans built us roads and sewers.</p><p>I am not saying that it does not have its failings and downsides, but the technology has a huge amount to offer and in many cases enable the removal of some rather nasty products of the chemical arsenal in our spray sheds.</p><p>Even at the very beginning of the technology Monsanto were warning that to use RR technology exclusively , would dramatically shorten its life.</p><p>Bt tech has always come with the stipulation that it must not be planted on more than 80% of the acreage, to discourage pests from becoming immune. ( frequently called out by its detractors, as being to ensure a Healthy supply of pests, to create a need for the continued use of the gene.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Exfarmer, post: 7067884, member: 1951"] I would be very suspicious of claims f failure of GM crops. The amount of money pumped into the Anti groups is astonishing and frequently comes from some very unlikely sources. At one time Gene Watch had 20 times the budget of the Monsanto advertising budget. in the main it was funded by other chemical companies who were worried that this technology would wipe them out. I am certain it was Dupont who pushed vast sums there way. Then of course there were the usual brigade who have stood in the way of progress ever since the Romans built us roads and sewers. I am not saying that it does not have its failings and downsides, but the technology has a huge amount to offer and in many cases enable the removal of some rather nasty products of the chemical arsenal in our spray sheds. Even at the very beginning of the technology Monsanto were warning that to use RR technology exclusively , would dramatically shorten its life. Bt tech has always come with the stipulation that it must not be planted on more than 80% of the acreage, to discourage pests from becoming immune. ( frequently called out by its detractors, as being to ensure a Healthy supply of pests, to create a need for the continued use of the gene.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
The NFU backs gene editing. Do you ?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top