NationStates Jolt Archive

We must stop the proliferation of the use of geneticaly modified grains.

Once the geniee is out of the bottle, there is no turning back.

Suppport the ban at the UN.

'Naz of Skyzofrenia

Well, perhaps if you could provide us with a proposal, and a brief summary of what transgenic grains are, we could provide some criticism for you.

We must stop the proliferation of the use of geneticaly modified grains.

Once the geniee is out of the bottle, there is no turning back.

Suppport the ban at the UN.

'Naz of Skyzofrenia


We would like to say that hybrid plants are not something new, and have been practiced by humans for ages. We see no reason why hybrid plants species created by gene modification are differents than tradionnally created hybrid plants.
It seems to us, that it's just the technique which is different, but the result is the same. We see no reason to ban traditional hybrids plants either. Biological evolution and potential on earth is not over, why should it be stoppped?

That said, it's pretty obvious that rapid proliferation of new species may have some unatended consequences and that some regulation, ethcal standards and scientific survey are needed and we agree that the UN may increase international cooperation in this area.

Yeah, that Gregor Mendel was a right bastard. :rolleyes:

Just an exemple, if new transgenic species of rice is much resistant to drought in some african nations or to an insect in India, will you oppose?

"How dare you let science advance the farming practices of the world!"

:rolleyes:

Opposed. How else would we be able to support the 6 trillion people living on this rock?

not 6 trillion... alot of them are on other planets, or don't eat.

Anyway, yes, I don't like radically engineered plants that have spider legs and eat squirrels...but simply combing some plant aspects into one good plant is totally acceptable as long as certain (as sated above) guidlines are met. Draft a proposal that puts forth standards and practices etc... on the issue instead of banning it.

Opposed. Yeah, there goes our entire agricultural industry - damn our scientists for trying to diminish world hunger and disease!

sorry...i have to....

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/tpcard1kr.jpg

Oh dear. Looks like we'll have to get rid of our tangelo crop.

Krioval is also opposed.

St Edmund is also opposed.

No way. Applications of genetic recombination technology have massive potential for the reduction of human suffering, both in production of edible and medicinal products, among others. There are dangers associated with some, but applications must considered on a case-by-case basis as in many cases, the benefits massively outweigh the risks (and many of the potential dangers can be negated).

Given the degree of opposition to this, would:
a) a compromise proposal (safeguards, perhaps some regulatory body)
or
b) one the other way, enshrining nations' or individuals' rights to research the technology
be appropriate?

Given the degree of opposition to this, would:
a) a compromise proposal (safeguards, perhaps some regulatory body)
or
b) one the other way, enshrining nations' or individuals' rights to research the technology
be appropriate?

I think that requiring safeguards against any new varieties spreading into other nations against the wishes of those other nations' governments might be acceptable, as long as they couldn't be applied unfairly just to protect those other nations' own biotechnology industries...

We agree with the issue of foods, however we do not agree with the issue of fuels-- transgenic grains could be used to provide a much higher grade of crop for our biorefineries.

Wait,wait...let me get this straight Dancing Bananland...you don't want genetically engineered plants that has spider legs and eats squirrels?Why not!It could bring biological warfare to a whole new level!

We agree with the issue of foods, however we do not agree with the issue of fuels-- transgenic grains could be used to provide a much higher grade of crop for our biorefineries.

Agreed. It isn't exactly a 'grain', but some of St Edmund's scientists are currently trying to develop "Petrolcane" as yet another way around the FFRA...

Wait,wait...let me get this straight Dancing Bananland...you don't want genetically engineered plants that has spider legs and eats squirrels?Why not!It could bring biological warfare to a whole new level!
We actually accdentally did something like that once in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites, unfortunatly we were unable to control the creature and had to kill it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I think the resolution needs to be significantly modified.

There are two cases for transgenic plants, one doesn't bother me at all, the other worries me a whole lot. There are a number of companies that are making special resistant strains of plants especially in cooperation with pesticide companies. I think there should always be a concern, but not a panic over these types of crops.

There is another type of transgenic plant which is generally under the radar, crops that are not grown for feed or food, but for medicine. These mutations are generally inedable, and if these mutations got into the regular crop areas they could cause signifcant problems. (As in having a batch of contanimated food with a significant amount of inediable proteen material within it.)

Organic farmers are, naturally, opposed to the former as well because any transgenic invasion could literally cripple their brand name and reduce their profit margins. The public in general would be opposed to the latter if they knew the full implications of it.

what's wrong with genetics? we made genetics, why not use them to make this bigger, tastier, healthier, and even try to stop world hunger. don't stop it PROMOTE it.

what's wrong with genetics? we made genetics, why not use them to make this bigger, tastier, healthier, and even try to stop world hunger. don't stop it PROMOTE it.

And regulate it;)

I think the resolution needs to be significantly modified.

There are two cases for transgenic plants, one doesn't bother me at all, the other worries me a whole lot. There are a number of companies that are making special resistant strains of plants especially in cooperation with pesticide companies. I think there should always be a concern, but not a panic over these types of crops.

There is another type of transgenic plant which is generally under the radar, crops that are not grown for feed or food, but for medicine. These mutations are generally inedable, and if these mutations got into the regular crop areas they could cause signifcant problems. (As in having a batch of contanimated food with a significant amount of inediable proteen material within it.)

Organic farmers are, naturally, opposed to the former as well because any transgenic invasion could literally cripple their brand name and reduce their profit margins. The public in general would be opposed to the latter if they knew the full implications of it.


I'm not an expert but, I personnaly think that the transgenic plants against insect are to monitor and regulate tightly, as the gene added produce toxins (in order to kill the insects); hopefully these toxics are harmless for humans, but that's always toxins.

The sad thing about GM is that the main actor, Monsanto is the company behind the dramatic agent orange widely used in Vietnam war. This company is hardly credible and is sadly undermining a whole new promising industry.

Also for me, one of the main the problem comes also from something else: the extensive use of herbicides which is now a significant problem in Argentina.

The sad thing about GM is that the main actor, Monsanto is the company behind the dramatic agent orange widely used in Vietnam war. This company is hardly credible and is sadly undermining a whole new promising industry.



Didn't that company also create a GM plant that produces sterile seeds, preventing farmers from growing their own plants from those seeds? That would not only create new serfs, dependent on Monsanto for their food, but if that seed got into the wild, it could destroy the natural crops!

Didn't that company also create a GM plant that produces sterile seeds, preventing farmers from growing their own plants from those seeds? That would not only create new serfs, dependent on Monsanto for their food, but if that seed got into the wild, it could destroy the natural crops!


You right, it's been called "Terminator"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_Technology
Monsanto finally decided to not sell it.

Um...

Terminator Technology is the colloquial name given to proposed methods for restricting the use of genetically modified plants by causing second generation seeds to be sterile. The technology was under development by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Delta and Pine Land Company in the 1990s and is not yet commercially available. Because some stakeholders expressed concerns that this technology might lead to dependence for poor smallholder farmers, Monsanto, an agricultural products company, pledged not to commercialize the technology even if and when is becomes commercially available.D&PL is not Monsanto. They're two different companies. Implying that Monsanto created this gene to hold poor farmers in their thrall is... well... utterly untrue. The use of "Monsanto" above could easily be Archer Daniels Midland, Calgene, or Ed's Weed-n-Feed.

Isn't Jey working on a Scientific Freedom replacement?

Wouldn't that cover this topic?

Isn't Jey working on a Scientific Freedom replacement?

Wouldn't that cover this topic?
No, Bazalonia is. And possibly.

EDIT: And, not that it's relevant, Monsanto did try to acquire D&PL, but pulled out eventually.

Um...

D&PL is not Monsanto. They're two different companies. Implying that Monsanto created this gene to hold poor farmers in their thrall is... well... utterly untrue. The use of "Monsanto" above could easily be Archer Daniels Midland, Calgene, or Ed's Weed-n-Feed.

Sorry if it could have been read as implied, but GinetV3 and me were discussing about GM plants created and patented by Monsanto, that produces sterile seeds (those Monsato had pledged to not commercialise)

Except that D&PL was researching self-terminating seeds, not Monsanto.

If this proposal goes anywhere, I do have one suggestion to make.

Don't use "Transgenic Grains" as the title.

When I first saw this thread, I swear to God I thought it said "Transgenic Brains" upon a quick glance.....

Except that D&PL was researching self-terminating seeds, not Monsanto.
My understanding is that more than one company has been researching this. Naturally, I offer this view with absolutely no evidence in support, 'cos I'm lazy.

Tricky issue, this. There are many, many valid reasons to be concerned about GM - Monsanto's glorious contribution to humanity isn't just limited to Agent Orange, you should see what they've done with milk in the US - but these tend to be overshadowed by morons screaming 'Frankenstein food!'. It seems to be part of a widespread anti-science trend in the UK and the US (probably elsewhere, too).

Monsanto's glorious contribution to humanity isn't just limited to Agent OrangeTrue. Their crops also allow the US to produce enough food to feed almost the entire world. Pity people are too paranoid to buy it, so it sits and rots.

Ahem. Sorry about that. ;)

OOC:True. Their crops also allow the US to produce enough food to feed almost the entire world.
And undercut Aussie exports. Well, Aussie Wheat Board aside - they've found... particular... markets in the past.

OOC: To be honest, the actions of biotech businesses regarding GM tech seem to me almost designed to provoke and unite public opposition. Things like Terminator (which, it has to be said, is designed to limit the uncontrolled spread of GMOs in the wild) and the focus on making plants resistant to a company's own brands of broad-spectrum, environment-killing pesticides and herbicides unites greens, anti-science nuts, and those concerned about the exploitation of poor farmers against the technology.

Had they made a bigger deal of the potential for, say, increasing the nutritional value of foods to help combat malnutrition in poor countries, they could have given GM a much better public image. Instead, they developed these chemical-resistant strains, planted them in trial fields and liberally splattered broad-spectrum toxins over the ground - lo and behold, lots of nearby plants and animals died. In response to these surprising studies showing that large amounts of poison are bad for the environment, the newspapers all screamed "Trials PROVE that GM crops destroy the environment!!!!11111" and public opinion was sealed. :rolleyes: