DARK WATERS the Tefal poisoning story.

I did see this film a few months ago, Some of the cheaper products you can buy the Teflon just peels off or can be easily knocked off.
 
Gromett said:
I have no problems with genetic engineering in limited scenarios. An outright ban is just plain wrong.

We have been gene editing the natural way for centuries via selective breeding. This just accelerates and limits the changes being made. CRISPR-CAS9 is amazing technology when used correctly.

You do realise that gene editing was used to make some of the Covid Vaccines?
Click to expand...
You must have seen the same news story as well when that said it just speeds the process up. But seriously it is worrying in that even if it is benign ( probably not) then you have the big companies such as Monsanto to worry about as they patent their work. What this means is if they find you have a plant variant that has been modified (accidentally cross pollination from a neighbouring field ) they will charge you a fee for using their patented product.
 
We haven't bought anything with non stick for a few years. Its a good film and reminded us why we don't. Seem to remember something about if the non stick gets too hot it breaks down or releases something. Know many years ago had a frying pan an auntie had used a metal spatula on and loads was missing. Can only assume we ate it 😞

Just bought a ninja air fryer and she even rang ninja to check no teflon before she would use it.
 
Nixdorfer said:
We haven't bought anything with non stick for a few years. Its a good film and reminded us why we don't. Seem to remember something about if the non stick gets too hot it breaks down or releases something. Know many years ago had a frying pan an auntie had used a metal spatula on and loads was missing. Can only assume we ate it 😞

Just bought a ninja air fryer and she even rang ninja to check no teflon before she would use it.
Click to expand...
I did read it’s 500 degrees that Teflon has is released. And we moved away from Teflon too.
 
Coolcats said:
You must have seen the same news story as well when that said it just speeds the process up. But seriously it is worrying in that even if it is benign ( probably not) then you have the big companies such as Monsanto to worry about as they patent their work. What this means is if they find you have a plant variant that has been modified (accidentally cross pollination from a neighbouring field ) they will charge you a fee for using their patented product.
Click to expand...
No I have not seen any story saying it "just" speeds the process up. I understand a little bit about this subject. What I meant by speeds it up is this. If you take 2 crops and cross breed them, you MAY get the desired trait in the offspring. If you don't you try again, and again, and again. With genetic engineering you find the gene that causes the desirable trait (drought resistance, soil type etc etc). You then accurately splice this gene into the genome of the plant. This then breeds it true through every following generation.

Monsanto is a disgusting company that US laws has allowed to run rough shod over the public good. This is not a reason to ban the technology it is a reason to regulate it better. You don't ban cameras because paedophiles use them do you?

A well regulated and cautious system of development means we could get the benefits of this technology whilst minimising the risks. The EU's flat ban is unhelpful.
 
Scotties said:
DARK WATERS Amazon Prime

Hi watched this last night, true story about Dupont (3M Dow etc) concealing how their Teflon manufacture caused death, cancers and birth defects.

Started in late 60s with cases still ongoing today.

The ‘forever’ chemical PFOA C8 has recently been replaced by another, but the long term effects of this are still unknown.

May have you throwing out all your nonstick pans.

Excellent film, well worth a watch
Click to expand...
Yes saw it too. Very frightening and many cases still remain to be fought against Dupont and because they have managed to slow down the legal system judging cases it could take 300 years before all of them are settled. Many people have already died.
 
Gromett said:
No I have not seen any story saying it "just" speeds the process up. I understand a little bit about this subject. What I meant by speeds it up is this. If you take 2 crops and cross breed them, you MAY get the desired trait in the offspring. If you don't you try again, and again, and again. With genetic engineering you find the gene that causes the desirable trait (drought resistance, soil type etc etc). You then accurately splice this gene into the genome of the plant. This then breeds it true through every following generation.

Monsanto is a disgusting company that US laws has allowed to run rough shod over the public good. This is not a reason to ban the technology it is a reason to regulate it better. You don't ban cameras because paedophiles use them do you?

A well regulated and cautious system of development means we could get the benefits of this technology whilst minimising the risks. The EU's flat ban is unhelpful.
Click to expand...
Yes there was a story on the News about 'how it speeds things up' but as you would expect there is a counter view to this as well as highlighting other ways of achieving the same through more traditional methods. I am all for R&D and development but there are different approaches to get the same result and GM modification.

So back in April 2018 (brexit had already been voted for) and after a lot of concerns regarding the decline of the Bee population the UK voted in favour of banning the use on neonicotindoids.

Given that the UK voted in favour of the proposals that baned on outdoor use of three neonicotinoids - Clothianidin, Imidacloprid and Thiamethoxam it is a surprise to see after pressure from British Sugar and others George Eustace has just overturned the decision, where was the debate and discussion, so I suspect the likes of Monsanto will have a say in GM crops and I would not be surprised to see Chlorinated Chicken appearing soon.

Genetically modified food in the UK and TTIP​

In contrast to the US situation, the direct human food supply in the EU is still largely GMO free. There are a few food products for sale in the UK with GM ingredients, which should be labelled according to EU labelling regulations. (Surveys show that around 40% of takeaway meals are cooked using GM cooking oils and while caterers are required by EU regulations to tell customers this, the majority do not).

We currently have very little GM crop cultivation within Europe. There are some small scale field trials of GM crops in the UK, but none grown commercially.

"In the UK, a report called ‘GM Nation’, produced subsequent to government-sponsored debates around the country, showed strong public opposition to GM. A further survey in 2012 showed that this opposition had hardly lessened."
 
Coolcats If I can suggest you look up a gentleman called Dr Norman Borlaug. He was the genius who saved over 1BN lives with his genetic engineering of Wheat.
Prior to his work the crop would fail regularly in strong winds and light drought conditions. His semi-dwarf crop resistant strain of wheat took the world by storm and allowed many poor countries to go from net importers to net exporters and still feed their own populations.

Things like CRISPR-CAS9 allow this work to happen quicker and with much greater fidelity and accuracy.

I learned about Norman Borlaug from an Episode of the West Wing. This stuck with me ever since.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Coolcats said:
Yes there was a story on the News about 'how it speeds things up' but as you would expect there is a counter view to this as well as highlighting other ways of achieving the same through more traditional methods. I am all for R&D and development but there are different approaches to get the same result and GM modification.

So back in April 2018 (brexit had already been voted for) and after a lot of concerns regarding the decline of the Bee population the UK voted in favour of banning the use on neonicotindoids.
Click to expand...

I didn't see that story. I haven't had a TV for 14+ years. So miss out on a lot of broadcast news.

You are jumping subjects yet again. Neonicotinoids and other pesticides is a different subject entirely and I think you will find we totally agree on that one.

Neonicotinoids and other pesticides should be banned UNLESS they can be proven to have no other detrimental effect.

BUT, here is the thing. Crops can be developed to resist bugs and pests using Genetic engineering and thus reduce or remove the need for pesticides. I personally would like to see more mixed cropping, cover crops and mixed arable/livestock farming to help the health of the soil and the environment.
 
Gromett said:
Coolcats If I can suggest you look up a gentleman called Dr Norman Borlaug. He was the genius who saved over 1BN lives with his genetic engineering of Wheat.
Prior to his work the crop would fail regularly in strong winds and light drought conditions. His semi-dwarf crop resistant strain of wheat took the world by storm and allowed many poor countries to go from net importers to net exporters and still feed their own populations.

Things like CRISPR-CAS9 allow this work to happen quicker and with much greater fidelity and accuracy.

I learned about Norman Borlaug from an Episode of the West Wing. This stuck with me ever since.
Click to expand...

Grommet, I am not debating this if you wish to wholeheartly support GM foods I recognise that is your view. GMO is not all good if you wish to support the USA approach I recognise this is your perspective.

In good old east Anglia we have farms that are owned by big commercial conglomerates, they farm right up to the edges of the fields, hardly any hedgerow and little wildlife I am sure they will have lots of Dr Norman Borlaug seeds in them and will be highly profitable. But as the quote attributed to the Native American Indians 'You cannot eat Money'

A farmer friend has a more sustainable farm with hedgerows, areas that have woods and grows diverse crops, he avoids pesticides, because his is a diverse farm (wildlife and crops) with smaller fields the produce is managed and organically grown. Its not all about maximising yield but sustainability.

Its a Different view but an amazing landscape that is managed for both wildlife and crops......and profitable

Thats it I am out of this one.
 
Coolcats

Let me give you a real world example of genetic engineering that is for the good, but the EU ban prevents it being rolled out.

There is a disease hitting the Cavendish strain of bananas caused by a fungi. This is devastating large swathes of the third world which relies on sales of the bananas for much of it's income.

There is a GM version of this banana which is resistant to this fungus. But the farmers can't use it because the produce would then be banned from the EU. Pesticides don't work...

It is entirely possible that the banana may become an extremely rare treat in the EU in the future as this disease spreads around the world.

What this genetic engineered version does is take the RGA2 gene from another species of banana that is resistant to this fungus and transplant it into the Cavendish variety. Doing this the natural way would take decades and will inevitably result in changes to the banana over and above just this one gene.
 
Coolcats said:
Grommet, I am not debating this if you wish to wholeheartly support GM foods I recognise that is your view. GMO is not all good if you wish to support the USA approach I recognise this is your perspective.

In good old east Anglia we have farms that are owned by big commercial conglomerates, they farm right up to the edges of the fields, hardly any hedgerow and little wildlife I am sure they will have lots of Dr Norman Borlaug seeds in them and will be highly profitable. But as the quote attributed to the Native American Indians 'You cannot eat Money'

A farmer friend has a more sustainable farm with hedgerows, areas that have woods and grows diverse crops, he avoids pesticides, because his is a diverse farm (wildlife and crops) with smaller fields the produce is managed and organically grown. Its not all about maximising yield but sustainability.

Its a Different view but an amazing landscape that is managed for both wildlife and crops......and profitable

Thats it I am out of this one.
Click to expand...

You are mixing things up again. I have NEVER said I wish to support the USA approach. In fact I said the opposite. I am against the monsanto route.

As for the farm with little hedgerow and little wildlife. I have not said anything that should lead you to presume we should go down that route.

I want to see more natural farming practices supported by limited, well regulated genetic engineering where it is required.

The monsanto product is not what I want to see. This is a grain deliberately engineered to be able to survive glyphosphate pesticides. This allows them to sell more glyphosphate (roundup) and this strips the land of it's wildlife. I do NOT want to see GM used for this purpose.

I want to see it used to allow plants to protect themselves directly from pests without having to use pesticides. I want to see it used to enhance yield so that more food can be grown on less land, or on land previously unsuitable for cropping. I want to see it make things better for mankind not to give a company a vast profit at the expense of the farmers and the environment.

A well regulated system of GM approvals is what is required. Not an outright ban or a free for all.

Seriously read up on Norman Borlaug. It is an incredible story and the effects have been 100% positive for the world.
 
Gromett said:
Coolcats

Let me give you a real world example of genetic engineering that is for the good, but the EU ban prevents it being rolled out.

There is a disease hitting the Cavendish strain of bananas caused by a fungi. This is devastating large swathes of the third world which relies on sales of the bananas for much of it's income.

There is a GM version of this banana which is resistant to this fungus. But the farmers can't use it because the produce would then be banned from the EU. Pesticides don't work...

It is entirely possible that the banana may become an extremely rare treat in the EU in the future as this disease spreads around the world.

What this genetic engineered version does is take the RGA2 gene from another species of banana that is resistant to this fungus and transplant it into the Cavendish variety. Doing this the natural way would take decades and will inevitably result in changes to the banana over and above just this one gene.
Click to expand...
But Not everyone has that perspective brighter minds in the EU and UK than ours wanted to Ban the roll out for good reasons. I know you are holding up Dr Norman Borlaug as a genius but is this true? what is the actual experience on the ground, rather than a nice you tube video?

​

An Introduction to Green Revolution​

Norman Borlaug

American agronomist, Dr Norman Borlaug
The Green Revolution was started in India by then Prime Minister Late Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri, who gave the slogan of “Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan”, according to which, to make the country powerful from a security point of, view, is the responsibility of the soldiers while making it self sufficient in the field of food grains, is the responsibility of the farmers.

American agronomist, “Father of the Green Revolution” and Nobel laureate, Dr. Norman Borlaug (left) advising a farmer on wheat development programs during his visit to Bombay on March 14, 1971.

Shortcomings, Failure, and Criticism of Green Revolution In India​

Some critics are of the view that the Green revolution has not been very successful in India. It has benefited only some limited farmers. Due to the preference is given to some areas, regional inequalities have arisen. The use of excessive fertilizers has made the land useless. Criticism of Green Revolution is as follows:

  1. Increase in Unemployment​

    In the rural areas due to extensive agricultural programs, mechanization has been rapid, which has increased unemployment. It is inappropriate for countries like India, where unemployment is already a problem. In this way, unemployment is increasing in rural areas.

  2. More Dependence on Fertilizers​

    In this agricultural policy, the use of fertilizers is given more importance than irrigation, which is not appropriate because in the absence of irrigation, fertilizers have no use. Due to this reason, the fertility of land has decreased in some areas.

  3. Economic Inequalities​

    The benefit of the Green revolution has been received mainly by the prosper farmers. The poor farmers have not benefited from this policy. It has enhanced the economic inequalities.

  4. Regional Inequalities​

    Under the Green Revolution movement, the implementation of agricultural resources was aimed only in naturally favorable areas, due to which some areas developed and some places were not given any attention. This increased regional difficulties. The prosper areas became more prosper and the backward became more backward.

  5. Benefited only a Few Crops​

    The green revolution has been successful only on a few crops, especially wheat, rice, maize, jwar, and baajra. No work has been done for other crops. Specially relating to crops like cotton or sugarcane etc..

  6. Difficulty in Storage​

    The progress of agriculture has given rise to an additional problem of storage. At present, the storage capacity of our country is 2.5 crore tons, which is not sufficient with regard to production.

  7. Lack of Experience​

    Due to the unavailability of scientifically developed seeds in India, farmers have been lacking experience with them. What effect these modem resources would have on Indian conditions, is not known certainly. Working without experience is like walking without knowing the path, where the possibility of going in the wrong direction is more.

  8. Difficulties in the Use of Modern Techniques​

    Most of the Indian farmers have small lands, hence they have problems in using the modern equipment designed for big lands. In this way, these farmers have remained acquitted from the benefits of the green revolution.

Suggestions for Improvement​

<Broken link removed>
Green Revolution
  1. The small farmers should be provided credit facilities at lower interest rates than the big farmers.
  2. Modern techniques should be made profitable for small farmers.
  3. The land development programs should be made effective and activated on a large scale.
  4. The marketing system of agriculture should be improved.
  5. To solve the problem of unemployment due to the increased use of instruments and machines the small and cottage industries should be rapidly developed.
  6. The labor-intensive techniques should be given preference.
  7. An improved variety of seeds should be developed.
  8. Crop insurance should be started on a large scale for farmers.
  9. The education, research, and expansion services should be developed in villages
  10. Irrigation facilities should be expanded.
  11. Landless laborers and farmers should be united.
  12. Programs for plant protection should be expanded.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Coolcats said:
But Not everyone has that perspective brighter minds in the EU and UK than ours wanted to Ban the roll out for good reasons. I know you are holding up Dr Norman Borlaug as a genius but is this true? what is the actual experience on the ground, rather than a nice you tube video?

​

An Introduction to Green Revolution​

Norman Borlaug

American agronomist, Dr Norman Borlaug
The Green Revolution was started in India by then Prime Minister Late Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri, who gave the slogan of “Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan”, according to which, to make the country powerful from a security point of, view, is the responsibility of the soldiers while making it self sufficient in the field of food grains, is the responsibility of the farmers.

American agronomist, “Father of the Green Revolution” and Nobel laureate, Dr. Norman Borlaug (left) advising a farmer on wheat development programs during his visit to Bombay on March 14, 1971.

Shortcomings, Failure, and Criticism of Green Revolution In India​

Some critics are of the view that the Green revolution has not been very successful in India. It has benefited only some limited farmers. Due to the preference is given to some areas, regional inequalities have arisen. The use of excessive fertilizers has made the land useless. Criticism of Green Revolution is as follows:

  1. Increase in Unemployment​

    In the rural areas due to extensive agricultural programs, mechanization has been rapid, which has increased unemployment. It is inappropriate for countries like India, where unemployment is already a problem. In this way, unemployment is increasing in rural areas.

  2. More Dependence on Fertilizers​

    In this agricultural policy, the use of fertilizers is given more importance than irrigation, which is not appropriate because in the absence of irrigation, fertilizers have no use. Due to this reason, the fertility of land has decreased in some areas.

  3. Economic Inequalities​

    The benefit of the Green revolution has been received mainly by the prosper farmers. The poor farmers have not benefited from this policy. It has enhanced the economic inequalities.

  4. Regional Inequalities​

    Under the Green Revolution movement, the implementation of agricultural resources was aimed only in naturally favorable areas, due to which some areas developed and some places were not given any attention. This increased regional difficulties. The prosper areas became more prosper and the backward became more backward.

  5. Benefited only a Few Crops​

    The green revolution has been successful only on a few crops, especially wheat, rice, maize, jwar, and baajra. No work has been done for other crops. Specially relating to crops like cotton or sugarcane etc..

  6. Difficulty in Storage​

    The progress of agriculture has given rise to an additional problem of storage. At present, the storage capacity of our country is 2.5 crore tons, which is not sufficient with regard to production.

  7. Lack of Experience​

    Due to the unavailability of scientifically developed seeds in India, farmers have been lacking experience with them. What effect these modem resources would have on Indian conditions, is not known certainly. Working without experience is like walking without knowing the path, where the possibility of going in the wrong direction is more.

  8. Difficulties in the Use of Modern Techniques​

    Most of the Indian farmers have small lands, hence they have problems in using the modern equipment designed for big lands. In this way, these farmers have remained acquitted from the benefits of the green revolution.

Suggestions for Improvement​

<Broken link removed>
Green Revolution
  1. The small farmers should be provided credit facilities at lower interest rates than the big farmers.
  2. Modern techniques should be made profitable for small farmers.
  3. The land development programs should be made effective and activated on a large scale.
  4. The marketing system of agriculture should be improved.
  5. To solve the problem of unemployment due to the increased use of instruments and machines the small and cottage industries should be rapidly developed.
  6. The labor-intensive techniques should be given preference.
  7. An improved variety of seeds should be developed.
  8. Crop insurance should be started on a large scale for farmers.
  9. The education, research, and expansion services should be developed in villages
  10. Irrigation facilities should be expanded.
  11. Landless laborers and farmers should be united.
  12. Programs for plant protection should be expanded.
Click to expand...

What an inarticulate and rubbish blog post. It is talking about the green revolution in India NOT what Borlaug did.



How about you look at the facts as to what he did and what it achieved. You do like to wander off topic to avoid the point don't you :p

Due to Borlaugs work, Wheat yield more than doubled in India, Pakistan, Mexico and many other countries. The cost of wheat and flour to consumers fell dramatically...
 
movan said:
I just hope we don't start using nicotinoids again... we were forced to stop by the EU.
Click to expand...
And, predictably, the Govt has just given the go ahead for them to be used to coat sugar beet seeds (not at all related to big donations from the sugar industry to the Conservative party . . . ). To be fair, this is supposed to be in exceptional circumstances (yeah, right) and some EU countries have just done the same thing. Sadly, profit before planet every time.
 
Gromett said:
What an inarticulate and rubbish blog post. It is talking about the green revolution in India NOT what Borlaug did.



How about you look at the facts as to what he did and what it achieved. You do like to wander off topic to avoid the point don't you :p

Due to Borlaugs work, Wheat yield more than doubled in India, Pakistan, Mexico and many other countries. The cost of wheat and flour to consumers fell dramatically...
Click to expand...
Just because the writer of the blog may not have command of perfect english, it does outline issues that have affected the economic viability for some farmers along with more education/training required. Come on Grommet GM is not totally bad but is not totally good .

Here is another one written in a way that is possibly more favourably to your reading, one thing it does outline is:

Studies on access to and benefits of GM crops show that these vary significantly depending on the political and regulatory setting. Substantial evidence indicates that intellectual property rights (IPR) and the private industry’s dominance limit the access and utility of available GM crops to many farmers.

And another one (and there will be other studies for and against)

Abstract​

As genetically modified (GM) foods are starting to intrude in our diet concerns have been expressed regarding GM food safety. These concerns as well as the limitations of the procedures followed in the evaluation of their safety are presented. Animal toxicity studies with certain GM foods have shown that they may toxically affect several organs and systems. The review of these studies should not be conducted separately for each GM food, but according to the effects exerted on certain organs it may help us create a better picture of the possible health effects on human beings. The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. However, many years of research with animals and clinical trials are required for this assessment. The use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which may promote cancer

Now I am not a geneticist or a scientist in the field of GM, some studies say its fine for humans to consume some like the one above have concerns, unless we need something that is GM other than financial ( such as the covid vaccines) I would say its probably unnecessary I do not want my food modified neither do most people. So there are two issues here 1) IPR and private industry 2) health concerns and 3) Once we loose a crop as it has been GM'd its hard if not impossible to get it back due to cross pollination.

Teflon is an example of a wonder product, the film outlined its development and how big business tried to shut the issues down. Teflon is probably safer today than in the past but that still does not make it safe.
 
Very very interesting comments, excellent reading and points of view, As a retired of 37yrs in the field agronomist within east anglia my hand is held high in response to ? Has the bottom end of the food chain been poisoned by agrochemicals.
During the 1960s the UK government were issuing grants via the Agricultural Board for wide spread hedge removal, drainage, scrub land clearance to make UK agriculture more viable and self sufficient to reduce the importation of Canadian hard wheats for milling for flour along with many other food imports.
Then along came many new pesticide groups, cereal varieties, new machinery and we went into this spiralling increase of yields to the point of over production with wheat mountains, milk lakes and warehouses full of butter which then took a few years to sort out to the point of around now just a few weeks of wheat and food in store.
But it has taken almost this time to now see the environmental costs within the bottom end of the food chain, farmers are not all to blame as they were instructed by the government to go modern or get out. And yes have recently been issued with grants under various schemes to re dig filled in ponds, re plant hedgerows where their fathers were paid to fill in, re plant hedgerows, woodlands and set out new footpath schemes.
Most of the old nasty pesticides are now removed from manufacture and use within Europe either through negative wildlife side effects or resistance of which this is where problems now lie with resistance and cropping rotations have to be set out as if the problems can be controlled rather than what the market requires to be grown.
I sat on many discussions re G M food production many years ago, and we as agronomist could see positives and negatives yes the general public would mostly view as a Frankenstein scenario, but a positive may be a huge reduction in pesticides an example off is potatoes currently most people purchase potatoes via a supermarket.
The supermarket will only market blemish free 100% disease free produce so they will instruct the grower what the pesticides regime will be and the crop will receive a dose of a cocktail many many times if it has a pest or disease problem or not, and this is a contract which producer must adhere to.
Where if you introduce a gene to make the potato blight and aphid resistant you could overnight reduce the pesticide volume by around 80%. This is the same for several crops and as stated the banana may and could become a rare fruit.
We all read about the demise of wild bees for pollination which is a very serious world issue, a friends brother is working on this project out of cambridge and they are well down the road with drone bees to do the work, Human destruction or evolution I’m not sure.
 
Coolcats said:
Just because the writer of the blog may not have command of perfect english, it does outline issues that have affected the economic viability for some farmers along with more education/training required.
Click to expand...

It was not the command of English. It was the points that were inarticulate and rubbish. The issues were either non issues or were political decisions. Nothing in that article got to the heart of any criticisms of India's Green revolution.
The article also did nothing to refute any points I had made.

Coolcats said:
Come on Grommet GM is not totally bad but is not totally good
Click to expand...
EXACTLY!!!! That is the point I have been making from the beginning. Banning something because it "may" be used badly is the wrong move.

We should be legislating and enforcing good systems of use to ensure we get the benefits without the problems like that caused by monsanto.

Seems we finally agree?
 
2GB Racing said:
Very very interesting comments, excellent reading and points of view, As a retired of 37yrs in the field agronomist within east anglia my hand is held high in response to ? Has the bottom end of the food chain been poisoned by agrochemicals.
During the 1960s the UK government were issuing grants via the Agricultural Board for wide spread hedge removal, drainage, scrub land clearance to make UK agriculture more viable and self sufficient to reduce the importation of Canadian hard wheats for milling for flour along with many other food imports.
Then along came many new pesticide groups, cereal varieties, new machinery and we went into this spiralling increase of yields to the point of over production with wheat mountains, milk lakes and warehouses full of butter which then took a few years to sort out to the point of around now just a few weeks of wheat and food in store.
But it has taken almost this time to now see the environmental costs within the bottom end of the food chain, farmers are not all to blame as they were instructed by the government to go modern or get out. And yes have recently been issued with grants under various schemes to re dig filled in ponds, re plant hedgerows where their fathers were paid to fill in, re plant hedgerows, woodlands and set out new footpath schemes.
Most of the old nasty pesticides are now removed from manufacture and use within Europe either through negative wildlife side effects or resistance of which this is where problems now lie with resistance and cropping rotations have to be set out as if the problems can be controlled rather than what the market requires to be grown.
I sat on many discussions re G M food production many years ago, and we as agronomist could see positives and negatives yes the general public would mostly view as a Frankenstein scenario, but a positive may be a huge reduction in pesticides an example off is potatoes currently most people purchase potatoes via a supermarket.
The supermarket will only market blemish free 100% disease free produce so they will instruct the grower what the pesticides regime will be and the crop will receive a dose of a cocktail many many times if it has a pest or disease problem or not, and this is a contract which producer must adhere to.
Where if you introduce a gene to make the potato blight and aphid resistant you could overnight reduce the pesticide volume by around 80%. This is the same for several crops and as stated the banana may and could become a rare fruit.
We all read about the demise of wild bees for pollination which is a very serious world issue, a friends brother is working on this project out of cambridge and they are well down the road with drone bees to do the work, Human destruction or evolution I’m not sure.
Click to expand...

What a fantastic post, Thank you (y).
 
2GB Racing said:
Very very interesting comments, excellent reading and points of view, As a retired of 37yrs in the field agronomist within east anglia my hand is held high in response to ? Has the bottom end of the food chain been poisoned by agrochemicals.
During the 1960s the UK government were issuing grants via the Agricultural Board for wide spread hedge removal, drainage, scrub land clearance to make UK agriculture more viable and self sufficient to reduce the importation of Canadian hard wheats for milling for flour along with many other food imports.
Then along came many new pesticide groups, cereal varieties, new machinery and we went into this spiralling increase of yields to the point of over production with wheat mountains, milk lakes and warehouses full of butter which then took a few years to sort out to the point of around now just a few weeks of wheat and food in store.
But it has taken almost this time to now see the environmental costs within the bottom end of the food chain, farmers are not all to blame as they were instructed by the government to go modern or get out. And yes have recently been issued with grants under various schemes to re dig filled in ponds, re plant hedgerows where their fathers were paid to fill in, re plant hedgerows, woodlands and set out new footpath schemes.
Most of the old nasty pesticides are now removed from manufacture and use within Europe either through negative wildlife side effects or resistance of which this is where problems now lie with resistance and cropping rotations have to be set out as if the problems can be controlled rather than what the market requires to be grown.
I sat on many discussions re G M food production many years ago, and we as agronomist could see positives and negatives yes the general public would mostly view as a Frankenstein scenario, but a positive may be a huge reduction in pesticides an example off is potatoes currently most people purchase potatoes via a supermarket.
The supermarket will only market blemish free 100% disease free produce so they will instruct the grower what the pesticides regime will be and the crop will receive a dose of a cocktail many many times if it has a pest or disease problem or not, and this is a contract which producer must adhere to.
Where if you introduce a gene to make the potato blight and aphid resistant you could overnight reduce the pesticide volume by around 80%. This is the same for several crops and as stated the banana may and could become a rare fruit.
We all read about the demise of wild bees for pollination which is a very serious world issue, a friends brother is working on this project out of cambridge and they are well down the road with drone bees to do the work, Human destruction or evolution I’m not sure.
Click to expand...
nice post and I think your last sentence is where the jury is still out, hopefully Man is not destroying nature we need some of the crop pests as part of the eco system, I believe the issue is that if man destroys one species of pest inadvertently another one will suffer which has a knock on effect. Having read that in Yellowstone park re-introduction of Wolves has helped regenerate and stabilise thier eco system ofter Wolves had been hunted to near extinction.
 
Gromett said:
It was not the command of English. It was the points that were inarticulate and rubbish. The issues were either non issues or were political decisions. Nothing in that article got to the heart of any criticisms of India's Green revolution.
The article also did nothing to refute any points I had made.
Click to expand...

Not if that is the experience of the local farming population, which was also outlined in the swedish paper
Gromett said:
EXACTLY!!!! That is the point I have been making from the beginning. Banning something because it "may" be used badly is the wrong move.

We should be legislating and enforcing good systems of use to ensure we get the benefits without the problems like that caused by monsanto.

Seems we finally agree?
Click to expand...
Until something is proven no harm I do not think wholesale GM is a great idea and that is the case in the US along with Hormone fed beef and intensive farming that goes with it. Trying to unlink Monsanto et.al from GM seeds is a very difficult task and do believe both the UK and Europe have a reasonable balance. (not a total ban but restrictive practice)

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Coolcats said:
Not if that is the experience of the local farming population, which was also outlined in the swedish paper

Until something is proven no harm I do not think wholesale GM is a great idea and that is the case in the US along with Hormone fed beef and intensive farming that goes with it. Trying to unlink Monsanto et.al from GM seeds is a very difficult task and do believe both the UK and Europe have a reasonable balance. (not a total ban but restrictive practice)
Click to expand...

I have said from the beginning and more than once I don't want a free for all or a US style system. Why do you keep trying to represent me as though I do. Where have I said that I think we should have wholesale GM?

EU has a total ban as does the UK currently. The only exception is extremely small test sites. Now we are out of the EU, it is time for a sensible legislative process to decide what is acceptable and what testing and licensing system we want for them.

I think a perfectly reasonable position would be to allow us to import Bananas that are genetically modified to survive the fungus I mentioned above. This will allow those farmers in poor countries who are growing bananas to survive in business.

Currently the EU simply bans all GM products and doesn't even evaluate individual products for risk.
 
monzer said:
Overpopulation is a huge issue as it is. Nobody is starving in this country. Do we really need to be tampering with nature?
Click to expand...

We already tamper with nature in a very bad with with excessive pesticide, fertiliser and other chemicals.

What I am proposing is that we look at genetically modified crops that can protect themselves from pests and thus allow us to stop using all those nasty chemicals which will in turn benefit all wildlife.
 
i have studied and eaten healthily for many years_The food industry is totally corrupt and has been for decades, lying, cheating, its only had to do certain things regarding ingredients and nutritional value because of campaigns leading to law changes. Sugar, salt, artificial ingredients, sweeteners i could go on all night with the list.
it makes me laugh, when you see a food product without all the artificial additives in and just a few ingredients, its then double the price. Right men, take all the additives out and double the price, that will deter them.

Wouldnt it be lovely to have pesticide free and GM free.

Organic-Ask somebody, would you like to eat something thats been grown in nice soi! without pesticides\fertilisers added- Answer, yes please, well thats organic- Arrghh

GM soya has been terrible for the environment, once you start a process where does it end, corners get cut, a bit like meat, good for you in theory until you get the crooks cutting corners and mincing backbones and brains up.

We need to look at a more natural way of food, introducing natural insect predation, educating people on food and the environment and how to be healthy.

You cannot replicate health artificially, you cannot substitute nutrients, vitamins, enzymes by taking a few tablets like some try to or articially modifying food.

Education should start in infants and school, if your naughty and a bad boy\girl i will take you to mcdonalds tonight, make you eat some of that puke.

Right, im off to suck on my garlic clove.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

Join us or log in to post a reply.

To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun

Join MotorhomeFun

Join us, it quick and easy!

Join us

Log in

Already a member? Log in here.

Latest journal entries

Back
Top