Gmo Crops Thailand

[Garry9999]

I watched a TV show the other night about the extent of genetically modified crops in The United State currently. It seems most Americans are consuming GMO food on a daily basis.

Would GMO crops be good for Thailand? There is significant potential to increase crop yields and export income.

[yabaaaa]

I watched a TV show the other night about the extent of genetically modified crops in The United State currently. It seems most Americans are consuming GMO food on a daily basis.

Would GMO crops be good for Thailand? There is significant potential to increase crop yields and export income.

There is only one way ......the Thai way.

[Harcourt]

I watched a TV show the other night about the extent of genetically modified crops in The United State currently. It seems most Americans are consuming GMO food on a daily basis.

Would GMO crops be good for Thailand? There is significant potential to increase crop yields and export income.

Whilst I concede that there are benefits to GMOs, I would like to see more long-term studies on their effects. Once a modified gene enters the food chain, we have no idea what it will do down the line (a new protein for example could have effects on brain development in foetuses)...and when the genie is out of the bottle, there is no way of putting it back.

It is, after all, fiddling with evolution.

[Garry9999]

I watched a TV show the other night about the extent of genetically modified crops in The United State currently. It seems most Americans are consuming GMO food on a daily basis.

Would GMO crops be good for Thailand? There is significant potential to increase crop yields and export income.

Whilst I concede that there are benefits to GMOs, I would like to see more long-term studies on their effects. Once a modified gene enters the food chain, we have no idea what it will do down the line (a new protein for example could have effects on brain development in foetuses)...and when the genie is out of the bottle, there is no way of putting it back.

It is, after all, fiddling with evolution.

Have we not been fiddling with evolution for thousands of years by selective breeding?

[farmerjo]

Its not right or wrong of the the farmer to grow it as they have to have an income to make,its up to the consumer what they want to buy,not involved but no like no buy,like easy

[Harcourt]

I watched a TV show the other night about the extent of genetically modified crops in The United State currently. It seems most Americans are consuming GMO food on a daily basis.

Would GMO crops be good for Thailand? There is significant potential to increase crop yields and export income.

Whilst I concede that there are benefits to GMOs, I would like to see more long-term studies on their effects. Once a modified gene enters the food chain, we have no idea what it will do down the line (a new protein for example could have effects on brain development in foetuses)...and when the genie is out of the bottle, there is no way of putting it back.

It is, after all, fiddling with evolution.

Have we not been fiddling with evolution for thousands of years by selective breeding?

No. Selective breeding tends to weed out the undesirable genes and accentuate the dominance of desirable genes that have already evolved.

gene modification creates entirely new genes.

[SlackJawChef]

I watched a TV show the other night about the extent of genetically modified crops in The United State currently. It seems most Americans are consuming GMO food on a daily basis.

Would GMO crops be good for Thailand? There is significant potential to increase crop yields and export income.

Whilst I concede that there are benefits to GMOs, I would like to see more long-term studies on their effects. Once a modified gene enters the food chain, we have no idea what it will do down the line (a new protein for example could have effects on brain development in foetuses)...and when the genie is out of the bottle, there is no way of putting it back.

It is, after all, fiddling with evolution.

Have we not been fiddling with evolution for thousands of years by selective breeding?

Are you kidding... Do you really want Monsanto & Co to own all the corn and soy in Thailand????

You know that "The company" own's the patient to the gene right. and when that gene cross pollinates with the local strains of Corn/soy/ext, that becomes the property of "the company" and if you use it without a license you are in breach of there patient..... it is ruining the lives of farmers in the usa, as if some seed gets on your land (Birds/blown/rented farm equipment) and mixes in with your crop, you can not save your seed to replant the next year, as you had have been for generations..... courts have rules that it does not matter how the seed got on you land in the first place... you are responsible to compensate "the company" for breach of patent..... this is scary stuff... never mind the potential health hazards....

They are now starting to play around with "Terminator technology" .... it makes all plants sterile... meaning you can not save your seed ... but have to buy the seed from

"The Company" every year... now if that cross-pollinates un-knowingly, with the local strains... and the next year a farmer replants... what do you think will happen to him and his family when nothing sprouts....... you wont have to worry about that it will do to the food chain..... don't forget this technology come from the people that brought you DDT...and told you it was safe

If you use Bittorent Look up some of these..:

World According to Monsanto

The.Future.of.Food

Unnatural Selection

Really scary stuff... being able to patent life is a Pandora's box..... And I am sure even Darwin would frown upon this one...

Edited July 8, 2009 by SlackJawChef

[Gerontion]

^ Good post. In the league table of 'Most Evil Corporations in the World", Monsanto is definitely in a Champions League spot and not a company to which you want to be snuggling up.

--

You can see a couple of those films at http://www.filmsforaction.org/films/default.aspx?Subject=16

Edited July 8, 2009 by Gerontion

[thunder30101]

Its a sad fact that with the unchecked population growth occuring in developing countries they have no other option than to make use of gmo's to feed their exploding growth rates. Too bad all the enviromentalists do is say no to gmo's, nuclear energy and other essential needs of the world while ignoring the IMMEDIATE problems facing it.

[robblok]

I watched a TV show the other night about the extent of genetically modified crops in The United State currently. It seems most Americans are consuming GMO food on a daily basis.

Would GMO crops be good for Thailand? There is significant potential to increase crop yields and export income.

Whilst I concede that there are benefits to GMOs, I would like to see more long-term studies on their effects. Once a modified gene enters the food chain, we have no idea what it will do down the line (a new protein for example could have effects on brain development in foetuses)...and when the genie is out of the bottle, there is no way of putting it back.

It is, after all, fiddling with evolution.

Have we not been fiddling with evolution for thousands of years by selective breeding?

Are you kidding... Do you really want Monsanto & Co to own all the corn and soy in Thailand????

You know that "The company" own's the patient to the gene right. and when that gene cross pollinates with the local strains of Corn/soy/ext, that becomes the property of "the company" and if you use it without a license you are in breach of there patient..... it is ruining the lives of farmers in the usa as if some seed gets on your land(Birds/blown/rented farm equipment) and mixes in with your crop you can not save your seed to replant the next year as you had have been for generations..... courts have rules that it does not matter how the seed got on you land in the first place... you are responsible to compensate "the company" for breach of patent..... this is scary stuff... never mind the potential health hazards....

They are now starting to play around with "Terminator technology" .... it makes all plants sterile... meaning you can not save your seed ... but have to buy the seed from

"The Company" every year... now if that cross-polants with the local strains... and the next year a farmer replants... what do you think will happen to him and his family when nothing sprouts....... you wont have to worry about that it will do to the food chain..... don't forget this technology come from the people that brought you DDT...and told you it was safe

If you use Bittorent Look up some of these..:

World According to Monsanto

The.Future.of.Food

Unnatural Selection

Really scary stuff... being able to patent life is a Pandora's box..... And I am sure even Darwin would frown upon this one...

Agreed with this,

You dont want to mess too much with nature and most of all you dont want some corrupt American or any other countries company get so much power. If they can they will squeeze the farmers dry. They are in it for the profit and if they get too powerfull we are all fuc_ked.

I must say part of me likes the idea of GOM but an other part fears it because an commercial company is doing it and we all know that profit comes first not safety. If they can bribe someone or cut some corners they will. With all the disasters that follow.

[Gerontion]

Its a sad fact that with the unchecked population growth occuring in developing countries they have no other option than to make use of gmo's to feed their exploding growth rates. Too bad all the enviromentalists do is say no to gmo's, nuclear energy and other essential needs of the world while ignoring the IMMEDIATE problems facing it.

"A new report released by the Union of Concerned Scentists (UCS) finds that despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields." Read more at http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.c...isplay/id/18022

[thunder30101]

Another UNBIASED report from a group of concerned scientists, maybe al gore is their leader lolololol

[Gerontion]

^ I see the witch-burners are out again.

[mauGR1]

Another UNBIASED report from a group of concerned scientists, maybe al gore is their leader lolololol

thunder,are you high on GMO?Please read carefully the good posts,it doesn't need to be a scientist to understand,the situation could be soon out of control.Not much to joke about that.

[thunder30101]

READ THE FREAKING REPORT yourself !!! get a brain !!! only studied corn and soybean reports hmmm only two dozen studies looked at in twenty years of research hmmm alot of work put in that report, only marginal increases in yields ? define marginal with such a small study group, intrinsic yield ??? (<deleted> is that quantity for a science report ?) Hmmm wanna tell a layman what that is ? oh yes once again sustainable ? and organic farming will save the world im freaking sure. once again someone that says this is no good but hasnt got one viable answer to feeding the 7 billion hungry people on the earth.

[Gerontion]

No need for hysterics, my boy.

1. The article is not the report. It's an article about the report so don't confuse the two.

2. The report deals with soya and corn because they are "the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States".

3. Do you know of important research which they didn't cover? Please post it if you do.

4. "Meanwhile, the report found that Bt corn likely provides a marginal operational yield advantage of 3% to 4% over typical conventional practices. Since Bt corn became commercially available in 1996, its yield advantage averages out to a 0.2% to 0.3% yield increase per year. To put that figure in context, overall U.S. corn yields over the last several decades have annually averaged an increase of approximately 1%, which is considerably more than what Bt traits have provided. " That's one example of marginal.

5. You want to know how to feed the world? Stop eating meat. You'll make more available than all the GMO crops are going to do in the next century.

[bonobo]

GMO products are here to stay.  They make too much commercial sense, and with a growing world population, anything which can be used to feed the masses will be used.

GMO products don't only increase yields. The can eliminate the need for pesticides and other crop additives, cutting the cost of growing and protecting groundwater quality. The can strengthen the stalk so it doesn't bend and break in high winds, thereby saving more crop for harvesting. They can lessen the need for water.

If the US has in fact enacted insane laws to protect the Monsantos of the world, that does not mean that GMO crops are bad, only US policy is bad.  Do you really think that if Ethiopia is facing famine, they will care one whit whether Monsanto "owns" the crop patents or not?  They will grow what they can, feed, their people, and thumb their nose at Monsanto. Companies worldwide do it all the time with pharmaceuticals, so why would it be any different with food?

[Gerontion]

Huh? The post directly above yours shows that they don't significantly increase yields. And a large part of the GMO project is producing crops ('roundup-ready') which can tolerate huge doses of toxins; the point of GMO crops is precisely to increase use (and hence profits) of agro-business profits, particularly herbicides, and insecticides. As for "cutting the cost of growing", that's pure fantasy. Monsanto aren't in this to get less money - for the reasons I've just stated, they're going to extract more money from farmers. And as for food security in lesser developed nations, this is caused by a variety of factors. Population growth is one but so is climate change (induced in large part by the US and Europe) as is the pressure to produce cash crops for export and as is the existence of grossly unfair international trading arrangements. Poverty and food insecurity are to a very large measure the exports of the (misnamed) developed world. If you want to end hunger in poor nations, you won't get very far by protecting the interests of trans-national corporations.

[bonobo]

Huh? The post directly above yours shows that they don't significantly increase yields. And a large part of the GMO project is producing crops ('roundup-ready') which can tolerate huge doses of toxins; the point of GMO crops is precisely to increase use (and hence profits) of agro-business profits, particularly herbicides, and insecticides. As for "cutting the cost of growing", that's pure fantasy. Monsanto aren't in this to get less money - for the reasons I've just stated, they're going to extract more money from farmers. And as for food security in lesser developed nations, this is caused by a variety of factors. Population growth is one but so is climate change (induced in large part by the US and Europe) as is the pressure to produce cash crops for export and as is the existence of grossly unfair international trading arrangements. Poverty and food insecurity are to a very large measure the exports of the (misnamed) developed world. If you want to end hunger in poor nations, you won't get very far by protecting the interests of trans-national corporations.

Sorry, but you are under some misconceptions. While the seed grain producers of the world are in the business to make money, they don't particularly care if the chemical giants make their money with tons of herbicides and fertilizers.  And while crop yields may not have increased much in America's heartland, where growing is easy (although it has lowered the cost of growing by eliminating the need of pesticides, not by increasing them, although the "Round-up-ready," as you put it, has been one branch of GMO crops).  One of the first major victories of GMO crops was when traditional crop modifications for grain aimed at the northeastern African fields made grain with too full heads, which then caused the stalks to bend and break. GMO came in and used a non-grain gene to shorten and strengthen the stalk so that it could support the grain head.

GMO's are not yet the panacea that some claim them to be, but neither are they the Frankenstein disasters that others contend them to be. With adequate testing and regulation, there is no known reason to date which would preclude the use of GMO crops, and there are plenty of reasons to use them.

You are correct though, in naming other factors as contributing to a lack of food security. These do need to be addressed. But GMO crops are just one more potential tool with which to fight the fight.

Edited July 8, 2009 by bonobo

[thunder30101]

I give up geronimo you da man lets all just stop eating meat and save the freaking world. One report and god has spoken. and those dam_n americans are taking over the world again, someone please save me from myself.

[Harcourt]

"GMO's are not yet the panacea that some claim them to be, but neither are they the Frankenstein disasters that others contend them to be. With adequate testing and regulation, there is no known reason to date which would preclude the use of GMO crops, and there are plenty of reasons to use them..." (Bonobo).

Actually, there is a very good reason to preclude the use of GMO crops: Nobody knows the downstream affect of GMO's on the food chain.

For something that can't be reversed, it is wiser to err on the side of caution.

Actually, meat IS the least efficient form of food production in terms of resources used vs calorific/nutrient output......Nonetheless, I am a dedicated carnivore

[bonobo]

"GMO's are not yet the panacea that some claim them to be, but neither are they the Frankenstein disasters that others contend them to be. With adequate testing and regulation, there is no known reason to date which would preclude the use of GMO crops, and there are plenty of reasons to use them..." (Bonobo).

Actually, there is a very good reason to preclude the use of GMO crops: Nobody knows the downstream affect of GMO's on the food chain.

For something that can't be reversed, it is wiser to err on the side of caution.

Actually, meat IS the least efficient form of food production in terms of resources used vs calorific/nutrient output......Nonetheless, I am a dedicated carnivore

We regulalry partake of products which we aren't sure of the downstream effects.  Drugs are one such example.  Long-term side effects of drugs canot be determined for long periods of time, but for sufferers of various diseases, the possible deleterious side effects are outweighed by the need not to die from the disease.

When faced with starvation, which we ar certain of the effects that has, a GMO crop which is designed to grow where climate change or other factors make traditional crops untenable, becomes a viable solution.

Someone else posted above decrying the use of sterile crops as just a money-making tool of the evil mulit-nationals.  However, if the crops are sterile, then there won't be a foreseeable permanent effect one way or the other. When the crop is harvested or just whithers on the vine, that is it for that strain of crop. It is finished.

Technology is what has kept Malthus' dire predictions from occuring, but as the population continues to rise, and as global warming changes weathter patterns, technology has to step up and continue to increase food-making capability.  All technology can be harmful. Nuclear power is clean, non-polluting energy which does nto contribute to global warming, but Cherynoble shows the dangers in it.  Wind power is clean, yet is can kill raptors. Dams can break. X-rays can cause cancer.  And so on. We should do our best to try and make sure our technology is as safe as we can make it, but we shouldn't avoid it because it is scary or we don't understand it.

[Harcourt]

"GMO's are not yet the panacea that some claim them to be, but neither are they the Frankenstein disasters that others contend them to be. With adequate testing and regulation, there is no known reason to date which would preclude the use of GMO crops, and there are plenty of reasons to use them..." (Bonobo).

Actually, there is a very good reason to preclude the use of GMO crops: Nobody knows the downstream affect of GMO's on the food chain.

For something that can't be reversed, it is wiser to err on the side of caution.

Actually, meat IS the least efficient form of food production in terms of resources used vs calorific/nutrient output......Nonetheless, I am a dedicated carnivore

We regulalry partake of products which we aren't sure of the downstream effects. Drugs are one such example. Long-term side effects of drugs canot be determined for long periods of time, but for sufferers of various diseases, the possible deleterious side effects are outweighed by the need not to die from the disease.

When faced with starvation, which we ar certain of the effects that has, a GMO crop which is designed to grow where climate change or other factors make traditional crops untenable, becomes a viable solution.

Someone else posted above decrying the use of sterile crops as just a money-making tool of the evil mulit-nationals. However, if the crops are sterile, then there won't be a foreseeable permanent effect one way or the other. When the crop is harvested or just whithers on the vine, that is it for that strain of crop. It is finished.

Technology is what has kept Malthus' dire predictions from occuring, but as the population continues to rise, and as global warming changes weathter patterns, technology has to step up and continue to increase food-making capability. All technology can be harmful. Nuclear power is clean, non-polluting energy which does nto contribute to global warming, but Cherynoble shows the dangers in it. Wind power is clean, yet is can kill raptors. Dams can break. X-rays can cause cancer. And so on. We should do our best to try and make sure our technology is as safe as we can make it, but we shouldn't avoid it because it is scary or we don't understand it.

Good points in the first and third paragraphs. I have no arguments. I agree.

2nd paragraph, however: The sterile crops would be perpetuated by the patent owners production process....a cornered market because the growers can't reap seed stock.

I agree with the commercial aspect of the arguments against GMOs, but I am mainly concerned with the potential biological effects.... (and in so saying will become a fringe-lunatic tree hugging, sandal-wearing, conspiracy theorist hippy, in some people's eyes. Believe me, I am not. But whatever... )

As an atheist, I strongly believe in evolution. We have evolved slowly. Any sudden changes can be catastrophic (ironically, as evidenced by the effect of climate change on some crops and populations).

Take proteins as an example. I forget how many different proteins there are, but different proteins have different affect on the body. Scientist are continually discovering that proteins have all sorts or reactions in the body, not just building muscle. Some proteins are toxic.

A GMO could feasably be the source of a new protein in the food chain.

Not just proteins...any new molecule has the potential to be a catastrophe.

Imagine if HIV was slower to produce symptoms. Most of the members of this forum would have it now because it would'nt have been discovered until it had permeated the general population. Now imagine a protein that causes genetic damage to sperm.....

Yeah, it's a bit out there.

For most people it would be a matter of risk vs gain...as with me. I just see the enormity of the potential risk as being too scary to ignore.....look into the matter further before something irreversible occurs.

In the meantime, GMOs can't be the only answer to a food shortage. We're a smart species....

[Harcourt]

Sorry, I have your paragraph numbers out ....I didn't see the first paragraph.... I was refering to the last 3 as 1,2,3.

[Crushdepth]

Almost all the genetic gains in domesticated crops and livestock have been through conventional selective breeding. There's not much you can do with GMOs that you can't do the old fashioned way, or through better management practices. I just don't see the need for GMOs at this point, and they certainly aren't a substitute for good crop management.

[SlackJawChef]

If the US has in fact enacted insane laws to protect the Monsantos of the world, that does not mean that GMO crops are bad, only US policy is bad.  Do you really think that if Ethiopia is facing famine, they will care one whit whether Monsanto "owns" the crop patents or not?  They will grow what they can, feed, their people, and thumb their nose at Monsanto. Companies worldwide do it all the time with pharmaceuticals, so why would it be any different with food?

Ethiopia will care if they have to buy Monsantos germination spray....

Someone mentioned that a sterile plant would be good, and solve all the potential problems.... what happens when that gene jumps into the non GMO growing in the field next door....

The problem is the patent.... Do you honestly think Monsanto and the like, give two figs about helping the poor bloated bellied, black baby's, if theres no money in it for them....

Follow the money and see how many top executives from these company's, are the ones that make the law's or receive massif controbutions from Monsanto's lobbyist....... Fund the university's... how un-biast can you be, when if you piss off Monsanto, you no longer have the funding...... what would you do.....

And no I'm sorry, I cant feed all of the starving people in the world.... thats where Darwinism comes in.... or at least the luckiest...... Nature is cruel and the worst are the poeple out to make a profit on other peoples misery......

[Maizefarmer]

SlackJawChef raises what is proably the most relivant point regards GMO crops and Thailand, on Page 1 - that of ownership.

GMO crops come with intellectual property - the intellectual knowledge "built" into the modification that gives the crop whatever advantage it has. In respect of Thialand the big crop would be Roundup Ready maize - corn that is resistant to Roundup herbicide (i.e. you can spray the maize crop to kill weeds and no damage is done to the maize).

That enables increases in crop yields from 30% - 70% - but forces the farmer into buying both the seed and the herbicide from the intellectual property owner - the whole economics of crop production are then controlled by Monsanto, and over time the only seed stock avaliable on a national scale becomes Roundup ready seed stock!

In other words: food production eventually becomes controlled by multi-nationals - a potentially dangerous scenario.

From a health safety perspective, I think the evidence is now pretty overwhelming - its safe to both humans and animals - but what is not yet understood complelty is the long term impact GMO may possibly have on how resistance changes in pests (read as: weeds and insects). What happens when in due course weeds do become resistant to Roundup, and what impact would there be on national crop production if farmers did decide to try and break away from multi-national seed stock domination?

The problems are very similar to those surrounding HIV/anti viral drug production - remember when Thailand decided to break away from recognising the intellectual property rights pertaining to HIV meds, and start producing its own at very much lower cost. Thats fine, but who is going to fund the research if AIDS builds up resistance to current anti-virals? It certainly won't be the multi-nationals if they are faced with countries not willing to respect IP - and it'll be much the same with food production, problem is there'll be no food.

GMO has a lot to offer - what is lacking is internationaly recognised and accepted legislation regards the intellectual property pertaining to GMO. Its lags far behind the possibilities and progress that GMO has to offer. Till those issues are addressed GMO remains a double edged sword with huge potential implications to 3rd world/developing country food production and national security.

[bonobo]

Good post, Maizefarmer.  And I actually agree with much of what you posted, too, Harcourt.

My main point about GMO crops is that they are here and they are not going away.  Instead of doing the "treehugger" route (and I say that tongue-in-cheek as I am rather a treehugger in most regards myself) and try to fruitlessly ban them, we should try to rationally and logically steer the GMO ship to the best ends.

[mahtin]

Back in the early eighties I was unlucky enough to be seated next to a Monsanto VP at dinner.

A memorable line, "What's a few ospreys more or less?"

Evil.

[kimincm]

Back in the early eighties I was unlucky enough to be seated next to a Monsanto VP at dinner.

A memorable line, "What's a few ospreys more or less?"

Evil.

A little off the grain topic,but a lot on Monsanto.

Watch Now!

43 Minutes

"How can you claim a patent on something that already exists? They might as well apply for a patent on sunlight or require a patent and charge license fees to have children." –Christian Jentzsch

The American biotechnology firm, Monsanto, has applied for a patent for pig breeding in 160 countries. The patent is for specific parts of the genetic material of pigs which Monsanto's genetic researchers have decoded. If this patent is granted, pig breeding would be possible with the approval of the company.

Farmers and breeders are naturally alarmed because these genes have long existed in the great majority of their pigs. Using DNA tests they can prove that there is no new invention in the patent applications but that, instead, granting this patent would be to allow a part of nature to fall into the hands of a single company.

Monsanto's influence on the patent offices is huge. If the patent is approved, money will have to be paid to Monsanto for every pig in the world carrying this genetic marker. This has long been the case for certain feedstuffs, such as genetically modified maize. Many farmers in the US have already become dependent on the company. It is not merely a question of money, however, but also a question of the risk posed to consumers. In America, as in Europe, cases of infertility in animals fed with genetically modified maize are becoming increasingly common. No-one yet knows what effects such products are having on humans.