“Some varieties of GM seed are deliberately bred/modified not to produce germinators. Once the harvest is in, the seeds are inert. This is a major change in agricultural practice and food production. It would mean that ‘live’ seed could only be bought from MNCs.”

This is an argument against intellectual property in GM. A good one, IMO.

I haven’t got through all of your extensive additional comments above, but the first few points and the last bit I read seem to be getting to the nub of some critical issues that need to be considered. thanks for providing all this information so clearly.

lots to say on your post (but its late)…..however one quick simple observation……I agree if a GM-free market exists, why then can’t Irish farmers who want to access this market do so using identify preservation systems. These systems exist in many other jurisdictions where GM crops are grown but where farmers can also, by using Id preservation systems, produce labeled non-GM identify preserved crops.

I don’t know the specifics of the case you mention. But it seems worth recalling that each and every GM organism placed into the environment has to go through the regulatory process. Where there is evidence of adverse health or environmental effects, it will not be approved or it will be withdrawn. We are only discussing here whether Ireland should ban the cultivation of those GM varieties which have been approved by the EU process.

nothing here is “an unexplained, worrying, puzzle”….you link to GM is false

extract from another webpage:
The claim that a GM microbe was at fault was made without any evidence. It is a sort of urban legend created by those who oppose GM crops in order to try to discredit them. No cause and effect between a GM microbe and the EMS disease has ever been established nor is there a need to find such a link, because another cause of the illness has been discovered. EMS is a dreadful and distressing illness which has caused a number of deaths. It is very important for people considering unusual diets or dietary supplements to get accurate information where there are real hazards. For some years now, an explanation for the illness has been known to medical scientists. EMS is triggered by consumption of large amounts of the dietary supplement L-tryptophan.

a couple of points
1. It is known that large doses tryptophan itself cause EMS. Since a report by Smith and Garrett in 2005, medical science has known that genetic modification is irrelevant to EMS, and that the supplement itself—that is to say consuming large amounts of L-tryptophan, whether or not it was made using genetic manipulation, causes health problems. This has been suspected for many years.

2. EMS is not exclusively associated with GM tryptophan. There are at least two reports in the medical literature of EMS disease caused by L-tryptophan in 1986, well before genetic engineered microbes were used in its manufacture. Tryptophan produced by different companies has also caused EMS.

3. Contaminants in L-tryptophan do not cause EMS. The search for evidence that contaminants in L-tryptophan produced by genetic engineering are toxic has proved fruitless, and there is no actual evidence that these contaminants are harmful.

4. A mechanism by which L-tryptophan could cause EMS has been identified. Metabolites formed from L-tryptophan itself inside the body are implicated in causing the condition known as EMS.

1. The recent remarks of Ciaran Cuffe imply that the government is currently proposing to introduce a voluntary GM-free label only. While the Programme for Government commitment refers to something on the lines of the German label, it seems clear that the government’s intention is that eligibility for the label would be confined to livestock producers who use non-GM feed. The label may be attractive in giving assurance to Irish and overseas supermarkets who want to market meat and dairy products as GM-free. In principle, supermarkets may be willing to pay a premium for this assurance, although the IFA statement referred to in an earlier post expresses scepticism about this. The question for farmers is whether this premium would be reflected back in the price they receive, and whether it would make it sufficiently attractive to pay the higher price for non-GM feed.

2. Recall that, at the moment, any GM food must carry a label stating the fact, so by default anything without the label is already known to the customer to be GM-free. The loophole where this is not the case concerns livestock products fed with GM feed. The fact that the private sector has not stepped in to offer this certification suggests that it may not be profitable to do so. However, there may be a case for the government to attempt to introduce such a label. There will be costs involved (monitoring of farms, etc). As the benefits are entirely private and will be appropriated by farmers, there is no good reason for the taxpayer to pay for these costs. Ideally, the government would outsource the certification to an independent standards agency which would charge producers a small fee for the right to use the label.

3. The idea of banning the use of GM feeds is not on the agenda. In any case, it would not be allowed under current or future EU GM legislation under internal market legislation.

4. The idea of declaring Ireland a GM-free zone (in the context of restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of GM crops which have been authorised by the EU regulatory approvals process) may become live once the new EU legislation proposed by the Commission has been approved by the Council and European Parliament this autumn. There will be two, quite different, routes for this.

5. The first is under the guidelines for co-existence, where a country can declare an area GM-free where it can show there is risk of contamination of conventional or organic crops which cannot be addressed by other, less restrictive, means. The problem of co-existence should not be dismissed lightly. One or two earlier posts referred to the right to choose, and the issue here is what measures need to be put in place to ensure that those farmers who wish to produce non-GM crops (whether conventional or organic) can continue to do so. The Department of Agriculture and Food produced an extensive report on what would be required in 2005. This report argued that the problem could be addressed without the need for a complete GM ban.

6. The second, more far-reaching route, is there a country can prohibit the cultivation of all or particular GMOs “on the basis of grounds relating to the public interest” which must not invoke health and environment arguments that have been considered in the original approvals process. What these public interest reasons might be is not made explicit, but socio-economic reasons might be accepted as legitimate (although they would also have to be in conformity with the EU’s WTO obligations). The Commission proposal, which may be amended before it finally becomes legislation, simply states “[Member States may restrict or ban the cultivation of GMOs] provided that those measures are based on grounds other than those related to the assessment of the adverse effect on health and environment”.

7. In my original post, I asked whether there was likely to be an economic case to take this step. The Commission is currently undertaking a study of socio-economic factors in the authorisation of GMOs for cultivation and has invited Member States to submit relevant information for this analysis. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government initiated a public consultation earlier this spring (deadline 24 February) to prepare the Irish response to the Commission, but neither this response nor the submissions received have yet been published on the Department’s website.

8. Currently, none of the GM crops approved for cultivation in the EU are grown in Ireland, thus a ban would have no immediate effect. However, we can expect that, with the number of GM events increasing rapidly, a ban would ultimately restrict Irish farmers’ access to more productive, more valuable or less costly crop varieties. Importantly, as Dan pointed out above, a ban would also prevent the field trials necessary to determine the usefulness of particular GM varieties under Irish conditions.

9. The economic argument for a ban is that it would enhance the value of Irish crop production. The main crops affected initially would be cereals, and later potentially fruits, vegetables, trees and maybe grasses. We know there is a premium for GM-free maize and soyabean (this the argument used by the IFA against a ban on imports of non-GM feeds, if this were legal which it is not). But if co-existence indeed is possible, individual farmers could opt to continue to grow the non-GM maize varieties and receive the premium without the need for a wholesale ban.

10. Thus the economic case for a ban on GMs seems to turn on the feasibility of co-existence. If the GM and non-GM varieties can be cultivated and marketed independently, then the protection of non-GM growers can be left to labelling. If co-existence is impossible and one has to opt for one designation or the other, then this decision should be informed by a full analysis of the economic costs and benefits on each side.

There is little interest in in seeking to learn from well-run countries and the gombeenism that has characterised the ongoing confusion about waste management policy, shows that it is still business as usual.

The oldest incinerator in Vienna is also a tourist attraction and the successful Austrian economy with 3.8% rate of unemployment in July, apparently has a comprehensive waste policy that is regarded as a good model.

As to GM, I have not argued that it is panacea for world hunger and the recent experience in the wheat growing region of Australia, shows that the issue of drought tolerant seeds is not one for just poor countries.

However, while the well-fed anti-GM Europeans may not wish to hear about potential benefits in the long-term in challenging agricultural areas facing the risk of climate change, the inconvenient truths should be presented.

The issue of GM for such regions is no different to the work that was initially done in the 1940’s by Norman Borlaug and his colleagues in Mexico and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.

OMG, I left the cat out of the bag that robber baron John D. Rockefeller was the genesis of the Green Revolution!

and I would like a big yellow sticker on my food saying it was produced using a red tractor (in red font please)….

I agree, GM is not a silver bullet for world hunger. To claim is it, is an over simplification. However, it is a very flexible and powerful plant breeding technology that could (and likely will) help (especially when employed by publicly funded research). However, other technologies will be important also (sometime working in tandem with GM). My concern is twofold:
1. if GM technology becomes stigmatized for no good reason but for Green dogma you maybe limiting your options
2. what other technologies in the future could become stigmatized…..certain groups are already attacking certain types of non-GM conventional breeding…

(see [translated from French]…..
Anti-GMO protest in front of a Pioneer research center

AFP-MAIL

MONTECH (Tarn-et-Garonne, France), 26 août 2009 (AFP) – Around 100 demonstrators according to the police, 150 according to the organizers, protested on Wednesday afternoon in front of a research center of the seed company Pioneer in Montech (tarn-et-Garonne) against the development of “hidden GMOs”.

“We ask Pioneer to give up commercializing next year an herbicide resistant sunflower named Expressun” explained Michel Metz, one of the leader of the anti-GMO group (Haute-Garonne).

The car convoy, coming from several regions of France was stopped by the police more than one kilometer away from the Pioneer site. The protestor then walked under a heavy sun to the research center behind a banner “Pioneer, the worst is to come”.

The anti-GM ask the Ministry of Environment to decide a moratorium on this type of mutagen sunflower awaiting an evaluation, they want the European Union to submit these GMOs to the same transparency and evaluation rules than the transgenic corn.” Explained M. Metz

Such a moratorium exists currently for the transgenic corn of Monsanto.

The militants in Montech call “hidden GMO” this mutagen sunflower, which genetic traits are modified by chemical chock or irradiation, but not introduction of a new gene, as it is for transgenic plants.

According to Jean-Baptiste Libouban, another animator of the anti-GMO movement “it is not known at all what will be the consequences of these hidden GMOs on public health”

The organizers of the protest have evocated a “stock of luck” as their action coincided with the judgment on Friday in Béziers (Hérault) of two anti-GMO militants, including José Bové, for uprooting of transgenic corn in 2007.

“The fight against GMO continues, it is entered in a second phase with the struggle against hidden GMOs” they said.

The protesters ensured they want to stay in front of the Pioneer center until the ministry of environment guarantees them an appointment above this question of hidden GMOs.

Questioned on the telephone, Jose Bove explained that “the seed breeding
firms have decided to change their weapon by using new mutagen technologies,
thus they do not need authorizations: with these clandestine GMO’s they try to
circumvent the resistence movement against GMOs”. The ministry of Environment
realises which the firms do not play the game and they should be receptive to
our arguments”, added the European Green representative.

Pionner’s legal director for Europe, Jean Donnenwirth, explained that he “is a
little surprised by the return of this GMO problem since there is a moratorium”.
He ensured that the accused seed “is not GMO”. According to him, “mutagensis has
beed used for nearly 100 years in many vegetable and fruit-bearing species,
there is no reason to question why a sunflower (…) will allow (cause) a major
reduction in use of weedkiller, next year or in two or three years”. “One
clearly tries to make a storm in a glass of water” , he concluded.)

Just half would grow GM crops

By Caitriona Murphy
Irish Independent, Tuesday August 31 2010
ALMOST half of young farmers believe that cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops would be positive for Irish agriculture, the Macra na Feirme survey found.

Some 47.2pc of farmers polled said GM cultivation would be positive but 23.6pc said it would be negative for Irish agriculture.

A large proportion of farmers (29.2pc) said they did not know whether it would be positive or negative.

However, when asked if they would consider growing GM crops, given the choice, 54.9pc of farmers said they would, while 45.1pc said they would not.

Macra president Michael Gowing said young farmers were renowned for embracing new technologies and this was demonstrated by the survey findings on GM.

“It’s time we had a proper and frank debate on GM cultivation, one that is based on science and not emotive arguments,” he insisted.

“We can’t let a scenario continue where the Irish Government abstains on votes on GM at EU level.”

Staying on controversial subjects, farmers were asked if they thought NAMA would succeed or whether it was doomed to fail.

More than half (55pc) of respondents said NAMA was doomed, while 9.9pc supported the move. Over one-third (34.6pc) of farmers said they did not know.

Can you separate the effects of new grains from distributional issues like land reform?

My point is not that increased production wont feed people. My point is that its important where it is grown and how it is distributed. So the use of GM in Brazil is not going to help people in Africa who are hungry due to a man made famine.

If people are truly interested in feeding the world, why not promote the tried and tested techniques like land reform and irrigation. Which do you think is more useful, a GM banana or safe drinking water?

The bottom line appears to be that labelling needs to be improved so that the consumer can clearly see what he is eating. There is no advantage in pursuing a GM free policy if the ultimate consumer is unaware of whether it is GM free or not.

(Personally I would welcome items with GM content to be flagged by a scarlet sticker with exclamation marks instead of the reverse)

Of course there were increases in food production. There is a decreasing marginal benefit of increased food production. The increased cereal production has largely not gone to feed people, but to feed livestock. This does have some benefit in improving diets. However in most of the world it has come to the point that increased food production simply leads to obesity. There is more than enough food in the world, and more than enough even in countries with bad malnutrition. The problem is distribution.

GM crops are not designed to feed the local hungry, but to increase yields of cash crops, because that is where the money is to be made. You don’t get rich from feeding the poor. Would GM corn have solved the Irish Famine? No. There was more than enough corn here at the time and it was exported. The Irish Famine was a problem of distribution.

As for high school debating, saying that GM crops will feed the worlds poor is nothing more than trying to get an emotional response to rationally raised criticism. That and the term ‘poltroon’ is little more than name calling.

As your pseudo suggests, you no doubt favour metallurgic transmorphing over this biological hocus-pocus….

However, I am not arguing that GM should be banned. It may well be effective when applied to localized crop problems but I am not convinced that the world’s food supply will be any more certain, or people better fed, under GM than under conventional farming. Choice and diversity are possibly incompatible with MNCs’ agendas but I’ll stick with them for now.

Of course you are right that we cannot have 100% certainty in food, and I make no pretense at having an in-depth understanding of GMOs, and the associated health risks.

My limited understanding, however, suggests your comparison with Dublin Bay Prawns might be a little facetious. The point about GMOs and health risks is that - unlike the market for potentially dangerous prawns - there are considerable contagion risks with GM crops.

We can have a poisonous prawn market and then decide, whenever we deem the health risk to warrant, that we are going to shut that market down. From what I understand, this cannot be so easily done once we open the door to GMOs.

My wise old grandfather would have said (if I had had a wise old grandfather) : Do not do what you cannot easily undo, without thinking carefully about what else you might do.

Nuclear bombs have shown us that there is just because something is scientifically possible, doesn’t necessarily mean we should do it.

Risks? RISKS!

fecking hell the dumbness of some comments is amazing, if there is a nuclear accident in UK, dont worry will feel it here

not pursuing nuclear options is yet another reflection of how backward looking the Green muppetry is when it comes to science and technology

Very clever indeed or maybe not. You could do well in politics or in high school debating!

You answer my question with 2 questions.

Again, what about Jevon’s paradox? How much of that extra cereal output went to feeding people, and how much to feeding livestock?

“Which do you think is more powerful the IOFGA or MNCs with budgets the size of billions?”

I don’t live in an ideological straitjacket; so the MNCs of course is the answer.

However, I’m not aware that MNCs fund a K Street type operation on food in Ireland.

I asked a question earlier, which wasn’t answered : “As for production, are you saying that production levels without the past benefit of biotechnology would have sufficed with better distribution?”

This is what Norman Borlaug, Father of the Green Revolution said: “For example, the world’s grain output in 1950 was 692 million tons. Forty years or so later, the world’s farmers used about the same amount of acreage but they harvested 1.9 billion tons — a 170% increase! We would have needed an additional 1.8 billion hectares of land, instead of the 600 million used, had the global cereal harvest of 1950 prevailed in 1999 using the same conventional farming methods.”

“the current German requirement for a so-called “GM free” label on meats is that the animal can be fed GM but must have their diet changed to non-GM feed before slaughter. However, feed additives derived from GM sources are still allowed.”

Apart from the fact that no product should be stamped ‘GM free’ if a producer cannot certify that, Ciarán Cuffe’s wish to have Ireland gain a competitive advantage - - a dubious expectation - - has a downside.

With chemicals remaining a big factor in food production, future problems like the dioxin scare in the pig-meat industry, would have the risk of even bringing more attention to a country with a holier than thou strategy.

Besides, a company would hardly risk using a ‘GM free’ label if there was a risk that it could not defend a legal claim to the contrary.

Not to get dragged into debating a different subject (i.e. patent protection extending from gene to whole plant) (I too hail from the UL debating club and long nights of discussion in the Stables..:)) but EU law is very clear on the matter regarding GM crops so the risk of a case similar to the Canadian case is approaching zero (not forgetting the fact that many 1000 of hectares of GM crops have been grown commercially in the EU [e.g. in France, Germany Spain]. Any other legal risk will be similar in case law to the existing plant breeders rights. So, “in essence” GM crops in Ireland on a commercial basis would not “produce a similar case”.

The Supreme Court did hold that the patent was valid, as you say (2004 SCC 34, your link was to the prior ruling at the Federal Court level). However, 4 out of 9 judges dissented and the majority allowed the appeal in part in respect of remedy.

Arbour J. for the minority wrote “In light of Harvard College, I conclude that the patent claims here cannot be interpreted to extend patent protection over whole plants and that there was no infringing use.”

In essence, what I was pointing out was that the introduction of widespread GMO use into Irish agriculture may produce a similar case, not that such a case would necessarily go one way or the other. Perhaps my link to the second article inferred such. I would be interested to hear an Irish patent lawyer’s perspective on the prospects for a similar case. Sadly, despite knowing several Irish barristers, I know none in the patent sphere. Perhaps you are one yourself?

This sounds familiar. The Irish solution to the Irish problem, rely on the Brits to solve our problem while we pretent to be virteous.
- Nuclear Power
- Abortion
- GMO’s

Perhaps we can produce non GMO crops for the pampered middle classes of europe who like to think they are virtous by buying ‘organic’. It could be a USP to add a premium to our goods.
I only say this because we are largely irrelavant globally. GMO’s will be great for the rest of the world.

‘Organic’ is the biggest load of nonsense. Without Nitrogen fertiliser the world would be starving and all wilderness cleared to feed everybody. The Haber process was probably the most important technological advance, that did the greatest good, ever (perhaps antibiotics).

lots…..but overall I in tend to agree with IFA Deputy President Eddie Downey’s point that “Farmers respond to market signals and the evidence is that the great majority of consumers are unwilling to pay any premium for products produced using GM-free feed. The GM-free market is a very small niche market and the experience is that any premium achieved is rapidly eroded as supply increases.” (see IFA website, New section, July 29, 2010)

moreover I would add that so called GM free label (as outlined in the Renewed Prog for Government) that Minister Cuffe is aiming to bring forward is highly dubious. Even the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) are unlikely to be able to support a so called GM-free label on milk and meat as such labelling under EU Directive 2000/13/EC Article 2 is likely considered misleading. As a case in point is the 2004 FSAI statement that:

“The general food labelling Directive clearly states that labelling should not mislead consumers by associating special characteristics with a food when all other similar foods possess the same characteristics. For example, to label milk as “GM free” could mislead consumers to believe that GM milk is available on the market when as yet there is no such product available.”
See GM Food Survey 2004 Food labelled with “GM free” type declarations - page 5

In addition Minister Cuffe is on record as suggesting the proposed GM label will be modeled after the German GM-free label (Sunday Times – Irish edition, July 25, 2010). However, it is known that this German GM-free label is nothing more than misleading marketing spin (members of the current German Government have called it “consumer fraud”) as the current German requirement for a so-called “GM free” label on meats is that the animal can be fed GM but must have their diet changed to non-GM feed before slaughter. However, feed additives derived from GM sources are still allowed. Scientifically this “GM-free” system is meaningless and is thus nothing more than an expensive and misleading marketing tool promoting irrational fear of certain crops and foods.