Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

I am in favour of research in the field of molecular genetics. But we need to be very careful about what is done with what we learn. At present there is a business-driven stampede toward the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and unfortunately many of the fears of anti-GMO activists cannot presently be ruled out.

This research field is about much more than foodcrop GMO’s. The broader field extends to things like biological energy production, medicine, computing, and materials science. Very worthwhile and astonishing benefits could flow from this new knowledge and its applications. However, in all of these areas it is vital that we apply the precautionary principle before we take the risk of exposing humans or the environment to GMOs or their products.
[Wikipedia please? I need a definition]
“The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.”

Unfortunately there aren’t too many examples of the precautionary principle being applied anywhere within the modern economic paradigm i.e., GDP growth-at-all-costs. At present the burden of proof is not being placed upon companies like Monsanto to prove that their products are not harmful.

Regarding scientific consensus: I have been to seminars where distinguished (pro-GMO) scientists have heaped scorn on their anti-GMO critic’s and have scathingly “debunked” their criticisms—implying that all this time-wasting opposition could be avoided if only their critics had a basic knowledge genetics/biochemistry. And in fairness to those scientists some of the arguments put to them are just plain ignorant. But I wish these distinguished scientists could make some attempt to take account of all the things they don’t know about the biological systems that they work with. They can see it in the rear-view mirror i.e., they fully appreciate that the last 50 years of research has changed their understanding of their fields beyond recognition, but this never makes them question whether we currently know enough to say with any confidence, that some new GMO creation is safe either for humans or the broader eco-systems upon which we depend. For example, since those seminars that I am referring to above, a whole new field called “epigenetics” has been discovered that is revolutionizing our understanding of human development in ways that are directly relevant to the safety of GMOs.

So why not stick with the traditional foods that have safely nourished human populations for generations? We can improve food production by: increasing the yields/reducing impacts of mainstream agriculture and by implementing & further developing aquaponics, permaculture, and various other forms of sustainable organic food production. And this pretty much sums up my biggest problem with Monsanto’s GMOs: They are a risky solution to a problem that can be solved by implementing and refining safe crops and growing systems that we already know about. The only problem those GMOs really solve is the problem they were designed to solve: boosting Monsanto's short-term profits.

That sums things up pretty damn well Fishtopia....

Had an article in the local paper which essentially said companies with GMO patents don't have to provide seed to independent researchers because US patent law allows them to protect their patent. Unfortunately this also allows them to control what information is available regarding their product and any issues that may have come up during testing.