Hey no one tell anyone but most of the apples we export are man made. Most of hawks bay is dedicated to just growing apples… That were developed in a lab, and the fact is they can’t grow well without human intervention ( thinning, pruning, etc)…
Let’s not even mention the “organic” pesticides they spray on them that gives you blisters if your in the orchard too long.
So should we just be poor and starve or are we going to actually drop this sharade and try and feed people ?
the fact is they can’t grow well without human intervention ( thinning, pruning, etc)…
That’s a bit of an understatement. If you plant an apple tree from a seed you don’t even get apples like the apple the seed came from. Every apple tree is grafted onto a tree that isn’t even an apple tree.
Let’s not even mention the “organic” pesticides they spray on them that gives you blisters if your in the orchard too long.
People misuderstand the term. “Organic” spray just means not artificial. It’s still poison. (There are more requirements for organic food)
So should we just be poor and starve or are we going to actually drop this sharade and try and feed people ?
20 years ago I supported the GMO free stance. You can’t really undo it, and there was the potential for premium products. Now, I think that either did or didn’t work and we should know by now if the market exists and make a call.
The article talks lots about GMO food, which is a valid consideration.
Is it fair to say that another aspect the article seemed to skip over is the potential for genetic modification, gene drives and so on for possible pest control strategies? Something like Crispr wasn’t even a concept in 1996 when the current legislation was passed.
NZ has some unique pest problems that are likely to need local research for some of the specifics which might be really really useful here in future, but my understanding is that current GMO-blocking legislation kind of knee-caps a lot of that possible research beyond a certain point and makes it really hard, or impossible.
It might be that it’s still appropriate to keep those restrictions in place because these are big decisions with potentially big consequences, or not, but I think it’s something that also needs consideration alongside the food angle.
Yeah, I think genetic modification will play a big role in NZ’s pest strategy at some point in the future. I doubt the technology’s ready yet, especially when it comes to mammals. But it might not be too long until we’re able to do something like the stuff they’re doing with mosquitoes in the US at the moment.
NZ blew it’s chances to become a GMO free country and charge premium for it’s exports to a segment of the world’s population that’s willing to pay significantly more for GMO products.
Now they have to join the race to the bottom and compete with massive exporters of foods like Mexico, Canada, USA, China etc and they all subsidise their agriculture which is putting us at a great disadvantage.
It was a silly law that achieved nothing positive. We consume GM food every day, and there are probably wild gm crops growing in NZ accidently through imports.
But we get no upside. No improved yields or better tasting foods.
TBH it really seems like a very poor article. While I’m actually in favor of revisiting the GMO regulations, this article only presents one point of view, the positive benefits of GMO, and pretty much ignores the potential negatives.
The article doesn’t mention glyphosate. Everyone has their own beliefs about GMO. I personally don’t mind eating GMO crops.
The thing I don’t want is increased levels of pesticide residue on my vegetables. Glyphosate goes hand in hand with GMO crops in other, unregulated, markets.
Add comment