[Closed] Cameron's science advisers call for expansion of GM crop

fasternotfatter - Member
Is it going to be any tastier than non GM? Will it be considerably cheaper than non GM? Probably not and the only person to benefit will be the farmer. No benefit to me means I am better off sticking with what I already eat.

healthier, less soaked in pesticides and fertilzers though?

conventional crossbreeding by crop companies and farmers has already altered the food you eat from ancestral varieties eaten by the original paleo dieters

To be fair you weren't even aware that it was official UK government policy to support the introduction of GM crops until I pointed it out, so please forgive me if I remain skeptical concerning your expertise on the issue of public opinion and GM crops.

Happy to forgive but I'm not sure where the link between your statements is. I spend lots of time with the public and know a lot about GM, plant and crop science, I don't spend much time reading the news. Maybe I should in future. Anyway, I am grateful that you drew my attention to it.

There is some evidence to suggest that the British public have some understanding of GM crops and are prepared to cautiously support its introduction. And more so than some other countries.

I agree. If you look at what I wrote I said

the number of misconceptions or just plain wrong opinions held (on [b]both sides of the for and against fence[/b]) is staggering.

Shackleton-Member
Wrote.= Why do you think GM is inherently more dangerous and risky?

Well its basically like this. Man made Radioactive material we cannot be exposed to it.
Where as natural Radioactive material we can, such as properties built on natural
Radioactive material in places such as Cornwall, all the people have to do is keep there
properties correctly vented and your OK.

All GM to me is Business Profiteering and basically will be the push for over pricing of
the lower Grade land below Grade 3-4-5 and possibly 6 in which would cause a further problem
for Cattle Farmers for they will need grazing land, in which Grade 3-4-5-6 is.

Have to say thanks for your input and answers to questions on this Top Man

grantway , your radiation analogy is quite confused!

what about going for an x-ray, having radiotherapy for cancer, taking a high altitude flight etc

CHB - Member
Good reasoned debate here bySTW standards!
I pretty much agree with everything Shackleton said.
As a food chemist and organic gardener, I think I have a fair grasp of the issues.
Few bits of info to throw into the debate pot:
If you eat chicken then you are already eating indirectly Food which has GM in the supply chain, most chicken you can buy is fed on GM feed, even small scale farmers of chicken find it virtually impossible to guarantee no gm feed in their chicken.
To repeat again, its not GM per se. Its the application of it that is key. With climate change we need more crops that can fix nitrogen, resist fungi, rusts and other climate fueled diseases . The rise in climate volatility and increase in warmth and average humidity has meant that pests and plant diseases are getting worse every year.

Lastly its bacteria and viruses that scare me. GM modify them and we are in trouble. GM modify a sheep and if you get it wrong then you can point at it in the field and turn it into lamb kofta.

Generally I believe that we need to research the science on this, but ensure big companies dont abuse positions.

.
Interesting I was lead to believe that Chicken Farmers actually use Fish as a feed to beef them up faster than normal type of feed. And the Chicken Farmers have to be careful on how much Fish is given, as to much Fish will make the Eggs taste of Fish.

The above is not the Organic Chicken Farmers.

There is some evidence to suggest that the British public have some understanding of GM crops and are prepared to cautiously support its introduction. And more so than some other countries.

I agree.

So why were you backing up poah's unsubstantiated claim that "the majority of the people don't actually understand the process of GM and sadly believe rubbish that is printed" ?

Kimbers if you can prove there wont be an evolutionary reaction to an environmental change and/or you can predict what it will be then i will retract my objection.

All human activity and advancement causes environmental change. I found your post funny to begin with and then I realised that you were actually being serious.

Shackleton has single handily refuted every one of your assertions. It's luddites with this attitude, who despite all evidence contrary to their own opinions, will carry on retarding the advancement of human technology in an almost religious fashion.

kimbers - Member
grantway , your radiation analogy is quite confused!

what about going for an x-ray, having radiotherapy for cancer, taking a high altitude flight etc

Kimbers both of your comments are Man Made !

sorry the tangent here, but grantway, its not necessarily they type of radiation you receive (though that is important) its the dosage

[img] [/img]

[b]a_a [/b]- Interesting paper, nice work.

When you consider the introduction of completely different genes the consequences could be massive.

It could be a case where growing GM desiree potatoes with resistance to blight behave much more similarly to normal desiree than growing non-GM maris piper. Which would be "better" for the soil ecosystem?

An entirely new variety of potato could be much worse for the soil ecology but would have very little in the way of checks done under current legislation.

What is also starting to happen to get around GM legislation is using chemicals to mutagenise seed to screen for new traits of interest. This doesn't count as GM as mutations happen all the time, all that is hapening is it is being sped up. It doesn't have to be declared as far as I am aware and so you would never know if it was being grown, eaten, etc. but has the potential (although ultimately unlikely) to disrupt or alter every gene in an organism. Is it better to speed natural selection on this way? I think there is much more potential here for really screwing things up.

[b]Grantway[/b] - I agree, some GM is business led. Much of the research where I work is not. I think the arguments here can be viewed in a similar light to the Pharmaceutical companies vs generic drugs. It all depends on who owns the IP and how that IP is used.

What is also starting to happen to get around GM legislation is using chemicals to mutagenise seed to screen for new traits of interest. This doesn't count as GM as mutations happen all the time, all that is hapening is it is being sped up. It doesn't have to be declared as far as I am aware and so you would never know if it was being grown, eaten, etc. but has the potential (although ultimately unlikely) to disrupt or alter every gene in an organism. Is it better to speed natural selection on this way? I think there is much more potential here for really screwing things up.

+1

Grantway - I agree, some GM is business led. Much of the research where I work is not. I think the arguments here can be viewed in a similar light to the Pharmaceutical companies vs generic drugs. It all depends on who owns the IP and how that IP is used.

If all drugs were manufactured by generic producers, who would have the massive capital needed to invest in R&D? Research costs money.

Kimbers you had completely mist my point.
But even your graph is not really giving the full story on Radiation levels.

Such as flying as you have pointed in your graph.
Has Cosmic Radioactive Exposure is more if you go closer towards the Sun or if you went on a longer.
flight or dependent on the Solar activity.
But as the Average person only flies twice or Fours times a year then you shouldn't be concerned.

But moving on.

If all drugs were manufactured by generic producers, who would have the massive capital needed to invest in R&D? Research costs money.

Universities and Research Institutes through national funding councils? Comparatively speaking getting a crop to market is much cheaper than a new pharmaceutical. Companies would still need to be involved but the dynamic and direction of research could (and should IMO) be different compared to corporate behemoths able to go it alone like Syngenta and Monsanto. Increased costs to farmers to buy seed, etc may also be offset by reduced costs in terms of spraying, etc. and all attendant expenses.

niversities and Research Institutes through national funding councils? Comparatively speaking getting a crop to market is much cheaper than a new pharmaceutical. Companies would still need to be involved but the dynamic and direction of research could (and should IMO) be different compared to corporate behemoths able to go it alone like Syngenta and Monsanto. Increased costs to farmers to buy seed, etc may also be offset by reduced costs in terms of spraying, etc. and all attendant expenses.

Good luck convincing the government and the public to fund billions if not trillions in science R&D, to make up for an industry funding shortfall.

[url= http://www.hortweek.com/news/1281153/GM-Desiree-potatoes-shown-late-blight-resistance/ ]This potato variety[/url] came out of a couple of PhD studentships and a research grant (nothing to do with me though). Now about to go into partnership with industry to get it to market. Total cost to the UK to date is under 1 million. Potential revenue back to the UK through a share in profits, who knows. Admittedly it isn't market ready but a company is now prepared to invest to get it there so it seems like a good business model.

Academia does proof of concept work, Industry picks up when commercialisation is required but with Academic Institutions retaining at least a share if not all of the IP.

Well its basically like this. Man made Radioactive material we cannot be exposed to it.
Where as natural Radioactive material we can,

[img] [/img]

Well its basically like this. Man made Radioactive material we cannot be exposed to it.
Where as natural Radioactive material we can, such as properties built on natural
Radioactive material in places such as Cornwall, all the people have to do is keep there
properties correctly vented and your OK.

[img] [/img]

No you aren't, I believe that for starters, places with high background levels of radiation have higher rates of birth defects.

I think this is the could be thel reason why David Cameron is pushing for the GM exercise as His
father in law is a Farm owner and believe its more to do with the value of actual farm land.

As the farm land is valued on the Grade IE: 1-2-3-4-5-6 under todays Farming methods

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Land_Classification ]Sole Grading[/url]

So introduce GM and you could start to Farm on the lower Grade soil, as you have
Modified the plant to grow in poor quality of soil and then in return will increase the
Price/Value of the lower grade of land Equals BIG BUCKS.

Ton W1987
Think you need to do your home work.

[url= http://hps.org/hpspublications/articles/pregnancyandradiationexposureinfosheet.html ]Please read and learn[/url]

[url= https://www.safety.duke.edu/RadSafety/fdose/fdrisk.asp ]And a little more[/url]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0531513104017492

Mortality slightly higher for women.

Interesting Tom_W1987 thanks for the info but it seems that these people seem to have been drinking
the water and eating off the Radiactive areas, which isn't in your Link.

[url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4030667/ ]This goes deeper to your info on Background Radioactive Land.[/url]

Also i had referred to Cornwall, and doubt the people there live of the Radioactive land.
but thanks for the information

Cornwall would be Radon gas right? If the population there aren't well ventilating their houses then I would expect an increase albeit insignificant in mortality and birth defects.

I found a really nice study years ago in China that had found an interesting link between birth defects and radon gas, I just can't find it for the life of me now.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16538937

I wonder, how much does ventilating actually help?

Tom_W1967
At the end of the day you can still live with it, where as if your exposed to Man Made radioactive
Material you cannot. Did I not say that ? And ventilation would help as its Airborne.

But this may help you. [url= http://www.seered.co.uk/radon25.htm ]Radon in the UK[/url]
This is throughout the UK. Its Natural and Doesn't claim near the claims in India/Brazil/Iran to which
live of the contaminated land. and I made no reference too.
So moving on !!

grantway - Member

At the end of the day you can still live with it, where as if your exposed to Man Made radioactive Material you cannot.

Because it's a low level, nothing to do with being "man made". Cancer incidence in uranium miners used to be terrible, that's as natural a radiation source as it gets.

Northwind - Member
grantway - Member
At the end of the day you can still live with it, where as if your exposed to Man Made radioactive Material you cannot.

Because it's a low level, nothing to do with being "man made". Cancer incidence in uranium miners used to be terrible, that's as natural a radiation source as it gets.
.

LOL Theres a huge difference with working directly with it as opposed to naturally
being expelled from the soil. But yes that is very true regarding Uranium miners

So Moving on !!

I think this could be the bigger picture to why David Cameron is pushing for the GM exercise as His
Father in law is a Farm Land Owner and believe its more to do with the value of actual farm land.

As the Farm Land is valued on the Soil Grade IE: 1-2-3-4-5-6 under todays Farming methods

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Land_Classification ]Farm Land Soil Grading[/url]

So introduce GM and you could start to Farm on the lower Grade soil, as you have
Modified the plant to grow in poor quality soil and then in return will increase the
Price/Value of the lower grade of land Equals BIG BUCKS.

Forgetting David being a nasty man - he is a politician, what did you expect ? the last long term labour one turned out so well .....

I do find it very interesting that [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding ]Radiation mutation[/url] is supported by the organic associations whereas Gm isn't - I find it odd that bringing about random "natural" mutations is seen as acceptable, whereas a carefully spliced in change is not.

Lets face it we have been doing this for centuries just through breeding, and if we can do it properly (Golden rice project) we should go ahead with decent trials and regulate to stop the obvious money grabbing stuff (terminator stuff)

People who don’t like GMO should carefully at the cheese they eat.

GM is such a broad technology it really should be looked at on a case by case basis.
In theory I am massively in favour of research and fairly positive about using the tech in food. But I also think we cn rely on big business and government to screw it up.

Anyway only a crazy person would think that human innovation could stand up to our massive consumption and population growth and diminishing exploitable energy. I just need it to hold together for another 40ish years.

ernie_lynch - Member

Have you got some evidence to back up the claim that "the majority of the people don't actually understand the process of GM and sadly believe rubbish that is printed"

grantway - Member

Well its basically like this. Man made Radioactive material we cannot be exposed to it. Where as natural Radioactive material we can, such as properties built on natural Radioactive material in places such as Cornwall, all the people have to do is keep there properties correctly vented and your OK.

😆

So you still can't come up with evidence that "the majority of the people don't actually understand the process of GM and sadly believe rubbish that is printed", despite having had since yesterday to find some ?

And it's not like you're ignoring the question, twice now you've copied and pasted my question but fail to provide evidence.

But perhaps your comment is just based on a hunch after talking to people down the pub ? That's not very "scientific" is it ? 🙂

Really liking this thread. Good input, with very helpful feedback from Shackleton
and the quality structural holding of ernie lynch in which I welcome back
Quality

[i]So you still can't come up with evidence that "the majority of the people don't actually understand the process of GM and sadly believe rubbish that is printed", despite having had since yesterday to find some ?

[/i]

Tell you what ernie. Why don't you come up with some convincing evidence that the majority of the people DO actually understand the process of GM and DON't believe rubbish that is printed?

Licking Shakleton's posts. Feel I've actually learned something about GM there.

Licking Shakleton's posts.

I'm finding them educational too, but I'm not sure I'd go that far 🙂

Tell you what ernie. Why don't you come up with some convincing evidence that the majority of the people DO actually understand the process of GM and DON't believe rubbish that is printed?
.

Hold up Somewhat ernie lynch is asking for the information as obviously ernie lynch cannot find it.
Lest keep this Thread to a correct level here as this can change our lives for the good or for the worst
for ever !!.

One thing that worries me is that with Nature everything on this planet adapts and changes with the environment.
Where as any thing that is man made doesn't, and which is the worrying thing that this as your hopping
for a scientist to come up with something to correct a folk up.
And how long could it be or simply never .

And the end of this is our Food chain !

One thing that worries me is that with Nature everything on this planet adapts and changes with the environment.
Where as any thing that is man made doesn't, and which is the worrying thing that this as your hopping
for a scientist to come up with something to correct a folk up.
And how long could it be or simply never .

And the end of this is our Food chain !

What makes you think a GM modified crop wouldn't "change with the environment"?

Molgrips
Because it can't its modified for the reason its been modified ! have found nothing that says it adapts.
And if it does then that could be catastrophic as you have no control over it ?
But have to say this would be some thing that Shackleton could possibly confirm.

Tell you what ernie. Why don't you come up with some convincing evidence that the majority of the people DO actually understand the process of GM and DON't believe rubbish that is printed?

I haven't made any claims regarding the British public's perception of GM crops, poah has.

I think it's quite reasonable to ask for claims to be backed up by evidence.

Or should we base our opinions on a thread about GM crop on merely hunches and guesses ?

I assume they mean , as did i, that if we say use a potato blight resistant potato that the blight/other pathogens will adapt rather than the potato and we would design something new to beat this pest etc
Personally I still do not want to pit our use of technology against evolution. We may create super pathogens* by this approach as they adapt to our adaptions etc

* it is incredibly unlikely**[ and no doubt some will accuse me of being unscientific here] and will involve long time scales [ centuries] but we cannot be certain this will not happen. IMHO we do not need to go GM [the choice is not GM or people starve] we have other options, to feed the populus, that are less risky. We cannot be fully certain what the long term implications will be of this.

** as is a nuclear meltdown from a power plant but it is still a risk.

Molgrips
Because it can't its modified for the reason its been modified ! have found nothing that says it adapts.
And if it does then that could be catastrophic as you have no control over it ?
But have to say this would be some thing that Shackleton could possibly confirm

Not Molgrips!

Of course it can adapt, it's a living plant, and just like any other living plant it can evolve. In fact, that's one of the major objections to GM plants, the fact that this adaption is unpredictable. Which is why it needs testing...

Not Molgrips!

Of course it can adapt, it's a living plant, and just like any other living plant it can evolve. In fact, that's one of the major objections to GM plants, the fact that this adaption is unpredictable. Which is why it needs testing...

Really then you have no control

Any organism will adapt to its environment through evolution. Evolution requires that the change could has a selective advantage. In the case of farmed plants we have removed plants from this situation so it is highly unlikely that the GM plant would evolve into some super planet trasher, especially without us noticing. Other things adapting to the GM plant are a different matter, pathogen resistance can be overcome as resistant pathogens will have a selective advantage. But this is also true for conventionally bred resistances.

Plant resistance to pathogens largely relies on a few families of resistance genes that act as antennas for specific pathogen "signatures". When they detect a pathogen signature they initiate the defence responses required. Given the number of pathogens you can imagine that the repertoire of these resistance genes is quite big. In wild species there are many variants of these genes and the genetic diversity in each population provide for selection, diversification, maintenance and transfer of them, allowing for adaptation to pathogens (arms race idea). During domestication we have inadvertently stopped this flow and fixed a small number of the resitance genes available in the wild in our crop populations. This prevents conventional breeding from being able to adapt to emerging pathogens in the same way that wild populations do as they can't access the resistance genes because they aren't present in the breeding population.

In many GM strategies to make pathogen resistant plants the aim is to identify resistance genes from wild populations and move them into cultivated varieties. So, say, moving a wild species potato gene into a domesticated potato without disrupting all of the other benefits breeding has provided such as yield, growth rates, etc. over the wild species. In essence you could say that GM of this type is trying to reverse the negative effects of past selective breeding to increase the adaptive variation available to stop pathogens.

On top of this many strategies are also trying to stack resistances up (introduce multiple pathways of recognising a pathogen) to prevent pathogens overcoming the resistances (similar to multiple complementary antibiotics courses).

I find it unlikely that a superpest would emerge as a result, certainly no more than is observed already with pesticide spraying use. In fact, GM may reduce the risk as you wouldn't risk spraying off-target organisms which could develop resitance and may become a peat. With GM you would only be targeting the specific organism trying to attack the plant, everything else would be left alone. You could also have two or more variants with resistance to the same pathogen and alternate their use. this would alter the direction of the selective pressure and further reduce the chance of resistance emerging. This is of course theoretically possible with conventional breeding but because of the reasons outlined above and the time it takes it has never been achieved to my knowledge.

Right, dinner break over, back to work.

Could GM plant pollenate with the other, or would one reject the other?

Nice info Shackleton

If the pollination could happen naturally then I see no reason why a GM variant wouldn't also be able to. I also see no reason why being GM would suddenly expand the range of plants it was able to pollinate.

As far as I am aware most (all?) of our major crop plants don't have wild relatives in this country that are sufficiently closely related to be cross-pollinated. This isn't the case, say, in mexico where GM maize and wild maize (teosinte) have been shown to cross pollinate.

A bigger risk is the escape of plants into the wild. Luckily most crop varieties would be outcompeted regardless of GM status as they rely so heavily on human intervention to survive.

Evolution requires that the change could has a selective advantage

Point of order...this is wrong. Natural selection requires a selective advantage, evolution can happen thru other random events..it is immaterial to your point though.

Of course it can adapt, it's a living plant, and just like any other living plant it can evolve.

Even if its sterile?

Even if its sterile?

Well, no - but then you're talking about terminator crops, which have a whole other set of issues, and I don't think they're the solution to the problem of feeding the world's population.

Evolution requires that the change could has a selective advantage

Point of order...this is wrong. Natural selection requires a selective advantage, evolution can happen thru other random events..it is immaterial to your point though

Fair point. My bad.

pathogen resistance can be overcome as resistant pathogens will have a selective advantage.

to prevent pathogens overcoming the resistances (similar to multiple complementary antibiotics courses).

I find it unlikely that a superpest would emerge as a result, certainly no more than is observed already with pesticide spraying use

As i said originally we agree on the science we just make a different risk assesment

Sorry Shacklton I should have been more specific.
What I should have asked was, Can the GM crop plant Pollenate with the same crop plant
that has not been modified. If so is it ok to eat ?

For what I remember about 2 to 3 years back in this Country some GM crop did get released
by mistake (allegedly) Any idea the effects of that ?

i agree it is unlikely but given the risks i would prefer not to.

Resistance is totally different to a pathogens potency. If a disease becomes resistant to a drug, virulence and transmissibility does not necessarily change.... usually what happens is that it ends up causing the same issues that it did before in a population at most, the same size as the percentage of individuals that were effected before new treatments were made available.

You wouldn't see all the worlds potatoes decimated if the pathogen evolved to attack GM potatoes, it would simply increase the target population back to what it was before. Of course, you can talk about genetic homogeneity - but as has been discussed, traditional farming methods have decimated genetic variability anyway. GM would actually be a quicker way of introducing genetic variability than traditional methods.

You scare mongering would have had vaccines banned. Which have quite clearly had a beneficial effect on the world and has led to the almost total eradication of certain diseases, with no apocalyptic mutations.

Any idea the effects of that ?

[img] [/img]

Point of info for earlier posters about global population growth: The UN predicts it'll grow from the current 7.2 billion to 9 billion or so by 2050. This is largely as a result of people living longer, even though birth rates in some developing countries will fall to 2 per woman as living standards rise. (But the rate in many is still quite high.) The population will then stabilise. Probably.
If you want the population to fall, you need to kill a very large number of people through natural catastrophes, mass disease outbreaks and the like, or employ forced sterilisation or population restrictions (and we saw how well that worked in China, right?)

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45165#.U5YbqSBwaP8

Can the GM crop plant Pollenate with the same crop plant that has not been modified. If so is it ok to eat ?

Yes it could providing they were sufficiently similar. I don't see why the resulting offspring would be any more or less dangerous than either parent or the result of a natural cross.

For what I remember about 2 to 3 years back in this Country some GM crop did get released
by mistake (allegedly) Any idea the effects of that ?

No idea I'm afraid as I don't remember seeing anything about an accidental release. Any pointers?

[b]Junkyard[/b] - I still don't fully understand what your "nature will react" thing is. Nature will always respond to anything and everything it is confronted with. It has been responding to all of our selective breeding, changes in climate, etc. since time immemorial. Just because something is GM doesn't mean that nature will react differently. In many of the examples I have given I think the reaction would actually be less damaging, or even beneficial, to ecosystems and the environment than current farming methods as there would be less to react to.

we are getting resistance to antibiotics now though.

Yes, which is why combination courses and alternating treatments are now being used to try and reduce the effect. And again, all of those arguments about overcoming resistance also apply to conventionally bred resistances in crops, GM would just allow a faster and more diverse response to current and emerging pathogens, equivalent to having more varied and potent antibiotics.

If you want the population to fall, you need to kill a very large number of people through natural catastrophes, mass disease outbreaks and the like

Why ? As you yourself have pointed out birth rates can fall, quote : "even though birth rates in some developing countries will fall to 2 per woman as living standards rise". This will surely have an affect on the world's population level ?

And I don't know why you are are so dismissive of China's attempts to reduce population growth (which I assume you meant by "and we saw how well that worked in China, right?") China's population growth rate has pretty much fallen for over 40 years. It currently stands at 0.5%.

ninfan - Member

Even if its sterile?

Clearly you haven't been keeping up with the hard science

Ernie_lynch, the UN report predicts the population to continue to rise, tending to stabilise around 9 bn (as fertility falls to around 2) but not falling at any point. Falling birth rates do not automatically imply a falling population - they need to fall below 2 for that to happen.
China's one child policy has led to sex-selective abortions, millions of 'surplus' single men and an increasing proportion of the elderly, never mind coming in for criticism on human rights grounds. Ok, it has contributed to reducing population growth to some extent, but at quite a cost. Can you imagine enacting such a policy in the West?

Falling birth rates do not automatically imply a falling population - they need to fall below 2 for that to happen.

Afaik it's about 2.3% , as there's attrition i.e. a proportion of the kids born to a woman will die before child-bearing age, be sterile or choose not to have kids.

China's one child policy has led to sex-selective abortions, millions of 'surplus' single men

Afaik both those things are down to a desire for boy kids which I don't *think* we have in this country. But that's a digression for this thread.

crispycross - Member

Can you imagine enacting such a policy in the West?

No need currently- in the EU and US we're actually below the replacement rate now. Most effective way to reduce population generally seems to be to increase wealth, health, and reduce premature mortality.

(replacement rate varies from country to country due to mortality figures, but I just did some guilty wiki-ing and apparently the world replacement rate is 2.33 and the current fertility rate is 2.36 so actually getting pretty close to stable. Population growth figures lag, obviously.)

I'm sorry crispycross but I don't quite understand the point you're making. Someone asked : At the current rate of global population growth, how long will it be before it's impossible to feed the world without resorting to some sort of genetic modification?

I responded with : Presumably "at the current rate of global population growth" it will eventually be impossible to feed the world even if we resort to some sort of genetic modification ?

GM is obviously not any sort of long term answer (to that particular question). Not maintaining "the current rate of global population growth" is.

Ok, it has contributed to reducing population growth to some extent, but at quite a cost.

I'm sorry I thought you were suggesting that it hadn't succeeded.

Not maintaining "the current rate of global population growth" is.

The current rate of population growth is not likely to be maintained.

Well that's good news ! 🙂

Ernie_lynch, the UN report predicts the population to continue to rise, tending to stabilise around 9 bn (as fertility falls to around 2) but not falling at any point. Falling birth rates do not automatically imply a falling population - they need to fall below 2 for that to happen

NASA have the population declining from 2050 - some of the lower range NASA projections have humanity becoming extinct due to crashing birth rates.

Improving the standard of living and access to healthcare/education in the developing world would see to it that we hit a lower peak population quicker and would thus enter population decline more quickly.

If we coupled this with legislation that encouraged the demand of energy and carbon efficient technology, then we would be half way to sorting out our mess without ever having to resort to misanthropic unworkable malthusian policies that attempt to rapidly decrease the worlds population.