BBC GM Foods Propaganda

[rynnor]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22967571

Clearly Patterson is looking to move to a nice Directorship in a GM food producer when he's out at the next election - its pretty shameless and fundamentally inaccurate to say that GM foods are safer than normal foods that have been studied for centuries.

I like the BBC comments system too - all the 'Editors Picks' support GM lol - nice balance there...

Sadly all the benefits of GM can generally become disadvantages - like herbicide resistance - sounds great until it gets into the weeds you were trying to control in the first place.

The other big danger that goes unlooked is economic not scientific - the rise of GM could create new monopolies driving up the costs of food which would undoubtedly kill more people than any of the GM benefits supposedly save.

People point to golden rice as an example of the benefits of GM but they ignore the fact that no one is actually producing the stuff because there's no profit in it

GM is fundamentally about patenting crops and milking money from food production for big pharmaceuticals which will increase costs for us all.

 

[DaGaffer]

If population growth doesn't plateau soon then we're going to need engineered crops whether we like it or not.

 

[TdC]

after reading a particularly well-constructed defence of Monsanto by someone well clued in to a lot more facts than the beardies who were mouthing off, I must say I am not as mouth-frothingly anti GM as I once was. that said, I choose to not consume GM (or at least as little as I can get away with).

 

[rynnor]

If population growth doesn't plateau soon then we're going to need engineered crops whether we like it or not.

If it was developed by Governments or others in the non-profit areas I would have less qualms tbh - you do not want a company like monsanto with a deathgrip on the human food supply.

I still think it puts us a big step closer to a monocultural food crisis like the Irish Potato famine and consequent mass starvation - imagine if they fuck up rice!

 

[BloodOmen]

Load of bollocks, amount of shit they put on them makes them less safe, more expensive and just arse in general, already been proven.

 

[DaGaffer]

If it was developed by Governments or others in the non-profit areas I would have less qualms tbh - you do not want a company like monsanto with a deathgrip on the human food supply.

I still think it puts us a big step closer to a monocultural food crisis like the Irish Potato famine and consequent mass starvation - imagine if they fuck up rice!

Food developed by governments...no thanks. The answer to worries about Monsanto is more GM, not less. If there are lots of competing GM crops there's less chance of a single failure. Monsanto don't own the patent on "rice", just their strains of it. If there's competition plus regulation to ensure a competitive market, I'm not too concerned.

 

[rynnor]

Where they have tried it in Africa you get a lot of bankrupt farmers - the seed is more expensive than traditional stuff so if it fails due to drought etc they are screwed and more tellingly the GM crops tend to be sterile so they cannot save some of the harvest to plant the next crop - they become completely dependant on the GM supplier.

 

[DaGaffer]

Where they have tried it in Africa you get a lot of bankrupt farmers - the seed is more expensive than traditional stuff so if it fails due to drought etc they are screwed and more tellingly the GM crops tend to be sterile so they cannot save some of the harvest to plant the next crop - they become completely dependant on the GM supplier.

Another argument for competition. Brings prices down.

 

[rynnor]

Another argument for competition. Brings prices down.

But your taking a farmer who was previously largely self sufficient and turning him into a dependant consumer and you don't have any qualms about that?

 

[Scouse]

Agree with ryn. There are a lot of serious concerns around GM, not least it's long-term sustainability and lack of proper studies into safety.

The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. This is our food we're talking about...

 

[Job]

Considering that everything we eat has been genetically modified by man, it would seem a little hypocritical to complain about the latest method, but I will, it simply is happening too fast with over bloated claims and far shorter time from implementation to consequence.
It will, without any shadow of doubt, go tits up.

 

[TdC]

tbh I'd say there's a slight difference between selective breeding / growing over many years and direct tinkering with genetic makeup in a lab

 

[DaGaffer]

But your taking a farmer who was previously largely self sufficient and turning him into a dependant consumer and you don't have any qualms about that?

Any farmer growing cash crops isn't self-sufficient by definition, and there's a definite counter-argument that African farmers are failing with GM crops not because the crops themselves fail, but because key markets, like Europe, are closed to GM (to the exent that non-food GM crops like cotton, are closed; which is ridiculous).

The problem here is that the business practices of the companies involved and the benefits (or risks) of the crops themselves are being made synonymous with each other, which is the wrong way to look at the issue. There's also a definite argument that the anti-GM stance in Europe in particular plays into the hands of the Monsantos of this world because the regulatory burden on development is so high that only the very largest companies can develop GM anyway.

 

[Scouse]

non-food GM crops like cotton, are closed; which is ridiculous

Disagree.

There's a poorly understood knock-on impact to the wider environment from using the crops. It's not just about what we put in our mouths - it's also about the wider environmental impact.

 

[Exioce]

I'm fine with it. I'd rather they breed in resistance to pests instead of covering the fields with insecticide.
I like the idea of drought resistant strains that will help cope with climate change and the growing population.
If I see an outlet proudly proclaiming themselves to be 'No-GM', I make a mental note to avoid them.

 

[Job]

They report that the bugs are quickly growing resistance to the pesticide genes they are implanting as if this is some kind of fuckin surprise..it takes one frickin generation and a bug lives about a week.

 

[noblok]

If population growth doesn't plateau soon then we're going to need engineered crops whether we like it or not.

The UN rapporteur on Food Safety disagrees.

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4SxIXPXaFw


Agro-ecology on the other hand, delivers great results with much less risk and impact on the environment. http://www.srfood.org/index.php/en/...1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food

 

[Scouse]

I'm fine with it. I'd rather they breed in resistance to pests instead of covering the fields with insecticide

Some tests show that whilst there's a short-term drop in pesticide use all that happens is that it speeds up evolution so insectiside-resitant bugs become much more prevalent and you end up having to use a cocktail of different insectisides in much larger quantities...

We're fucking about with an ecosystem we barely understand (and prove on a daily basis that we lack the motivation, never mind the means, to be good stewards) when we fuck about with our food.

 

[Dukat]

"Additional Supply Depots required."

 

[rynnor]

Some tests show that whilst there's a short-term drop in pesticide use all that happens is that it speeds up evolution so insectiside-resitant bugs become much more prevalent and you end up having to use a cocktail of different insectisides in much larger quantities...

We're fucking about with an ecosystem we barely understand (and prove on a daily basis that we lack the motivation, never mind the means, to be good stewards) when we fuck about with our food.

The history of disasters in this area caused by man is not reassuring - we have introduced so many species to control other species that then go terribly wrong crashing eco systems so that we then introduce other species to control those and so it goes on that I still find it hard to believe that any sane individual actually contemplates doing it ever again.

It's one area where scientists seem to have about as much common sense as politicians - what everyone has to remember is that there is no way to put the genie back in the bottle if things go wrong - no plan B whatsoever - this should produce extreme caution in intelligent beings.

Not us though - I fully expect this stuff to be everywhere in the next few decades.

What also annoys me is that many of the benefits of the GM crops are probably already out there in the wild stock but interest in finding those is lower because they cant be patented. Generally we have favoured strains that increased yield over disease/drought/insect resistance - it wouldn't be difficult to produce strains that emphasised these other properties.

 

[rynnor]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/jun/24/gm-crops-african-farmers

 

[DaGaffer]

The UN rapporteur on Food Safety disagrees.

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4SxIXPXaFw


Agro-ecology on the other hand, delivers great results with much less risk and impact on the environment. http://www.srfood.org/index.php/en/...1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food

Actually, listen to what he says. He says GM crops are an inappropriate solution for small farmers in the developing world. That doesn't mean they're an inappropriate solution everywhere. What makes sense for a Canadian wheat farmer harvesting a million acres and a sorghum farmer running two acres in Ethiopia are not going to be the same.

Using "it doesn't work for the poor Africans" is a useful PR tool for anti-GM lobby, but its not necessarily relevant to the overall debate. As for the risks of GM wiping out the world's food supply, its a slightly hysterical argument; we've done all kinds of weird things with crops (like the fact that bananas are completely sterile for example), so I'm not too panicky about it.

 

[rynnor]

Actually, listen to what he says. He says GM crops are an inappropriate solution for small farmers in the developing world. That doesn't mean they're an inappropriate solution everywhere. What makes sense for a Canadian wheat farmer harvesting a million acres and a sorghum farmer running two acres in Ethiopia are not going to be the same.

Using "it doesn't work for the poor Africans" is a useful PR tool for anti-GM lobby, but its not necessarily relevant to the overall debate. As for the risks of GM wiping out the world's food supply, its a slightly hysterical argument; we've done all kinds of weird things with crops (like the fact that bananas are completely sterile for example), so I'm not too panicky about it.

Hysterical? Nothing we have done before compares to the transgenic manipulation that is now possible - I dont know many horticulturalists who have managed to cross plants with fish for instance.

The GM lobby are trying to present this as just another incremental change whereas it truly represents a giant step from what came before with all the attendant risks/uncertainties (and potential benefits to be fair).

I'm not saying stop but I would expect there to be a damn sight more study about its long term impacts to the environment and us before it gets the green light and I am really not comfortable with this being pushed forward with profit as the focus. The market has many good aspects but safety is not one of them until after the fact - i.e. companies only really take note after massive fines long after a disaster.

Edit - Food allergies has always been a worry to me about GM - once we start sticking genes from lots of different plants/animals/fish in a single crop and those crops now have proteins from a bunch of different species wouldnt that create a bit of an allergy nightmare...

 

[Job]

More food = more people...
Who need more food...
And they are the people with the least ability to help themselves when things go tits up..we are goona need Band aidx100 in 30 years time.

 

[noblok]

Actually, listen to what he says. He says GM crops are an inappropriate solution for small farmers in the developing world. That doesn't mean they're an inappropriate solution everywhere. What makes sense for a Canadian wheat farmer harvesting a million acres and a sorghum farmer running two acres in Ethiopia are not going to be the same.

I admit, I was a bit quick to jump the gun there, seeing as you didn't propose it as the one single great solution, but more often than not it is proposed as such in these discussions. Most farmers are small farmers and agro-ecological methods outperform large-scale industrial farming. There is still much progress to be made through less risky methods with added gains for the environment and local economies. It seems to me that our investment should be mainly focused on this instead of GM which has traditionally failed to live up to much of it's claims (reduced pesticides as just one example).

A change in food patterns wouldn't be bad either: we could feed a lot more people on a vegetarian diet. That's not really the most realistic option, though.

 

[rynnor]

I admit, I was a bit quick to jump the gun there, seeing as you didn't propose it as the one single great solution, but more often than not it is proposed as such in these discussions. Most farmers are small farmers and agro-ecological methods outperform large-scale industrial farming. There is still much progress to be made through less risky methods with added gains for the environment and local economies. It seems to me that our investment should be mainly focused on this instead of GM which has traditionally failed to live up to much of it's claims (reduced pesticides as just one example).

A change in food patterns wouldn't be bad either: we could feed a lot more people on a vegetarian diet. That's not really the most realistic option, though.

GM Foods wont help with the political reasons for most of the worlds starving people - conflicts/corruption/ethnic cleansing - theres actually enough food in the world for everyone to eat well if not for these issues.

Edit: Btw on GM crops - most of the UK's livestock is currently being fed on various imported GM feedstocks like maize and soya.