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

More pesticide producer sponsors please. 🙄

Here you go a spoon full of pesticide ... yammy.

"If we don't use GM the risk is people going unfed."

That's unconvincing imo. The greatest cause of people going unfed has historically been lack of money - rich people don't die of hunger. If we are going to be struggling in the future to feed the world's population then birth/population control would be the logical answer.

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?.

Just a thought.

LOL Yeah a spoon full of Sugar helps the GM foods go down

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 ?

Nobeerinthefridge - Member
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?.

Just a thought.

Well maybe those whom have stopped growing crops for Rape seed are contributing to your Answer.

As a crop scientist I feel a bit uneasy weighing in and could fill page after page but GM use likely has to increase to feed global populations in current climatic conditions. It is however only one of many changes that need to be made. GM itself isn't good or bad it is the use it is put to that is good or bad. Conventional breeding has pretty much reached it's limit and GM allows us to produce pathogen or stress resistant varieties 20 years faster than normal breeding even if the genetics allowed us to do so.

When I read some of the projections of food availability at work and the effects that even minor changes in climate, plant pathogens or war could have on global food availability it is truly terrifying. The really worrying part is that we are almost certainly too late to do anything really constructive about preventing mass starvation.

Others changes that are likely required include stopping building on agricultural land, decreasing post-harvest losses during transportation and storage, growing crops suitable to the local environment rather than cash crops, stopping growing seasonal crops for consumption elsewhere and concentrate on feeding local populations, reduce land area given over to animals that could be used for crops (upland grazing could be increased if animals were required for food), stop non-food use of agricultural land (hops, barley....), etc, etc, etc.

Anyway I'm going to go and have a beer and try and not think about it............

No Shakleton
First you get rid of the BOG OFFS and you farm correctly but on a Global scale.
We eating on fruit that is on average of Three years old as it is, including most veg

The first answer would to be freeze, has its proven that Frozen veg is better than fresh Vegetables
that can lay on the shelves longer and that nearly all the nutrients would be gone whilst the food
perishes.
Then you would correctly farm globally rather that it is at the Moment.

Obviously been dependent on the Farming in Zimbabwe in which has been a lose to us.
We also need to farm under closed enclosures rather than crops getting ruined in open fields due to flooding.

Shackleton - Member
The really worrying part is that we are almost certainly too late to do anything really constructive about preventing mass starvation.

I don't think you can play "god" in order to prevent death (by mass starvation) when the actual fact is that you are merely prolonging suffering. Let it be. Eat less.

Homosapien will have to learn to stop multiplying if there is not enough to eat otherwise starve.
🙄

"If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million," David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

I have no issues with gm being used to improve seed stock but then it has a lot of baggage such as being controlled by huge multinationals, the first gm that I heard about being roundup resistance, patenting life and companies wanting to have as much control and making as much money as possible not about'feeding the world'

GM itself isn't good or bad

They are not doing it to feed anything but their own hunger for money

for me the salient point is this

Professor Jim Dunwell, at the University of Reading and another report author, said it cost $10-$20m more to put a GM crop through the EU approval process than for conventionally bred new crops.

no one gives a shit that all our other crops are developed by huge multinationals, fertilised by chemicals produced on an industrial scale , sold by international monopolising supermarkets etc etc

objection to gm is based on tabloid scaremongering and scientific ignorance and luddism

According to the bit you copied and pasted the issue is "the EU approval process", not tabloid scaremongering and scientific ignorance and luddism.

objection to gm is based on tabloid scaremongering and scientific ignorance and luddism

if anyone can show me how a gene introduced via GM has more potential to cause harm than a gene introduced through conventional crossbreeding has, then ill retract my luddism statement and issue a full and frank heartfelt appology

Grantway - while correct I don't see global farming as a viable solution given that politicians seem incapable of acting beyond the next election result or economic growth forecast. Aiming towards platonic ideals is lovely but isn't going to happen anytime soon. If you can make a viable political platform to do that I will vote for you.

chewkw - also agree(ish) in the longer term, but as we could feed everyone now if we changed farming, eating and distribution habits it seems morally wrong to do so. I dare say our diets would get a bit less varied though.

ernie - the EU approval process is largely a result of scaremongering and lobbying in Germany and Holland in the late 90s with very little input from scientists as to what constituted a genuine threat and what was hyperbole (followed by other member states not being able to stand up to the will of the people as communicated by the media and lobbying groups - only said partly tongue in cheek).

Not all GM is controlled by big multi-nationals. The money grabbing stuff yes but I know of lots of trials going on where the IP is controlled by charities or benevolent research institutions. It is just that very few of these would benefit us, our farming practices or nutritional needs at the moment so we don't hear about them in the popular press.

GM is not good or bad in the same way that chemistry used to modify or create antibiotics isn't good or bad. It is merely a tool, how we use it is what creates the good vs bad debate.

Do I approve of round up ready crops or terminator seed technology? No.
Do I thing that moving or stacking resistance genes against pathogens from wild relatives into cultivated species that couldn't be moved by conventional breeding is a good idea? Probably.
Would enabling wheat or rice to fix nitrogen be beneficial through reduced fertilizer use? Almost certainly.

No black and white, it's all grey scale just like the output of pretty much every human endeavour.

ernie - the EU approval process is largely a result of scaremongering and lobbying in Germany and Holland in the late 90s

So all the other member states were GM friendly but bullied by two ? And that includes two members states such as France and Britain which have historically had strong views about farming (France having a backward agricultural sector and Britain having an advanced one) ?

From what I know of the EU that surprises me.

No, many states, including Britain, were pro-GM or ambivalent. They then became anti in the late 90s media storm as a political move to go with the will of the "people" and backed themselves into a corner that they are struggling to leave. Germany led the way but didn't do any bullying. Governments just capitulated to media driven scaremongering in their own countries.

To be fair many of the early GM efforts of Monsanto, etc. probably should have been stopped but not for the reasons used or cited.

So does Britain approve or oppose ?

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.

Who is Britain?

As a nation it appears not but I think there is so much lacking in general education and awareness around these issues that the opinion of the people is meaningless in terms of getting an informed answer.

Politicians of the main parties acknowledge that GM is probably useful but currently political suicide to welcome with open arms. But it is getting better in terms of trialling crops to see if there is a benefit or health risk rather than blanket "no".

I have yet to meet a plant scientist who doesn't think that there is at least some merit to GM crops be it nutritionally, reduced fertilizer, persticide, herbicide use, better water use efficiency, more biomass, longer growing season, etc.

Thee is so much more to it than the papers report....................good news doesn't sell papers after all.

but JY why would mixing genes via crossbreeding be any different from mixing genes through GM?

Who is Britain?

I'm sorry I thought we were having a sensible debate, Britain in this context is the EU member state, obviously. But probably best to leave it there 🙂

Junkyard - you can't predict what will happen with conventional breeding either. The degree of genome perturbation and epigenetic change resulting in knock on biochemical effects after hybridisation is startling and unpredicatble. Look at the variations produced in F2 hybrids of closely related garden plants. And these are plants that are almost genetically identical. Now picture crossing different species and you get an idea of the outcome.

Arguably with GM you only get one gene changing where you know exactly what it does.

Okay so maybe I have simplified it a bit (but only a bit) but why shouldn't both undergo the same screening process to check for detrimental effects on human health and the environment?

Yields from breeding of wheat have plateaued and are now starting to fall. Breeders have bred varieties to the point where they have no variation left to play with. GM could achieve in 10-20 years what it has taken 150 years of targeted breeding to do and still leave the wiggle room needed to adapt to changing environments and threats. The same falling yields due to no variation to work with are true of potato and rice and getting to the point with sorghum, millet and maize.

I'm sorry I thought we were having a sensible debate, Britain in this context is the EU member state, obviously. But probably best to leave it there

Sorry if it sounded facetious or a bit philosophical but I wasn't sure whether you meant the people, the state, the government, etc.

Currently Britain the EU member state is officially in the mostly No but could be swayed camp but shuffling over to look at the Yes more frequently.

GM is part of an evolution in science that will allow for better production methods if used right. Same as a lot of other powerful discoveries the application is key. The merits also need to be evaluated by scientists in that field (pun intended) there is enough stick when non climate scientists start ranting on about climate change, this is the same thing.

The other part about fixing worldwide agriculture is important too, not buying beans from africa of lamb from New Zealand would be a start. Educating people about seasonal produce. Having moved to Tasmania which has tighter bio security than Australia you can tell when something is out of season and needs importing as the price doubles.

Currently Britain the EU member state is officially in the mostly No but could be swayed....

It seems that it has been swayed and officially Britain is fully in the yes camp.

From the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs website :

[i]As Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the UK, I have four priorities – growing the rural economy, improving the environment and safeguarding both plant and animal health. I firmly believe that the benefits of GM to farmers, consumers and the environment are an important part of achieving all of these objectives.[/i]

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/owen-paterson-speech-at-europabio

So it seems that "scaremongering" perhaps isn't such a problem after all.

maybe I have simplified it a bit (but only a bit)

its late I will think on what you and Kimbers said

More food is produced per person now than 30 years ago according to Oxfam and I don't see many empty shelves in UK supermarkets.

GM would help 3rd world countries produce locally but for the UK and Europe its about animal feed and profit margins, not altruism.

That was one of the "stray to the yes" (and look at the target audience) but is a move towards an open debate on the matter. And the opinion of SoS for EFRA is not necessarily the same as the one the Govt put forward at EU summits. They are always much more cautious. But I applaud Owen Patterson for trying to get GM back on to the EU agenda.

The scaremongering was all about the EU procedure in the late 90s, people appear to have begun to get bored of it now. Maybe too much crying wolf by the press and not being eaten by triffids. 😉

And the opinion of SoS for EFRA is not necessarily the same as the one the Govt put forward at EU summits.

Well the British government put forward exactly the same opinion at an EU summit a week ago.

GM would help 3rd world countries produce locally but but for the UK and Europe its about animal feed and profit margins, not altruism.

While what you say is true for the 3rd world GM could also help western Europe produce locally. It wouldn't get us our Asparagus spears in December but it could make us self sufficient in grain and potatoes, etc. something likely to become an issue in the not too distant future.

The problem with GM as used at the moment in the west is that it is a way to make money for AgriChem firms not feed people in a sustainable manner.

And something else that hasn't been mentioned - edible pharmaceuticals and plants as bioreactors. Plants can be engineered to make pharmaceuticals more cheaply than most current non-synthesised medicines that are purified from GM fungi and bacteria. Would this be a problem? Could certainly be a good way of getting vaccines to far flung parts of the planet for a start.

Brain going to sleep now, off to bed...........

Well the British government put forward exactly the same opinion at an EU summit a week ago.

Hadn't seen that, will have to have a read, but good news in terms of getting a debate (assuming that it isn't just a money making exercise for agrichem pals of Dave et al.). Do you have a link?

Cheers.

[url= http://www.trust.org/item/20140528130124-5dh9s ]EU member states back compromise to allow GM crops-diplomats[/url]

[i]The deal was welcomed by Britain, which hopes it could allow for more rapid approval of GM crops in the EU, and leading GM opponent France.

"This proposal should help unblock the dysfunctional EU process for approving GM crops for cultivation," Britain's farming and environment ministry said in a statement.

[/i]

[tabloid voice]I think I speak for most people when I say

robust, science-based safety assessment,

Meanwhile
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-07/organic-certifier-defends-role-in-landmark-gm-contamination-case/5506816

An organic certifier that was blasted by a WA Supreme Court judge for being unscientific and unreasonable says it has no need to apologise for its actions.

Justice Kenneth Martin brought down damning findings against the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture (NASAA) and its certifying arm, NASAA Certified Organic (NCO), saying the zero tolerance for GM was "unjustifiable".

Cheers, will have to rummage more.

GM itself isn't good or bad it is the use it is put to that is good or bad.

I don't think that sentence will be bettered however many pages this thread ends up with.

[tabloid voice]I think I speak for most people when I say

robust, science-based safety assessment,

have no place in this sort of debate [/tabloid voice]

I don't read tabloids so I would take your word for it except that a quick search quickly contradicts your suggestion :

[url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/its-time-to-get-real-on-gm-foods-412591 ]It's time to get real on GM foods[/url]

[i]Uk Agriculture plc could be largely self-sufficienif we farmed more scientifically. That means embracing GM crops, not harking back to some Thomas Hardy golden age of bucolics aarrhing about in smocks, making "organic" grub that's too expensive to buy.

Timid Environment Secretary Hilary Benn should authorise widespread trials of the food of the future and protect farmers who grow it.[/i]

So a tabloid paper in its opinion page urging the government to embrace GM crops then.

thanks for taking the time to fact check my tongue in cheek comments ernie. It's probably a non scientific assessment of the tabloid/internet ranters view points that all scientists are evil pawns of the global machine and can't be trusted.

I truly welcome a scientific assessment done by those who know about the topic. Unfortunately knowing people who have very polarized views on the topic they will still drop back to the "GM Is EVIL" position despite any objective conclusions.

Lets just get something straight.

Camerons 'advisors' advise on what's best for Cameron's pocket. Nothing else whatsoever. He is a nasty, slippery, snake of a man who should be refuted at every possible opportunity. If he's said something, you can pretty guarantee it's been said because it either adds more coins to his fortune or because it hides coins being added to his fortune.

Do I approve of round up ready crops or terminator seed technology? No.
Do I thing that moving or stacking resistance genes against pathogens from wild relatives into cultivated species that couldn't be moved by conventional breeding is a good idea? Probably.
Would enabling wheat or rice to fix nitrogen be beneficial through reduced fertilizer use? Almost certainly.

No black and white, it's all grey scale just like the output of pretty much every human endeavour.

True, but which of those 4 things have been done and gone to market? Just as there is nothing wrong with GM [i]per sae[/i] you could say ghe same about multi national biotech companies. The reality however doesnt work out like that. Profit making organisation want to make profits and the rest are squeezed out.

On a purely uninformed basis, my simple brain thinks that GM is just advanced cross-breeding and hybridization. The fact that some people have whipped up hysteria around it i simply don't get it. It is entirely possible that i am stupid and/or naive.

Fact is some parts of the world eat too much, other parts starve. Redressing that balance, and dealing with consequences such as war and famine, is the one thing our global leaders refuse to do.

If people want to panic about this sort of thing. GM bacteria and viruses seem to have much more potential to worry about 😀

I have nothing against GM crops, but I'm not in the least bit convinced that Cameron's interest goes much further than a post PM directors seat at some agri-corp.

Margret Attwood's "Oryx and Crake" and "Year of the flood" imagines quite well what we have to look forward to.

Fact is some parts of the world eat too much, other parts starve. Redressing that balance, and dealing with consequences such as war and famine, is the one thing our global leaders refuse to do.

What do you suggest our global leaders do ? That's a serious question btw.

I don't think our global leaders are refusing to redress the balance between those with those who have too much to eat and those that don't have enough.

The issue is caused by the global distribution of wealth, unless you can come up with a solution to that then I can't see how the problem can be resolved.

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.

The rise in population is another issue, no easy fix.
But one further issue that hasnt been added so far is availability of fertilisers.
Current agriculture relies on fertiliser (fantastic BBC article published last week on Nitrogen and the Haber process).
Fo current fertilisers we rely on fossil fuel based petrochemicals (running out sometime), and phosphur mining, which again is a finite resource. Cheep food has been porpped up by cheap feriliser. Fertiliser will be much more expensive in a few decades time.
Now much can be done to improve fertiliser application (prevent run off into rivers etc), but we still need to have crops that use natural fertiliser and need less NPK.

Fact is some parts of the world eat too much, other parts starve. Redressing that balance, and dealing with consequences such as war and famine,

I think we're well into the realms of over simplification to list war as a consequence rather than a causative factor!

we still need to have crops that use natural fertiliser and need less NPK.

If only someone could develop some sort of "rotation" system to allow land to recover nutrients between crops

/enters thread

I have no problem with the basic premise if GM. It's is what people(mainly big business) do with it that concerns me.

\exits thread

we still need to have crops that use natural fertiliser and need less NPK.

If only someone could develop some sort of "rotation" system to allow land to recover nutrients between crops

Used extensively, still in use on plenty of farms but in the end the drive for quantity and yields (hence lower food prices) means adding more fertilizer to the land.

robust, science-based safety assessment,

I have considered it and I still do not want human beings, led by profit focused amoral companies, to enter the evolutionary race.

Once we start doing GM crops we will do them everywhere [ they will yield more so we wil] then we have some serious risks using a monoculture and having a small gene pool etc.

Nature will respond to this and then we have to respond etc. We cannot in theory or practice predict what these will be as evolution is random in nature.
In essence we cannot know what the consequences of it going wrong will be and,like nuclear power, it is probably very low yet pretty severe if it does. I therefore err on the side of caution as there are other solutions to this problem.

I am not sure why you wish to call this unscientific and my view wont be changed so [ rather than TJ] I shall leave

Like Junkyard says, it's like nuclear power and very divisive.

If trialled properly I see no problem with GM, if you could use it to breed varieties that grow well in a low powered greenhouse then great, means we need to import less and save on emissions. Likewise if you can get crops to grow on otherwise useless land in 2 years rather than however long it would take to do naturally again, all good.

It needs to be used as part of an overall strategy, we clearly need to import less and the more we can do t cut down on this ridiculous situation where we send food all the way around the world at all times needs to stop. Fossil fuel use is only going up and the absolute crap that a ship uses is barely better than bitumen. There is no real alternative unless you start mass building commercial ships with PWR's but that's a whole new ballgame I really wouldn't like to get into (I'm pro-nuclear but I wouldn't trust commercial shipping operators as far as I'd throw them). The more stuff we can grow locally the better.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence and real world trials are still risky. We cannot really say for sure what will happen over a long time scale either as we know the environment will react and we cannot assess that without doing it and then gathering data. We had no data smoking caused cancer till we started having dead folk for example.

This is the problem. There is no evidence that GM crops are more harmful than conventional crops yet they are treated as if they are. All most GM scientists are asking for is for a level playing field in terms of testing, not carte blanche to release whatever they feel like.

Why do you think GM is inherently more dangerous and risky?

I have considered it and I still do not want human beings, led by profit focused amoral companies, to enter the evolutionary race.

Too late, every crop we grow is a result of humanity interfering with evolution through selective breeding. More recently this has been done by companies, not all of whom are evil. I'm no more in favour of Monsanto's take on GM than you are.

Once we start doing GM crops we will do them everywhere [ they will yield more so we wil] then we have some serious risks using a monoculture and having a small gene pool etc.

Actually the main issue with conventionally bred crops right now is a small gene pool leaving no room for breeding to improve things and most crops are already monocultures. GM could actually alleviate both of these problems as your gene pool essentially becomes unlimited (within reason), spraying and fertilizing could be reduced leading to increased ecological diversity, etc.

Nature will respond to this and then we have to respond etc. We cannot in theory or practice predict what these will be as evolution is random in nature.
In essence we cannot know what the consequences of it going wrong will be and,like nuclear power, it is probably very low yet pretty severe if it does. I therefore err on the side of caution as there are other solutions to this problem.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "nature will respond" or exactly what it will respond to. Any newly bred plant, GM or conventional, will never have been seen in the environment before. It would be an entirely unique genetic entity. Everything that interacts with it will therefore adapt to the change. For example, pathogens will evolve to overcome resistance strategies, GM would allow us to make this less likely or at least slower.

What are the problems that you envisage happening in your nuclear meltdown equivalent scenario? I personally don't think that there are other solutions on a global scale. There are a combination of strategies, of which GM is one, that need to be combined to develop a solution.

I am not sure why you wish to call this unscientific and my view wont be changed so [ rather than TJ] I shall leave

Well, refusing to be open to the idea of changing your view is unscientific, and some of the views you have put forward (assuming I have understood what you have written) aren't supported by any evidence I am aware of or are maybe a result of misunderstanding. Science is rational scepticism and the scientific method acts on data not gut instinct or feelings. So, on balance, I would say that your views and stance are unscientific. Sorry.

If we are going to be struggling in the future to feed the world's population then birth/population control would be the logical answer.

Yeah. Good luck with that.

My natural hippie inclination is to be anti GM but as far as I'm aware there has been extensive testing and there is zero evidence it's any different to selective breeding.

However, anything being championed by Owen Paterson should probably be treated with suspicion. And I think claims that it's use is about 'feeding the world' are probably highly disingenuous. We could easily 'feed the world' now if there wasn't such ridiculous economic disparity.

We could easily 'feed the world' now if there wasn't such ridiculous economic disparity.

Oh. Is there a part of the world that's not being "fed" right now?

no it was ended by internet trolls skillful use of pithy comments

THANKS

Well, refusing to be open to the idea of changing your view is unscientific

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by [b]"nature will respond"[/b] or exactly what it will respond to. Any newly bred plant, GM or conventional, will never have been seen in the environment before. It would be an entirely unique genetic entity. [b]Everything that interacts with it will therefore adapt to the change. For example, pathogens will evolve to overcome resistance strategies[/b], GM would allow us to make this less likely or at least slower.

Science is rational scepticism and the scientific method acts on data not gut instinct or feelings. So, on balance, I would say that your views and stance are unscientific. Sorry.

Straw men ad homs are not convincing arguments

Junkyard - I am sorry if I caused offence. I am entirely open to having my view changed on the basis of evidence presented and do so on a daily basis as experimental results come in. I'm not even pro all GM as I've already stated. I just have yet to see any evidence that [u]all[/u] GM is bad. You state that you won't change your view. That in my mind is unscientific.

I'll happily debate creationism or any other topic.

You are answering your own question there and explaining how nature responds.

Good, I'm glad I understood what you were getting at. My point was that a response will happen regardless of whether something is GM or not.

Can i see your data that proves that i have said my gut or my instinct influence me?

Okay, I don't know what your background is, and I apologise if what you say is based on hard scientific data, but your arguments do not tally with any publicly available data that I am aware of on the assessment of GM crop safety. As far as I can see I think you have given the matter thought and that is more effort than many make, but I don't think, from what you have said, that you (or anyone for that matter) have a broad enough understanding of the technology and biology behind it to be totally opposed or for it.

Agnosticism is really the only scientific way until absolute proof is found. Hence being 100% either way is being unscientific. You may not like it but I and every other scientist have to think like that to fulfil our roles properly. To close your mind to something, however distasteful you may find it leads to missing answers and false assumptions. In the same vein chasing an idea because it seems appealing and ignoring evidence to the contrary is just as bad.

Mr Woppit - Member

If we are going to be struggling in the future to feed the world's population then birth/population control would be the logical answer.

Yeah. Good luck with that.

Luck doesn't really come into it. The suggestion was made that with "the current rate of global population growth" GM food would be necessary "to feed the world".

GM is not the solution to the current rate of global population growth. In fact there are no solutions other than birth/population control - that is the [i]only[/i] solution.

Because even the most effective means of farming the world has ever seen doesn't change the fact that the planet we all live on is a specific size.

like a lot of things the majority of the people don't actually understand the process of GM and sadly believe rubbish that is printed, what their numpty friends tell them or the negative propaganda machine.

Amazing poah you have convinced me with your insights!

The simple fact is Shackleton the ecological impacts of gm crops might not be seen for 20 years. The impacts of pesticides were not noticed for many years after their introduction. Although I accept this agrees with your point that all changes made to agri ecosystems meed to be treated with caution not just growing GM crops.

steady now there is no data to support that so its unscientific to say otherwise

That is the problem once we know it would be too late to do anything about it and we all agree nature will respond.

Some are happy with the risk and some are not.

the majority of the people don't actually understand the process of GM and sadly believe rubbish that is printed

That GM is the future, or that GM isn't the future ? Which printed rubbish are you talking about ?

Nature wont respond, it may however be affected......

GM is the future for some things yes

Wow insightful

GM is the future for some things yes

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" ?

Okay, so what are the risks? I know this is a bit of a tricky one, and it could be argued impossible to answer, but conceptually what is your worst case scenario assuming that say, rust resistant wheat or Phytophthora resistant potato, was grown in this country? What about terminator soy beans? Round up ready anything? This genuinely isn't a facetious question, in your mind what is the absolute worst case scenario and how would it come about through GM?

I'm trying to divorce the ethical issues I have with what I consider to be inappropriate and often corporate profit driven use of GM (round up ready, terminator, etc) from the potential benefits provided by reduced pesticide usage, increased yields, reduced fertilizer use, etc. I think this is a major point often untouched by the media and it needs to be made clear. A blanket ban on GM in my mind is like banning chemistry or the internet because you can make ricin or look at illegal porn. Never mind that you can make beneficial drugs or transmit information globally in seconds. Regulate the use of the technology.

GM such as Round up ready crops risk reducing the local environment to a desert apart from the farmed crop. Obviously not good.

However, moving a resistance gene agains Phythophthora (Irish potato famine pathogen) from wild potatoes into cultivated potatoes provides resistance and also reduces the need for spraying with chemicals to control Phytophthora. So the only organisms that would be hit would be the pathogen, all other Oomycetes and fungi in the ecosystem currently affected by spraying would be unaffected, In this case GM could actually make the ecosystem richer and more "natural" and may even boost yields as the natural soil ecosystem makes nutrients more available.

All of this also needs to be put in the context of the ecosystem. Intensive farming and the british farming landscape is so far removed from nature that the concept of the wild ecosystem no longer exists. With the right kind of land management plans this could be partially restore but no so long as we rely on artificial fertilizers, pesticides, fungicide and herbicide. GM in my mind offers one part of the solution by allowing us to maintain yields while reducing chemical inputs into the environment.

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" ?

In nearly 10 years of scientific engagement with the public I can remember a handful of conversations where people understood what GM genuinely was or had views that were unclouded by media presentation of GM.

None of these events were even vaguely about GM, but it is the topic that comes up most often and the number of misconceptions or just plain wrong opinions held (on both sides of the for and against fence) is staggering.

I dont disagree with you, but the inter connectivity of the below ground and above ground ecosystems make predicting consequences almost impossible. Years ago I was involved in some research on plant soil feedbacks and the effects of growing even the same species of plant but different ecotypes on other trophic levels is large. When you consider the introduction of completely different genes the consequences could be massive.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01158.x/full

I was unaware that the UK, or the EU for that matter, had a food shortage. So we don't need to increase production to feed our populace. If other countries have a food shortage problem let them grow GM crops. I really would not want to have GM food forced on me.

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"

are you being serious?

. I really would not want to have GM food forced on me.

why?

I was unaware that the UK, or the EU for that matter, had a food shortage. So we don't need to increase production to feed our populace. If other countries have a food shortage problem let them grow GM crops.

the idea that making GM crops so people can feed themselves in other countries is a pretty big reason to carry out research is it not?

In nearly 10 years of scientific engagement with the public I can remember a handful of conversations where people understood what GM genuinely was or had views that were unclouded by media presentation of GM.

fasternotfatter - Member
I really would not want to have GM food forced on me.

😆

I dont even understand what you mean by "people dont understand the process of gm"

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.

In nearly 10 years of scientific engagement with the public I can remember a handful of conversations where people understood what GM genuinely was or had views that were unclouded by media presentation of GM.

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.

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.