22 Comments »

1. "No scientific case for a blanket ban"
   There is no scientific case for anti-terrorism measures but we have them because it is a "logical" case a sensible measure.
   Funny how logic and common sense don’t apply to GM foods.

   Comment by Roger Huffadine — 9 Mar 2004 on 5:56 pm | Link

2. The only people who want GM foods are the GM companies. Why should we be surprised that politicians put private profit ahead of public interests yet again?
   If the companies are so confident in their products, then they should sign a binding agreement to forfit all earnings from this date forward if their products are found to have detrimental side effects – this money would be used to try to repair, or compensate for, any damage caused. At the moment the GM companies are looking to make all the profit so they should bear all the risk.

   Comment by Uncarved Block — 9 Mar 2004 on 9:49 pm | Link

3. If a particular GMO did turn out to be harmful, I can’t see how its manufacturers could escape liability for damages resulting. No "binding agreement" is needed — if the stuff harms people, then they can sue.

   Of course, there are certain types of damage which can’t easily be quantified financially. Damage to environmental resources, biodiversity and so forth fall into this category. How the biotech companies could be made to pay compensation for (say) the extinction of bird or insect species is a mystery to me.

   (That said, if foods containing GMO are labelled in this country, I doubt anyone will buy them. I won’t pretend it’s rational, necessarily, but it’s the free market.)

   Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 9 Mar 2004 on 10:00 pm | Link

4. Did you read my comments below at http://www.downingstreetsays.org/archives/000328.html ? viz. ‘The BBC has reported Mrs Beckett’s statement on http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3546347.stm

   As I see it the problem with Chardon LL is that it is a "fodder maize". Thus it will be fed to farm animals which either join the human food-chain directly or give us our dairy products [and eggs].

   Up till now, the government has repeatedly assured us that the consumer will be able to choose whether or not to buy GM through labelling of tins and packets. But what about fresh meat, milk, butter and cheese? Will these be labelled to indicate that GM maize has been used to produce them?’

   Jon Snow on tonight’s Channel 4 News certainly did since he posed these precise questions to Mrs Beckett. She mumbled something unconvincingly about "considering" the matter of labelling such GM-produced foods.

   Comment by Patrick Haseldine — 9 Mar 2004 on 10:41 pm | Link

5. The point about a binding agreement was to avoid the need for any individual/group to sue for compensation as I agree that trying to compensate for an irreversable loss of flora/fauna would be impossible.

   As the GM companies clearly have a greater concern for money than the environment, I think that they should loose all money earnt if the environment is damaged. The threat of being declared bankrupt and turfed out of their mansions may make some CEOs at least pay attention to the risks they are running.

   On your final point I agree that proper labelling would lead to minimal demand for these products in the UK so I wonder who the producers think is going to buy their GM crop – either unscrupulous firms trying to hide the GM origins or will this turn out to be another ‘gift’ to developing countries.

   Comment by Uncarved Block — 9 Mar 2004 on 10:44 pm | Link

6. Listened to scientific advice ? Would that be the advice from the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee who said approving GM commercialisation on the basis of the tests would be "irresponsible" ?
   Or would it mean listening to advice that the Government wants to hear from GM companies and their obviously ‘impartial’ research……..
   Or maybe it just makes Tony Blair feel even more like God !

   Comment by Tony — 9 Mar 2004 on 11:01 pm | Link

7. The government has clearly demonstrated that it will ignore public opinion in favour of corporate lobbying and pressure from the White House. It is now up to the people of this country to show them that we will not be ignored. Politicians need to be reminded regularly that they are the servants of the people, not their masters.

   Comment by Phil Chandler — 9 Mar 2004 on 11:51 pm | Link

8. Another career destroyed by Tony Bliar—Margaret Beckett, the minister who introduced GM to the United Kingdom.
   Why did he not take on this ugly task himself?
   If Mrs Beckett had announced a new policy of converting the whole of UK agriculture to Soil Association-approved organic methods, and the whole retail food industry to a GM ban, she would have been cheered to the rafters, instead of received in sullen, hate-filled silence.

   Comment by eelpie — 10 Mar 2004 on 9:30 am | Link

9. Yes they need reminding of the obvious fact that they are there to serve the public, but the reminder would probably get ignored and Labour will contunue to see just how far they can push it!

   Comment by Max Richards — 10 Mar 2004 on 9:37 am | Link

10. "The Government has listened to the scientific advice and that advice is clear". I find this statement baffling. The GM crop trials have been criticised repeatedly for having too small a remit, and using a weedkiller that is shortly to become obselete.

    Both the government and the press know this statement to be false. Yet it has appeared to be unchallenged.

    Comment by S Brown — 10 Mar 2004 on 11:33 am | Link

11. Yes, of course this Government is more interested in corporate lobbying than the views of the electorate – it is corporate lobbying that pays their campaign contributions.

    As for showing them who their masters are – which party would you vote for as an alternative? If the alternative is "electable", it has already been bought by the same corporate cash. If you bribe both parties in a two-party state, you don’t care who wins!

    And as for challenging this blatant lie, nobody in the press wants to do that. Who wants to be the next Greg Dyke over something as trivial as the environment?

    Comment by Simon Richardson — 10 Mar 2004 on 11:43 am | Link

12. It would surely now be more salient to ask the PMOS if the PM believes that any citizen of the UK has not unknowingly or inadvertently eaten GM food as a result of past trials or previous non-disclosure of GM-ing by the now furiously lobbying companies.

    These companies should make all of their research publicly available, so that in 20-30 years time we don’t have issues that the tobacco industry finds itself faced with…

    Comment by Zippy — 10 Mar 2004 on 2:56 pm | Link

13. If you’ve had anything containing soya in the last few years then you’re virtually certain to have had GM soya. If you’re a vegetarian and have had vegetarian cheese, then it was made with GM chymosin in the yeast (and the Vegetarian Society has endorsed it). And if you know anyone dependent on insulin, the chances are they are using GM derived insulin. So let’s stop all this paranoia about GM.

    Comment by David Boothroyd — 10 Mar 2004 on 3:25 pm | Link

14. David — you cannot dismiss all criticism of GMO as "paranoia". You must accept that there are unknown and very difficult to assess environmental risks associated with the wide use of GM crops. There may also be risks to human health, but the evidence here is more complete and more promising. In addition to this, there are the patent and regulatory issues I have mentioned elsewhere.

    Obviously we should proceed with GM — as with any new technology — on a cost/benefit basis. That means a realistic assessment of the benefits and the costs. Dismissing any caution about GMO as "paranoia" doesn’t qualify as realistic, sadly. And as a society we need to decide whether we really do want to accept the idea of intellectual property rights in plant species as a cost of GM crops.

    It is true that some of the opponents of GMO are shrill and unthinking. But that means that those — like you — who are supporters of the technology should avoid shrillness and emphasise thought. What is your feeling on the biotech IP land-grab?

    Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 10 Mar 2004 on 3:33 pm | Link

15. I didn’t say all objection to GM was driven by paranoia. Just most of it. GM is not one process but conventional breeding can produce varieties far more toxic and hazardous than were included in the tests, and that wouldn’t be regulated at all! This is the logical fallacy of appeal to nature at work.

    There were three GM varieties in the farm scale evaluations. One of them has got permission. I’d say that indicated a great deal of caution by the Government. The issue of patents and of potential future developments is really not relevant to whether Chardon LL can be planted.

    Comment by David Boothroyd — 10 Mar 2004 on 4:34 pm | Link

16. Again, I must disagree with David re: the logic of his statement above. Granted, as you say, conventional breeding can produce toxic (or more toxic) varieties of whatever, but there is a big difference: the end result was arrived at by nature (who is pretty good at that sort of thing, apparently) without interference, sometimes having evolved over a long period of time. The big difference however is that genetic modification sidesteps however many million years of natural evolution (about whose processes and results we know all we could ever want to know) and the end result is something which we (or in this case GM scientists) CANNOT know the full story about, for the simple reason that it hasn’t happened yet. So although GM crops MIGHT be perfectly safe for all concerned, and the environmental impact MIGHT be negligible, but the very fact that not enough is known surely has to be enough to make anyone with half a brain cell think twice?!?! Or maybe not those to whom everything our government says is therefore gospel and not to be trifled with… The 5 years on trial so far count for nothing in terms of the POTENTIAL danger to the environment.

    So once again, to re-iterate; I don’t think people are paranoid about GM or against them per se; I rather think that people are against having something so irresponsibly foisted on them when even the so-called experts admit that there is more they don’t know than they do. That isn’t paranoia, it is just good sense – something which obviously the powers that be are sadly lacking in…

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 10 Mar 2004 on 5:39 pm | Link

17. I feel the real issue surrounding GM crops is not an environmental one, nor is it a problem of the developed world. In the more prosperous countries of the world we grow plenty enough food and also it is incredibly cheap. There is no real need for improved yield crops in Britain.

    The main future problems lie ahead for the developing world, who are on the brink of a GM revolution. The GM companies will happilly provide farmers in the developing world with well subsidised seeds and associated fertilisers/pesticides etc. until there is serious dependence upon them. Following that the GM companies will rack up the price; disaster follows.

    I personally feel that the environmental impacts of such GM crops will be insignificant in the scheme of things, compared to the future economic costs I believe the developing world will have to contend with.

    Comment by David Matthews — 11 Mar 2004 on 2:48 pm | Link

18. SO…..back to the original question: Does the PM eat GM foods………anyone actually had an answer to that question yet? (!)

    Comment by Max Richards — 11 Mar 2004 on 5:21 pm | Link

19. The fudging in "answering" a very straight-forward question reminds me of the identical answering of the MMR question – Has the PM’s son had the MMR jab?

    I really think there ought to be a requirement for ministers to actively show support for any policy they espouse. Otherwise all we have is the rank hypocrisy of "I say its good enough for the population as a whole, but its not good enough for me personally". If Beckett really thinks its such a great idea, let her eat GM food for a month. Let the Blairs feed it to *their* family first. Then come and tell us whats good for us.

    I think there is a place for GM crops – but *only* where all other farming methods fail – if they can grow wheat in the Sahara, then by all means they should be allowed to do so. But I cannot see any justification for "improving yields" in the UK. We have a huge burden of price support in the first place because of yield improvements from standard cross-breeding methods of genetic engineering. Why do we even need GMO here in the UK?

    The problem with GM is that it is a solution out in search of a problem. This is epitomised by the industry’s exploitation of 3rd World farmers – promising them better crops while charging a huge premium on seed eg <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/bt_cotton.cfm">http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/bt_cotton.cfm</a&gt; . They somehow overlook the possibility that these countries have managed not to starve somehow using just conventional farming methods….

    The tactics used by these corporations are nothing new – similar behaviour by the powdered baby milk formula suppliers in the 3rd World was eventually restrained by NGO’s such as WHO and UNESCO. Now they continue by more subtle methods.

    A couple of generations on, it seems that only the Exploiters have learnt from their past mistakes, and it is the 3rd World as usual that is persuaded into repeating them – once again accepting the lie that that "modern" is always synonymous with "better".

    As Bronski Beat said – "It ain’t necessarily so".
    Until I see cold hard facts from rigorously controlled independant trans-european research I will continue to be opposed to GMO in any form, at any point in the food chain. And after this research, I want a cast-iron exit strategy that will work in 100% of cases. Not 97%, not 99.9999%.
    David Boothroyd suggests that most objection to GM is driven by paranoia. Personally, I am absolutely terrified by the possibility that only 5, 10 years down the line we may decide that, for whatever reason, GM is no longer suitable for our needs and only then will we sit down and start considering how to get this particular djinn back in the bottle.
    Based on the past track record of the GM industry, I think this fear is real, genuine, considered and absolutely justified.

    Comment by BiZ R — 12 Mar 2004 on 10:55 pm | Link

20. Again, I just can’t see the point in the whole GM question. As BiZ says above, I could see the point of it if they engineered wheat which could grow in the desert or whatever, but the problem we have right now is not a shortage of food. There is more than enough food to feed the population of the world – it is the DISTRIBUTION which is and always will be the problem. Political and religious objections to various food supplies over the past few years have directly led to mass starvation, and how much food exactly is destroyed every year in the EU because we just can’t give it away? Not that we would, incidentally – even when it’s not wanted there’s a price… No, I see absolutely NO justification for GM crops at all and lots of reasons why it’s a bad idea for all. Which is, I suppose, exactly why the government is going ahead…

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 12 Mar 2004 on 11:47 pm | Link

21. The minister of science in the UK government is Lord Sainsbury, who holds one-third of the shares in Sainsbury plc. He has also invested a substantial part of his fortune in biotech companies that have major interests in GM food, which he presumably links back into his supermarket group with a view to making huge amounts of money.
    This reminds me of the building of the UK’s first-ever motorway. Before I had gone a few miles on it, I saw the enormous billboard: "Built by Marples Ridgway". Suddenly, everything came together in my mind—the minister of transport was, er, the Rt Hon Ernest Marples.
    Nothing has changed in 40 years.

    Comment by eelpie — 18 Mar 2004 on 10:12 pm | Link

22. Errm. I thought the Sainsbury investments were held in a blind trust?

    Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 19 Mar 2004 on 1:36 am | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.