8 Comments »

1. Well, it should make interesting listening when she gives her speech. Pity we can’t question her at the same time. I’m sure the most popular question would be, WHY?!?! Why have a "public debate" if you don’t intend to listen? In fact, why EVER pretend to be interested in what the public actually wants or thinks, because you’ll be doing your own thing anyway. Disgusting!!!

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Mar 2004 on 3:22 pm | Link

2. Listening to someone does not mean you then have to do what they say, if what they say is wrong. It doesn’t matter how many people say that Chardon LL is hazardous, given that it isn’t.

   Comment by David Boothroyd — 9 Mar 2004 on 3:37 pm | Link

3. What is this, David? Are you Cherie Blair or something?!?! It seems this Government can do no wrong for you. Does the democratic process mean nothing? The fact that GM has been tested on the surface does not mean it is safe for public consumption – 5 years is nowhere near long enough to determine the potential side affects, and rather than conceding this the Government is determined to press on ahead, regardless of the public opinion. As far as I can see GM crops have no benefits – they don’t grow where crops never did before, they don’t produce more, they don’t grow faster or have a higher yield. And so far, the drawbacks far outweigh the advantages (if there are any). What about cross-pollination, mutation of plant genes, stronger chemicals being used on plants, plants more resistant, insects becoming resistant to pesticides over time, the disruption to the food chain, etc etc. It is NOT the fact that people think GM crops are dangerous per se, but the fact that they are unproven – and the fact that the Government is being totally irresponsible, which makes this decision such an outrageous one.

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Mar 2004 on 4:00 pm | Link

4. At least I do let people know my real name so they can check where I am coming from. As far as the ‘democratic process’, how can that affect the only issue here – which is whether the individual GM varieties are safe? If we all had a vote that declared cyanide safe, would you drink it? If we all voted that water was harmful, would you stop drinking it?
   GM is a technology and not a process. A GM variety is no different to a conventionally produced variety which happens to have the same genes. Plenty of conventionally bred varieties are extremely toxic but we don’t go round in a panic about them.
   There is not one single person in the whole world who has even so much as claimed to have had their health affected by a GM variety, even though billions have eaten them and their products.

   Comment by David Boothroyd — 9 Mar 2004 on 5:03 pm | Link

5. The BBC has reported Mrs Beckett’s statement on http://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.

   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?

   Comment by Patrick Haseldine — 9 Mar 2004 on 5:11 pm | Link

6. Ner ner ner ner ner, oh how great you obviously are…

   Your obvious contempt (or is it fear?) for any kind of voice which gainsays that of the government is the very reason why sites like this one exist – so that people can discuss alternative views. And the alternative view held by almost everyone who isn’t in the government or a biotech company is that GM crops aren’t wanted.

   "A GM variety is no different to a conventionally produced variety which happens to have the same genes". What does that mean? That there happens to be varieties of normal crops which, coincidentally, have the same genes as genetically modified crops? So? The fact that their gene pattern is like that is NOT because of nature, and therefore any potential knock-on effects cannot be known – we don’t know what process their genes have been through – and to deny there is any process is ridiculous; SOMETHING has had to happen to the original genes to change them. That is the point. There is a huge difference between being wary of genetically modified crops, and not bothering about naturally occurring crops which are poisonous. For a start, we know because of long history that normal crops are not going to suddenly mutate or something else weird and wonderful (or not so). And surely that is the point right there; no-one knows what are the long-term effects or implications, and that is why it is such a bad decision. And the last point you made is just plain silly; we are talking about a brand new technology (in actual fact, I believe genetic modification is more of a process than a technology, but I digest…) and therefore no-one has been eating GM crops for long enough to have their health affected. And once again, you miss the central argument (conveniently); and that is that NO-ONE ever claimed that GM crops were dangerous per se. NO-ONE. Not me, not in anything I have wrote above. It’s the fact that not enough is known. To refuse or avoid to acknowledge that point (as the Government is and has done) is the height of dangerous arrogance. And before you start on my choice of words again, I don’t mean that GM crops are dangerous (I DIDN’T SAY THAT…) but that the Governments arrogance is dangerous… Oh, and how many billions exactly is it that have eaten GM crops so far?

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Mar 2004 on 5:22 pm | Link

7. David– your statement,

   "A GM variety is no different to a conventionally produced variety which happens to have the same genes."

   is true, but a little misleading. After all, it’s not possible to cross-breed plants with fireflies to produce grow-in-the-dark crops, but this can be done (roughly) with gene-splicing,

   So far as I can see the important issues here are,
   1. the effect on ecosystems of genetically-modified crops: there isn’t enough information here to call one way or another;

   2. the issue of labelling (the US thinks that labelling food when it contains GMO is latent protectionism, people here mostly think it is a sensible measure to increase consumer choice);

   3. intellectual property issues.

   (3) is the least-discussed, but also the most important of the issues. Beckett didn’t mention it, for instance. But widescale use of GMO is predicated on an enormous legal land-grab, making organisms patentable and bringing common crops under the monopoly control of a few seed businesses. (Imagine that Big Corp. owns the patent for, say, a common type of GMO wheat, and is then able to sue any farmer who, for instance, tries to keep seed from one season to the next; or whose non-Monsanto crop cross-breeds accidentally with the GMO variety.)

   Now, it’s possible that this extension of patentability is a good thing (the usual argument of extremal IP advocates is that *any* extension of "IP rights" is economically beneficial), but the evidence is against it. Certainly the analogous extension of patents to software has been disastrous.

   (Oh, and the BBC link is,
   <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3546347.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3546347.stm</a&gt;
   without the trailing ".".)

   Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 9 Mar 2004 on 8:27 pm | Link

8. GM seems to have no adverse health affects.. yet.
   However more worrying our the likely mutations and affects it could have on our enviroment. With something with as potentially devastating as this we should definatly take a "wait and see" approach after all it did us no harm with the euro and look what happened with mad cow disease.

   Comment by John Murphy — 11 Mar 2004 on 9:23 pm | 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.