GM in europe

[newatheist]

my favorite show on TV Horizon just restarted a few weeks back and yesterday i saw an episode on GM food. and what i find amazing is that in europe the bias against gm foods is quite incredible, i thought we were supposed to be one of the most rational people in the world, i.e. high education standards, higher atheism, lower crime, happier population etc. why are so many people dismissing it without even checking if it is quite so dangerous.

Countries like argentina and the US have been growing gm crops for years. why does europe fear gm so much, its not like argentinians and americans haven't heard of the heath risks, mixing with non-gm crops etc.

why are our views so different from the americans(north and south).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fsxq6/Horizon_Jimmys_GM_Food_Fight/

very nice series, pretty informative.:smiley:

[Tim the Mage]

my favorite show on TV Horizon just restarted a few weeks back and yesterday i saw an episode on GM food. and what i find amazing is that in europe the bias against gm foods is quite incredible, i thought we were supposed to be one of the most rational people in the world, i.e. high education standards, higher atheism, lower crime, happier population etc. why are so many people dismissing it without even checking if it is quite so dangerous.

Countries like argentina and the US have been growing gm crops for years. why does europe fear gm so much, its not like argentinians and americans haven't heard of the heath risks, mixing with non-gm crops etc.

why are our views so different from the americans(north and south).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fsxq6/Horizon_Jimmys_GM_Food_Fight/

very nice series, pretty informative.:smiley:

Because this debate was captured by pig-ignorant, so-called 'green' groups and parties who politicised the scientific debate coining terms like 'frankenfoods' designed to scare people. With the German government for much of the last 10 years reliant on the support of these extremists, the European agenda was always going to lean that way.

In the UK the malign influence of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth - organisations with a tendency not to let facts get in the way of getting onto the front pages - has been a significant factor as has the takeover of the main broadcast media by people with what amounts to an anti-science agenda (or at the very least a profound and worrying ignorance of science).

[chaggle]

It's a null hypothesis but this time it has to be proved.

People need to be told 'There is no danger whatsoever in GM technology' and until the scientists have tried every combination possible, they cannot possibly assert that.

And by the way, my non-GM tomatoes last long enough anyway.

[Mongrel]

It's a null hypothesis but this time it has to be proved.
Why should it be held to a much higher standard than any other item that we use\affects us daily?


People need to be told 'There is no danger whatsoever in GM technology' and until the scientists have tried every combination possible, they cannot possibly assert that.
So how do you reconcile that attitude with (presumably) your mobile phone useage and daily exposure to EM radiation?

And by the way, my non-GM tomatoes last long enough anyway.

Most of the work for 'supermarket' tomatoes was done before gene splicing, shelf life included. Most GM work is related to denser nutrition, disease resistance, pest resistance and herbicide resistance. They make it easier to grow, easier to maintain and nutritionally better for you.

Your home grown fruit tastes better because it's a different variety, they last better because they're not hydroponically grown and have a lower water content (which, again, relates to the variety).

[Tony Williams]

I can understand that many people are very cautious about accepting GM crops, due to a combination of factors. These can basically be summed up as an awareness of the Law of Unintended Consequences: there might be unexpected side-effects from some promising new development.

This has, of course, happened time and time again where science is concerned. DDT was the wonder disinfectant; thalidomide a great boon to the pregnant; CFCs a great idea for fridge coolant; lead in petrol a huge help to car engines; and so on.

Even doing simple things like introducing a species of animal or plant to a different ecology can have catastrophic consequences; rabbits in Australia, Japanese knotweed in the UK, and so on.

As a result of these kinds of experiences, the population tends to be very wary when scientists tell them that some new development is wonderful and there are no downsides; hence the rejection of MMR vaccine by so many. This attitude isn't helped by the fact that the study of science has been shrinking for decades in our education system (because it's much harder than "softer" subjects), so the science-trained are in a decreasing minority.

The public can accept selective breeding as a "natural" process which is under control (garden flowers and pedigree dogs being good examples). Fiddling with genes, the basic building blocks of life, is a fundamentally different matter, with something of the flavour of Frankenstein.

I think that genetically-modified crops will be accepted - and need to be - but that acceptance will take time. It is not helped by the suspicion in which big business is (rightly) held: we all know the ways in which they distort evidence in their favour. The moral case for improving food production in places which really need it, like Africa, is also undermined by the deliberate development of crops whose seed is infertile, forcing the poor farmers to buy, from the big GM companies, fresh seed each year for planting.

So GM foods will come, but only over a long (and trouble-free) period of time, through the public getting used to the idea.

[chaggle]

Good points Mongrel. Please don't assume I'm anti GM, I'm merely addressing the reasons that the public are so suspicious.

But:



So how do you reconcile that attitude with (presumably) your mobile phone useage and daily exposure to EM radiation?


I can choose whether or not I use my mobile phone - not so with GM foods.

http://www.indsp.org/gmgroup.php

I'm afraid I don't know much about ISP but the long list of members (with long lists of letters after their names!) of their GM group certainly looks impressive!

[chaggle]

I'm a plonker! :-[ I should have looked a little deeper

There appear to be links between www.indsp.org (http://www.indsp.org) which I quoted previously and www.i-sis.org.uk (http://www.i-sis.org.uk) particularly through a Dr. Mae-Wan Ho.

Only go into the latter website with extreme bullshit deflectors deployed and I apologise to the members of this forum for taking them anywhere near it.

Is it possible that all of the members of the Independent Science Panel are Woos?

They have got loads of letters after their names!

[Mongrel]

Good points Mongrel. Please don't assume I'm anti GM, I'm merely addressing the reasons that the public are so suspicious.

But:



I can choose whether or not I use my mobile phone - not so with GM foods.

http://www.indsp.org/gmgroup.php

I'm afraid I don't know much about ISP but the long list of members (with long lists of letters after their names!) of their GM group certainly looks impressive!

Well all the time you're carrying your mobile it's transmitting to and from the base station, if you're in any town odds are there's a transmitter with a few hundred yards. In the office (and frequently pubs and coffee bars) - there's probably a few Wi-Fi routers, watching telly - guess what EM? You generally have far less control than you think.*

As for not being able to choose whether you have GM food, yes you can. Shop at the local farmers market or farm store, grow it yourself and make sure your food stores are reputable (Beef for example will never have touched anything GM if it's got the Angus sticker on it).

My major gripe with the Anti-GM is that most of the evidence seems to come from a smallish number of sources, many of whom have affiliations with the political green movement who (IMO) stopped being green and turned anti corporate years ago. The science is normally shoddy, leads to people dying and generally is a whirlwind tour of fallacies and scare quotes (frankenfood for example) and any relevant information is lost in the deluge.


*The Electro smog nonsense was a random example about safety and "more tests needed", there's no reliable evidence that EM causes any harm :)

[newatheist]

theres another issue i can't quite explain, selective breeding has been happening for many many years adn so far i haven't heard a single complaint about it.

i think the chewawa is a breed of dog that has been bred 'naturally' to have the features it has now which results in a lot of pain for the creature throughout its life, but its one of the more popular and expensive breed of dog (paris hilton appeal).

its just rediculous that a dog can be created as an accessory without much controversy, yet something made to help starving people around the world is so despised

[lost thought]

theres another issue i can't quite explain, selective breeding has been happening for many many years adn so far i haven't heard a single complaint about it.

i think the chewawa is a breed of dog that has been bred 'naturally' to have the features it has now which results in a lot of pain for the creature throughout its life, but its one of the more popular and expensive breed of dog (paris hilton appeal).

its just rediculous that a dog can be created as an accessory without much controversy, yet something made to help starving people around the world is so despised

You got it in a nutshell.>:-)
Old, tradional ways are good... New fangled scientific ways are bad..>:-)
Yet I don't see mant people turning down the new fangled scientific medicines or technology.>:D
Too much Woo we need more thinking. O0

Lost Thought O0

[Pebble]

Countries like argentina and the US have been growing gm crops for years. why does europe fear gm so much, its not like argentinians and americans haven't heard of the heath risks, mixing with non-gm crops etc.

:

Is it not slightly ironic that the US citizens are the guinea pigs for the europeans when it comes to assessing the long-term safety of GM products?

Most of the claims of the anti GM groups are bogus, but the potential impacts on biodiversity are quite real - having said that even without GM we are making a pretty good fist of destroying most other lifeforms anyway.

[Trinoc]

Just to be a Devil's Advocate for a moment ... I'm not aware of any "natural" cross-breeding techniques that could introduce anything like a snake toxin gene into a crop species.

[newatheist]

You got it in a nutshell.>:-)
Old, tradional ways are good... New fangled scientific ways are bad..>:-)
Yet I don't see mant people turning down the new fangled scientific medicines or technology.>:D
Too much Woo we need more thinking. O0

Lost Thought O0
the thing that bothers me most is that im a freak for new inventions, seriously i just love it, i mean all the new things we dreamed of in the past that are now reality, the incredible complexity and the future possibilities are just too exciting and then when someone comes along and says 'thats dangerous, i ban you(not me from doing it ever again' without any evidence it just drives me nuts..>:-)

actually think of the scientists, they often put 5-10 years of their lives (maybe more) to one project to better all our lives only for it to be trampled all over by woo.

[Tony Williams]

theres another issue i can't quite explain, selective breeding has been happening for many many years adn so far i haven't heard a single complaint about it.

i think the chewawa is a breed of dog that has been bred 'naturally' to have the features it has now which results in a lot of pain for the creature throughout its life, but its one of the more popular and expensive breed of dog (paris hilton appeal).

its just rediculous that a dog can be created as an accessory without much controversy, yet something made to help starving people around the world is so despised
See post #5

[skbuncks]

Just to be a Devil's Advocate for a moment ... I'm not aware of any "natural" cross-breeding techniques that could introduce anything like a snake toxin gene into a crop species.

Been there, done that.

http://funnychops.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/62.thumbnail.jpg

skb

[Tomolac]

I still don't understand why people see a difference between making changes over many years and making the exact same changes quickly?

and why aren't people worried about the

potential impacts on biodiversity
by tomatoes, bananas or cucumbers?

[Trinoc]

by tomatoes, bananas or cucumbers?
Tomatoes, bananas and cucumbers with built-in insecticide? Quite apart from the fact I would prefer not to ingest BT toxin myself, has anyone noticed the current panic about the way most of the bees are dying off? It's unlikely this particular extinction is caused by GM (simply because it's also happening in countries without significant GM crops), but it illustrates just the sort of shit we would be in if we caused a significant reduction in the insect population.

[Tony Williams]

I still don't understand why people see a difference between making changes over many years and making the exact same changes quickly?

Because they are not making the "exact same changes". Selective breeding results in a narrow range of variation, one small step at a time. The whole process is transparent. Gene manipulation can involve massive change instantly, in all sorts of entirely unnatural directions. This could also have "unforeseen consequences", as Trinoc is pointing out.

[Trinoc]

GM could produce some amazing advances. Probably the biggest single increase in world food production could be achieved by giving grains the genes to support leguminous root nodules to fix nitrogen ... but what agribusiness is going to develop a product that pulls the rug out from under the fertilizer market? Even if they did they would make sure the users could only use the crop if they bought new seed every year. The only way this is ever likely to happen is if it's funded by a charity or something like the United Nations, and then given away free.

Crops that can grow with salty water irrigation would also make a hell of a difference, now that fresh water irrigation supplies are running out. But as long as this is only an enterprise to make vast profits for companies like Monsanto, nobody is going to care about feeding the poorest people in the world.

But what do we get instead? Crops that allow spraying with more of the manufacturer's own weedkiller (Roundup) and crops with built-in insecticide that kill helpful and unhelpful insects indiscriminately.

[chaggle]

!Appeal to Authority Alert!

http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/scary-potatoes/#more-378

Quote:

I can readily identify with the antipathy. I’m no friend of big biotech. I think GM has created a dangerous powershift in agriculture in the favour of multinational biotechnology corporations, and “terminator seeds”, which die at the end of the season, are a venal way to increase farmers’ dependency. Monsanto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto) are clearly a nasty company (apart from anything else they made Agent Orange).

So I’m cautious about GM, and each crop needs to be assessed on a case by case (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/factsheets/factsheets2005/geneticallymodifiedf3097.cfm) basis, but they seem safe overall.

Unquote

These are the words of Ben Goldacre - he, for one, thinks that GM crops are sufficiently different from other crops to be "assessed on a case by case basis"

[newatheist]

!Appeal to Authority Alert!

http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/scary-potatoes/#more-378

Quote:

I can readily identify with the antipathy. I’m no friend of big biotech. I think GM has created a dangerous powershift in agriculture in the favour of multinational biotechnology corporations, and “terminator seeds”, which die at the end of the season, are a venal way to increase farmers’ dependency. Monsanto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto) are clearly a nasty company (apart from anything else they made Agent Orange).

So I’m cautious about GM, and each crop needs to be assessed on a case by case (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/factsheets/factsheets2005/geneticallymodifiedf3097.cfm) basis, but they seem safe overall.

Unquote

These are the words of Ben Goldacre - he, for one, thinks that GM crops are sufficiently different from other crops to be "assessed on a case by case basis"
'the big corporations are always on the lookout to exploit' if their objections were based on this argument then parhaps i can understand their oposition but really all everyone is concerned with is the woo.
maybe europe is far too influenced by sci-fi films.???

[Tim the Mage]

bananas


Bad example for the debate about bees and stuff like that as bananas are propagated asexually and most cultivars have no seeds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana#Cultivation

[Croydon Bob]

I agree with Trinoc and Chaggle. It's not GM that I'm against, it's the way it is currently being used. I accept that opposition is mainly from raving loonies and we need to avoid giving the impression that nutters like Prince Charles are saying anything sensible. But weed-killer-resistant crops with terminator genes that cost third-world farmers extra and don't give them a sustainable future are not a good thing.

[Trinoc]

Bad example for the debate about bees and stuff like that as bananas are propagated asexually and most cultivars have no seeds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana#Cultivation
That doesn't stop bananas with built-in pesticides from killing insects, including those that perform beneficial tasks like pollinating other species.

[Mongrel]

That doesn't stop bananas with built-in pesticides from killing insects, including those that perform beneficial tasks like pollinating other species.

Could you give some examples of crops with "built in pesticides"?

[Trinoc]

Could you give some examples of crops with "built in pesticides"?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis