I don't claim to know much about the science of GM crops but as a development economist by background I was brought up on the 'green revolution' and the transformation of Asian agriculture from the 1950s onwards. This article gives an interesting perspective from Prof Sir David King, recently retired Chief UK Government Scientist:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4699096.ece
I can do the economics but the science of agricultural business is not my strong point! And I have been of the view that the continuing failure (at least relatively) of Africa is perhaps the biggest issue with the most pressing need for resolution facing us at present.
I'm sure I'll get some disagreement with the presumption but in and amongst some real science of GM crops would be really helpful.
"Green" is too broad a brush, but I'd say anti-GM are directly promoting starvation.
Brian Dunning did a good Skeptoid episode on this issue, or at least one closely related thereto:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112#
I agree with Abdul's refinement that it's more the anti-GM movement specifically that is causing the problems here - and it seems that their objections are based more on superstition than science. I don't claim to be an expert though, so I'm naturally glad to be corrected on this if I'm wrong.
Genetic modification has been going on for millennia through selective breeding agriculture, and though this is technically an appeal to antiquity, I would suggest it is valid enough to refute the idea that GM is new and scary.
There's far too much ideology tied up in the GM debate; most people protesting it are simply anti-corporate, or pro-"natural" (whatever that might mean)... If they want to be taken seriously, they need to make the debate about science, not politics.
I don't think I'm on either side of this "debate".
Obviously, as a rational skeptic, I don't side with the "we're all doomed by GM, it's frankenscience" brigade.
But the first time I remember reading about GM was an article (probably in New Scientist) talking about adding a vitamin to rice that would have massive health benefits for the people of India. I thought that the idea was great and that some real advancements were on the horizon. What have we actually got? Things such as plants that are resistant to weedkillers that cost more than non-GM and with terminator genes to ensure that poor third-world farmers are totally reliant on first-world corporations for the crop as well as the weedkillers to go with them.
I couldn't care less if all the GM crops that have been tested so far in the UK were banned, I doubt that any of them are really of much use and have benefits that will actually outweigh potential problems. I would, potentially, be very supportive of GM crops if I could be convinced of the advantages.
Of course, that might be just about to happen...
CB - a lot of the stuff for poor countries is covered by a Humanitarian Use License. In the case of food crops it normally translates to much cheaper seed source,the ability gather seeds from the crop and permission to sell a small amount of the grain (btw - you're thinking of Golden Rice) . Most of the stuff that's GM'd for poor countries is along the lines of better drought resistance, higher yield, better disease resistance
The 'Roundup Ready' crops are much more of an Western thing (GM grain compromises a large proportion of their annual usage\yield) but allow the farmer to use a much more environmentally sound weed killer on the entire field rather than spot spraying with chemicals that can damage humans\animals\the water table or
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks