A thoughtful article on GM technology

[alan refail]

GM again!
No apologies for posting this link. It is a very measured, thoughtful and informative article by Professor Jonathan Jones, senior scientist for The Sainsbury Laboratory, based at the John Innes Centre. I think it addresses a number of points which the automatic opponents of GM (I used to be one before I started researching the issue) choose to overlook.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8789279.stm

[Tony Hague]

It is however a terribly biassed viewpoint (look at the comments below to see the associations of the Prof). One of the comments I really agree with, so will quote here:

The pro GM argument relies on the concept that somehow there is not already enough food for everyone, and forgets entirely that the problem is distribution and that few people hold the highest percentage of food, while others go hungry. There's no proof as of yet that GM foods will solve any fuel or food crisis, and since GM foods are owned by a few companies and not the people, history will show that it will remain a problem controlled by greed and not need.

GM crops are driven by a synergy between the scientist's enthusiasm for fiddling and the industry's desire for profit. In the developed world, we have problems of obesity whilst in other countries people don't have enough - and some of the obese are getting fat eating food exported from the countries without enough ! Feeding the starving isn't just a technological issue, and despite the rhetoric I doubt it will ever be a priority for the GM industry because they can't pay.

[alan refail]

Hi Tony

Another very relevant comment:

Excellent article, well written, honest and fully grounded in reality. A great antidote to the usual disinformation peddled by dogmatic fantasists whom for some reason the BBC invariably offers a right of reply to. Why should Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace or the Soil Association be entitled to present extremist, ill-judged and poorly researched minority views at license payers expense? I have a PhD in crop science and many years of professional agronomic experience and know for a fact that Prof Jones is spot on in his observations - giving a balanced view does not mean offering equal time to pressure group spokespeople who are utterly ignorant of our subject and wish to scaremonger at the expense of humanity.
Dr Jim Dimmock, Bodelva, Par, Cornwall, Uk

[Johnboy]

Hi Alan,
I agree with you that the article written by Prof. Jonathan Jones is very informative.
I read the articles and all the following comments. It is amazing that because, as a geneticist, has some association with Monsanto, he is, by some, automatically condemned as in the pay of Monsanto.
Dr Jim Dimmock who quite rightly says this, Quote. "Why should Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace or the Soil Association be entitled to present extremist, ill-judged and poorly researched minority views at license payers expense?"
These three organizations have never presented anything truthful to the British Public through the entire saga of GM.
When will people begin to understand breeders rights on seeds!
Many people who read this forum buy F1 seeds and in the price of that seed they are paying a proportion of the cost to the breeder. They buy year after year because F1 seeds do not normally breed true.
Through GM there are things that are simply not possible through conventional breeding and the three above mentioned all say that GM has had it's day when in truth GM is still very much in it's infancy. Why must they persistently lie. They know as they are saying it that it is not true!
Sadly at my time of life I probably will never see the final triumph of GM over the dodgy trio but I am sure that it will eventually.
One of the comments was about a child who could not stomach GM Soya Oil produced in America but could stomach Soya Oil from European produced Soya.
Is there such an animal?
JB.

[Cider Boys]

Welcome back Johnboy, I have also written about the BBC's bias reporting in the guise of being even handed, it is good to read of an academic sharing similar views. As has been said many times there is much to admire and support in 'organic, sustainable and earth friendly' ideals but NOT at the expense of simple honesty and that is where the problem lies. GM is too important to have its research criticised by ill informed (or delibrate lying) pressure groups.

Barney

[alan refail]

The above clickable link appears on the Soil Association's home page, but all it leads to is this.

Nowhere on their site can I find any argument, reasoned and well-informed or otherwise, which explains what their opposition to GM actually is!
Either they are missing an opportunity to state their case, or they have no case to put. I wonder.

[John Walker]

For those with an ongoing interest in this topic, Peter Melchett, policy director for the Soil Association, has written an article in the Autumn 2010 issue of Mother Earth (Volume 3): GM crops and food - the position and role of the Soil Association.

It sets out the Soil Assocation's challenge to GM from the outset and discusses the scientific arguments against its widespread adoption. Whatever your view, the article presents a pretty good overview of the SA's current perspective.

It's available online (as a downloadable PDF file):

http://www.soilassociation.org/News/New ... fault.aspx

[Colin Miles]

Yes John, certainly a pretty good view of the SA's position but, from a quick read through, not exactly convincing. A lot of a very questionable statements about science and other peoples' points of view. IF GM technology does indeed produce random effects then so does conventional cross-breeding. The famous potato experiment not repeated? I wonder why!? Infamous would be a better description.

In no way a balanced report, but then I suppose that can't expected of them.