Public figures blatantly in wrong job.
morstar
Posts: 6,190
So the UK Minister for the Environment suggests we should have more GM crops.
Hmmmm, you're in the wrong job mate!
Hmmmm, you're in the wrong job mate!
0
Comments
-
Wonder who is paying for his next holiday. Hmmm..None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0
-
Wrong job or just a contentious subject that divides opinions?
I would be inclined to say it's a good thing that a politician has an opinion but I would guess that it's a disingenuous opinion... something along the lines of what daviesee said.0 -
Agree completely that it is a contentious subject and therefore subject to debate. I fully expect those debates to take place both in public and behind the scenes or we end up with poor policy decisions. It just strikes me as quite alarming that somebody whose role is responsibility for our interaction with the environment could be on that side of the fence. Who on earth is making the anti GM case within the cabinet?EKIMIKE wrote:Wrong job or just a contentious subject that divides opinions?
It's analogous to a patients champion coming out on the side of an NHS cover up.
Fwiw, I am very firmly in the anti GM camp. An ecosystem that has evolved over millions of years with so many interdependencies and we 're just cutting out chunks of it where we don't perceive any direct benefit to ourselves. Imagine if the technology had existed hundreds of years ago to remove sea ice. Sea farers would have used it. Nowadays we know it is crucial to our weather systems.
We're messing with fire! Doomed I tell ye, we're all dooooooomed!0 -
Well managing the environment isn't just about preservation is it. We have to live in it. Maximisation is also a key consideration. Being an island territory with a strong agricultural sector makes maximisation an even more pertinent consideration - efficiency matters.
Seems to me that GM is a difficult debate because all the concerns are for the long term and thus are only hypothetical at this stage. They cannot be proven right now, which in this short termist world of ours is a major problem. It's like someone campaigning against global warming in 1890. So right now we have the reality that many nations are growing GM crops with no present issues whatsoever. An undeniable fact. Then we have the hypothetical future which may be 50 years down the line or 300 years. Does anyone really know?
Personally I claim to know very, very little about the issue at a technical level. But from a very basic and simplistic viewpoint it seems to be like any other human activity. We use technology, be it a spade and a fork, a tractor, a smartphone or a computer. We use machines to mine, extract oil and manipulate the growth of plants (greenhouses for example). We've also been cross-breeding plant varieties for a very long time. Is GM really that much of a step out of line?
What bothers me is how these plant varieties are used. Just look at what Monsanto are doing with seeds and their intellectual property rights. Absolute scumbags.0 -
It was probably deemed unnatural and dangerous when man first harnessed the power of fire by rubbing two sticks together instead of waiting for occasional lightning strikes to provide the spark. We are impelled to continually experiment and improve our technology so we are better to regulate and control this process than to try and stop what is ultimately unstoppable.0
-
EKIMIKE wrote:We've also been cross-breeding plant varieties for a very long time. Is GM really that much of a step out of line?
cross pollination will only result in 'new' variety of seeds of a plant, it will not allow you to cross a tomato with a fish gene, that's where nature draws the line.my isetta is a 300cc bike0 -
Isn't this G M crops thing really about ownership? The AgroChem giants 'own' the seeds, etc. and can require payment from every farmer. Good business, bad politics.'fool'0
-
I'm sure it's all about feeding the hungry and nothing at all to do with intellectual property rights and profits for shareholders... There goes my tick again0
-
Interesting point made on radio 4 yesterday. Eco campaigners vilify those who go against the scientific consensus on climate change but go against the scientific consensus on gm crops. What's it to be? Science yay? Or science nay? You have to be consistent at least, surely?0
-
DrKJM wrote:Interesting point made on radio 4 yesterday. Eco campaigners vilify those who go against the scientific consensus on climate change but go against the scientific consensus on gm crops. What's it to be? Science yay? Or science nay? You have to be consistent at least, surely?
But you have to admit the man speaking on R4 was a complete pilllock
my isetta is a 300cc bike0 -
DrKJM wrote:Interesting point made on radio 4 yesterday. Eco campaigners vilify those who go against the scientific consensus on climate change but go against the scientific consensus on gm crops. What's it to be? Science yay? Or science nay? You have to be consistent at least, surely?
What scientific consensus has been reached on GM crops? Being pro-science doesn't mean always supporting the high-tech super-advanced solution.0 -
johnfinch wrote:DrKJM wrote:Interesting point made on radio 4 yesterday. Eco campaigners vilify those who go against the scientific consensus on climate change but go against the scientific consensus on gm crops. What's it to be? Science yay? Or science nay? You have to be consistent at least, surely?
What scientific consensus has been reached on GM crops? Being pro-science doesn't mean always supporting the high-tech super-advanced solution.
American association for the advancement of science and the EU directorate general for research and innovation both say that decades of research have shown no ill effects from consumption of GM crops. It's true that the patenting of seeds is a worry but the politics shouldn't influence assessment of the science. And arguing, as some have in the news, that all of these scientists are in the pay of big business doesn't really bear inspection any more than suggesting that all climatologists toe the line to take the government dollar does.0 -
DrKJM wrote:[American association for the advancement of science and the EU directorate general for research and innovation both say that decades of research have shown no ill effects from consumption of GM crops.
That's 2 bodies, which does not make a consensus. Also, humans haven't been consuming GM crops (in large quantities anyway) for decades.DrKJM wrote:It's true that the patenting of seeds is a worry but the politics shouldn't influence assessment of the science.
No, you are right to say that they are 2 completely separate issues, but both of them must be given consideration. We can't just say "oh well, the science is good, so let's ignore the social and economic effects".DrKJM wrote:[And arguing, as some have in the news, that all of these scientists are in the pay of big business doesn't really bear inspection any more than suggesting that all climatologists toe the line to take the government dollar does.
Governments haven't always been on the climatologists' side - look at the Republican party in the USA.0 -
Maria Miller MP? Currently dismantling anything faintly 'cultural' at the behest of Gideon & Dave but seems to have been uniformly useless at lots of previous posts.'fool'0
-
johnfinch wrote:
That's 2 bodies, which does not make a consensus. Also, humans haven't been consuming GM crops (in large quantities anyway) for decades.
It's two bodies as an example, representing many views. There are others.johnfinch wrote:No, you are right to say that they are 2 completely separate issues, but both of them must be given consideration. We can't just say "oh well, the science is good, so let's ignore the social and economic effects".
Don't disagree. But the science *is* good. Argue on the politics and leave the science aside.johnfinch wrote:
Governments haven't always been on the climatologists' side - look at the Republican party in the USA.
Again, don't disagree. But the scientific consensus has more or less consistently opposed that political view along the lines of "you can disagree on what you choose to do with the advice but you can't question the observations". (and i say observations rather than interpretations because on this issue I'm not always 100% convinced myself that they interpret results correctly but I'm in no position to question the experimental findings.)0 -
joe kinnear0
-
Ed Milipede - as leader of anything, never mind a major political party."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
confused@BR wrote:Isn't this G M crops thing really about ownership? The AgroChem giants 'own' the seeds, etc. and can require payment from every farmer. Good business, bad politics.
....so a large company spends a lot of money on developing a new variety that's higher-yielding, pest-resistant etc and they're supposed to just give it away? Nobody has to buy the new seeds, they can stick with the old types if they like.
The GM crops issue is about far more than ownership. It's about reducing inputs and increasing yield (either of which should be good enough reasons for the Environment Minister to take a good hard look and form an opinion which isn't automatically hostile). It's also potentially about solving some enormous public health and food availability issues: a quick google search on 'golden rice' gives a great example.0 -
Just to pick up on a couple of points. My personal concern isn't in consuming GM foods. It is in the long term environmental impact so any amount of studies showing GM is safe to consume has little bearing.
It's about producing food more economically, not for the benefit of any greater good but for the benefit to the bottom line. That is not to say the two are mutually exclusive but I do laugh when feeding the world is justification for anything. Plenty of food is wasted today whilst millions go hungry so that's clearly not a real world driving force.0 -
That's the classic 'protesters' blocker though: here's a big problem which you say we can fix by doing the thing I'm opposed to. Doing this impossible thing would also solve the problem therefore you shouldn't do the thing I'm opposed to until you've done the impossible thing.
You tackle big problems by pulling all the levers not just one of them. Stopping people from throwing away ready meals in London won't stop famines in Africa. Strains of grain that are less prone to diseases, more tolerant of drought, less attractive to insects might! Did you check out the 'golden rice' link: a strain of rice engineered by a non-profit organisation, specifically to counter vitamin A deficiency? A deficiency estimated to kill just under 700,000 children every year. Doesn't that at least warrant fair consideration?0 -
I think you're being slightly disingenuous to me with your conundrum example. However, that aside, global food crises are a problem that could be solved today if there was an economic incentive to do so. There isn't! Not anybodies fault per se, just human nature. Instead we have aid when situations become truly desperate.
Academics may well make some positive advances but ultimately it is trade that rules on the global scale.
I'm not an expert on this and far from a protestor as you have chosen to portray me. Just a normal guy who thinks we really are playing with fire. Can I prove it, no. Can anybody prove to the contrary, no. Therefore we proceed because there clearly are some benefits to GM. For most people I guess that's enough. When many insects are gone and the impacts on the environment become clear I am absolutely certain there will be some unforeseen negative consequences. Anybody who doesn't accept that very real likelihood has never been through a significant change process.0 -
You're probably right about negative consequences. The problem is that doing nothing has negative consequences too. It's ok to take a 'no unknown risk is worth taking' stance if you can afford to feed your family on organic locally sourced produce. But what about those who can't? Arguably there have been negative consequences from every advance we've ever made but in most cases they've been vastly outweighed by the positive, despite what the rose-tinted spectacle brigade would have us believe.
We need our politicians and scientists to be able to gather the trials data to make informed decisions about balance of risk. We've been mucking around with ecosystems and genomes since we started farming. This is just the next step as far as I'm concerned. Yes we need to be careful, but I suspect we'll look back on this in 50 years time as one of those 'can't believe they worried about that' moments.0 -
DrKJM wrote:johnfinch wrote:No, you are right to say that they are 2 completely separate issues, but both of them must be given consideration. We can't just say "oh well, the science is good, so let's ignore the social and economic effects".
Don't disagree. But the science *is* good. Argue on the politics and leave the science aside.
The problem is, when you say that the science is good, you don't specify which questions have been answered. GM foods have only been on sale since the mid-90s, and have only been consumed on a VERY small scale by humans. So the long-term health effects on humans eating large amounts of GM foods are unknown.0 -
The long term health effects of using iphones are similarly unknown...as were the long term health effects of travelling at more than 20 mph when the steam train was invented. Should we ban all progress on that basis?johnfinch wrote:DrKJM wrote:johnfinch wrote:No, you are right to say that they are 2 completely separate issues, but both of them must be given consideration. We can't just say "oh well, the science is good, so let's ignore the social and economic effects".
Don't disagree. But the science *is* good. Argue on the politics and leave the science aside.
The problem is, when you say that the science is good, you don't specify which questions have been answered. GM foods have only been on sale since the mid-90s, and have only been consumed on a VERY small scale by humans. So the long-term health effects on humans eating large amounts of GM foods are unknown.0 -
rhext wrote:
The long term health effects of using iphones are similarly unknown...as were the long term health effects of travelling at more than 20 mph when the steam train was invented. Should we ban all progress on that basis?johnfinch wrote:DrKJM wrote:johnfinch wrote:No, you are right to say that they are 2 completely separate issues, but both of them must be given consideration. We can't just say "oh well, the science is good, so let's ignore the social and economic effects".
Don't disagree. But the science *is* good. Argue on the politics and leave the science aside.
The problem is, when you say that the science is good, you don't specify which questions have been answered. GM foods have only been on sale since the mid-90s, and have only been consumed on a VERY small scale by humans. So the long-term health effects on humans eating large amounts of GM foods are unknown.
No, we shouldn't ban all progress, but comparing GM foods to the steam train doesn't work at all. I can choose whether or not to travel by train. If the GM companies have their way, we will eventually have no say in what goes into our bodies as the foods won't be labelled.
Things get banned sometimes - CFC's, leaded petrol... now, I know that these are different in that they are proven to have a damaging effect on human health/the environment, but should we refuse to ban them on the grounds that they are "progress"?0 -
Ah, well that's easy then. I suspect it will be a long time before the soil association certifies GM foods. You can buy organic stuff until you're happy that enough evidence has been collected.0
-
Michael Gove.
Anyway on GM, I thought that in the US it has been found to spread beyond the farms where it was originally grown and 'contaminating' non GM land. Also I thought most GM crops grown commerically have been engineered to be pesticide resistant leading to heavier use of pesticides and more environmental degredation.0 -
kieranb wrote:Michael Gove.
Anyway on GM, I thought that in the US it has been found to spread beyond the farms where it was originally grown and 'contaminating' non GM land. Also I thought most GM crops grown commerically have been engineered to be pesticide resistant leading to heavier use of pesticides and more environmental degredation.
One of the main GM crops grown in the US is glyphosate-resistant soy-beans. Use of glyphosate on these crops has indeed increased. Use of the two other main synthetic herbicides, however, has decreased as a result. Overall there is a net decrease in the amount of herbicide used.
Another one is maize which is engineered to be resistant to the corn-borer, and applications of insecticide to these crops shows significant decrease.
Ironically, the 'Superweed' story is not a result of horizontal gene transfer, but as a result of plain old natural selection. Weeds are becoming more resistant to weedkillers because they are gradually evolving to do so. Like anti-biotics, we find that the process of taming nature to the degree necessary to support our current expectations and population requires constant maintenance.... GM is a tool we can use in that process and I think we'd be foolish to just chuck it aside.0
