GM

[Simon]

Simon, you really should stop thinking of yourself as "A conservative".

Party politics is a game for the enslavers to play, with us as the pieces on the board.

Besides, issues are more fun when you can ignore the party line at will.

Well, I am - with a small c anyway. I generally support my Tory MP though. Wouldn't say he's a friend, but we know each other and have worked together occasionally on local issues.

As for the game - surely we are only pieces if we let ourselves be moved about on the board against our better judgement?

Third sentence - very true. And I do!

[teamsaint]

Well, I am - with a small c anyway. I generally support my Tory MP though. Wouldn't say he's a friend, but we know each other and have worked together occasionally on local issues.

As for the game - surely we are only pieces if we let ourselves be moved about on the board against our better judgement?



Third sentence - very true. And I do!

I don't buy your game analysis. By definition, the pieces are there to be moved.
We all come from different places. As someone who has never voted tory, and for a long time believed that labour stood for the interests of ordinary people, i have had my faith(in politicians), which I suppose was never that deep, completely destroyed by the blair government , with its wars, capitulation to the banks and city, and its imposition of serious measures that it never mentioned in its manifestos.
perhaps your faith in the tories has never been undermined like that.
For years, I believed that labour (or the lib dems)would have to sacrifice a principle or two, and that in power enough good would be done to justify this.
How wrong I was. The whole process corrupts.(not everybody all the time, but enough).
but out of this, i learned that looking at the issues, not listening to second hand views, but forming my own judgements as far as possible, was far more positive...along with discussing issues with people. Its quite amazing the response you get when you get people to open up on a whole range of issues.....British people are very wary of discussing "political" issues...but with a nudge....
Watch what people (politicians) do, not what they say is my watchword these days....perhaps that too will change.

[Flosshilde]

... the anti-GM camp. Please note that the objections these people raise are doctrinal, they have nothing to do with science. Having taken a doctrinal position against GM, they select the evidence to support their case and ignore the evidence that doesnt.

Why is it 'doctrinal' to object to GM crops because people can't save seeds from them to sow the next season (because Monsanto et al own the copyright), but not 'doctrinal' to support GM crops because Monsanto et al make lots of money out of them, which is how I interpret your last paragraph. & to suggest that people are opposed to GM crops because of 'envy' is delusional.

[umslopogaas]

Phew, Flosshilde, I will go to bed and have a think. I believe that people who object to GM do so on grounds of doctrine (to which there is no recourse) rather than reason, which I prefer. But I'm going to bed, its late and far too late for worrying about why people cant save seeds.

[johnb]

Why is it 'doctrinal' to object to GM crops because people can't save seeds from them to sow the next season (because Monsanto et al own the copyright), but not 'doctrinal' to support GM crops because Monsanto et al make lots of money out of them, which is how I interpret your last paragraph. & to suggest that people are opposed to GM crops because of 'envy' is delusional.

There are two distinct, but related issues here: (1) the intrinsic safety of GM crops and (2) the very questionable business practices of big-agro companies, typified by Monsanto.

[Serial_Apologist]

Simon, you really should stop thinking of yourself as "A conservative".

I was more concerned about him describing himself as "a capitalist" !

With principles like his he must be making quite a packet. I'm thinking of PMing him to find out if he'll sell me some shares!

[Simon]

If you are going to take part in discussions, SA, why not restrict yourself to things that you understand?

It would also be helpful to post constructive comments, and preferably ones that also have some useful relationship with what has been said.

[Flosshilde]

the intrinsic safety of GM crops

Are they 'intrinsically safe'? & what exactly do you mean by safe? - that they woun't cause tumours (or any other ill-health) in people? that they won't cross-fertilise non-GM plants & create 'weeds' that are resistant to weed-killers?

and (2) the very questionable business practices of big-agro companies, typified by Monsanto.

But that is an intrinsic part of the GM project.

[Serial_Apologist]

If you are going to take part in discussions, SA, why not restrict yourself to things that you understand?

It would also be helpful to post constructive comments, and preferably ones that also have some useful relationship with what has been said.

How many companies do you own then, Simon? Come on, let's have the low-down!

[johnb]

Are they 'intrinsically safe'? & what exactly do you mean by safe? - that they woun't cause tumours (or any other ill-health) in people? that they won't cross-fertilise non-GM plants & create 'weeds' that are resistant to weed-killers?

Perhaps I used the wrong words. I wasn't intending to claim that GM crops themselves are intrinsically safe but more leave an open question as far as that is concerned. One of the problems with this issue is that, mainly because of the ugly, greedy 'land grab' that Monsanto initially made into this market, all GM crops are now categorised together as one thing, whereas each should be evaluated individually. On the basis of very little knowledge I suspect that some GM crops are/will be perfectly safe and of real benefit whereas others are much more questionable.

But that is an intrinsic part of the GM project.

I detest the way some big agro companies aim to hold farmers to ransom by creating a unique source for GM seeds because the crops are engineered to be infertile. For me, this is a major issue surrounding the use of GM crops but this is separate from whether GM crops are safe.

[MrGongGong]

How many companies do you own then, Simon? Come on, let's have the low-down!

You know he isn't going to answer a question like that
though i'm sure he has a shelf full of "academic " papers on the subject

[Serial_Apologist]

You know he isn't going to answer a question like that
though i'm sure he has a shelf full of "academic " papers on the subject

He should know I keep my A-Z by the loo, just to be sure where I'm going!

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Simon
There's been a newsletter from the Scientific Alliance on this topic, discussing the research you're concerned about:

http://www.scientific-alliance.org/scientific-alliance-newsletter/legitimate-fears-over-gm-crops

The work of a group led by Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen was published online on 19 September by the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize). Unusually, journalists were not allowed to preview it before its release. The main findings were that a particular strain of rats studied over their entire lifetimes developed more tumours and died earlier if they were fed on the GM maize variety. Others, fed on conventional maize but provided with water containing low levels of Roundup, also developed more tumours than the controls.

But here the plot thickens. Despite these superficially worrying findings, the design of the experiment appears to be incapable of demonstrating any effects with any statistical rigour. 25% of the (smaller) control group also died after developing tumours, but some of the test groups (it is unclear which) actually had fewer health problems. There was also no dose-response effect, which would normally occur only if a substance was toxic at extremely low levels, which is highly unlikely for a crop or compound which has been widely used for many years.

And I'd read on, it gets 'better'.

There's really no debate about GM crops apart from that going on in Europe. GM crops are in widespread use throughout the rest of the world. If we are to feed the world, we'll need crops that can grow in drier/wetter/warmer/colder climates, and capture more nitrogen rather than needing oil-based fertilisers. And yes, there's a commercial aspect to this as well, which Europe is deciding to ignore.

The argument that GM crops cause farmers to buy new seed every season seems weak; if that's the case, farmers will use traditional seed instead and GM will fail unless it can demonstrate greater productivity - so then is it immoral for a GM company to make money, and if so, why?

[Serial_Apologist]

The argument that GM crops cause farmers to buy new seed every season seems weak; if that's the case, farmers will use traditional seed instead and GM will fail unless it can demonstrate greater productivity - so then is it immoral for a GM company to make money, and if so, why?

It depends on that on which money is being made.

Already we have the appearance of superweeds in countries where GM production has proceeded apace unopposed as a warning. Money is directed to scientific endeavours directed towards worsening rather than ameliorating a pre-existing problem, tantamount to perpetuating a faustian pact against restoring ecological balance, and thereby getting to the root of the problem (no pun intended).

[PhilipT]

... perpetuating a faustian pact against restoring ecological balance, and thereby getting to the root of the problem (no pun intended).

That 'ecological balance' you speak of would still need to deliver food for seven billion people. While you're thinking about that, you might want to think that there are lots of animals that kill other animals for food, and leave the rest. For thousands of years humans have used the rest for clothes, shoes, tools, light (think tallow candles) etc.. Is that more 'balanced', or less 'balanced', than what other species do?