gm crops to get go-ahead

[smoker]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1151370,00.html

the public don't want it, so, let's not not give it to them, let's try and bring them round to our point of view instead.

bastards. lining the pockets of monsanto and all the other lobbying sods who blair's so desperate to get onside.

a few choice quotes:

The papers make clear the government's recognition that public opinion in this country is generally resistant to GM crops. "The public was unlikely to be receptive," the discussion notes.
However, the government is equally clear in its view that any ban on the crops would be "the easy way out" and would be "an irrational way for the government to proceed" in the light of its desire to back and encourage UK science.

so fuck the wishes of the elctorate, pander to the big businesses

"Opposition might eventually be worn down by solid, authoritative scientific argument."

arguments no doubt provided by the GM companies.

anyone here read george monbiot's captive state? gives quite an insight into this matter

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

the government's final decision to give the green light to the first crop of GM maze in Britain. An announcement is expected to be made to the House of Commons next week.

And I bet those scientifically enhanced fuckplants try and trap you in there as well until you choke and can't get out. Fucking scientists. We should all eat organic food. Unfortunately its 99 fucking pounds for a chicken these days. That's how the government reward us for trying to buy british. Still, if the immigrants, terrorists and homosexuals weren't taking this country for a ride, maybe we'd be able to afford them.

[Matthias]

Still, if the immigrants, terrorists and homosexuals weren't taking this country for a ride, maybe we'd be able to afford them.

Now, now. You can't blame immigrants, terrorists and homosexuals for everything these days. It's all the fault of the Internet. The Internet is to blame for anything and everything. It's no longer the Asylum Seekers that are blamed. If you kill someone, it's because you own a PC.

Food... whatever we eat is bad for us. So-called 'healthy' foods are packed with Carbs and trans-fatty acids. And organic food is free of pesticides... so it's full of pests!

"What's for tea mom?"
"Ringworm, son."

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

Well that joke fell flat on it's arse then.

*tsk*

I'm almost about to whinge about the lack of smilies.

[Pinball]

Given that the field trials were destroyed by "green" campaigners, how can the government argue that there is adequate proof of safety to proceed? There isn't. Incidentally, I also spit on those nutter campaigners for preventing scientific research. They obviously belong to the "belief is easier than fact" brigade. Afraid of the results, perhaps?

But overall government once again shows that it represents the interests of business and not "its" people, who pay the taxes. Most GM companies are American and British (e.g. AstraZeneca is a major player and is British). That's the bottomline, and the explanation for the government's actions. They don't GAF that the people don't want GM. The sheeple will do what they're fucking told, as usual. Pathetic.

[smoker]

you say it so much more eloquently than me pinball. i'm by no means against the research, and gm food obviously has some benefits. but the fact is the government was elected by the people and not the business world. if they don't want it, as has been shown time and again, then they shouldn't have to have it.

[Rats]

This has been going on for ages, you used to see experimental crop circles and now they're all cold and simetrical. When's the last time you saw a paranoid carrot?

[smoker]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1057588,00.html

good george monbiot article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1119991,00.html

monsanto accused of trial fixing

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1117524,00.html

monsanto accused of price fixing

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1135902,00.html

monsanto patent a natural plant


huge companies like monsanto and astra-zeneca have links right to the very top of government. they have the politicians in their pockets.

[Matthias]

Well that joke fell flat on it's arse then.

*tsk*

I'm almost about to whinge about the lack of smilies.

I got the joke, VM, and carried it forward in a blame the Internet stylee.

Smileys would be nice though. And Avatars. Just don't tell Neil I said that!

[Bilko]

This whole thing comes down to money. GM foods will be successful because if they can be mass produced on a bigger scale then non GM foods families on low income/low budget will buy them. When families come into a situation of feeding themselves and their children they will have no morals about boycott GM foods. They are in the same situation about health foods, health foods are simply too expensive for these types of families to buy. Frozen chips, beef burgers and sausages are very cheap and will feed a whole family, hence why so many of us and our children are obese

[Matthias]

Frozen chips, beef burgers and sausages are very cheap and will feed a whole family, hence why so many of us and our children are obese

Speak for yourself, dough-boy!

;-)

[Bilko]

Speak for yourself, dough-boy!

Are you talking to me!

[Sherringford Hovis]

I'll quickly call for a truce with Bill Oddie before he arrives.

Here's what I found on my hard drive from the last time we had a rant about GM in The Before Time [tm]

Various news sources on Saturday (including The Guardian, sorry) carry a story reporting that Los Angeles judge Rodney Sippel has been removed from presiding on a class-action case involving Monsanto's price-fixing.

Why?

Because between 1998 and 2000 whenhe was an ordinary lawyer, he and his legal firm had previously worked on behalf of Monsanto (the world's biggest GM company), yet for some reason he felt that it was unnecesary to declare this as a conflict of interest.

Are you using that story as evidence that my claim that GM is highly regulated and accountable is not true?

I hope that was a rhetorical question, otherwise my lack of dignifying it with an answer may seem rude. Before I quote some of the anti-GM people, here's a spokesman from Monsanto:

Phil Angell, director of corporate communications at Monsanto Corporation (well, until a few weeks after he made this statement, anyway!):
"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible."

QED.

The case against:

"Monsanto et al commercialised the technology at breakneck speed [with] no thought about the long term consequences." Biotechnologist, Professor Denis Murphy of the University of Glamorgan, UK

"We strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly nor economically beneficial to us." Delegates from 20 African Countries to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN meeting on Plant Genetic Resources

Professor Richard Lewontin, professor of genetics, Harvard University, "We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another."

Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist, "This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment. The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences."

Professor Norman Ellstrand, ecological geneticist at the University of  California, "within 10 years we will have a moderate to large-scale ecological or economic catastrophe, because there will be so many products being released."

Dr Harash Narang, microbiologist and senior research associate at the University of Leeds, who originally pointed to the possible link between mad cow disease (BSE) and CJD in humans, "If you look at the simple principle of genetic modification it spells ecological disaster. There are no ways of quantifying the risks...  The solution is simply to ban the use of genetic modification in food."

Dr. Erik Millstone, Sussex University, "The fundamental problem of the way in  which GM foods have been approved is that they haven't really been tested properly at all. All that has happened is something which I would characterise as an exercise in wishful thinking."

Dr Ian Gibson MP, former Dean of Biology at the University of East Anglia, has expressed concern about the inclusion of GM ingredients in school meals: "There is an awful lot unknown about hazards of new [GM food] crops and until it is fully tested we should not be subjecting people to risks, least of all young children."

"With genetic engineering familiar foods could become metabolically dangerous or even toxic." Statement by 21 scientists including the following, Professor Brian Goodwin, Professor Jacqueline McGlade, Professor Peter Saunders and Professor Richard Lacey

Professor Richard Lacey, microbiologist and Professor of Food Safety at Leeds University - one of the scientists who predicted the BSE disaster from early on - has spoken out strongly against the introduction of genetically engineered foods because of "the essentially unlimited health risks."

Professor Arpad Pusztai, world-leading nutrintional science expert, formerly of the Food, Gut, and Microbial Interactions Group, Rowett Research Institute, "If it is left to me, I would certainly not eat it. We are putting new things into food which have not been eaten before. The effects on the immune system are not easily predictable and I challenge anyone who will say that the effects are predictable."

Professor Colin Blakemore, Waynflete professor of physiology at Oxford University and former President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, has said of the genetic engineering of food crops: "We shouldn't be complacent in thinking that we can predict the results."

Professor James (the main architect of the UK Food Standards Agency) has commented on genetically engineered food: "The perception that everything is totally straightforward and safe is utterly naive. I don't think we fully understand the dimensions of what we're getting into." He has also said, "There is... a need to develop more effective and appropriate screening methods to alert companies and government agencies to the unexpected consequences of the often random insertion of genetic traits into plants." Professor James has also remarked that the current regulatory system is open to challenge simply because we are making all sorts of judgments with so little evidence at hand."

Dr Andrew Chesson, vice chairman of European Commission scientific committee on animal nutrition, "Potentially disastrous effects may come from undetected harmful substances in genetically modified foods"

Dr. Gerald B. Guest, Director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), "...animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns ... Residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk products may pose human food safety problems."  

Professor Gordon McVie, head of the Cancer Research Campaign: "We don' t know what genetic abnormalities might be incorporated into the genome [the individual's DNA]. I' m more worried about humans than about the environment, to be honest. One of the problems is that because it' s a long-term thing, you need to do long-term experiments."

Dr Vyvyan Howard, expert in fetal and infant toxico-pathology at Liverpool University Hospital,  "Swapping genes between organisms can produce unknown toxic effects and allergies that are most likely to affect children"

Dr Mae Wan-Ho, geneticist in the UK Open University Department of Biology says: "Genetic engineering bypasses conventional breeding by using artificially constructed parasitic genetic elements, including viruses, as vectors to carry and smuggle genes into cells. Once inside cells, these vectors slot themselves into the host genome. The insertion of foreign genes into the host genome has long been known to have many harmful and fatal effects including cancer of the organism."

Professor Dennis Parke of University of Surrey School of Biological Sciences, a former chief advisor on food safety to Unilever Corporation and British advisor to the US FDA on safety aspects of biotechnology writes: "In 1983, hundreds of people in Spain died after consuming adulterated rapeseed oil. This adulterated rapeseed oil was not toxic to rats". Dr Parke warns that current testing procedures for genetically altered foods including rodent tests are not proving safety for humans. He has suggested a moratorium on the release of genetically engineered foods.

Dr Peter Wills, theoretical biologist at Auckland University writes: "By transferring genes across species barriers which have existed for aeons between species like humans and sheep we risk breaching natural thresholds against unexpected biological processes. For example, an incorrectly folded form of an ordinary cellular protein can under certain circumstances be replicative and give rise to infectious neurological disease".

Dr Michael Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Pathology at Guy's Hospital says, "The generation of genetically engineered plants and animals involves the random integration of artificial combinations of genetic material from unrelated species into the DNA of the host organism. This procedure results in disruption of the genetic blueprint of the organism with totally unpredictable consequences. The unexpected production of toxic substances has now been observed in genetically engineered bacteria, yeast, plants, and animals with the problem remaining undetected until a major health hazard has arisen. Moreover, genetically engineered food or enzymatic food processing agents may produce an immediate effect or it could take years for full toxicity to come to light." Dr Antoniou recently warned MPs against believing there was any safe alternative to a ban on GM foods, "We should not lull ourselves into a false sense of security: we should not think that by regulating something which is inherently unpredictable and uncontainable it automatically becomes safe!"

Dr. George Wald, Nobel Laureate and Higgins Professor of Biology, Harvard University, wrote "Up to now, living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations ..going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise, but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics."

The British Medical Association, which represents over 80% of practising doctors in the UK, has called for a ban on GM crop trials and questioned "whether there is a real need for genetically modified foodstuff", warning that "an artificial market may have been created by researchers and producers."

All crackpots, loonies and disreputable, obviously.

I've destroyed GM crops myself, no need to thank me: 30 years from now, seeing the son of Jennifer Aniston and Bradd Pitt playing me in the movie about the grassroots war against the evil corporations will be reward enough.

[Dusty Gozongas]

Well that joke fell flat on it's arse then.

*tsk*

I'm almost about to whinge about the lack of smilies.

I got the joke, VM, and carried it forward in a blame the Internet stylee.

Smileys would be nice though. And Avatars. Just don't tell Neil I said that!

Or how about a small selection of "grumpies" for the truly irritable to embellish their emotions? :D

[New World Order]

The sheeple will do what they're fucking told

Shut up, eat your Soylent Green and get back in line Pinball.

Its good to mess around with food, who cares if we lose cucumbers forever anyway.

[Garfield And Friends]

Aaaiiiee! So he's the result of genetic modification?! Ban it! Ban GM!

[Rats]

They crossed a spud with a jellyfish

[5 Knuckle Shuffle]

They crossed a spud with a jellyfish

A Portuguese Piper?

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

Bloody luddites, the lot of you. Bring back the fifties!

Jeez, doesn't anyone remember just how cool the Triffids were?

[The Plaque Goblin]

So why is GM necessarily worse than traditional selective breeding techniques? Adding genes from unrelated organisms does sound a little dodgy, I suppose.

For thousands of years traditional plant breeders have improved crops by taking pollen containing all of one plant's genes and cross-pollinating it with all the genes of another. Tens of thousands of genes cross over at random. This system does not require rigorous testing and yet things can go wrong.

In the 70s traditional breeders crossbred two types of potato to transfer the genes for insect resistance. Unwittingly amongst the thousands of genes crossed they also transferred a gene for a toxin that made people ill. In contrast genetic engineers claim their work is safer and more predictable because they are moving just one or two specific genes and they can more easily test the effects.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/1999/gmfood_script.shtml

And why aren't you concerned about the introduction of a foreign species into our environment? Maize originates in the Americas, doesn't it?

[Bill Oddie]

I haven't the time or energy to get into this argument again, suffice to say that people who oppose GM do so largely for political rather then scientific reasons.

[Funky Gibbon]

So why is GM necessarily worse than traditional selective breeding techniques? Adding genes from unrelated organisms does sound a little dodgy, I suppose.

Not really. No more so than repairing a radio with the odd resistor pulled from a toaster. Would the result be a radio that lightly grills itself? The fact is that a single gene does not make an animal into what it is.
I have done a degree in genetics, so I know more than the average bloke on the street, and I would sooner eat GM than organic food. A common organic pesticide is copper sulphate, which is of course toxic. Washing the food is not enough if the copper penetrates the product. Also organic food is often coated in faecal coliforms, which are often responsible for giving people the shits.  Also organic food is more wasteful because they are more susceptible to disease and parasites.

[mr rou-rou]

If anyone has the Sept 2003 Blueprint magazine can they get me a decent scan?

[The Plaque Goblin]

Hey you guys, the whole of The Day of the Triffids is being shown on UK Gold in the morning from 6am!

6am:

1 of 3. Adaptation of John Wyndham's novel about an invasion of plants who blind their human prey. Recovering in hospital from a triffid sting, Bill Masen wakes to find the world menaced by the killer plants. Starring John Duttine.

7am:

2 of 3. Adaptation of John Wyndham's novel about an invasion of man-eating plants who blind their human prey. While trying to seek refuge from the panic-stricken streets of London where the triffids hunt, Bill and Jo become separated. With John Duttine, Maurice Colbourne and Emma Relph.

8am

3 of 3. Conclusion of the adaptation of John Wyndham's novel. Bill continues to search for Jo among the marauding triffids. With John Duttine, Maurice Colbourne and Emma Relph.

Then after that it's 'Allo, 'Allo! for the rest of the day!!!

[european son]

breifly, i'm not against GM research or eating GM food, for the reasons FG gave up there. i also am inclined to agree with Bill's analysis of many GM opponents.

i think the biggest problem is who is doing the research and production.

Monsanto are cunts. cunts of the highest order, and their shocking practises should be banned by governments, not encouraged.

there's great potential in GM, both in the pursuit of knowledge and practical effects, but, like with all important and potentially dangerous research, it should be done properly, safely, and the government should legislate the industry.

many anti-GM activists are technophobe luddites who are causing more harm than good.