I've just been looking throught the FW postbag and am struck yet again by how ludicrous the whole situation with GM has become. I chose to run a Talking Point article last week by Julian Little of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council which was saying the time to use GM had come. But I have already had two or three letters rubbishing his comments, with one questioning whether it should have been run at all.

The aim of the Talking Point slot is that it is for anyone - from whatever side of the argument - to have their say. You could compare it to putting someone on a soapbox. I've run articles from campaigners and farmers who are equally opposed to GM technology - I then get it in the neck for being 'down on GM'.

I guess I should take heart from the fact that if both sides of the debate are moaning at me, then we're probably striking the right balance. We're not afraid to print articles which raise questions about GM technololgy and the concerns of environmentalists and consumers. But neither will we ignore the messages coming from growers elsewhere in the world who are finding real benefits.

The big frustration is that it seems to be an issue where it is impossible to find anyone with enough knowledge to make a truly independent assessment of the pro's and cons. Those for GM are so passionate that they think any questions are criticisms. Those against, are suspicious of anyone who doesn't share their views - if they are positive about GM they often claim they aren't independent. It does make life difficult from our perspective as I am sure that there are many readers who want us as a magazine to come to a definitive position for them. But at the moment I am afraid it isn't goin to happen - there are people in the office both for and against! 

GM grain is in the food chain for better or worse.  Not my business, but it looks to me like farmers in countries not allowed to use GM crops are getting cheated.  Every acre of corn and soybeans planted on our farm this year(provided we ever get it planted) will be Roundup ready.  A good portion of the corn I have planted is triple stacked.  While I will not rule out that there is possibly some ill effect science has not seen, so far so good.  I feed almost all of my corn, and I cannot see any problems with the cattle or hogs that might be associated with GM crops. 

I have said before though that GM is not the silver bullet, just one useful tool. 

I love talking about GM - and to be honest I am not dead set for or against, just interested in the debate. I can see arguments for both sides, and having completed a biotechnology module as part of my degree, I was well versed in every side of it. Having said that, I will not wave my hand around and say that I know what I am talking about - GM is such a varied area it would be impossible for any one person to fully understand it.

My lecturer for GM, compares it to those plant breeders who have been 'selecting' certain traits for generations. He argues that by doing this, without the use of a lab and certain screening techniques, has opened people up to greater dangers. However, by swapping traits between individuals in a lab, is termed as GM, and although being safer (as it is monitored from start to finish) it is frowned upon.

However, his argument breaks down when you start to think that they are implanting anti-freeze genes from arctic fish, into plants in an effort to make them frost resistant. That cross could never be made 'naturally' and only in a lab environment.

So is it right or wrong? If, by creating drought/frost resistant varieties, we can help third world nations to establish an economy, to feed their own people rather than rely on aid, surely that is a good thing?

But is interfering with nature really ever a good thing? Should we argue against genetically engineering plants and animals just to benefit the human race? Do people argue that everything should be left in a natural state? If that is the case, surely those people would also argue that premature babies should be kept off life support, that life-saving drugs (that have been developed in a lab) should be withdrawn, that gene therepy that is helping millions of children with genetic disorders (such as cystic fibrosis) should be halted, as that too is a form of genetic modification and manipulation.

I worked at Tesco many years ago to pay my way through uni, and would laugh at the amount of people who would fill their shopping trollies with organic products, then head to the cigarette kiosk to purchase tobacco. The reason I laughed is that almost all tobacco (something like 95%) is Genetically Modified. What about the sheets we sleep on and the clothes that we wear - most cotton is GM. Is it ok as long as we do not eat it?

Curely the biggest argument against GM is not its safety to be eaten (as there are so many test and trials most risk is eliminated) it is whether it is safe to be grown, where there is potential for the gene technology to escape into the wild population.

Its certainly an interesting debate, and one that will rage for many years I am sure.

It's amazing that there can be a worldwide heated debate over something that was invented just so Monsanto could sell more Roundup.

The environmentalists claim GM is potentially deadly to the planet even though there is no evidence to support it.  Meanwhile, GM companies claim it can solve world hunger, even though it seems GM crops don't perform any better than regular types.

The only thing that puts me off GM is the problem faced by US farmers, having to remove GM plants from other crops by hand because they are spray resistant.  All the rest is simply propaganda.

zoeshiloh:

Do people argue that everything should be left in a natural state? If that is the case, surely those people would also argue that premature babies should be kept off life support,

A nice article Zoeshiloh and I suppose the quote above gets to the heart of much of the debate which is, What is the effective distinction between treating a transitory Individual in some kind of distress or disability compared with the effect of permanently changing genetic disposition of the wider environment?

The effect of treatment/changes in an individual can possibly die with them whereas the effects of genetic change cannot be accurately predicted in the wider  'uncontrolled' environment.

I suppose many people have a sense of the variety of animal and plant life which is the result of millions of years of natural selection (although the debate about Darwinian Evolution is still open) and so ordinary people are concerned that the rate of change, from millions of years to months, seems unnatural and thus 'suspect.' In addition, many people have lived through experiences when 'the experts' have got it wrong before and so are very cautious that 'experts' can be wrong as to the impact of their changes again.

A simple illustration might be to say that, I bet that if it were possible to go back in time, the introduction of rabbits to Australia and Grey Squirrels to Britain would have been stopped. (I believe Mxymatosis was later developed to eliminate the rabbit population of Australia, but that nature adapted to this terrible disease that has done nothing for rabbits but which also put many people off using rabbit as a cheap food resource.

In short, I guess most people do not believe genetic scientists are able to predict, let alone control, the results of their work, and sofear that the Pandora's Box of mythology, once opened, will release potential terrors on the world.

However, I now see no options but to carry on testing and trialling, whilst ensuring that the outputs of the scientists of the Western world are controlled by non specialists including some 'ordinary people.'

Having worked with both GM crops (GM cotton in australia) and conventional agriculture, in my opion, GM is actually better for the environment, IF it is managed correctly. Lets face it, if the worlds population continues to grow as it is we are going to have massive food and fuel crises on our hands and as far as i can see there is only one way to produce more food, short of cutting down MORE rainforests, and that is through GM technology.

Lets be honest, organics is NEVER going to feed the world, despite the best efforts of one of my friends who tires to persuade me otherwise and that due to global warming massive tracts of currently frozen land are going to come into proudction in the future, he seems to miss the point that an equal amount of land will go out of production, therefore gaining nothing!  

Perhaps if people were a little more willing to let the trials take place instead of mowing them down we might be able to get some real results on the whole GM issue and find out how safe it really is. Forms of genetic modification have been going on since time began, has it not through, selective breeding - breeding and cross breeding plants and animals to get the traits you desire, that counts as modification in my book.

          Jdw, I can agree with all you are saying. I think the most important part of producing GM crops is for the process to be sensibly controled. Our Government should be right in there backing up all research and trials. That way it must be as safe a system as there is. It will probably add safety to our present high input systems giving them less reliance on chemical pesticides. The development of a blight resistant potato would be one of the most exciting developments in agricultural crop production. The development of crops that could give an African community a plentiful harvest 5 to 10 years out of ten instead of famine 5 to 10 years out of ten.  GM crops could hugely increase the organic growers yields and quality. If ever there is a question of throwing  the bairn out with the bath-water it comes from anti GM promoters.

           People who wander into GM crops and cause wilful or wanton damage should be rounded up and (shot, comes to mind) carted off to court and given a minimum prison sentence of 6 months.

'It will probably add safety to our present high input systems giving them less reliance on chemical pesticides.'

Precisely - there are far reaching benefits of GM that many people overlook when the issue is raised. Not only is GM looking to increase the yields of crops, but also to reduce the dependance on artificial chemicals and fertilisers, and that can only be a good move, especially in this day and age when carbon footprints etc are all the rage. Like you say, the development of a blight resistant potato would indeed be very exciting, how many applications of chemical would it save per year, how much money would that save the average spud farmer - it would be quite considerable i would imagine? Don't get me wrong, I think all this global warming hype is rubbish, but purely from a food production point of view, something needs to be done, especially if we are going to continue to increase the use of food crops for producing fuel.

The issue of insects etc developing resistance can easily be combatted by the use of refuges - this is an area of the conventional crop grown without any treatment - I've seen this work very effectively in Australian cotton - if a farmer grows 100% GM crop, he must have 10% of the area grown put down as a refuge, it prevents resistance building up very effectively.

I agree Ally, anyone found willfully damaging GM trials should be given a prison sentance, how are we ever going to conclusively find out if GM is not only safe for the environment, but more importantly, safe to enter the food chain if trials are never allowed to be completed?

When it comes to the debate on Organics - I have little understanding of the process, so perhaps someone could shed some light on the situation for me - but what are the procedures for contorlling invasive weed species that are often viewed as being of no environmental benefit - if they can't be controlled effectively how can anyone argue that it is better for the environment?

 When someone manages to greate a Nitrogen fixing corn plant ill be hapey but untill then ill stick to using the round up and BT corn.

Well done Isabel, I see your moaning has paid off and you have been given an extra couple of pages in this weeks FW.

 I see you have printed two letters from moaners – both seem to be making quite valid comments to me; while of course it was in order to give the Talking Point slot to Julian Little I think it could have been made clearer that Dr Little is paid by Bayer to lobby on behalf of the biotech industry.

  The “Should Scotland go GM-free?” bit is quite well done and personally I was quite pleased by ‘Shotgun’ Shirley’s attitude of forgive and move on (I’ll see if I can arrange a reconciliation with those at the other end of the barrel - like her they thought it was a moment of historic importance however unlike her they were not fooled by Julian Little’s claims that by now there would be thousands of acres growing here).

  For some of us the FW is the independent and knowledgeable authority on the pros and cons of GM which is why we hope the views expressed in the Opinions section are subject to more analysis and scrutiny in the rest of the magazine. For example it has been suggested a EU ban on Herculex is putting up feed prices by 600%; Hurculex can be imported into the EU (provided it is clearly labelled and free from unauthorised substances), does anyone really expect to see feed prices fall by 600%?