GM debate 01-30 June, 1999

THE EU already seems to be awash with food scares. It seems crazy that the Government should allow GM crops to be grown on trial sites throughout the UK without consulting the general public beforehand.

Further, food manufacturers and retailers should be forced to label products which use GM ingredients a lot clearer than they already are, by means of a symbol (similar to the Vegetarian Society symbol) so that the public can see at a glance whether the product they are about to purchase contains the said ingredients.

CORRECTLY regulated, managed and policed, GM crops can be of great
benefit to society – it all depends on your definition of “correctly”!

In my opinion government controls must be much more stringent and rigorous, with crippling fines for companies (or farmers) in breach of the regulations.

At the same time, the regulations must be written in language that people can understand.

THE availability of GM crops may cause problems, but it could lead to a
great reduction of chemical use, which the public would certainly support

But the public are totally unaware of sugar beet grown using 2 litres of roundup as opposed to 20+litres of some highly poisonous products i.e betanal and goltix, potatoes without up to 14 passes of blight spray (some highly poisonous again).

Are the organic boys worried that if spraying becomes a rarity, it might destroy their market carefully built on the back of scare stories?

I AM deeply worried about the effects on the environment. I dont
think we as an industry can allow a system into the countryside unless we can justify it in 10 years time and I think at the moment we dont know the effects on our wildlife.

Farmers have to make a living and have to act responsibly in todays public gaze and, if we spread GM crop spills as we have, say, oilseed rape
spills in the environment, then we are open to much critcism and hassle, and I
think that will be great and will effect our back pockets.

Better to test longer and get it right, then sell at a premium and allow others to take the flack over the dirty system.

Dont trust the big chemical\breeder industries – they dont have the farmers interests at heart – they have their shareholders

WITH the right science and careful regulations GM crops can benefit
the consumer. With caution nature can be helped.

I SEE GM technology as the way forward to reduce the unexceptable level
of pesticides we use, but each modification of each crop must be evaluated
individually.

We dont lump all pesticides together as bad or good – why should we
GMs? Every new GM should have to prove environmental benefits as well as
economic ones.

For once, I agree with Oliver Walston: Farmers with on-farm trials are being
bullied by a few mindless groups egged on by people in the public eye who should know better.

GM crops should be tested thoroughly in a sealed environment, not where they may cause deformities to other crops nearby.

The government is responsible for the protection of the public and of farming profits. They should act more responsibly.

WE are falling between two stools at present.

We neither have the advantages of the GM technology avaiable to us, nor do we have the advantage of a ban, which would hopefully increase the use of European grown oil and protein crops.

Is any European government going to ban the importation of GM products and risk a trade war with the USA?

I doubt it – remember the bananas!

ANY new technology will be met with fear and uncertainty.

GM companies have done nothing to allay these concerns, especially initially, therefore it is right that they are now paying for their arrogance.

PERSONALLY I would like to see the UK stay clear of GM crops for the medium term (say the next 15 years plus).

My reasons are:

• The science is not yet proven through time;
• The UK consumer should be made aware that UK-produced food is GM-free, whereas there could be no such guarantee on imported food, hence boosting the home market;
• If the science of GM fails through side-effects on world consumers and the enviroment, we as farmers could then hold up the British Agricultural flag and market our conventionally produced food at a premium on the world markets.

OK, we will not be organic but, if we stay out of the GM race, at least the consumers of our food wont have,to worry about their food eating them – theyll only need to concern themselves with microscopic pesticide residues.

In all, we could end up serious winners out of the situation; however, if GMs prove to be OK in the next 15-20 years, it will be easy enough to opt into them.

Its a gamble, but a good one!

I THINK we are currently stuck in a “Catch-22” situation.

We cant make a balanced decision on GM until we have some valid research findings (and I dont mean research done by Monsanto and the like), but we cant undertake such research without some field-scale trials – which are
seen by the media and public as adoption of the technology

The truth is we just dont know yet and realistically may never know.

I BELIEVE that the whole debate is dominated by multinational chemical companies out to make a quick buck and monopolise the supply lines by patent.

GM crops could lead to lower pesticide use, which must be good for the environment. I think that the organic movement has hijacked the issue for
its own gain.

I LEARNED a lot about GM crops from working for a chemical company. but
the only way to get public support is to inform them in detail of the methods,
benefits and possible implications.

If GMs are banned, does these mean fewer imports? I would be greatful for any results of your findings so I can construct a firmer opinion.

ITS about time the media had a balanced debate about GMOs. So much
nonsense eminating from the Greens is taken as science-fact, when it is really romantic fiction.

WE see among the anti-GM lobby the reincarnation of the voiceferous
single-issue obsessive, protesting for protestings sake.

Previous phobias have included multilateral nuclear disarmament and bloodsports.

Sooner or later, aided and abetted by the media, some new issue will catch their attention and the focus will shift from GM crops.

Hopefully the protestors boredom threshold is low enough that farmers can soon get on with growing these potentially money-saving crops before our overseas competitors have stolen too much of a march in their use.

I AM a Cornish sheep and cattle farmer. I have studied genetics and wish
to add a few comments regarding GMOs;

I have no doubt that most GMOs would, after extensive testing, be shown to
be scientifically safe to eat. However that is not where the argument against
GMOs lies.

First, there is the moral argument which ranges from questions
like “do we have the right to do it ?” to “what rights does a organism with a
human gene have ?”. Just two simple questions in a whole range.

Then there is the common-sense argument; do we really need to put a fish
gene into a plant. This ranks alongside the argument that says its very
suspect to feed cattle with sheep – with unknown and unpredictable
consequences. One does not need to be a scientist to see the fallacy.

In the same way it does not take a genius to understand that pollen can
travel many thousands of miles and remain viable, not merely six foot – the
probability might be low but the possibility is high.

The consequences of superweeds getting out of control would be horrendous; do we really need to risk it!

The motives of the super-companies developing the biotechnology need
examination. With very few exceptions the motivation of privately owned
companies is purely and simply money – altruism is very low on their list of
priorities.

While this is not on its own necessarily evil; it can be.

The
argument that third world poverty can be relieved is entirely spurious. The
world is more than capable of growing enough food for three times the current population, without suspect biotechnology that would tend to enslave the poor even further.

If these companies were genuinely interested in the third world, they would be developing products specifically for those regions and not for the grain belts of the west.

One of the biggest potential dangers in bioengineering is not in the final
product that may well be safe, but in the intermediaries. As an example
viruses are used to transfer genes.

Can anyone imagine the consequences of some little thing going wrong and an otherwise harmless virus particle acquiring the killing properties of Ebola or AIDS?

Whereas the government is incapable of making reasonable decisions for the
people of this country and indeed the world, maybe the consumer, and those who produce for them, can give a lead by not buying these “Frankenstein” foods and banish them and the biotechnology companies that produce them to the rubbish tip of history where they belong.

To add your own comments to this debate, CLICK HERE and Have Your Say