The result of a series of Government sponsored meetings on GM crops is a resounding 'No' from the British Public.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=446787

What do Forum readers think?

Originally posted by Carlwarker
The result of a series of Government sponsored meetings on GM crops is a resounding 'No' from the British Public.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=446787

What do Forum readers think? I say no to
G.M. crops!!!

I think this is at least the third thread on this.

I would appreciate someone bringing them all together (and maybe there is a chance yet for me to get my real honest questions answered....)

I know so little about this

Originally posted by Carlwarker
The result of a series of Government sponsored meetings on GM crops is a resounding 'No' from the British Public.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=446787

What do Forum readers think?

Lord Sainsbury is the number 1 contributor to the Labour Party. They would surely want to tread very carefully before upsetting him considering his business and charitable interests in GM foods

It looks like the government is going to go ahead and allow the growing of GM crops in this country, whether we like it or not.
How do you feel about this?
Has there been enough research? Does it matter if the majority of people asked don't want it?

If you have a problem with the government deciding to grow GM crops, you can protest here:

GM protest (http://www.greengloves.org/)

Cosywolf:mad:
(I'm sure it's probably already a topic, but the search engine couldn't find it)

I have strong suspicions that we've all been eating GM food for years, and they haven't told us! When they discovered the technique years ago, I don't think anyone would have considered the side effects (such as boys growing breasts from too much oestrogen in fast food (actually happened in the US)) too seriously, and they'd have stared to use the products anyway... wasn't it originally a by-product of WWII? Weren't they trying to improve the size/quality of the crops so they could feed more people on a 'tight budget'???

Although I am strongly opposed to releasing transgenic GMOs or plants with terminator genes into the environment, I think there is also a large degree public ignorance of what GMOs actually are.

I doubt GMOs have been around since WWII because the structure of DNA was not actually discovered until 1953.

(GMO- genetically modified organism)
(terminator gene - addition to GMO to stop it breeding/setting seed)

That would put my theory in the bin!!! I don't dissaprove of the concept of modification of crops at the genetic level, I just think they don't fully understand the long-term implications of controlling natural evolution yet. And, as you say Phan, they only properly mapped DNA 50 odd years ago - no time at all in the grand scheme of things.

I would also like a democratic government to listen to it's people properly for once (but I don't want to turn this thread into another political debate - anyone with comments can PM me)

Originally posted by Agent Dan
That would put my theory in the bin!!! I don't dissaprove of the concept of modification of crops at the genetic level, I just think they don't fully understand the long-term implications of controlling natural evolution yet. And, as you say Phan, they only properly mapped DNA 50 odd years ago - no time at all in the grand scheme of things.

I would also like a democratic government to listen to it's people properly for once (but I don't want to turn this thread into another political debate - anyone with comments can PM me)

Yes this is a poltical debate rather than a scientific one, ultimately.

Uprooting GMOs is a demonstration of public feeling, not a practical method of preventing further contamination. It is very hard to tell a GMO plant just by looking at it (unless it is a transgenic one that has been made to glow in the dark).

I support a complete moratorium on releasing GMOs into the wild, and having a stringent set of regulations to guard against accidental release.

But the ball will carry on rolling ,so research and development must continue and be funded properly.

Also, the laws governing patents on genes rather than processes must me revised.

The potential benefits of GMOs are astounding, but so are their possible ill consequences. and as such we should me making small tentative steps, not long reckless strides.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Although I am strongly opposed to releasing transgenic GMOs or plants with terminator genes into the environment, I think there is also a large degree public ignorance of what GMOs actually are.

I doubt GMOs have been around since WWII because the structure of DNA was not actually discovered until 1953.

(GMO- genetically modified organism)
(terminator gene - addition to GMO to stop it breeding/setting seed)

Phan does this mean that GM crops will not be able to cross pollinate with organic then?

I find it very worrying that organic produce as we know it may not technically exist after all this messing around.

The govenment gave the go ahead for genetically modified maize to be grown in the UK yesterday. According to the ITN news last night 9 out of every 10 people are against the growing of GM crops. It is my opinion that this is due to a lack of understanding about what exactly GM crops are, but I don't confess to being an expert on the subject myself. I also think that GM crops could be a good thing, according to a BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3545659.stm), the GM maize allows more weeds to flourish, which is better for wildlife.

However, I don't really have a strong opinion, so I thought I would start a topic on here to find out other people's opinions on the subject in an attempt to sway my opinion one way or the other.

It's not about if people understand what GMFs are or not, it's about 9 out of 10 people beeing against it, full stop. It's like the Euro debate, a no, is a no, whatever the reason.

Originally posted by Gregsd
It's not about if people understand what GMFs are or not, it's about 9 out of 10 people beeing against it, full stop. It's like the Euro debate, a no, is a no, whatever the reason.
I accept that, but if someone doesn't understand what something is, how can they say they don't want it?

I don't like it. I have heard (sources may come later if I remember) that in one trial it was shown to adversely affect local wildlife and it is this that concerns me.

We are ecologically in a mess as it is, all very well and noble of us to try and solve problems, but mother nature being doing it herself for millenia without our help.

I can see how such crops would benefit third world countries - but if they are growing them for those countries why run the tests here? It is stupid.

I don't like it.

Moon

edited by spook

Originally posted by Sidla
The govenment gave the go ahead for genetically modified maize to be grown in the UK yesterday. According to the ITN news last night 9 out of every 10 people are against the growing of GM crops. It is my opinion that this is due to a lack of understanding about what exactly GM crops are, but I don't confess to being an expert on the subject myself. I also think that GM crops could be a good thing, according to a BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3545659.stm), the GM maize allows more weeds to flourish, which is better for wildlife.

However, I don't really have a strong opinion, so I thought I would start a topic on here to find out other people's opinions on the subject in an attempt to sway my opinion one way or the other.

If we eat GM crops we are eating weedkiller, and I for one don't want it thank you.
I have heard all the arguments for and against (not harmfull-feed the World etc.) but as usual the "experts" who profess to know, don't know any more than us. Thanks but no Thanks.

Originally posted by halevan
If we eat GM crops we are eating weedkiller, and I for one don't want it thank you.
Where did you hear that rubbish?

Originally posted by Sidla
I accept that, but if someone doesn't understand what something is, how can they say they don't want it?

You missed the point of my post i think. Even if i was ignorant, i would say no, and it would be final...

Beeing ignorant on a subject doesn't undermind the fact that a no is a no nevertheless, even if lots of people do not know precisely what GM food is.

BBC Radio Sheffield has a spokesperson from Friends of the Earth on yesterday morning.

The guy was saying that the public opionion against GM crops wasn't due to a lack of understanding at all; in fact the more people learn about GM technology, the less they want it!

No.. I'd rather stick to the natural stuff thankyou very much!
Though it's scary to know that milk from cow's fed on GM feed, may not be labeled as such. I think it's the consumers right to know what exactly they're eating/drinking, which includes it's source and knowing that it's healthy.

Originally posted by Gregsd
You missed the point of my post i think. Even if i was ignorant, i would say no, and it would be final...

Beeing ignorant on a subject doesn't undermind the fact that a no is a no nevertheless, even if lots of people do not know precisely what GM food is.
Yeah, but that just takes me back to my original point, that people only say no to it because they are ignorant.

In my opinion, the opinion of someone who knows very little about what they are giving their opinion on, is worthless. If that makes sense.

I wish the person who's voted for 'yes' could have posted, it would be nice to have a pro GM argument.

not everyone is as ignorant as you think...
I was making a supposition, but ignoring a no answer just because someone is ignorant on a subject is not acceptable

Read what the others are saying. They'd rather stick to natural stuff.

On the other hand, i admit you haven't stated your full opinion :)

Im not against GM crops in principle, but at the moment there is far too little known about the long-term implications of twiddling with plant genetics in this way.

I favour a continuing research. Im concerned that the companies involved with marketing GM crops are selling them as the answer to the worlds problems.

This is just an outright lie in my opinion - plenty of countries generate a surplus - more than enough to feed those countries that dont. Thats my impression anyway - of course youll hear arguments to support/refute that opinion from the anti/pro GM lobby respectively.

The problem is that everyone is trying to sell you the answer to the worlds problems. Selling is easy - all you do is lie until someone pays up. By the time we all find out the problems, itll be too late.

When i was a student, we spent some time looking at so-called radiation-therapy devices from the early part of the 20th Century. Devices to infuse your water with radon to give you a healthy glow(!!!) and other "useful" things - I can see us rushing into the same pitfalls now with GM products.

Personally I can imagine some circumstances where GM could be beneficial... e.g. third world extreme environments, etc.

The problem, of course, is there isn't enough $$$ to be made there so most of the focus for development and sales (as opposed to PR) is in products suitable for the rich West.

Of the current range of GM suggestions I can't see any overwhelming benefit for the consumer, environment, etc.

Perhaps there might be, then let the Government fund some more true, long term, independent research to convince the population. If the evidence keeps piling up at some point the opinion will shift.

I do agree that if the people don't want it and there is no overwhelming benefit / need, why try to push it.

This isn't like MMR where there are risks if it isn't done... so leave it until the case has been made emphatically.

There was other threads on this subject which I didn't remember, so I've merged them all together.

Remember to do a search folks! :thumbsup:

We already grow genetically modified crops.

What do you think our farmers and horticulturalists have been doing for the past few thousand years?

Genetically modifying crops.

There are immense benefits to be had, but like any other scientific innovation, the technological applications can be good, bad or just plain useless.

You could have a delicious, nutritious grow anywhere crop with medicinal flowers, great fibre in stems, alkaloids in the roots, and fatty high protein fruits.

This is about the future, not now.

GMOs are fact, not fiction. The less we know about them, the less able we are to judge their applications and risks.

What are the perceived risks of GM rape in open field trials? Anyone?

What I am more alarmed about is the rather lackadaisical reaction of the patent bureaux around the world, happily granting patents to people for GMOs

That is just a) stupid b)indefensible

From the 3-1 response against gm crops looks like people are generally not in favour of gm crops.

You might therefore be interested to know what the situation is regarding milk here in the uk as per my recent Greenpeace mailing.

I was shocked to read that milk from all the major supermarkets comes from cows reared on gm feed, the only exception being Marks and Spencer. If you want gm free milk then you need to buy organic or regular milk from M&S.

As far as I recall from my genetics lectures we've all been eating GMOs for years (tomatos and yoya were early recipients of genetically modification of the lab based rather than selective breedng type) and personally I have no problem with GMOs in theory - they could be a major boon to society - imagine plants that could withstand the droughts of Africa while delivering all a complete protein along with essential minerals and oils - sounds good? What I DO have a problem with though is the way GMOs are being used by agri-business, which is basically to make a crop immune to their own herbicides and pesticides so a) you end up with more herbicides and pesticides in use as you can "safely" use more to kill weeds and pests without harming your crops and b) farmers get locked into using the seeds / chemicals from a given company leading to both commercial and biodiversity problems...

I actually attended one of these GM discussion groups in Sheffield about GM crops (and got a nice payment of £50 too).

It was interesting to find at those meetings that in the USA, citizens were not given the discussion and forum to be able to discuss GM crops instead they were introduced into food years ago without people knowing (in the USA they do not have the labelling controls that we have here).

By the way my opinion of them was no, in the meetings an opinion I still agree with today.

If anyone is really interested in this, I kept the government documents I was given to look at regarding GM crops so if you PM me (and I can find them) they can be yours!

I believe that anyone who is ignorant of an issue should have the good grace not to express an opinion.

I don't see many people complaining about selective breeding over the last 10,000 years. Without this rather slower form of genetic engineering we wouldn't have the crops and domestic animals we have today.

As with all discoveries we have to do our best to use GE responsibly and with forethough, there are risks, but they do not outweigh the potential gains.

RE: trials, at least one fear is cross pollination of non modified crop, thus releasing the modification into the wild. There is also the possability of gene transfer via bacteria as opposed to pollination, less likely, but we know it happens and it's much harder to guard against.

Anyone here read Darwins Radio, or the sequel Darwins Children.

I think the gm issue and the public smoking issue have much in common. I don't want to eat modified food neither do I want to inhale cigarette smoke. However, once either is introduced into the environment then my choice is gone. There is no way of controlling cross pollination of organic crops with gm crops. Crops in this country are now showing signs of having been contaminated by gm crops grown in Canada.

If the bio-tech companies can guarantee that the food I eat does not contain traces of their gm food then I'd be happy to let them continue growing it.

The difference between selective breeding and GM is partially in intention and partially in technical possibility.

With the best will in the world, it would be difficult to breed a plant that was any use that was incapable of producing viable seed. Similarly, producing a transgenic plant isn't possible by breeding. Breeding a plant with an immunity to a synthesised weed killer is also unlikely to be feasible.

As for intention - GM crops may have the potential for helping the hungry but let's face it - it isn't going to happen. It's more likley that the GM processes will be used to improve the bottom line of the businesses who've developed the technology.

If you create a crop that is immune to a particular pesticide then you can certainly cut down the damage to crops from pests by blitzing the crops with lots of the aforementioned chemical. Which is, conveniently, made by the same people who sell you your GM crop. Of course, humans aren't quite that resistant to pesticide residues, but, there you go.

Create a crop that can't seed, and you stop those pesky poverty stricken farmers from keeping seed back for a future year. You tie them to your company for as long as they want to grow the crop.

I dislike the hypocrisy of agri-business companies who claim that they're developing these things for the benefit of all when it's actually for their bottom line with wider, debatable, benefits as 'collateral damage'.

Joe

Totally unatural, and leads to trouble if you ask me. Far too may things in our day and age are unatural and it al leads to increases in cancer and such like.

As for Organic...... only buy it if it is local. Anything not local and fresh has been contaminated with the packaging, fuel etc.

I am reviving this July 2004 thread today.

Many people expressed rejection of Genetically Modified Food a couple of years ago on this SF Thread.

But those pesky "Big Business" devils are still pushing for it! :suspect:

The proposition today is that a couple of trials using GM Potatoes are planned, one of which is in Derbyshire. The aim will be to introduce the GM potato crops for general consumption in 10 years time.

When will they get the message? :mad:


BBC News Today (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=8298&highlight=Genetically+modified)

I'm unsure, I guess it's easy for us in this country with plenty of food to be against it, but if we lived in a drought area where a GM crop could mean we get something to eat instead of an empty field we might think differently.

I don't think most people know enough about the subject to make a real decission.

I'm still in favour of sensible genetic modifications, just like I was 2 years ago.

i dont see the problem with GM crops. so they take the genes from certain sealife and use them in tomatoes to make them last longer - whats the difference if you ate the seal or penguin or whatever - you'd be ingesting the same genes, what difference doe it make if they happen to be inside a vegetable? If the genes are synthetic then i could agree but dont see the harm in using one natural thing to enhance another..

Most of the food we eat has already been modified, just in a slower way, there is no way we could survive farming the original wild versions of wheat, rice, barley, corn etc. etc.