Consumers say, 'We don't want GM food'; EU says, 'What, not even in organic food?'

The distinction between GM and non-GM food is only skin-deep. With GM food, a gene is inserted chromosome of the plant with an enzyme to make it pest resistant, herbicide resistant etc. (incidentally, this means that more crops can be grown on less land and using less energy and less pesticides are needed). With non-GM food, this has not occurred but the genetic make-up has still been significantly altered by hundreds of years of selective breeding. Organic carrots are far from 'natural'. If you want your carrots 'the way nature intended' they're going to be very small and brownish. There is therefore no reason to suppose that GM food would be any more dangerous than non-GM food and 'GM contamination, is basically meaningless.

I can't help feeling that the phrase 'skin deep' is pretty redundant - to my mind, tinkering with the genetic make-up of an organism is about as far from 'skin deep' as you can get. Selective breeding and GM technologies aren't comparable though - one enhances certain pre-existing traits over generations, the other bolts on foreign DNA in a laboratory. There's no other way that genetic material from bacteria would end up in maize or rice other than through human intervention.

Research on the impacts of GM crops on the environment is pretty scanty - neither the biotech companies or the governments supporting them really want to dig into the subject - so I'd be interested to know what you base your supposition on. But the biotech companies are not in the GM game to feed the starving (by the way, the UN says that we already produce one and a half times the amount of food needed to feed everyone on the planet), they're in it to make money from increased sales of agro-chemicals that crops have been genetically modified to require for proper growth, and after the golden rice debacle, would you really trust the claims they make about their products?

web editor
gpuk

Ok, I admit I phrased it wrong. Obviously a gene from a bacteria wouldn't get into a plant just by itself. (Although the mitochondria and chloroplasts plants need to survive were created by injesting a bacteria).
I also agree with you that a lot of what the biotech companies do is wrong. However, surely that's a problem with the companies rather than the technology? You don't ban kitchen knives just because they could be used to stab someone.
The one and a half statistic is shocking but, I think, misleading. Most of this food production is in places where they have enough anyway, but waste it (which is completely environmentally wrong). Do you think we should just continuously deliver food to poorer communities? GM has the potential to allow them to grow food for themselves that is nutritionally balanced so they have a chance to stop relying on foreign aid. I'm not saying we need GM, just that it has the potential to help people. Last point - maybe the reason there is not much research on GM is because environmental organisations prevent it.

Ah, the 'helping the poor to feed themselves' fallacy. If your argument is right, then why is the UK (with an over-abundance of food available) a net importer of food? Or exporting the same foods that we import? True, this is to do with the distorted trade regulations that allow Western countries to dump their surplus produce on developing countries (flooding the market and causing prices to crash, making local farmers destitute) but those same regulations are held in place by lobbying from companies like those in the biotech sector.

It's an arrogant notion to suppose that Western technology has the power to solve world hunger when it's Western policies that are causing the problem in the first place.

web editor
gpuk

I'm not sure what the UK being a net importer of food has to do with anything, but maybe I'm missing something. Incidentally, I would assume that the reason is that we want things like bananas and pineapples that can't be grown here. I'm not an expert on trade regulations, but I'm not sure what you mean by all Western countries to dump their surplus produce on developing countries, as surely regualations that prevented food from reaching developing countries would be even more distorted? I wouldn't say it was Western policies that are causing the problem in the first place, although some of them are worsening it. The main cause is, of course, the corrupt governments of developing countries keeping everything for themselves while people starve. The only long term solution has nothing to do with GM or any other technology, but is making sure there are proper, non-corrupt democracies in these countries. I think it is appalling that Western governments have not made more of an attempt to do that. However, if GM can help people feed themselves, then I think it is a good thing. And, if you are right and it can't, there are still the environmental benefits of low-land, pesticide-free farming. (This could possibly be extended into the farming of trees to use as fuel, providing carbon neutral electricity.)

I mentioned the UK being a net importer of food because you seemed to be suggesting that rich countries like ourselves are self-sufficient - we aren't. In fact, because of the distorted trade situation (which means we have to export food like apples that we would otherwise eat here, and import food to keep our own population fed) we're extremely reliant on many other countries. Next time you're in a supermarket, see if you can find any British organic apples. A bit tricky at this time of year, but even in the autumn, they'll be from Argentina and New Zealand, even though they're grown here. Now why is that? There's an excellent book called Not On The Label by Felicity Lawrence that covers a lot of this ground in great detail.

Corruption does play a part in resources not reaching the people who need them most, but I don't agree it's the main cause. The World Trade Organisation, which sets international trade regulations, is dominated by developed nations and so naturally those regulations are heavily in our favour. Produce such as coffee and cocoa can't be processed (roasted, freeze-dried or made into chocolate) and then exported to developed nations without attracting prohibitive import duties.

These same regulations also allow rich nations to dump their surplus produce on other countries, which as I mentioned distorts the market and puts local producers out of business. Oxfam's Food aid or hidden dumping? report makes an excellent primer on this.

But my point is that the world already produces more than enough food to feed everyone, so why on Earth should we need new technology to supposedly 'feed the world'? What's at fault is a twisted set of trade regulations that force poorer countries to satisfy the consumer demands of the West before feeding their own people. Just like those bananas and pineapples you mentioned. Of course, there's the issue of whether we should be expecting tropical foods as part of our diet and the food miles that come along with them, but I think I've rattled on enough for now.

web editor
gpuk

I wasn't implying that the UK was self-sufficient, but I can see why it might have sounded like I was. I do agree with you about the unfair trade regulations, our expectations for tropical food and that you really should be able to buy British apples. (But don't get me started about the organic part. I won't rant about it as that is not really the subject of this blog). You are also right that we don't NEED GM technology, but I think it would be better if developing countries could grow their own food AND the trade regulations were better. It would cut down on food miles at the very least. In the future, though we may need GM, as we may not be able to produce enough food to feed the predicted 9 billion people. (I know 6 billion times 1 and a half is 9 billion, but more land will be needed for housing etc.)

Sorry if I read things into your previous posts that weren't there, but feel free to rant about organic food. It's certainly not off-topic for a thread about GM food.

web editor
gpuk

i do not know what golden rice is plz tell e sum1:'(

i dnt understand :S

Golden rice is a genetically-modified variety from a company called Syngenta which, they claimed, contained boosted amounts of vitamin A. They also claimed this rice could save millions from vitamin A deficiency and related blindness, but our investigation into the company's own figures demonstrated that an adult would have to eat nine kilos of cooked rice a day to receive the recommended daily amount of vitamin A.

newb - give me a bit more info to go on, and I'll do my best to help!

web editor
gpuk

I have only just come to the realisation that this persasive and insiduous technology is being introduced whether people like it or not.

Unless we can find a way of preventing the media and government from disguising the introduction of this technology, we are doomed.

Its very significant that the key researchers involved in forming safety protocols for GM introduction have been cut out of the discussions and that vast amounts of money have been invested by those interested in its introduction.

The very idea that a product labelled as Organic in UK Supermarkets could contain any GM material demonstrates the pervasive invasion of this technology and the deceipt of ordinary consumers.

There are no guarantees provided by the advocates, that the health and environmental impacts of this technology will be benine. Furthermore, the incidents of adverse health statistics from with the US shows us that something is very wrong. The statistics relating to Allergies has skyrocketed since the introduction of GM technology.

Now we hear the advocates like Sir David King being given more airtime on the BBC to advocate the introduction. I am outraged.

The arguments used to justify GM crops and technology are insidious indeed. It's telling that, even with public opinion completely against it, biotech companies and supportive governments have recently given their reasoning a makeover by saying that GM food is a necessary response to climate change. Just like nuclear power, they're trying to give people no option to accept it.

web editor
gpuk