Horizon. Jimmy's GM Food Fight.

[powerrabbit]

Did anyone watch it?    Very interesting programme on BBC2 tonight on the pros and cons of GM food production.    One point that was mentioned was that trials on feeding mice on it in some instances, some of them developed an allergic reaction. Perhaps this is why a lot of people get nut allergies. (Peanuts)  ???

[Luke DeWitt]

I wish I could have seen it since i'm allergic to peanuts. Perhaps BBC America will run the show.

[powerrabbit]

I wish I could have seen it since i'm allergic to peanuts. Perhaps BBC America will run the show.

Luke.    Try this link and see if it works for you. Hope it does.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fsxq6

[robbo]

I hope that people like Prince Charles watch that programme, it gives both sides of the argument and I think that Jimmy came up with the right answer at the end that GM needs to be investigated further as it has the potential to feed many mouths.

I cannot understand the outright resistance of the organic brigade, especially Lord Melchett, as GM has the potential to drastically reduce the amount of pesticide and weed killers used throughout agriculture, that can only be a good thing as the effects of these chemicals are well known and documented.

If I were to do an "experiment" like Jimmy did in Norwich high street and ask the question, "do you want to try a sausage that has been grown chemically or one that has been grown without chemicals?" what sort of reaction would that get??

[powerrabbit]

With regard to Lord Melchets comments, he seemed to evade the issue of research into the benefits and catagorically dismissed GM as an outright no-goer so he's among the 'blinkered'.  The biggest fear that seemed to come out of the programme was the affect that cross-polination from GM crops could possibly have to the wild plant species and how it could change them. As Jimmy said, and I've been saying it for years, that ever since man has been growing and cultivating crops, they have been manipulated and bred up for thousands of years and if this is not genetic engineering then what is? The difference being that up to now it's been done naturally by selection and cross-breeding instead of in the laboratory. With an ever increasing World population and no more land being made, without this type of 'experimentation' food in the future will be in very short supply long term.

[Deere-est]

Give out contraception to third world countries. Why continue to provide food for problem? No one ever has the balls to tackle to bust the roots of all the worlds problems anymore.

Annoyed I missed it though as I even ringed it in the TV mag.

[Simon]

Give out contraception to third world countries. Why continue to provide food for problem? No one ever has the balls to tackle to bust the roots of all the worlds problems anymore.

Annoyed I missed it though as I even ringed it in the TV mag.

As un PC as Tris' opinion is, it does make an awful lot of sense. I didn't see this particular programme but I know enough about the subject to have already formed an opinion which leaves me on the fence. Manipulating what is naturally possible is to the planet what artificially supressing interest rates is to the economy. While I have no particular issue with GM food production - as has already been said it's just the next logical step to careful plant breeding - to force the planet to provide food for a burgeoning population will cause major problems in areas where services can't be provided as easily as in a lab, ie fuel, natural resources, waste disposal. The planet is groaning under the weight of a global poplulation who expect too much, whether that be limitless borrowing or a time without feast of famine. Feeling obliged to scientifically engineer nature to eliminate natural selection in not just plants but also the population seems like a bit of a time bomb to me. If GM food production were to be implemented across world agriculture as a means to removing chemicals and reduce the use of natural resources then it's laudible and it is certainly folly to ignore it's potential. If it becomes a way of allowing the population to explode by taking away natures ability to control the population then it's going to store up a major disaster for future generations. And it's not just 3rd world contries where the population needs to be controlled. I know everyone talks of an ageing population here but the bulk of its replacement is coming from those who do not contribute but go through life with their hand out. Our neighbour's grand daughter has announced she is expecting twins. She can't look after the 3 she already has - the state pays for them already - she should not be producing yet more offspring.....

I think it's about time man grew up enough to take stock of the situation and decide whether this repeated rape and pillage of the world is sustainable. I don't want my children to grow up in an environment so unstable that the only thing which can fix it is a catastrophic melt down and a clean slate.....

[SPN]

I saw this on tape this morning. Very disappointed.

I hope that people like Prince Charles watch that programme, it gives both sides of the argument and I think that Jimmy came up with the right answer at the end that GM needs to be investigated further as it has the potential to feed many mouths.

It doesn't give both sides of the argument.

He does a very good concern-troll impression, but reverts to Burson Marstellar talking points at every opportunity. (Burson Marstellar are Monsanto's PR Company)

I agree that GM needs to be investigated further, but it needs to be done in Laboratories, not in the open Countryside where it can contaminate neighbouring crops.

I cannot understand the outright resistance of the organic brigade, especially Lord Melchett, as GM has the potential to drastically reduce the amount of pesticide and weed killers used throughout agriculture, that can only be a good thing as the effects of these chemicals are well known and documented.

The outright resistance of the Organic Brigade is because the contamination caused by pollen from GM crops on neighbouring farms can completely undermine an Organic Crop.

GM Crops actually INCREASE the use of pesticides. Why would Monsanto have spent all those Billions developing them if they weren't going to increase the use of their pesticides?

If I were to do an "experiment" like Jimmy did in Norwich high street and ask the question, "do you want to try a sausage that has been grown chemically or one that has been grown without chemicals?" what sort of reaction would that get??

I was particularly unimpressed with the test of the cooking oil. If he had been giving both sides of the argument he would have told the people that the GM Cooking Oil had never been tested to see if it caused adverse reactions in humans. He pretended the two oils were equivalent.

All that faff about wonderful new crops that are drought resistant etc. is just faff. I've been reading (Monsanto PR) about them for over 10 years, but they never come to pass because there is no economic benefit for the big Corporations.

BT is a natural pesticide used by Organic Farmers. Widespread use of GM BT - where the BT toxin is excreted by every cell in the plant (and the effects on humans has never been tested for) the bugs build up resistance to BT. Over time all you are left with is bugs that aren't killed by BT, and then it is bye bye to Organic Farming.

As any of the farmers on here will attest, the price of fertiliser and pesticides is going up. Without fertiliser and pesticides there will be no GM crops. They don't make money for Monsanto unless they are sold in conjunction with other products.

Here in Ireland the main Ag Research Operation has been working on developing [url=http://www.teagasc.ie/news/2007/200706-27b.asp]Organic Rotations that are very comparable to Chemical Farming in terms of profitability (if not yield).

Research done by the UN (which isn't coming to hand) has shown that modern Organic methods are capable of providing much higher yields for third world farmers than the systems they have been using, and without the expense of imported chemicals (which require foreign currency reserves - something your average African of Asian subsistence farmer doesn't have a whole lot of!)

I could go on and on about GM, but I won't!

Have a read of [url=http://www.percyschmeiser.com/]Percy Schmeiser's Website. He has been on the receiving end of the Monsanto Attack Dogs (as have many other farmers who did not have the balls to fight them).

Monsanto buy lots of advertising in the Ag Press, so they get a lot of influence over the editorial content, but their objective at the end of the day is to make profits for their shareholders, not to do what is right for farmers or consumers.

I think I'll stop now