Home • Weblog Activity • Club Message Boards • Tagging Database • Contact • FAQ • RSS

RSS Feed · Level 0: Undefined **Posts:** 913032 **Timestamp:** Wed Dec 03, 08 7:03 PM

Ruth to reply? BBC GM debate...
Yesterday on the BBC Green Blog, there was strong support for the Horizon GM programme Jimmy's

natureheads
Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:58:48 +0000

Yesterday on the BBC Green Blog, there was strong support for the Horizon GM programme Jimmy's GM Food Fight by the blog's sub-editor, Ruth Harwood.

Ruth criticises people who oppose GM food and yet cannot explain why. She writes: "GM food is an emotive issue, but is too emotive? It seems to me that many people are automatically against modifying crops but don't really know why."

Fair enough. But I don't agree with this statement: "Jimmy discovers how the UK has become virtually a GM-free zone because of the strength of protests against the technology."

I think this is a biased starting point - it seems as if you can support the promotion of GM crops without really knowing why too. The reason GM has not become a raging success is not because of protest, as Ruth states. I'm not sure the writer is very aware of the problems and potential risks of genetically modified organisms. The BBC Green blog is suposedly helping us to be more environmentally aware - however, it can only be truly green if it also considers the harmful potential too, as well as the potential good.

I posted a long comment, and I'm afraid it did begin a little sarcastically. Sorry Ruth.

==========

my comment

==========

You're right, most people do not understand GM technology. Luckily that made it easy for Horizon to show how absolutely natural the scrambling of genes is, and why those GM critics were worried about nothing serious all along. How silly.

Jimmy was marvellously reassuring about the environmental superiority of GM and its potential to feed the world. No evidence, though. Ah, who cares, there were computer graphics.

Just don't look into the "independence" of the research centre where Jimmy had a go at creating a new GM crop... and don't question the officially failed Uganda GM banana project which Horizon seemed to think was a great example.

Your other readers mention the issue of patented seed, bankrupt farmers in Canada and market control. Why did JD not explore that problem? *Ruth, don't you think that's a justifiably emotive issue?*

(Even if you ignore the other, more scientific reasons for caution with regard to appropriate and safe GM technology application?)

We saw in Argentina, a country you describe as a market leader, farmers burning forests to clear to way for animal feed soy.

Ruth, do you think the expansion of indutrialised agriculture in that way is a sign of success? This deforestation is part of the indirect impact due to a growth in demand for meat - what is the BBC Green Blog opinion about that?

I attended a conference a few weeks ago which went into the major issues behind GM. There were a mix of views, all backed up with evidence. This included talks from people who use GM technology as part of their work. Look up the scientific abstracts on the 'Feeding the World Conference' blog if you are interested.

One speaker saw potential in bananas because they are sterile and artificial gene enhancements are less likely to escape into other life forms. However, he recognised the unpredictable effects which will take place as genes flow between species. (Already happening, e.g. Mexico maize.)

Another expert reckoned GM crops were an irresistable advance, and what we need now is to establish a proper risk assessment system to ensure the health and environmental risks are filtered out in the selection process.

A GM research scientist discussed pathways for gene flow. Another GM scientist discussed the elements of mutations, inaccuracy, and limitations of current GM modification techniques. Also the inherent complexity of gene function within living things.

As for evidence of the potential harm to health, there were several well documented examples cited at the Feeding the World Conference, which Horizon did not mention. (Why?)

One of your commenting guests (Bob Irving) cites the IAASTD. [Horizon did not tackle the implications for GM following the conclusions of that famous report, nor the UN report on ecological farming.]

There was an excellent summary of the IAASTD report's conclusions at the conference by Professor Janice Jiggins. Listen again:[url=http://feedingtheworldconference.wordpress.com/2008/12 /03/systemic-risk-iaastd]

http://feedingtheworldconference.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/systemi c-risk-iaastd[/url]

Jimmy's GM Food Fight is available on BBC iPlayer, for those of you who missed it. Or we could set our recorders for the late night repeat - Sat 13th December 2:40am - BBC1?

=======

Most of her readers seem to disagree with her praise for the GM Horizon programme. So I wonder if Ruth will reply to my questions, or indeed any of the comments?

blogging « WordPress.com Tag Feed
Feed of posts on WordPress.com tagged "blogging"