Europe hits back at Bush in GM row

IMHO opinion its the industry letting Africa starve. Its the mining companies benefiting from civil war in Congo. The same for the diamondindustry in Sierra Leone, lumber, .... They profit from the chaos in Africa to loot the continent.

Walter - Let the record show that you and yours would rather people starve than accept new and demonstrably safe food technology. GM food is not dog food. GM food is not decomposed food. GM food is food engineered to grow more abundantly or to be resistant to those elements that reduce usable crop yields. It is the height of hubris and the depth of depravity that people with plenty to eat would deny food to those who are starving and do so out of simple, willful ignorance. People are starving so that you and yours can make a political point. Well done!

Hbeth asked- children, grandchildren.
Have you read any of the research on it, or just assumed it is unsafe because others who are equally uninformed told you so? Can you cite for me the scientific, double-blind studies you've read on the subject? Which ones indicated there was a danger in consuming GM food? Just one, maybe?

Now, tell us again how "no one has convinced me it is safe".

Scrat wrote:

Walter - Let the record show that you and yours would rather people starve than accept new and demonstrably safe food technology. GM food is not dog food. GM food is not decomposed food. GM food is food engineered to grow more abundantly or to be resistant to those elements that reduce usable crop yields. It is the height of hubris and the depth of depravity that people with plenty to eat would deny food to those who are starving and do so out of simple, willful ignorance. People are starving so that you and yours can make a political point. Well done!

And where is the proof that GM is a solid solution for the hunger in the world. This is just a false comparison made by a mad-man in order to allow his sponsors to export to Europe and add some more Billions to their bank-account. Like they care how much people die of famine.

Yet in Britain, where there is still no commercial growing, the GM industry's prospects have taken another dive. A report on the potential health impacts of GM foods slams the current system of safety screening-developed in the US-as flawed and subjective, and calls for better tests (see "Good enough to eat?"). The fact that existing GM crops haven't harmed anyone is no reason for complacency, the report warns. The next generation will be more complex, and even subtle changes in foods could have an impact on people dependent on single food sources-such as babies fed formula milk.

Just another gloomy warning from green consumer activists? Far from it. The report comes from a panel of scientists set up by the Royal Society in London, and is an astonishing sign of how far Britain's scientific establishment has moved on this issue. A few years ago, senior scientists were wont to dismiss public concerns about GM crops as hysteria. Now they are telling regulators to get tougher.

The report rightly has no truck with the more lurid fears about GM technology-such as the idea that the DNA that is added to food crops could create dangerous viruses. But as it points out, inserting genes into plants is not yet an exact science, so unforeseen side effects on a plant's biochemistry are a real possibility. Toxins normally present in a plant at harmless levels might increase. Nutrients important to a balanced diet might decline.

The report points out that in developing countries the ability to grow vitamin A-enriched rice and salt-resistant or drought-resistant crops could make a vital impact in combating hunger and malnutrition.

It says: "If we value the ethic of 'to each according to need' … then the introduction of GM crops on a large scale would be a moral imperative. This is because GM crops might produce more food, or more employment income with which to obtain food, for those who need it most urgently. More food for the hungry, unlike tomatoes with a longer shelf-life, is a strong ethical counterweight to set against the concerns of the opponents of GM crops."

The report takes the view that the possibility that GM crops will make a substantial contribution to food security provides a sound reason for doing GM crop research. However, there is an urgent need to direct more GM research at the food staples of developing countries, such as white maize or cassava, rather than just at Western crops.

The report concludes that there is no evidence to suggest GM foods are harmful to human health. GM is in most respects an extension and refinement of what has been happening for ten thousand years. It concludes that the genetic modification of crop plants does not differ to such an extent from plant breeding as to make the process morally objectionable.

GM technology is a new tool which plant breeders are using to achieve their breeding goals more accurately and rapidly. The report accepts that some genetic modifications are truly novel but concludes that there is no clear dividing line which could prescribe what types of genetic modification are unacceptable because they are thought by some to be 'unnatural'.

The report says: "At the present time public concern and anxiety about the introduction of GM crops and food is running at a high level. There are calls for bans on GM food and moratoria on GM plantings. We do not believe there is evidence of harm to justify such action."

That Africa sidewalk by Bush is just a trick to soften the European resistance. His main concern is entrance to the EU Market, not the people of Africa. Do you really think he cares about one single african dying because of lack of food?

People are starving because they can't grow food and need to rely on shipments of food that are hijacked. If people had seeds that would grow in the conditions prvalent in Africa, they wouldn't be dependant on outside sources for food.

McGentrix wrote:

People are starving because they can't grow food and need to rely on shipments of food that are hijacked. If people had seeds that would grow in the conditions prvalent in Africa, they wouldn't be dependant on outside sources for food.

Can the GM-lobby garantee that GM crops will make Africa independant of foreign aid.