0
   

UK govermental review: GM crops 'low risk' for humans

 
 
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2003 11:45 pm
GM crops 'low risk' for humans

Human health is at a "very low" risk from the current generation genetically modified (GM) crops, the government's scientific review is set to conclude.
The report by 25 scientists, to be published on Monday, will say the crops are in all likelihood safe to eat.

It is also expected to say GM crops are unlikely to lead to the creation of "superweeds".

But BBC science correspondent Pallab Ghosh says the scientists - many of whom are from anti-GM pressure groups - will admit there are doubts about the effect on wildlife in the countryside.

They are also expected to express concerns about the flow of genetic material to non-GM crops, saying it may be difficult, if not impossible, to grow certain crops because the GM genes would spread too far.

Different genetic modifications may stack up in one plant leading to unpredictable effects, they are set to say.

The review, chaired by the government's chief scientific adviser Professor Sir David King, is the most thorough ever undertaken into GM technology.

It is part of a number of measures being used by the government to help it decide whether or not to allow GM crops to be commercially grown in the UK.

A decision is expected later this year.

'Safeguards needed'

A public debate has also been held on the issue, with about 25,000 giving their views at meetings or through the internet.

The public consultation ended on Friday, and the findings are due to be published in September.

Earlier this month, a report on the economic impact of GM crops, by the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, concluded the commercial growing of the crops would bring little short-term benefit to the British economy.

Anti-GM group Friends of the Earth said on Monday the scientists needed to acknowledge there jad not been sufficient research into the environmental impact of GM crops.

"Over recent days it has become clear that there is no economic benefit from growing GM crops, mainly because people don't want to eat GM food," GM campaigner Clare Oxborrow said.

"The government should safeguard our environment and help UK farmers meet the considerable demand for GM-free ingredients by refusing to allow GM crops to be commercially grown in the UK. "


from the BBC:
LINK
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,887 • Replies: 22
No top replies

 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2003 11:52 pm
This website GM Nation? The public debate gives a lot of information about the current discussion in the UK on this subject.

GM - the truth - from The Guardian

BBC: GM science review answers few questions[/color]
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 02:02 am
Related to this topic is the EU policy on GM:

Euro vote ends GM food ban

European Consumer Protection Commissioner
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 09:08 am
The controversy IMO was never about health and safety. It was to protect the European farmers.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 09:33 am
Well, in that case you know much than we, who live here and are concerned about our and our children health and future life!
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 09:39 am
Walter
I only expressed my opinion based on what I have been reading over the last year or so. If you feel it's unsafe for human consumption by all means do not use it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 10:00 am
au

When read the papers about this, you'll notice that this just THE reason, no GM food is sold here in Europe (up to now, and -of course- I didn't mean US-American papers Laughing ).
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 10:06 am
Is this the reason that starving people in an African country would rather starve than accept GM food? The EU had no hand in it?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 10:14 am
au

I was talking, as said above, about why we European citizens (most of us, looking at the polls) don't like GM food.

And I really wonder, how you could read from that -namely: that we look at our children and our health and safety- a reason for letting African people starve.

Besides, you really don't know, how far I'm engaged in helping African people.
Don't mix things up.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 10:30 am
Walter
I am afraid you misunderstood or possibly I confused the issue. The question about Africa related to the EU's hand in that situation and why.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 11:20 am
I resent these modified foods in that we don't even know how much of it we have already consumed. If there was freedom of choice it would go down a lot easier.
0 Replies
 
wenchilina
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 08:00 pm
Every single vegetable is genetically engineered.
Broccoli, cauliflower, and cabbage are the same species of plant. Selective breeding is genetic engineering... and that's been done for quite a while...
Now, I loathe companies such as Monsanto, who insert genes into plants in order to force farmers to use ONLY their stock-- that is just wrong.
However, it isn't bad for you in any way, shape, or form. And most GM foods are modified to make them better-- higher vitamin content, or bug resistance, or resistance to freezing.
It's really a matter of not understanding genetics and molecular biology that gets people up in arms and all wacked out over these things... in other words, ignorance...
There is ZERO, absolutely ZERO evidence--after years and years of testing-- that they are NOT safe. If you think otherwise, please find the studies for me, and I'll be glad to show you the flaws.
Anchoring heuristics + extremely limited knowledge about genetics = the population's opinion is less likely to change. (sadly)
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2003 09:32 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Well, in that case you know much than we, who live here and are concerned about our and our children health and future life!

Then why do these concerns persist even after GM foods have been thoroughly tested for health hazards without turning up any? And why should some European's distaste of GM foods merit regulation that forbids other Europeans to consume them? As a fellow German, I confirm that no one here openly advocates the GM ban as a measure of agricultural protectionism, but the "protection" sure is a convenient by-product of the ban. And as by-products go, this one matches the general pattern of the EU's destructive agrarian policy quite well.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2003 10:34 am
Hmm.

Last weekend I talked with the former CEO of one of the leading plant breeding companies in Europe and the biggest in Germany.

He confirmed me ... that I'm quite right with my opinion.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2003 11:05 am
(redundant post deleted -- Thomas)
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2003 11:06 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Last weekend I talked with the former CEO of one of the leading plant breeding companies in Europe and the biggest in Germany. He confirmed me ... that I'm quite right with my opinion.

If you assume for a moment that au1929 and I are right, and German plant breeders only use GM as a pretense for seeking protection against American imports, isn't this exactly what you would expect this guy to say? Your factlet provides at least as much evidence for our case as for yours.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2003 12:26 pm
Well, they are importing from the USA (and exporting there), mostly via their Canadian branch.

And he really had liked to join that business.

But since it's a kind of co-operative (80% of the shareholders are seed growers and farmers, 20 % employees ), and the members are against GM, managers couldn't convince to vote otherwise ... ...
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 12:25 am
Walter -- I understand your opinion to be that GM food isn't sold in Europe because most Europeans don't want it. My beef with that opinion is that you appear to accept blindly that this question should be decided democratically, based on this majority opinion.

To see what I mean, consider the the fact that most Europeans presumably don't like Sezuan Chinese food either -- it's extremely hot. But if the European Commission were to make it illegal for me to buy this mostly unpopular food in restaurants, and illegal for restaurants to sell it to me, you would surely oppose that, wouldn't you? So what's the relevant difference between Sezuan Chinese food and genetically modified food? We know there's a minority of people who want to buy it. So why make this illegal for them? Why not let the marketplace decide whether GM food is viable?

-- Thomas
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 12:37 am
No, Thomas. I really don't mind if GM food is sold here.

And I don't mind either, if it is produced here.


But I would mind, if I'm not told that I buy GM food.
And I would mind, too, if GM crops could mix with "regular" crops as well.

When you'd followed the news, you'd have noticed that GM food producers don't want to label their food.

As far as I understand - living in a rural region - the request of "normal" producing farmers haven't been resolved either.


But I may be wrong here as well.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 02:05 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
But I would mind, if I'm not told that I buy GM food.

Well that's easy. Unless you routinely go to the forest yourself to pick your own berries and shoot your own deer, all your food is gene manipulated. As wenchilina has so eloquently argued (Hi, wenchilina, and welcome to the community! Smile ) there is no difference in outcome between gene manipulation by selective breeding and gene manipulation in the lab. If your food was raised by any form of agriculture, it's gene manipulated. So now you know! Smile

Walter Hinteler wrote:
And I would mind, too, if GM crops could mix with "regular" crops as well.

Well they do, and have done so for about 10000 years -- ever since humans have started agriculture. Same argument as above.

Walter Hinteler wrote:
When you'd followed the news, you'd have noticed that GM food producers don't want to label their food.

Sure, but what's wrong with that? It's a cost to them after all. To the extent this cost is smaller than the benefit of labels to consumers, producers can increase their profits by labelling their products and charging for it. On the other hand, to the extent labelling costs producers more than it benefits consumers, it is a net loss to society and hence shouldn't happen. So why should disputes over labelling stand in the way of legalizing GM crops in Europe? After all, mandatory labelling is superfluous at best and harmful at worst!

-- Thomas
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » UK govermental review: GM crops 'low risk' for humans
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 5.12 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 04:26:09