As I write this, I suspect we all have full bellies. Many tens of 
thousands in under developed countries do not. Yet it is those who do not suffer food shortages on their table that voice the loudest protest at what plant scientists are trying to achieve to help solve this chronic problem.
Banana farmer John Barisoy explains on this video link why he needs GM technology to overcome banana wilt to produce healthy, disease free banana plants.(see pic)
My MEP Robert Sturdy believes this is now the right time to have a “fresh, informed and more balanced debate” on genetically modified foods following the results of a study which showed they had no harmful effects on public health.
The European Commission’s scientific advisory board, the Joint Research Centre, was commissioned by MEPs in November 2006 by a resolution of Parliament to scrutinise this controversial topic. It conducted an extensive review of the existing evidence on the short and long-term effects of GM foods, which included meeting 22 experts involved in assessment and evaluation of GMOs for the JRC and European Food Safety authority.
The study concluded that “no demonstration of any health effects of GM food products submitted to the regulatory process has been reported so far”.
Robert, who sits on the Environmental and Agricultural Committees, said the results showed that this was now the time to hold a fresh, informed and more balanced debate on GM foods based on factual evidence.
“This is now the time to disregard unfounded prejudices and fears and have an open mind. Most of the lobbying is done by those who are anti-GM, but we need to evaluate the evidence on this very emotive subject very carefully.
“We should consider all options and encourage more research and development, particularly as we are experiencing a global food crisis, concerns about providing our future energy requirements and reduced land availability. Our views should be based on scientific evidence, and not emotive scaremongering."
Update: My press release on this has been picked up by the national media, including the Financial Times, you can read it here.
Ellee, have you left Facebook? You seem to have vanished.
It’s ok….you’re back on!
I agree with you, Ellee. It’s very easy for us sitting in our comfortable homes (having just eaten and knowing that if we feel a little hungry later we can always raid the fridge) to tell the developing world GM is wrong, when they are starving and we are not. It also seems the richer you are, the more you take the moral high ground; Prince Charles springs to mind.
We should consider all options and encourage more research and development, particularly as we are experiencing a global food crisis
Why should we? Are we experiencing a global food crisis or unsustainable population growth?
Quote:“We should consider all options and encourage more research and development, particularly as we are experiencing a global food crisis, concerns about providing our future energy requirements and reduced land availability. Our views should be based on scientific evidence, and not emotive scaremongering.”
Absolutely! GM has simply saved millions if not billions of lifes and it’s safety has been proven time and time again. The issue, I believe, is not with the amount of food produced but the access and food sercurity. Science can make the food; it’s up to humans to sercure for those who need it.
I guess we need
“Art for Art’s sake, and Science for Science sake”
But honestly right now, I guess there would be many allotment holders who wish they had a breed of rot or blight resistant tomatoes …
Last month’s lack of of Sun and over plentiful rain, mean that the crops haven’t quite ripened
and suddenly over the last few days turned black. – What a pity, what a waste.
Fortunately it does not happen to large or industrial growers, and the fact that they are grown in greenhouses by large or industrial growers does mean they are less vulnerable to ‘natural’ weather conditions, and less vulnerable to ‘natural’ predators or insects.
And you get ‘nice’ looking fresh tomatoes in the supermarket, and plentiful tinned toms.
I say thank God, for industrial plastic tunnels and industrial greenhouses.
I say thank God, for the multi-variety of tomatoes, and ‘natural’ selection by Man.
PS – I’m a little tired of cherry or vine tomatoes. So cutesy, yet so small and full of seeds. I say bring back plum tomatoes and especially beef tomatoes.
Whilst accepting the argument, it still doesn’t establish the innocence of GM foods – one study, Ellee. A collection of studies maybe.
Excellent post, Ellee. I would welcome an informed and non-emotional debate because I really do not understand all the issues.
What a surprise – basing a campaign on fear instead of relying solely on the facts.
Reminds me a bit of the climate change lobby.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
I have just spoken to Robert’s researcher in Brussels who told me the Financial Times are following up on our press release and interviewing Robert on this story. The Sunday Times are also speaking to him about his great work on pesticides.
I think thorough research needs to be done before deciding one way or the other. This should then be followed by a reasoned debate.
I agree wholeheartedly with the persuit of GM crop development as I do the Hadron Colider experiments. There are two reasons:
– the genie is already out of the bottle
– our raison detre’ as a species is to advance and not remain static
I would never argue against anyone’s right to enjoy the same rights to bountiful supplies of food that I have enjoyed but here comes the negative (well you know me by now !):
We cannot be conservationists by usurping nature’s methods of population control. In persuance of this technology we must give up all pretence at trying to prevent global warming. The further explosions in population that this is bound to cause runs counter to the global warmist’s arguments as adopted by EU and domestic politicians.
The ‘debate’ has already been won by the science a long time ago. I mean, where exactly is the science that suggests that genetic modification (GM) is a killer of humans?
The truth is, those who oppose GM couldn’t care less about starvation in developing countries. Such scientific developments have always proved controversial to environmentalists. Indeed, it took environmentalists 30 years, yes, 30 years to concede that using DDT against malaria carrying mosquitoes is ‘safe and effective’. Some people here might urgue ‘better 30 year wait than be sorry’, but even now there are still some greens who are in denial about the benefits of DDT.
If the greens really cared so much about human life, why did they let 3000 children per day die in Africa? When those all those lives could have been saved if DDT were allowed to be used.
Anti-GM protesters have long ignored the scientific case for GM processes. As far as green politicians like Micheal Meacher are concerned “GM is not necessaryâ€. It’s true, he might have a point, but by the same token, the electric light, the aeroplane and the internet is not that “necessary” either – but all three developments have made this world a far better place for us humans to live in – and that’s what really counts here.
If anything, we need to swat the arguments of those green pests who prefer to go around liberating mosquitoes, slugs and butterflies – and who put their petty political green interests before the interests of human lives.