Consumers say, 'We don't want GM food'; EU says, 'What, not even in organic food?'

I can't help feeling that the phrase 'skin deep' is pretty redundant - to my mind, tinkering with the genetic make-up of an organism is about as far from 'skin deep' as you can get. Selective breeding and GM technologies aren't comparable though - one enhances certain pre-existing traits over generations, the other bolts on foreign DNA in a laboratory. There's no other way that genetic material from bacteria would end up in maize or rice other than through human intervention.

Research on the impacts of GM crops on the environment is pretty scanty - neither the biotech companies or the governments supporting them really want to dig into the subject - so I'd be interested to know what you base your supposition on. But the biotech companies are not in the GM game to feed the starving (by the way, the UN says that we already produce one and a half times the amount of food needed to feed everyone on the planet), they're in it to make money from increased sales of agro-chemicals that crops have been genetically modified to require for proper growth, and after the golden rice debacle, would you really trust the claims they make about their products?

web editor
gpuk

I mentioned the UK being a net importer of food because you seemed to be suggesting that rich countries like ourselves are self-sufficient - we aren't. In fact, because of the distorted trade situation (which means we have to export food like apples that we would otherwise eat here, and import food to keep our own population fed) we're extremely reliant on many other countries. Next time you're in a supermarket, see if you can find any British organic apples. A bit tricky at this time of year, but even in the autumn, they'll be from Argentina and New Zealand, even though they're grown here. Now why is that? There's an excellent book called Not On The Label by Felicity Lawrence that covers a lot of this ground in great detail.

Corruption does play a part in resources not reaching the people who need them most, but I don't agree it's the main cause. The World Trade Organisation, which sets international trade regulations, is dominated by developed nations and so naturally those regulations are heavily in our favour. Produce such as coffee and cocoa can't be processed (roasted, freeze-dried or made into chocolate) and then exported to developed nations without attracting prohibitive import duties.

These same regulations also allow rich nations to dump their surplus produce on other countries, which as I mentioned distorts the market and puts local producers out of business. Oxfam's Food aid or hidden dumping? report makes an excellent primer on this.

But my point is that the world already produces more than enough food to feed everyone, so why on Earth should we need new technology to supposedly 'feed the world'? What's at fault is a twisted set of trade regulations that force poorer countries to satisfy the consumer demands of the West before feeding their own people. Just like those bananas and pineapples you mentioned. Of course, there's the issue of whether we should be expecting tropical foods as part of our diet and the food miles that come along with them, but I think I've rattled on enough for now.

web editor
gpuk

Golden rice is a genetically-modified variety from a company called Syngenta which, they claimed, contained boosted amounts of vitamin A. They also claimed this rice could save millions from vitamin A deficiency and related blindness, but our investigation into the company's own figures demonstrated that an adult would have to eat nine kilos of cooked rice a day to receive the recommended daily amount of vitamin A.

newb - give me a bit more info to go on, and I'll do my best to help!

web editor
gpuk

I can't help feeling that the phrase 'skin deep' is pretty redundant - to my mind, tinkering with the genetic make-up of an organism is about as far from 'skin deep' as you can get. Selective breeding and GM technologies aren't comparable though - one enhances certain pre-existing traits over generations, the other bolts on foreign DNA in a laboratory. There's no other way that genetic material from bacteria would end up in maize or rice other than through human intervention. Research on the impacts of GM crops on the environment is pretty scanty - neither the biotech companies or the governments supporting them really want to dig into the subject - so I'd be interested to know what you base your supposition on. But the biotech companies are not in the GM game to feed the starving (by the way, the UN says that we already produce one and a half times the amount of food needed to feed everyone on the planet), they're in it to make money from increased sales of agro-chemicals that crops have been genetically modified to require for proper growth, and after the golden rice debacle, would you really trust the claims they make about their products? web editor gpuk

I mentioned the UK being a net importer of food because you seemed to be suggesting that rich countries like ourselves are self-sufficient - we aren't. In fact, because of the distorted trade situation (which means we have to export food like apples that we would otherwise eat here, and import food to keep our own population fed) we're extremely reliant on many other countries. Next time you're in a supermarket, see if you can find any British organic apples. A bit tricky at this time of year, but even in the autumn, they'll be from Argentina and New Zealand, even though they're grown here. Now why is that? There's an excellent book called Not On The Label by Felicity Lawrence that covers a lot of this ground in great detail. Corruption does play a part in resources not reaching the people who need them most, but I don't agree it's the main cause. The World Trade Organisation, which sets international trade regulations, is dominated by developed nations and so naturally those regulations are heavily in our favour. Produce such as coffee and cocoa can't be processed (roasted, freeze-dried or made into chocolate) and then exported to developed nations without attracting prohibitive import duties. These same regulations also allow rich nations to dump their surplus produce on other countries, which as I mentioned distorts the market and puts local producers out of business. Oxfam's Food aid or hidden dumping? report makes an excellent primer on this. But my point is that the world already produces more than enough food to feed everyone, so why on Earth should we need new technology to supposedly 'feed the world'? What's at fault is a twisted set of trade regulations that force poorer countries to satisfy the consumer demands of the West before feeding their own people. Just like those bananas and pineapples you mentioned. Of course, there's the issue of whether we should be expecting tropical foods as part of our diet and the food miles that come along with them, but I think I've rattled on enough for now. web editor gpuk

Golden rice is a genetically-modified variety from a company called Syngenta which, they claimed, contained boosted amounts of vitamin A. They also claimed this rice could save millions from vitamin A deficiency and related blindness, but our investigation into the company's own figures demonstrated that an adult would have to eat nine kilos of cooked rice a day to receive the recommended daily amount of vitamin A. newb - give me a bit more info to go on, and I'll do my best to help! web editor gpuk