h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

C Hawke has just started a thread, out of curiosity, asking for opinions of world wide researchers on the break down of The Hague Climate control conference.

I'm following the thread as I'm interested in knowing that too. But I'd like to ask another question, along similar lines: What is the opinion of world wide researchers on the decision of a US court to uphold the American government's policy not to require GM declarations on foods containing GM ingredients.
There seems to be a fairly wide gap in perception of GM between Europe and the US. The lack of labelling could make imported US food illegal in Europe. The result of that could be that in Europe we are told the GM ingredients of US produced food while their own citizens are not.
Any views out there? Are those of you on the other side of the water just less paranoid than those of us over here?
Wz

I think GM should, at the very very least, be declared on food labels. Read this:

(URL removed by moderator)

Yeah, they should make it obvious so the paranoids could have a choice. But GM foods is like with nuclear power. Both great ideas if the safety´s alright. But instead of forcing them to do that, they try to get rid of them. Which means that you don´t get a good security plus you have to settle for worse alternatives.

Given human fallibility CAN nuclear power and GM really be used safely? We can't make our railways safe here in the UK, the consequences of accidents are so much greater with nuclear power, possibly with GM too. Xanatic, when you say we settle for worse alternatives do you mean the use of pesticides and herbicides or are you referring to the argument that GM could solve third world food shortages?

I agree with you Case, at least give people the information to make the choice. Hiding the facts just makes paranoids more paranoid !

Seems to me there aren't many arguments against labelling it... might's well do that, then all us GM food supporters know which food to buy

26199

I have a basic credo that putting information in the public domain is never a bad thing, except for those who have something to hide. However, I would hope that would be balanced by more even-handed and rational debate in the media of the risks and benefits of GM food, rather than use of emotive labels such as "Frankenstein food"

In any case, the potential risk to *consumers* of GM food is only one aspect of the argument - and, it seems to be, a relatively minor one. The loss of genetic diversity, threats to endangered species, and risk of cross-fertilisation into the non-GM food chain wouldn't be helped at all, except in that labelling is a disincentive to plant the things in the first place.

And while we're talking about openness, Monsanto and the other GM companies should stop pretending that their research is for the good of the world. It's about profit. One of their key aims is not to use *less* herbicide. It's to use *more* and *deadlier* (Monsanto-produced) herbicide on resistent crops grown from (Monsanto-produced) seed. At they same time, they make the plants infertile so that farmers have to buy more seed from Monsanto next year rather than keeping some of this year's crop.

It's about the good of companies, not the good of everyone. That's what I most object to.

I agree with you PF that the real issue is the environmental one but, as you say, the leading push in the application of GM food technology is by large corporations with the aim of increasing sales. This won't happen if they have to label and enough paranoids (me) refuse to buy GM products.

As for "Frankenstein Food", I don't like that sort of headline either but it does catch mass attention and you could argue that it balances out the "We're solving World Starvation" propaganda.

26199, that's not the number of toes you have,... is it...?
Wz

Nope

26199

Well, the companies really doesn´t have anything to loose on labelling the food. Except that ppl can then decide if they want it or not. And they should have that right, so the government should force it down upon them.

But saying you don´t like that the companies are after profit is stupid. Any company is after profit, not charity. But that doesn´t mean that you can´t use it for good. Without refridgirators many ppl would have died of starvation, but the fridge-factories are only after profit. The other was just a side-effect. Unless you´re a communist, you have to let profit-chasing factories make things for you.

About risks, we can make trains safe. It´s just a matter of money. The railroad companies look at how much money they have to spend on safety, and wether it´s worth it or not considering the risks. And as it is now, they feel that the risk will cost too much money to lower further. But with a nuclear plant that has more of a risk, they will the use more money. Besides, a nuclear plant that melts down will cause great pollution in a short time. Coal and oil plants cause more pollution, only in a longer period of time, that´s why you notice it more with nuclear plants. Looking at it long term, nuclear plants pollute less.

Frankenstein food, that´s just typical. People have no idea what the Frankenstein book was all about. Hell, they don´t even know which character was named Frankenstein.

I wasn't objecting to genetic researchers seeking profit - I object to them doing something purely for profit and pretending it's to save the world.

Some of the things they do make sense - take a gene from a tomato that has a long shelf-life and put it in one that tastes good, end up with a long-lasting, good-tasting tomato. No problem, it's just a faster way to achieve what selective breeding did in the past. Take a cow and make it produce milk containing a protein that people with a genetic disorder are lacking - fabulous. But let's not confuse that with making alterations which are purely or primarily for profit, or which encourage farmers to further decimate the natural environment.

As for nuclear v fossil fuels: the jury's still out. We don't know just how long it will take or how much it will cost to decommission a nuclear plant, because no-one has yet done it, and we don't know just how much environmental damage a nuclear accident could do, because we may not have had a really bad one yet - there are scenarios which make Chernobyl look innocuous. Until those costs and ecological impacts are factored in, we don't have all the information.

In the long run and on average, keeping your pound means you end up with more money than buying a lottery ticket - but somebody out there gets a couple of million quid richer most Saturdays. Replace the pound with fossil fuel pollution, and the win with nuclear pollution, and we have ourselves an analogy - but we don't know how big the jackpot is yet, nor the precise chance of winning it. And I don't want my number to come up.

Okay, here´s a small question for you. You have a coal plant, and a normal running nuclear plant. Which do you think sends out the most radiation?

I don't know the answer to that 'tho PF might, but I can guess, so I have a follow up question. Which could send out the most radiation if one of the fallible human beings running it made a mistake. It isn't just lack of money that prevents us having a safe railway system it is also the person driving the train, inspecting the tracks, maintaining signalling systems or making the investment decisions. With the best will in the world none of us gets everything right all of the time.

Natural radiation levels aren't the problem. We've lived with those all along just as we've lived with natural genetic evolution. I don't advocate banning all GM research Xanatic, I just think we're taking unnecessary risks with it, risks that the benefits don't warrant. I worry that those making the decisions may be choosing what scientific advice to listen to. As they did with BSE. That's why I want the food labels so that I can make my own choice.
Wz

PS you have a point about Frankenstein . Although, on second thoughts, that's a good illustration of a scientist who didn't know what he was letting himself in for and lived to regret it!

Xanatic, maybe it's best to avoid topic drift, and take up nuclear power in another thread. Just as here, we'd be talking largely in the dark because the quality of information given to the public is so low - bland, untrastworthy reassurance from one side and hysterical scare-mongering from the other. Or I would - you could be the chief scientist of BNFL for all I know .

Anyway, I don't have much to say on that topic apart from an analogy: NASA's otherwise fine and wise scientists claimed the Shuttle was safe until after Challenger, when the dots all joined to make a clear picture of the inevitable. People are notoriously bad at risk assessment.

Wazungu, you have a good point when you say:
"I worry that those making the decisions may be choosing what scientific advice to listen to"

One good reason to worry is that the UK government minister responsible for monitoring and filtering that advice has a personal fortune built on shares in the UK's second-largest food retailer - which has a major financial interest in being able to sell GM crops without telling its customers, and in some of the GM target technology such as extended shelf-life and improved product appearance.
Sometimes I don't want to be cynical, but no other approach seems tenable.

I didn't know that PF. That is worrying. With the best will in the world how can he not be at least subconsciously predisposed to want to believe the assurances of safety. I'm trying not to be cynical and to give the benefit of the doubt. Just being realistic this seems both unwise and bad from a PR point of view.

One very 'good' reason that the government and gm companies resist the labelling of gm food, is that once it's growing in our countryside - outside the controlled environments of the laboratories and greenhouses -absolutely everything will need to be labelled 'Genetically Modified' because there's no way to avoid cross pollination and testing isn't very easy. The obvious implication of that, is that there will be no choice whatever before very long. They'd rather not draw anyone's attention to that inevitable fact.

Keep counting your toes Wazungu.

Sal

Well, I´ll tell you then. The coal plant gives off the most radiation. That´s because there´s tiny traces of radioactive materials in the choals, and that is given off when it is burned.

About the risks, I still think nuclear power seems safest. Looking at what risks we know and what risks we don´t know, it still seems the best. With fossile fuel we know we have lots of pollution. With nucelar power we might have lots of pollution. Perhaps nuclear power is less safe than we imagine, but the worst case scenario still seem better than the scenario we have now with fossile fuels. Try going to Eastern Germany and visit some of their brown coal plants. That will really make you like fossile fuels. And some time or another we will run out of fossile fuels. While nuclear plants can run around 3000 years more using a bit of trickery.

Of course it would be better with an energy source that doesn´t pollute at all, but we doesn´t have any cost-efficient alternatives yet.

BTW under new entries there´s something about nuclear reactors.

I also think GM-food should be labelled. That the guy who decides so has a big economical advantage if he says no, that´s just politics. If you don´t want that, you´ll just have to vote for better politicians. But as long as people act as stupid as they do now, that won´t change. In democracy you only get what you pay for. I still don´t understand why people put up with the way government is, a revolution sounds like a good idea to me.

And someone said than when the GM-foods are out in the open there´s no way back. Well, as I said earlier the safety sucks. The GM plants are already being planted on fields right next to normal fields. With no other barrier than a wire fence.

> "If you don´t want that, you´ll just have to vote for better politicians"

Ah, Xanatic, so innocent

Lord Sainsbury wasn't elected by anybody, he was a personal appointment by the Prime Minister. Britain is, almost 400 years after Cromwell, still only nominally a parliamentary democracy. I agree that we could/should choose another PM, but have you seen the alternatives?...

I am personally I am all for eating GM Soya burgers.

You guys will have to get used to it. The healthy "Fish" diet will be gone in about 10 years (due to overfishing). Pork will be on the decline after the lack of fish (most bacon has a fishy smell because they grind up the crappy fish that are too small for you to eat and feed it to the pigs) Then there is the Cows Moo%^&?$oo Moo less said the better. Lamb does not return enough meat to make it a viable food source. But you will be glad to know that you will get the same quality of broken legged featherless GM fed battery chickens that we have grown used to. Every thing that is cheap in Tescos is because it is grown using the worst conditions possible for economic output.

Do these Organic Green Shoppers really believe that everyone on earth could be fed using the same inordinately expensive agriculture and ostrich burgers.

If you shop in the supermarkets for a bargain then you get what you pay for. The only way to eat cheap is to eat Grains & Cash Crop Vegetables.

GM miracle feeding of the 6 Bln (no fish just GM bread)

Well, I didn´t really know who that lord you referred to was. But it is of course a matter of not voting for Blair if he was the one that put him in. But in England you still have half the parliament being decided by who you´re born from. And when you tried to get rid of it, you let the same people who would lose power from it, vote to decide it. Who´s the naive one here? As I said, revolution.

Actually, Xanatic, they did get rid of the hereditary peers - and they got the turkeys to vote for Christmas by letting 10% stay on, elected by the other 90% as their representatives. This arrangement is supposed to be temporary, but no replacement has been proposed or timetable set, so it could be about as temporary as the Pyramid of Cheops.

Now, there's a much simpler system:
We vote in a party (and despite their flaws, we have to have one or other of them in charge)
They can appoint people to the "upper" chamber - the former House of Lords.
That's anyone they like (Anyone who'll vote the way they're told). No restrictions.
Those people stay for ever.
They can't be voted out, kicked out, or changed in any way. The only way to change that House is to appoint even more people who think the opposite. In the end, the entire population of Great Britain could be in the Lords (except MPs from the commons - you can't be in both).

Revolution isn't really the British way - but we've done it before (last time to move some power from the King to the Prime Minister), and maybe it is indeed time we did it again.