Jimmy’s GM Food Fight
Posted in: Miscellaneous by Ruth Harwood , December 3, 2008 – 10:25 am
GM food is an emotive issue, but is too emotive? It seems to me that many people are automatically against modifying crops but don’t really know why.
Indeed, it seems unnatural to mess with our food, but is it worth considering GM’s potential? And what about claims that GM could help developing world countries feed their populations?
In his new Horizon documentary for BBC2, celebrity sustainable farmer Jimmy Doherty looks at this burning issue. He travels to the USA, Argentina and Uganda to find out how genetically modified food is regarded abroad.
Jimmy discovers how the UK has become virtually a GM-free zone because of the strength of protests against the technology. He also visits research labs to see GM purple tomatoes, designed to be rich in the antioxidants traditionally found in berries.
Argentina and the US are clearly embracing the GM revolution; in America, pro-GM voices claim that people have been eating GM corn and soya for years, with no adverse health effects. And, in Argentina, Jimmy witnesses the GM soya boom (used for animal feed), which has led to a huge rise in country’s agricultural output and made it the capital of the GM world.
In large parts of the developing world, millions of people are permanently malnourished. Jimmy travels to Uganda, one of the wealthier countries in Africa, to hear how whole crops of bananas are being devastated by black Sigatoka disease. Is there a strong argument here for GM bananas to save the fruit from destruction?
I liked Jimmy’s GM Food Fight. He presented a balanced, open-minded and reliable guide to GM, which is often hard to find. For every positive argument put forward, the negative sides – and in particular, serious environmental concerns – are equally highlighted.
So where does it leave us? The debate over GM food has been raging for more than a decade and, whether we like it or not, genetically modified crops are not going away.
So are they a good thing, or should they be banned? Where do you stand in today’s GM debate?
Comments
I would ban GM crops. The idea that a company can hold a patent on a food is unethical. The big companies, like Monsanto, make it harder for developing countries to grow their own food by tying them into contracts to by only Monsanto GM seed which can be grown only with Monsanto pesticides/herbicides. GM is mostly about ways for people to make more money off of food, not about feeding more people. There is enough food to go around, just tonnes of it gets wasted every year. Nobody questions why all that soya goes to animal feed but animals require huge amounts of grain to produce meat. Why not cut out the animals and just eat the grain (non GM grain of course). If the whole world ate less meat (and the developing countries do eat less meat than the west) it would be much easier to feed everyone.
Flag as inappropriateI also beleive that GM crops should be stopped.
Flag as inappropriateNature provides is own protection and controls for plants. This is not simply a matter of Companies creating a monopoly to increase their profits. It is about not interfering with nature, which in the long term can result in peoplke suffering from allergies and infections that their imune systems are unable to deal with. Old fashioned farming is far superior health wise for everyone, and the environment.
TOTALLY CONVINCED THAT GM CROPS SHOULD BE BANNED - WE DONT NEED MORE FRANKENSTEIN INTERFERENCE WITH OUR FOOD CHAIN. THE ARGUMENT THAT WE WOULD NEED TO USE LESS PESTICIDES WITH GM CROPS IS VALID BUT THIS CAN BE ACHIEVED BY BY ORGANIC FARMING METHODS AND BIO PEST CONTROL. LETS WORK IN HARMONY WITH MOTHER NATURE AND NOT AGAINST HER.
Flag as inappropriateNo connection with Monsanto or any other industry but neither is Mr Ludd one of my ancestors.
Flag as inappropriateI strongly support local initiatives and cutting down on food miles; I like to know where my food has come from, especially the meat. HOWEVER the only way that everyone could live in this way would entail the culling of a large percentage of the world’s population. It’s Ok for those of us who can afford to eat as we wish but there is a majority of the population who don’t have the luxury of considering the ethics of their food- they don’t have sufficient food to eat, let alone enough to worry where it came from or how it is produced. The are questions to be asked, and answered regarding GM but it often appears as though anyone can make-up a scare story for a large number of people to latch-on to without any real investigation.
With current GM crops, we are not going to feed the hungry of the world as all the crops are fodder crops for animals. The IAASTD (not sure what it stands for!), a very authoritative study of agriculture and feeding the world decided that GM was un-necessary. There has been little evidence that GM is doing anything worthwhile in the world other than allowing farmers to use more pesticide on these crops. Much has been made of the famous Golden Rice, but the added vitamins (?) in that crop are insufficient to make any impression on malnutrition. As for the coloured tomatoes, which not just eat the berries? I didn’t watch Jimmy’s programme, so I can’t comment on it much, though it sounded more than somewhat biased, if not in its content, but in the words it used and its lack of questioning of what he was told. In the real world, the GE bananas have failed, so far…..
It still gives the impression that GM crops are there to make money for Monsanto and lock farmers into buying their seed and pesticide for ever, nothing else.
Flag as inappropriateI would NOT choose to eat GM food, and hope that it would always be labeled clearly so that I am able to make that choice (I mean that it would not just be in small print so that I am not able to read it without a magnifying glass). However, if I was starving, as many people are in Africa and other third world countries, that would not be a primary concern, I would choose to live and not die of starvation. There are two sides to every problem and we each should be able to make our own choice depending on our situation. We do not get enough reliable information to make that choice and cannot believe everything that the scientists tell us because they seem to be influenced more by who pays for their research and what these people believe. Seeds from GM crops could be blown about by the wind and contaminate other crops so I cannot see how I would get a proper choice if all farmers were allowed to make their own choices about what they grew and where it was grown.
Flag as inappropriateif you are really against GM then go to the site why organic there you will find a link to the soil associations web site to sign a petition against GM.
Flag as inappropriate1.I do not believe anything said about GM crops being able to help third world countries. On the other hand maybe companies like Monsanto are being run by benevolent philanthropists and profit and more profit does not come into the equation. The only concern is the benefit of mankind.
Flag as inappropriate2. 3. There are many countries in Africa which can grow all kinds of crops. They do not do so because of the many many wars going on.Those who do manage to grow crops find that they are unable to sell their produce in the market place because of highly subsidised food being dumped in their countries.
3. If GM seed can be Goulishly Modified to increase crops who is there to stop the profit driven companies from modifying the seed to produce less. So this year I need one bushel of
Goulishly Modified seed to get 50 bushels of crop and next year I might need two bushels of seed to get the same 50 bushels of crop.
4. I have still to hear that a farmer who uses
Goulishly Modified seed, can retain some of his
produce as seed for the next planting season. As far as I understand, every planting season he will have to buy Goulishly Modified seed from the company to carry on growing crops.
5. Finally will farmers be killing the soil on their land by extensive use of Goulishly Modified
fertilizer.
D not trust the accuracy of the modifications. It is a lottery where the modification will go, effectively Russian Roulette. We are tinkering with such a fundamental level that the consequences are hard to judge, after all, thalidomide was deemed to be safe by the regulators…
Monsanto would not appear to be a benevolent organisation, the killer gene to stop reproduction touted as a safety move, guarantees that farmers must come back for more seed!
Flag as inappropriateYou’re right, most people do not understand GM technology. Luckily that made it easy for Horizon to show how absolutely natural the scrambling of genes is, and why those GM critics were worried about nothing serious all along. How silly.
Jimmy was marvellously reassuring about the environmental superiority of GM and its potential to feed the world. No evidence, though. Ah, who cares, there were computer graphics.
Just don’t look into the “independence” of the research centre where Jimmy had a go at creating a new GM crop… and don’t question the officially failed Uganda GM banana project which Horizon seemed to think was a great example.
Your other readers mention the issue of patented seed, bankrupt farmers in Canada and market control. Why did JD not explore that problem? *Ruth, don’t you think that’s a justifiably emotive issue?*
(Even if you ignore the other, more scientific reasons for caution with regard to appropriate and safe GM technology application?)
We saw in Argentina, a country you describe as a market leader, farmers burning forests to clear to way for animal feed soy.
Ruth, do you think the expansion of indutrialised agriculture in that way is a sign of success? This deforestation is part of the indirect impact due to a growth in demand for meat - what is the BBC Green Blog opinion about that?
I attended a conference a few weeks ago which went into the major issues behind GM. There were a mix of views, all backed up with evidence. This included talks from people who use GM technology as part of their work. Look up the scientific abstracts on the ‘Feeding the World Conference’ blog if you are interested.
One speaker saw potential in bananas because they are sterile and artificial gene enhancements are less likely to escape into other life forms. However, he recognised the unpredictable effects which will take place as genes flow between species. (Already happening, e.g. Mexico maize.)
Another expert reckoned GM crops were an irresistable advance, and what we need now is to establish a proper risk assessment system to ensure the health and environmental risks are filtered out in the selection process.
A GM research scientist discussed pathways for gene flow. Another GM scientist discussed the elements of mutations, inaccuracy, and limitations of current GM modification techniques. Also the inherent complexity of gene function within living things.
As for evidence of the potential harm to health, there were several well documented examples cited at the Feeding the World Conference, which Horizon did not mention. (Why?)
One of your commenting guests (Bob Irving) cites the IAASTD. [Horizon did not tackle the implications for GM following the conclusions of that famous report, nor the UN report on ecological farming.]
There was an excellent summary of the IAASTD report’s conclusions at the conference by Professor Janice Jiggins. Listen again:
http://feedingtheworldconference.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/systemic-risk-iaastd/
Jimmy’s GM Food Fight is available on BBC iPlayer, for those of you who missed it. Or we could set our recorders for the late night repeat - Sat 13th December 2:40am - BBC1?
Flag as inappropriateWhilst I understand the need for food crops able to endure the dramatic changes to our climate that we are fully aware may have already begun, I do not believe that the argument for more food to sustain the less developed nations of this world holds water.
We in this country are part of the problem along with others in the “developed” world. Less greed, less want it now culture and more going back to home grown seasonal products would enable scientists and farmers in the poorer area of the world, both economicaly and environmentally, to develop crops the old fashioned way naturally by genetic selection and choosing the fitest from each crop, and sharing them around the world. I could go one for pages…….. I fully agree with the other oppositon comments.
I would not willingly eat GM food but I can unfortunatly see a time when I have no option.
I really don’t like the outlook for my Granchildren.
Flag as inappropriateEveryone should read ‘FEEDING PEOPLE IS EASY’ by Colin Tudge. 2007. Published by Pari Publishing, Sas. http://www.feedingpeopleiseasy.com
He clearly sets out the reasons why International corporations, that control governments, working for maximum profits can never have the interests of the starving millions at heart. Going down the GM road is very dangerous and must be resisted. There must be another way and he sets this out very clearly. The big question is there enough ‘will’ to resist it?
Flag as inappropriateI think messing around with nature by means of GM is an environmental time bomb waiting to happen. We should, instead, be finding ways to irrigate places like the Sahara so that more food can be grown in Africa; this would be a real help in feeding the planet
Flag as inappropriateI agree with Katie Scaife’s view. I was an onlooker in the European parliament when it voted against allowing patents to be granted on seeds. GM modification is a way of achieving the same result as patenting seeds. The grower will need to buy new seed every season and thus enhance the profits of others. GM modification is also a means of selling more weed and pest destroying chemicals through modifying food plants to withstand them. The motive for having GM modification is profit not altruism.
Flag as inappropriateYou’re right, most people do not understand GM technology. Luckily that made it easy for Horizon to show how absolutely natural the scrambling of genes is, and to give the impression that those GM critics were worried about nothing serious all along.
Jimmy was marvellously reassuring about the environmental superiority of GM and its potential to feed the world. No evidence, though. Ah, who cares, there were computer graphics.
Just don’t look into the “independence” of the research centre where Jimmy had a go at creating a new GM crop… and don’t question the officially failed Uganda GM banana project which Horizon seemed to think was a great example.
Your other readers mention the issue of patented seed, market control and legal cases against farmers in Canada. Why did JD not explore that problem?
(*Ruth, don’t you think that’s a justifiably emotive issue? Even if you ignore the other, more scientific reasons for caution with regard to appropriate and safe GM technology application?)
We saw in Argentina, a country you describe as a market leader, farmers burning forests to clear to way for animal feed soy. This deforestation is part of the indirect impact due to a growth in demand for meat - what is the BBC Green Blog opinion about that?
(*Ruth, do you think the expansion of industrialised agriculture in that way is a sign of success?)
I attended a conference a few weeks ago which went into the major issues behind GM. There were a mix of views, all backed up with evidence. This included talks from scientists who use GM technology as part of their work. Look up the scientific abstracts on the ‘Feeding the World Conference’ blog if you are interested.
One speaker saw potential in bananas because they are sterile and artificial gene enhancements are less likely to escape into other life forms. However, he recognised the unpredictable effects which will take place as genes flow between species. (Already happening, e.g. Mexico maize.)
Another expert reckoned GM crops were an irresistible advance, and what we need now is to establish a proper risk assessment system to ensure the health and environmental risks are filtered out in the selection process.
A GM research scientist discussed pathways for gene flow. Another GM scientist discussed the elements of mutations, inaccuracy, and limitations of current GM modification techniques. Also the inherent complexity of gene function within living things.
As for evidence of the potential harm to health, there were several well documented examples cited at the Feeding the World Conference, which Horizon did not mention. (Why?)
One of your commenting guests above (Bob Irving) cites the IAASTD. [Horizon did not tackle the implications for GM following the conclusions of that famous report, nor the UN report on ecological farming.]
There was an excellent summary of the IAASTD report’s conclusions at the conference by Professor Janice Jiggins. Listen again:
http://feedingtheworldconference.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/systemic-risk-iaastd
Jimmy’s GM Food Fight is available on BBC iPlayer, for those of you who missed it. Or I think thee might be a late night repeat - Sat 13th December 2:40am - BBC1?
Flag as inappropriateIts all very well for us to be totally organic, as I am, and dismiss GM foods but unfortunately it is just not sustainable when it comes to feeding those in poorer areas of the world where disease or infestations can wipe out an entire crop. If their food supply can be guaranteed through the use of GM technology, then I think we need to go with it. At the end of the day, us organic gardeners probably use seeds that have been ’selected’ along the way to give us the best crop. We are so lucky in this country by comparison to those in the third world, we have no right to deny others less fortunate the chance of having a sustainable food source
Flag as inappropriateAll the current evidence points to sustainable agriculture being the best way to farm in developing countries. GM is just another way to make farming expensive. Sustainable methods means saving seeds, and using natural biological methods to keep pests and disease at bay and make on-farm fertiliser - there is no need for expensive and toxic chemicals! Farmers in India have committed suicide because the well-advertised GM cotton has not delivered its promotional promises.
Flag as inappropriateYou’re right, most people do not understand GM technology, and I think that’s a big part of the reason why they cannot articulate why they are against it.
Luckily that made it easy for Horizon to show how absolutely natural the scrambling of genes is, and to give the impression that those GM critics were worried about nothing serious all along.
Jimmy was marvellously reassuring about the environmental superiority of GM and its potential to feed the world. No evidence, though. Ah, who cares, there were computer graphics.
Just don’t look into the “independence” of the research centre where Jimmy had a go at creating a new GM crop… and don’t question the officially failed Uganda GM banana project which Horizon seemed to think was a great example.
Your other readers mention the issue of patented seed, market control and legal cases against farmers in Canada. Why did JD not explore that problem?
(*Ruth, don’t you think that’s a justifiably emotive issue? Even if you ignore the other, more scientific reasons for caution with regard to appropriate and safe GM technology application?)
We saw in Argentina, a country you describe as a market leader, farmers burning forests to clear to way for animal feed soy. This deforestation is part of the indirect impact due to a growth in demand for meat - what is the BBC Green opinion about that?
(*Ruth, do you think the expansion of industrialised agriculture in that way is a sign of success?)
I attended a conference a few weeks ago which went into the major issues behind GM. There were a mix of views, all backed up with evidence. This included talks from scientists who use GM technology as part of their work. Look up the scientific abstracts on the ‘Feeding the World Conference’ blog if you are interested.
One speaker saw potential in bananas because they are sterile and artificial gene enhancements are less likely to escape into other life forms. However, he recognised the unpredictable effects which will take place as genes flow between species. (Already happening, e.g. Mexico maize.)
Another expert reckoned GM crops were an irresistible advance, and what we need now is to establish a proper risk assessment system to ensure the health and environmental risks are filtered out in the selection process.
A GM research scientist discussed pathways for gene flow. Another GM scientist discussed the elements of mutations, inaccuracy, and limitations of current GM modification techniques. Also the inherent complexity of gene function within living things.
As for evidence of the potential harm to health, there were several well documented examples cited at the Feeding the World Conference, which Horizon did not mention. (Why?)
One of your commenting guests above (Bob Irving) cites the IAASTD. [Horizon did not tackle the implications for GM following the conclusions of that famous report, nor the UN report on ecological farming.]
There was an excellent summary of the IAASTD report’s conclusions at the conference by Professor Janice Jiggins. (Listen again at the
feedingtheworldconference blog.)
Jimmy’s GM Food Fight is available on BBC iPlayer, for those of you who missed it. Or I think there might be a late night repeat - Sat 13th December 2:40am - BBC1?
Flag as inappropriateWe have been mislead by scientists and MPs many, many times in the past and I see nothing to back up all the claims made in favour of GMfoods. My overriding concern is that when, at some future time, problems come to light it will be too late to turn back. The damage will be irreversible.
Flag as inappropriateI would suggest that anyone who watched this program and found it even handed should begin educating themselves on the facts regarding this biased advert for Monsanto…a good place to begin would be with this link to the Ecologist review
entitled “Jimmy’s GM Food Fix”:
http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=2003
This episode of Horizon was a dreadful exercise in misinformation, and the BBC should be ashamed of themselves for airing such nonsense.
Flag as inappropriatenatureheads said: You’re right, most people do not understand GM technology, and I think that’s a big part of the reason why they cannot articulate why they are against it.
I think you are right there. The argument is fairly simple, but the science behind it is very complex (pun intended). My attempt:
The interactions between genetic manipulation with the environment is a problem that suffers from mathematical chaos. It is impossible to predict any but the most short term and gross side effects of such manipulations; in the same way that we can not predict the weather more than a few days out. It does not matter how many trials are done, we are gambling with the safety of the food chain.
I actually think that the day we can truly control our genetic inheritance will be an amazing day. It is just not a day we are ready for yet, we will not be until the general population understand the science behind the reason above. We are long way from that day.
Flag as inappropriate