______________
http://www.pesticon.com

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.

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.

As football fan, I had to defend the Man U-Chelsea Champions League final being held in Moscow to fellow green enthusiasts, but in principle I agreed it was wrong. People who haven’t watched a game of football before were arguing that it was silly to have them playing there, but didn’t realise that two English teams had got there out of lots of other European sides! It does pose a concern though when fans and players from one county have to go to the other side of Europe for one game - with the best option to fly.

To the question - what would make football more ethical - that is a tough one. But one thing that is important, and we have good opportunity to do something about, is that new football stadia (which are popping up aplenty) should have the very basic in green features, e.g. collecting rainwater for watering the pitch, providing water for changing room showers etc. and recycling opportunities for plastic bottles, etc..

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?