Jimmy Doherty - GM Food Fight

[FionaH]

Think I will try and catch the programme before I stick my head over the parapet on this one

[piskieinboots]

Think I will try and catch the programme before I stick my head over the parapet on this one

ditto - although I am mostly against GM - that is, GM as I understand it - not as in the 'cross pollination argument'

Lynda!
That's loony thinking. If you are more disposed to getting cancer, you shouldn't be actively increasing your chances of getting it, by smoking.

You could get knocked down by a bus, but you don't go out and lie in the road do you?

Darn right there TS - listen up you daft bird!!

[HeyWayne]

Just found this which I found interesting:

Food Standards Agency - GM basics

[smallblueplanet]

I found that link when 'googling' previously...is that the same Govt agency that would have us eat BSE burgers?

Believe whatever you want about the UN quote - its on another link I posted before - the point is there's enough food.

Perhaps the scientists could concentrate on solving climate change before they give us another problem to solve!

[lynda66]

Lynda!
That's loony thinking. If you are more disposed to getting cancer, you shouldn't be actively increasing your chances of getting it, by smoking.

You could get knocked down by a bus, but you don't go out and lie in the road do you?

actually i have tried the lying in the road thing ........ was cold ...... and yup i know, and yup i'm a loony ..... i'll get into the real world one day xx

[lynda66]

SBP please watch the programme and you will see the arguments for and against ....... there isn't a definitive answer to anything, yes things need looking at further, yes there may be problems, but, there are problems with everything if you look into it enough ...... until you've seen the programme you can't see what we are getting at.

[beefy]

Saw the last part of the programme (from the bannana plant part on ).
Thought it was pretty good and well balanced.For once it was good to see something that presented facts and not the continual hype and scare mongering that the SA (Soil Association ) likes to put out there.
For my own piont of view - I'm a farmers son and have followed this issue long before it was a point scoring issue for politicians ,enviromentalist's etc and so far I've seen nothing that would stop me from eating GM crops .

For those that want, pick and pull this post to pieces - I don't care and won't be replying ,I've been through it before and know that I won't change what the anti GM 'ers of you out there think.

[Alison]

I still stand by the point I made earlier that regardless of the pros and cons of GM (and my natural instinct it to avoid) we should not see it as the cure for the worlds ills. As somebody indicated earlier, the world is full of failed technology which was once thought to be the perfect and simple solution. There are no simple solutions, we don't know everything and whilst GM MAY help with the inital starvation problem (which is obviously important) but we should be looking to get all countries to be self sufficient and that would not be via sterile seeds.

[beefy]

SBP please watch the programme and you will see the arguments for and against ....... there isn't a definitive answer to anything, yes things need looking at further, yes there may be problems, but, there are problems with everything if you look into it enough ...... until you've seen the programme you can't see what we are getting at.

Here's the link (I hope)
BBC iPlayer - Horizon: Jimmy's GM Food Fight
I'll watch it all now

[jacob marley]

There are for and against the argument but we can not do anything about on here .
So what is happening is a lot of good friends falling out over some thing that is passionate to a lot of people it reminds me of some thing i was told a long time ago .
You cannot talk to a closed mind so please don't spoil the good thing we have with the Grapevine jacob marley

[lynda66]

who's falling out??? it's healthy debate all i think is you can't debate something if you haven't seen it then debate away ......goes off to drool ........ i mean watch jimmy all over again

[Two_Sheds]

I can't see the programme - "servers are too busy"

[edam]

I wasn't impressed with that programme

Hi there.

I'm not going to lie to you. I just watched Jimmy Doherty's GM Food Fight and was so annoyed about it that I've come looking for some people discussing it on the internet! ...Seriously! (I do work full-time, honest)

With that in mind, you can skip this post if you like and I apologise for gatecrashing your thread. On the other hand, if you want to read this post, I apologise for its length.

I found the programme to be quite biased. In many ways and on many levels...

* He misses out large parts of the arguments against GM crops.

E.g., that companies like Monsanto (and others) are only creating them to make money. Monsanto are selling seeds that will require pesticides and fertiliser (also, conveniently, bought from Monsanto) in order to produce the yields they talk about. They really don't care about any negative effects of GM crops and would sell them even if they were aware of any (you want to know exactly how evil Monsanto are? Check out their Wikipedia page). And there are no guarantees that those same farmers that Monsanto are "helping" will be able to afford the rising costs of the Monsanto products they become locked in to.

Another example of a point he skips over is that there is evidence showing that the contamination of non-GM plants can also spread to weeds, making them resistant to pesticides. This means we will have to use more and stronger pesticides to combat them. Just as the frivolous use of antibiotics in medicine and food is leading to new races of "super bugs" that are resistant to our medicines, so too could we end up with "super weeds".
GM public debate: Environmental damage | Greenpeace UK

* He dismisses several key arguments against GM, either downplaying them, or not exploring them properly.

The exploration of how GM crops might be harmful to the environment is laughable! He ends up concluding they might be beneficial! Really!? A quick google brings up some different opinions:
Number 10's wildlife experts warn against GM damage | UK news | The Observer
GM crops could damage bird populations, warns visiting Macaulay seminar speaker - The Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen
Prince Charles warns GM crops risk causing the biggest-ever environmental disaster - Telegraph

The exploration of whether GM foods are harmful misses out some seriously damning studies. You can read more in the articles below, but (in summary) GM corn, canola, soy and potatoes (including some of Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" GM product line) have been linked with "liver lesions and indications of toxicity", "altered production of liver enzymes", "excessive cell growth" (possible cancer) and "damaged organs and immune systems" in studies on rats. Not to mention another study that showed infertility and very high infant mortality rates in rats fed on GM soy.
PCC | GM Food Crops: Consumer Health Concerns: Reproductive failures and infant mortality
GM diets may cause organ damage and disease | Perspectives...
To be honest though, I suspect the program avoided these issues for legal reasons. Another aspect that is not explored by the programme is how heavy-handed Monsanto (and I would imagine others) are with anyone who criticises them -- see the "Legal" section on Monsanto's Wikipedia page.

Another point he downplays is the irreversible nature of the contamination of non-GM crops by GM crops.
GM public debate: Environmental damage | Greenpeace UK

* Some points in the programme are downright misleading.

There are no flood-resistant or drought-resistant GM crops currently. There are some GM trials where they are experimenting with genetic manipulation to achieve this. You wouldn't know that by watching the programme though.
Peter Melchett: Who can we trust on GM food? | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

* I also found the whole tone of the programme to be biased.

E.g., he continually refers to the people creating GM crops as "the scientists" (think: those clever people), rather than "the companies" (think: those greedy fat-cats). In fact, I think they are refered to as companies about once, maybe twice throughout the whole programme.

Another example: The conversation with the African GM scientist regarding people breaking in to the facility to steal (rather than damage) the GM crops. Bare in mine that, as with most TV, the scene is not some casual conversation, but a staged (possibly scripted) conversation. With that in mind, watch the scene again. See how Jimmy "misunderstands" that people wanted to steal, not damage, the crops (Jimmy: cue fake laugh). And if that's not bad enough, he actually repeats the whole fake misunderstanding a second time to really spell it out and make sure the point is hammered home!

Another example: Jimmy refers to Americans "happily eating GM foods for years". This is not entirely true - they don't know when they're eating them. They don't label them over there! If they are happy as they eat them, it is only through ignorance.

I don't mean to be picky... but there are so many "little" examples of bias that contribute to the overall tone. I found them really quite annoying.

...

Ok, this post's really getting out of control now. And it's late! Sorry about my rant.

If you want to read another rant about this program, this article is very good:
GM Food Fight breaks out the natureheads blog

Also, if you want to read another sensible response to this TV programme then I would highly recommend reading the following article. It is up-to-date (9th December, 2008) and although it talks about a pro-GM radio programme, it could just as easily be talking about Jimmy Doherty's Food Fight.
Peter Melchett: Who can we trust on GM food? | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Night!

[kernowyon]

nice of you to take the time to post such a long rant, edam. glad you found our posts interesting, look forward to reading any further contributions you may have on the many other subjects we discuss.

[HeyWayne]

Most of the media I'd seen up to the point of the programme was also one-sided, in fact, I don't recall having ever seen/read anything that gave any other opinion other than GM was a bad thing. This programme gave me another perspective on things - the original reason I posted.

I'm not entirely convinced on either argument, but thought it was an interesting perspective on things.

Interesting choice of sources - Wikipedia, Greenpeace and The Guardian. If we're talking about "balanced" views...

Welcome aboard by the way, look forward to your other posts.