Biotech in the UK

tomknight writes: "The Guardian have a astory about how Aventis, a biotech company appear to be sending fax messages on behalf of farmers, saying that the farmer really does want to have GM crops tested on their land. Sadly I can't find any information about this on their site. Other people say a little more about Aventis.... information can be found out about these guys from the gm-info website, but some might consider them biased. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have details of other GM crop trial sites planned for this Spring."

Comments

what a spoof!!!

[Anaplexian]

farmers faxing their wishes to have alien impregnated babycorn on their fields...
hello mulder, i think we have a case here....

for more of stupidity, get to Timepasstown

Bad PR

[Ssolstice]

I really wish the media would be more specific regarding the fear of genetically modified agriculture in Europe. I think that, for the most part, people are afraid of the companies that are doing it (and their lack of safety precautions), rather than the GM studies themselves. I have friends that work for Aventis, and I really feel sorry for them now. Those quotes from their press agent are really bad.

aventis

[th3rd]

aventis is one of the companies that breached Australian GM laws by allowing GM canola to regrow in trial areas. These guys are just dodgy all round.

Trying to get the facts out on biotechnology.

[LunaCity]

That site sure as hell IS biased. Just to quote one single sentance : The trials have been dismissed as a "scientific farce" by Friends of the Earth, because they "amount to 'creeping commercialisation'" There are two things wrong with the above statement that are immediately obvious. First, Friends of the Earth is NOT a scientific organization, and therefore is not qualified to comment on whether crop trials are "scientific" or not. The fact that this site cites Friends of the Earth as a scientific source should set of alarm bells immediately. Second, the stated reason for why Friends of the Earth considers these crop trials unscientific is that they are commercial. This is utter propaganda. The safety or lack thereof of genetically modified organisms depends upon the characteristics of the plant involved, not on the motives of the people who may be interested in selling it. Thats like saying that if I give you apple juice for a dollar, it must be unsafe, but if I give you arsenic for free, it's gotta be safe, because hell, I'm not making a profit! The campaign of fear currently being waged against genetically engineered foods is anti-intellectual and pseudo-scientific in the extreme, and I am suprized to find beleivers in it posting on slashdot, of all places. In the words of GreenPeace FOUNDER Patrick Moore: "the campaign of fear now being waged against genetic modification is based largely on fantasy and a complete lack of respect for science and logic." www.agbioworld.org Try THESE sites for a little unbiased information, just for starters. List of links to statements by Scientific (non-industry) sources in regards to genetally modified foods.

American Society for MicroBiology
The ASM believes that labeling on the basis of process is not scientifically warranted. Genetic modification has long been used to enhance the production of plants and animals for food. Indeed it is doubtful that there exists any agriculturally important product that can be labeled as not genetically modified by traditional breeding procedures or otherwise. Biotechnology as practiced in agriculture today is part of a continuum of ever more refined attempts to breed better plants and animals for food or show.

American Society for Cell Biology
Many individuals and groups have raised concerns about the safety of transgenic BT crops despite the fact that the bacteria that naturally produce BT have been applied directly to crops as a form of organic pest control for over 40 years. Transgenic BT crops have passed rigorous testing in the US, Canada, and Japan, and they have been found to pose no threat to other insects, animals, or humans. The primary alternative to BT is large-scale spraying of pesticides which kills both beneficial and harmful insects and has other negative environmental consequences.

National Academy of Sciences
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309069300/html/

Since the National Academy of Sciences is the nations premier scientific organization, they best represent the current scientific consensus in the field, so I will quote from their report, first stated in a 1987 white paper and reitterated April 2000:

• There is no evidence that unique hazards exist either in the use of rDNA techniques or in the movement of genes between unrelated organisms.
• The risks associated with the introduction of rDNA-engineered organisms are the same in kind as those associated with the introduction of unmodified organisms and organisms modified by other methods.
• Assesment of the risks of introducing rDNA-engineered organisms into the environment should be based on the nature of the organism and the environment into which it is introduced, not on the method by which it was produced.

American Medical Association
There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods, as a class, and voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education.


American Dietetic Association
Society for In-Vitro Biology
American Society of Plant Physiologists
You'll note that ASPP treats the issue as self-evident that there is nothing especially dangerous about transgenic crops, as their page acts as a resource and communication site for scientists interested in countering anti-GMO propaganda. This shows just how strong the consensus on this issue is within the scientific community. Very, very few scientists seriously think that genetic engineering is inherently unsafe. Those who do are less common than creationist biologists
Univeristy of California - Biotechnology Working Group
.