SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Scotland's rural affairs secretary has said that the country will ban the growing of genetically modified crops and opt out of allowing EU-approved GMOs such as MON 810 (corn with an added Bacillus thuringiensis gene):
Richard Lochhead said the Scottish government was not prepared to "gamble" with the future of the country's £14bn food and drink sector. He is to request that Scotland be excluded from any European consents for the cultivation of GM crops. But farming leaders said they were disappointed by the move. Under EU rules, GM crops must be formally authorised before they can be cultivated. An amendment came into force earlier this year which allows member states and devolved administrations to restrict or ban the cultivation of genetically modified organisms within their territory.
[...] Mr Lochhead added: "There is no evidence of significant demand for GM products by Scottish consumers and I am concerned that allowing GM crops to be grown in Scotland would damage our clean and green brand, thereby gambling with the future of our £14bn food and drink sector. Scottish food and drink is valued at home and abroad for its natural, high quality which often attracts a premium price, and I have heard directly from food and drink producers in other countries that are ditching GM because of a consumer backlash."
[...] The move has also been broadly welcomed by environment groups. But Scott Walker, chief executive of farming union NFU Scotland, said he was disappointed that the Scottish government had decided that no GM crops should ever be grown in Scotland. "Other countries are embracing biotechnology where appropriate and we should be open to doing the same here in Scotland," he said. "These crops could have a role in shaping sustainable agriculture at some point and at the same time protecting the environment which we all cherish in Scotland." Huw Jones, professor of molecular genetics at agricultural science group Rothamsted Research, said the announcement was a "sad day for science and a sad day for Scotland. He said that GM crops approved by the EU were "safe for humans, animals and the environment".
The European Parliament voted to give member states the ability to opt-out of allowing the cultivation of EU-approved GMOs in January.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Francis on Monday August 10 2015, @10:12PM
First off, hybridization does not GMO make. I'm not sure where you got that idea, but it's ridiculous and completely misses the point. Hybridization techniques can speed up evolution and help us to direct it a bit, but we can't do anything that might not have happened anyways. GMOs are what you get when you take specific genes out of one species or strain and put them into another. This can be done with species that can't reproduce with each other. Taking a gene from a jelly fish and putting it into a dog can only be achieved that way, you cannot mate a jellyfish with a dog.
Secondly, the big issue with GMOs comes down to the practices. They're being planted in the open with no controls in place to prevent them from spreading. The GMOs we have are largely harmless, but who knows what happens when they combine in unforeseen ways. By the time we know it was a bad idea, it's going to be too late to do anything about it. I've seen what happens when invasive species come in, and those are natural. Imagine something that's been given a broad immunity to most pesticides and the normal predators.
I'm sure there are some luddites out there, but the people opposed to GMOs are hardly restricted to people that don't understand the technology.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Monday August 10 2015, @10:53PM
Maybe you could help clarify your position by indicating which of these half-dozen means of modifying an organism's genome you object to, and on what basis you conclude that one technique is objectionable but another isn't.
http://www.biofortified.org/2015/07/crop-modification-techniques-infographic/ [biofortified.org]
Again, I'll state: the problem isn't the technology; it's the way the technology is being applied. "Nuclear science" has given us the atom bomb, yes, but it's also given us radiation therapy for cancer. And the differences between Chernobyl and the reactors that produce radioisotopes for medicine are much more bureaucratic than theoretical or technological.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday August 10 2015, @11:21PM
I agree that to a point it's how it's being applied. Applying it in a closed lab with controls to prevent its spread is completely different than applying it out in the open where it can spread unchecked.
Really, all of them are a problem to some extent, but with hybridization the problem is completely understood and there are strict natural limits on what can be accomplished. The worst case scenarios are ones that require a significant amount of effort on our part to cause. Such as growing entire regions of the same plant with very little genetic diversity. And even then it's not no diversity, it's little diversity.
As far as Chernobyl goes, even before it had it's disaster, it was well known that you can't do that to a nuclear reactor without dire consequences. The warnings and guidelines were ignored and people died as a result.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2015, @04:45PM
Maybe you could help clarify your position by indicating which of these half-dozen means of modifying an organism's genome you object to, and on what basis you conclude that one technique is objectionable but another isn't.
Are you suggesting that things like thalidomide [wikipedia.org] never happened? And asbestos [wikipedia.org]? And let's not forget how long people have (and continue) to consume tobacco [wikipedia.org]... which is fine as it is an informed decision now, but how long was it thought to be a healthy thing? And there are probably at least dozens of other things which I could come up with if I spent more than 60 seconds thinking about it. They were all cutting edge new technology which only a luddite could be opposed to at their time.
If we could point out to the problems with splicing genes into foods it would have been done, and the whole project would be scuppered. We don't just don't know. This could be because it really is safe. Or it could be because we just don't know yet and come next generation brain sizes will be 50% smaller (or 50% bigger).
I'm sure if you look at the history of innovation with non-bias eyes you will see exactly how much was not known in advance, and you will also be able to see numerous terrible mistakes (as well as wonderful advances). With that knowledge, is it really so unreasonable to stop a bit and re-examine something as important as the world food supply?
As a side note, I'm amazed how much "yay, GM food is good, everybody against it is a luddite!" there is here. I'm not sure how much is true public opinion (be it general public or technology interested people), how much is group think, and how much is sock puppetry. It does feel like a decidedly more pro-GM stance than slashdot, though. Personally I'm really annoyed when the industry in the US said "don't make it illegal, we'll just label it so consumers can make informed decisions... oh, but don't make us label it because it's really the same thing, the consumers don't need to be informed." That's just me, though.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 11 2015, @06:21PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2015, @09:27PM
You still haven't explained what the basis is for your objections.
I thought my basis of objections was fairly clear, but to make it explicit:
1) Don't automatically assume people objecting with GMO are idiotic luddites. There are legitimate questions and risks, and attacking the person is a literal ad hominem attack and very offensive. Ecology and biology are very complicated (see "Invasive Species"... and that's not even introducing gene splicing into the mix). This constant barrage on this site of "you are anti-GMO, you are a close-minded ignorant dummy" is the point which got me to respond to this thread.
2) Don't just assume "it will be safe." Lots of times "the science" (which is as much a thought-ending phrase as "think of the children") says something will be safe. See Thalidomide, Tobacco, Asbestos, and everything else. Frequently the plurality of scientists are right in that assertion. Frequently the plurality of scientists are wrong with that assertion. Sometimes those scientists are epically and tragically wrong.
3) When doing something which has global consequences, take more time and be more sure. If you want to try a new surgery technique, it affects a couple of people and you can be experimental. If you want to use nuclear power, worst case it goes meltdown and affects a continent. If you poison the entire world food supply through cross pollination and what have you, then you have poisoned the entire world. Is this likely? No. Could it happen? Are you willing to risk the entire world population on that risk? Why not wait a generation or two with more animal testing and localized trials?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 11 2015, @09:48PM
I see another reason to consider point 3):
3) When doing something which has global consequences, take more time and be more sure. If you want to try a new surgery technique, it affects a couple of people and you can be experimental. If you want to use nuclear power, worst case it goes meltdown and affects a continent. If you poison the entire world food supply through cross pollination and what have you, then you have poisoned the entire world. Is this likely? No. Could it happen? Are you willing to risk the entire world population on that risk? Why not wait a generation or two with more animal testing and localized trials?
It's worth noting here that there are substantial obstacles in the developed world to new surgery techniques and these obstacles are way out of proportion to the risks precisely because of the same risk ignorance that shows up with GMO bashing. The risks of a few people dying are visible to the policy makers. The risks of a few billion people dying prematurely due to bad medical regulation are not. Here, the risks of "poisoning" are visible to you because you would be affected by any such thing, but the risks of "starvation" or of having a huge number of people in your society trapped in subsistence farming are not.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 11 2015, @06:20PM
Maybe you could help clarify your position by indicating which of these half-dozen means of modifying an organism's genome you object to, and on what basis you conclude that one technique is objectionable but another isn't.
His position, as clearly stated, is that the claim that selective breeding and genetic engineering are the same thing is laughably false.
You are moving the goalposts. But to answer your disingenuous question: crossbreeding is fine because they are sexually compatible already. The rest don't have the million plus years of QA to back them up.
(Score: 3, Informative) by penguinoid on Tuesday August 11 2015, @08:58AM
Genetic engineering does nothing that couldn't have happened on its own, just like selective breeding does nothing that couldn't have happened on its own. In fact, the tools used for genetic engineering are mostly taken from the same sort of critter that would naturally cause lateral gene transfer. Of course, the odds (for the results of both genetic engineering and artificial selection) are on that border where "mathematically possible" meets "physically impossible".
For examples of naturally occurring "genetic engineering" look up "lateral gene transfer".
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.