GMO

[nononsensemumof2]

Morrisons, Siansburys, Co-Op and M&S have joined Tesco in allowing GMO fed chickens on their shelves.! This is the tip of the ice burg.!
There is an International protest against GMO on 25th May, I urge you all to organise to join in, if you value choice about what you eat, because if GMO is allowed into our food chain, we will have let the genie out of the bottle, forever.!
Cross contamination and patented law suits will be the order of the day, if we allow Monsanto to get a foot hold on our food supply.
Not only is this vile virus a health hazard to humans, but it is destroying our environment too, re bees, etc.
Plus it is attempting to own Mother Nature via its patented seeds, thereby selling us dangerous produce with a corporate stamp.!
We must all wake up to this onslaught against nature and our right to chose. Please get out in force and demand an end to this profit lead evil against nature now.

sparechange, if you have any spare change, you couldn't do worse than buying the book 'Seeds of Deception' which had such a good endorsement from Labour MP who had a role concerning the environment in the Blair government, as far as I know.

Stop worrying about playing bingo, and start learning some scientific lingo. And the Daily Mail online website would be a good start!

Is this the same Michael Meacher who believed 9/11 was an inside job?

Claig, you are clearly a dangerous tinfoil helmet conspiracy theorist, who thinks that sprinkling in the odd long word hides your total lack of credibility and coherence. I am 99% certain most of these posts are trolling, but if you genuinely blindly believe every flimsy article which supports your view, while disregarding everything that opposes it, you are a very troubled individual.

I don't know if Michael Meacher believes that or not.

If you think I am a troll, why don't you report me to MNHQ.

I share the concerns of Brent Blackwelder who is or was the President of Friends of the Earth

"Seeds of Deception is a very important book for two major reasons: first, it clearly exposes many threats the genetically engineered food industry poses to people, animals, and nature; and second, it is a powerful alert to all academic institutions about the way in which scientists of great integrity are being ruthlessly attacked and intimidated by multi-billion-dollar special interests. People all over the world who are concerned about their food supply should read this book."

?Brent Blackwelder, President, Friends of the Earth

You seem to be posting links to articles which show genetic modification in a negative light without any comprehension that the specific examples you are choosing/finding have no relevance in the GM crop debate.

You say you understand the dangers. You back this up by saying you agree with Michael meacher and give us a quote. Great. But even the quote doesn't say what the dangers are.

The problem is that the scientific arguments agains GM crops are weak. The issues are difficult to understand by the lay person. They are even more difficult to paraphrase and present to more lay people. That has been the downfall of this thread. Your (and takn and nononsense if you are all different people) attempts to do this have been pulled to pieces and dare I say ridiculed because there are lots of academic holes and mis understandings in your scientific understanding of the issues and arguments.

I think there is a stronger political and ethical debate to be had around the monopolisation of the market, selling practices etc. As I understand it this is what the March is actually about. I would suggest that the thread would have been much better recieved if the focus was around these issues, which I believe are easier to present, easier for people to undersrand and therefore easier for you to help people to form opinions on.

Sadly the glaring holes in the science have lead to a huge loss of credibility in you. Making it harder to gain support on this thread of any of the issues.

Ha! sounds pretty coherant to me there Edwina!!! Now, is it going to be roast or biryani??

Pmsl lem

The surprising thing is that Mumsnetters as a whole don't seem very interested in this thread - is this an indication that people are no longer very interested in the topic, or do they just think this particular thread is a bit barmy?

'You seem to be posting links to articles which show genetic modification in a negative light without any comprehension that the specific examples you are choosing/finding have no relevance in the GM crop debate.'

The links I have found show concerns about GM, such as the article which showed that Russia stopped its import of some GM crops based on the scientific study done on rats. I expectthat the Russian experts who recommended that have more scientific qualifications that anyone on this thread.

'But even the quote doesn't say what the dangers are.'

Here is an article that I posted earlier which shows what some of the dangers may be. Nobody identified any "academic holes" in it.

"EU watchdog reveals approval for GM foods fails to identify poisonous gene
54 of the 86 GM plants approved contain the dangerous gene
Gene found in food for farm animals producing meat, milk and eggs"

A virus gene that could be poisonous to humans has been missed when GM food crops have been assessed for safety.

GM crops such as corn and soya, which are being grown around the world for both human and farm animal consumption, include the gene.

A new study by the EU's official food watchdog, the European Food Safety Authority(EFSA), has revealed that the international approval process for GM crops failed to identify the gene.

The findings are particularly powerful because the work was carried out by independent experts, rather than GM critics.

It was led by Nancy Podevin, who was employed by EFSA, and Patrick du Jardin, of the Plant Biology Unit at the University of Liege in Belgium.

They discovered that 54 of the 86 GM plants approved for commercial growing and food in the US, including corn and soya, contain the viral gene, which is known as 'Gene VI'.

Significantly, the EFSA researchers concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI 'might result in unintended phenotypic changes'.

Such changes include the creation of proteins that are toxic to humans. They could also trigger changes in the plants themselves, making them more vulnerable to pests.

It has been assumed that virus genes are not present in the plant once it is grown in the field and reaches consumers, however it is now clear that this is not the case.

A review of the EFSA research in Independent Science News said the presence of the viral gene appears to have been missed by biotech companies, universities and government regulators.

'This situation represents a complete and catastrophic system failure,' it said. 'There are clear indications that this viral gene might not be safe for human consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including their natural pest resistance.

'A reasonable concern is that the protein produced by Gene VI might be a human toxin. This is a question that can only be answered by future experiments.'

Critics say the revelations make clear that the GM approvals process, which has been in place for 20 years, is fatally flawed.

They argue the only correct response is to recall all of the crops and food products involved. Director of the campaigning group, GM Freeze, Pete Riley, said the discovery of the gene, 'totally undermines claims that GM technology is safe, precise and predictable'.

He said: 'This is a clear warning the GM is not sufficiently understood to be considered safe. 'Authorisation for these crops must be suspended immediately, and they should be withdrawn from sale, until a full and extended review of their safety has been carried out.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266143/Uncovered-toxic-gene-hiding-GM-crops-Revelation-throws-new-doubt-safety-foods.html

The OP writes EXACTLY like Adrian Mole, which to be frank is fucking hilarious.

"I think there is a stronger political and ethical debate to be had around the monopolisation of the market, selling practices etc."

Yes, that is what you think. But nononsensemumof2 thinks that a greater concern is the one for health and I agree with her. For me selling practices are secondary to health.

I didn't start the thread, nononsense did, and I think it is a bit presumptuous to tell her what she should be concerned about.

This is the quote by the researchers who carried out the European Food Safety Authority study

'This situation represents a complete and catastrophic system failure ,' it said. 'There are clear indications that this viral gene might not be safe for human consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including their natural pest resistance.

'A reasonable concern is that the protein produced by Gene VI might be a human toxin. This is a question that can only be answered by future experiments.'

In the same way that it is a bit presumptuous of nononsense to tell us we should all be worried about it. Get cross at us when we disagree with her. She presumes we are all men with no regard for our mothers and daughters....

There are some credible references on this thread but the fact that there are a lot which do not stand up to scrutiny (ie they are not peer reviewed) or are irrelevant to the crop debate suggests that those posting the links have limited knowledge of what they are talking about...which damages their credibility on the subject.

I am well aware that nononsense is concerned about health issues. But what I am saying is that she does not have any credibility in the scientific debate, and you are also struggling on this front. I'm suggesting that it would have been much easier to gain anti-GM support using the political and ethical arguments which are much easiet for a lay person to present coherently.

I am just suggesting that it is wise to stick within your area of expertise and knowledge if you want to stand your corner in a debate. You and nononsense are clearly out of your depth on the science aspects.

Now I really must go to tesco to get some cheap food for tea

I don't think Prince Charles wears a tinfoil hat, and he has some concerns about GM.

www.progress.org/gene07.htm

'But what I am saying is that she does not have any credibility in the scientific debate, and you are also struggling on this front. I'm suggesting that it would have been much easier to gain anti-GM support using the political and ethical arguments which are much easiet for a lay person to present coherently.'

We do not claim to be scientists. I have linked to the work of scientists in agencies such as the European Food Research Authority and to quotes from campaigners in respected environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth, as well as a former Labour Environment Minister and Prince Charles himself, to say nothing of numerous Daily Mail articles.

I am not here to "gain anti-GM support". I am writing what I believe. If you want to eat it that is fine by me, I just want it labelled so that I can avoid it.

GrendelsMum says

"The surprising thing is that Mumsnetters as a whole don't seem very interested in this thread - is this an indication that people are no longer very interested in the topic, or do they just think this particular thread is a bit barmy?"

The reality is that people are worried about it and do not find it barmy. nononsensemumof2 is not the only one who has concerns about the health aspects. Here is an article that shows that consumers want it labelled. They don't want it labelled to counter selling practices or monopolisation they want it labelled for health reasons

Two in three shoppers demand GM product labels in embarrassing consumer backlash for government against 'Frankenstein foods'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259506/Two-shoppers-demand-GM-product-labels-embarrassing-consumer-backlash-government-Frankenstein-foods.html

"The new food and farming secretary, Owen Paterson, is in the middle of a major public relations exercise designed to convince families to support GM farming and food.

He recently dismissed consumer concerns as humbug and complete nonsense while boasting that much of the nation?s meat comes from animals fed on genetically modified grain imported from overseas.

The minister suggested the public were perfectly happy to accept this and that the UK should now open the door to a wider take up of GM farming and food.

However, the new official research carried out by the Government?s own agency makes clear that most consumers had no idea that British farm animals are being reared on a GM diet.

After they were told, the vast majority ? 67per cent - said packs of meat, milk and eggs should be labelled to spell this out on the label.

I'm in favour of referenda.

Let's have a referendum on it and I think you will be surprised how concerned the public really are about it, even though their concerns are sometimes dismissed as humbug and complete nonsense

Claig

Is that the Prince Charles who's a fan of homeopathy?

"GM advocates insist that opponents are in some way anti-science and ignorant. It is argued that if they are educated about GM techniques that any objections will fall away.

In fact, past studies funded by the Government have revealed that the more consumers learn about the technology the more sceptical they become ."

Usual bullshit. If you don't go along with it, you are a nutter who believes in complete nonsense and humbug

'Is that the Prince Charles who's a fan of homeopathy?'

But the NHS fiunds homeopathy in some areas. Public taxpayer money is spent on it.

'If you don't go along with it, you are a nutter who believes in complete nonsense and humbug'

And of course, the reality is that the majority don't go along with it, which is a bit inconvenient for GM advocates.

why dont the biotech companies want it labelled?
Actually, 15 years ago or so, it was labelled in the UK. What happenend with that?

ohhh the hazardous chemicals in DNA pwhaoooaf

Oh and now homeopathy too?

Just magnificent.

I am the public. I am massively in favour of GM. I am disappointed that the hysterical scientifically illiterate have kept it off the shelves for so long.

claig btw if you believe that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect then you are indeed a nutter. HTH