Precautionary principle…nothing would ever happen, anywhere, if this concept was applied. Invent the wheel? I don’t think so. Water reservoirs? No way! Fur skin coat? Aaargh!

“Has anyone actually done such a study, a longitudinal study that looks at the health impacts of GM foods?”
Yes all the health organizations look at epidemiology >all the time<, it is not 'have I read about it in a trendy magazine recently?'.

The anti GM/GE food people here should CAREFULLY read S Brand's book, as he addresses all the points raised here, including 'have any studies been done' and the precautionary principle, and lots of other points.

The green movement is turning into a a self obsessed cult of ignorance – Western focused, elitist, and racist to boot.

Wake up to history – the book is called '…Discipline' because you have to think harder, try harder, think wider, the Green knee jerk reactions are based on old fashioned class warfare from the 60-70s, narrow minded and patronizing (which is a joke in itself given the liberal arts 'fact free' background of most Green ppl).

Do you care if billions of people eat more nutritious , more viable, food, have energy (not coal derived), have social freedom?

Why be so scared of change – for the better?

Geoff
(living in an Asian developing country btw)

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=syngenta+IAASTD

The author says:

“I finally felt forced to resign my IAASTD authorship because the draft put forward claims not supported by the evidence.

Too often it treated fears and prejudices against technology and business as fact, and its style drew heavily on innuendo – the assumption that corporate means bad. The result is a document most scientists would find hard to support, and one it would be dishonest and counterproductive for me to endorse.

Instead, I recommend readers look at reports such as the 2007 World Development Report by the World Bank, which highlights the key role of technology in achieving a productivity revolution, especially for smallholders.”

Scientific process is so poorly understood, so commonly disregarded and even dismissed on principle by those in the environmental movement that I find this comment from the Syngenta rep entirely credible.

Just consider this sentence from Rob’s post:
“I believe absolutely that GM has no place whatsoever in a world responding responsibly to climate change and peak oil, and in saying so, I am not rejecting a “science-led assessment of the likely risks and benefits”, rather am basing it very much on the science.”

He clearly states that his position, based on belief, is “absolute” and then claims it is based on science (which is never absolute and does not deal in beliefs.)

And this:
“I don’t have scientific papers to back that up, it is an instinctive revulsion at the very concept.”
One would be hard pushed to find a more unscientific position than this!

And yet it turns out your “central issue” is nonsense.

Organics and anti-GMO advocates trot out the “precautionary principle” only when it suits their case. If one truly adhered to the precautionary principle as it is strictly applied by “organics” advocates, one wouldn’t leave one’s house.

If you, or Sharon Astyk, or any other of your “organics” advocates so much as drive a car, then you are “precautionary hypocrites.”

A good explanation of the myth of the precautionary principle can be found here:

http://skepdic.com/skeptimedia/skeptimedia20.html

I have that fear but i also understand that logically GM and Nuclear don’t need to equate to a patch, corporate control, continued monoculture or business as usual

These are mindsets that we default to. This is our past. If after precautionary testing of appropriate use of such technologies we find no gain, I would agree they have no place.

The biggest problem with both GM, and nuclear power, to me, is not their down line hazards (which are reason enough) but the fact that they are “answers” to the wrong questions.

Both, in fact, are band-aid patches on extremely destructive practices.

“Agriculture” as currently practiced, is among the very most destructive practices on the planet. So- we need to make it “more productive”, and expand it?

Power consumption is right up there- tied to another of our most destructive practices- unlimited reproduction. So- we need to provide more power to more people?

Nukes and GM patch disastrous practices – and will expand their use. What we really need are entirely different pathways, if we want Homo to survive (let alone thrive).

The problem with communicating this to the other choir, is that the great majority of them have fully emotionally subscribed to their dogma that “we have no choice” and “there is no alternative”.

They believe that, with full religious fervor. It is nearly impossible to get them to revisit the problem from a completely open standpoint.

The TT movement is actually a convincing demonstration- much more powerful than an “argument” – that the survival of civilization does not necessarily require endless growth in energy consumption.

I’m working on the ag thing, as you know. Still a few years from full demonstration; but definitely getting there.

As for nuclear power, the proponents here in Australia are eager to pursue it as we have large Uranium reserves and want desperately to sell it to you. We’re also over the peak of our fossil fuel oil production so we’re also desperate to expand our power options (even if the source is finite) so as to maintain the energy intensive lifestyles that you may see on our television programs. Yet, we don’t need nuclear, the range of renewable energy technologies could quite adequately meet our needs many times over and would be far more cost effective. I recognise your circumstances are significantly different in the UK but, it seems our governments are quite steadfast in their commitment to maintaining the status quo and like to take the lead from their allies.

Nature’s intelligence?? Like the boom and bust cycle we see everywhere in nature (viz. hares and lynxes)? like the 5 previous “natural” mass extinction events (before the 6th human-induced one); like the earthquakes in Haiti and Turkey recently? And countless other examples that could be given from nature.

This is just more of the naturalistic fallacy again. Unless you think crossing donkeys and mules “would represent a jettisoning of ethics, values and principles.” Maybe you think measles and mumps are ok because they are “natural” while vaccines are wrong because they represent human meddling. You could say the same about wearing shoes (and believe you me, there are people who do…)

It seems to me that if the idea that “nature knows best” is still the underlying driver of the environmental movement then it is heading for an evolutionary cul-de-sac.

“And there is a reason why a fish gene will never cross with a tomato outside of a laboratory.”

This sounds dangerously close to an argument for intelligent design!

Smashing new genes into a fundamental level of nature’s intelligence has complex interactions that we have only a limited understanding of.

There is a reason why a horse crossed with a donkey that creates a mule is infertile. And there is a reason why a fish gene will never cross with a tomato outside of a laboratory.

The past few comments betray the naturalistic fallacy, the idea that nature “nature knows best” and we humans shouldn’t meddle. But we have always meddled from the time our ancestors started using language and symbols and discovered fire. There is nothing especially different in GM or nuclear than what we have been doing all along.
As Brand points out succinctly in the first pages of his book, our problems are existential rather than to do with having rejected “nature”.

Put it this way: the same kind of thinking that rejects out of hand these controversial technologies also rejects vaccination and embraces homeopathy. You can count me out of that!

I’m not advocating GM personally, but Brand has a crucial message to the green movement: we need to grow up and approach all these issues with the same level of rationality we use to understand climate change, otherwise we may do great harm.

Best to read his book before making knee-jerk responses I think.