Tuesday, July 2, 2013


And many throughout the world are benefitting from it every day.

Two recent pronouncements have many of those who see the real spectre of mass starvation as an acceptable outcome from global population growth, getting their knickers in a twist.

First it was  Minister Amy Adams, who made a very valid point that genetic modification technology law should reside with central government and not be subject to whimsical decisions made at local council level.

Then today  it is reported that the UK is petitioning the EU to allow GMO developements to be embraced in their region.

Now lets get a few basic facts here, GM has been occuring in nature since weeds and amoebas were the order of the day.
Wheat emerged from grass, tomatoes from a family that includes deadly nightshade, thoroughbred horses from shaggy ponies in central Asia, the list is endless.

Adams has a valid point, one of the major weaknesses of local bodies making anti GM bylaws now that science is moving the natural process along a little quicker, comes from embracing emotive considerations and groundless  risks seen by the totally illinformed opposing that science, many see as the only path to feeding an expanding world population from a declining area of land and the water resource.
Central Government is far better resourced, equipped and potentially informed to make the necessary rulings as to whether or not GM initiatives should proceed.
One Muppet drew a paralel with anti nuclearship moves, by local councils, that sums up the lunacy in their opposing GM.

One of the major planks employed by anti GM lobby,  is fear of multinational involvement with US Giant Monsanto, front and center so of course the convenient "target" is there.  GM research is very expensive,   mindless attacks by anti GM with the alligned security needs contributing significally to those costs.
The people involved in this field are committed, informed, and aware of the science. If safety concerns were an issue among those scientists, one would expect their ranks to provide some opposition but it seems to only come from rent-a-mob activists in many of the  reported cases of protest.

Can science get it wrong? of course it can I well remember Thaialidimide and had swmbo's pregnancies been in a slightly different time frame with her serious battles with Middletons affliction, morning sickness ( swmbo also was hospitalised and fed on  a drip) then we might have ended up differently.

Regulatory parameters, peer review and the clear conservative approach by those in the industry,  make both the moves  outlined in the opening paragraphs eminently sensible and practical to me.
Better yeilds from smaller areas and advances in health gains from the developed crops, win win.

How is it,  the same people protesting GM , protest fracking, oppose extraction of resources and then next week are protesting about the disadvantaged going hungry,  then logic and sense dont apply to them do they.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I have no issue with nature evolving (a complete waste of time to worry I would think) but GM can do things that nature simply will not and I'm nervous about organisms that artificially cross lines between clearly defined natural borders wandering about in nature. I think the whole of nature is a finely balanced with changes being countered by other changes so a rough balance remains overall.

Time will tell but so far selection within the natural boundaries has been good enough. I think it will turn to shit and we'll be sorry but, hey, Monsanto etc... will make a buck and that's what its about.