"BRITAIN should press ahead with the development of genetically modified crops, said the head of the government's scientific advisers"

However, his other head said it didn't give a toss.

Ironic, isn't it, that this man (and I use the term very loosely) is brokering for PEACE, of all things. He must have taken his meds today.

Look around - one thing we are NOT short of is calories. In fact we have, and we eat, far too many.

What we actually need is better calories. What companies want to give us is more calories, cheaper to manufacture. You'll get whatever is the minimum yoiu are prepared to accept.

We have no idea of the long-term effect of GM, and little experience either. We already have epidemic levels of cancer in the western world, but hey, the proles will accept to eat more profitable food, so we have to go for it.

Everyone is free to eat it if they like, but I want to ensure I am also free to eat real food if I choose.

GM? No thanks.

Gm is not some demon - it is just a more sophisticated version of the selective breeding we've been doing for years.

And it is one of, if not thee most heavily regualted industries there are.

People eat food every day subject to random unknown variations in the gene sequence all the time without worrying.

I really don't understand the fear here, I have to put it down to ignorance.

All this claim about "natural" food is just rot - nearly all cows in western Europe can be traced back to Robert Bakewell's farm in the 1700s.

Carrots are not naturally orange they were selectively bred that way, all wheats are selectively bred too - there is very little that is "natural" in our diets.

If Nick Byrne really believes that GM technology is not qualitatively different from conventional crop breeding, it only goes to show how badly informed he is. And he has the nerve to talk about the ignorance of others!

A technology that can introduce into a plant genetic material from an organism that is totally unrelated to that plant is an entirely different kettle of fish from selective breeding programmes.

The food safety issues associated with GM food have scarcely been explored at all - in spite of shrill protestations from the biotech industry that their products are safe (and no different from regular food), they steadfastly refuse to allow foods derived from GM crops to be subjected to rigorous safety testing. Why do you think that is?

One final thing. There is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence that animals, if they are given the choice between conventional feed and GM feed, consistently turn up their noses at the GM variety. Animals aren't stupid, and they know what is, and what is not, good for them.

Ban peanuts - some people are allergic;
ban seafood - ditto
ban GM - no evidence of ill effects in anyone.

Dave frae Barra you are spot on......GM has to come to enable yields to increase to feed a lot of nations.........so lets embrace it and move on

8. ..GM has to come to enable yields to increase to feed a lot of nations.....

Link us to one piece of evidence that this is true. I'm yet to see a single study that shows unequivocably that GM increases food yield for the same area of non-GM land. And to suggest that GM is for feeding the poor is insulting. There are already cases of Monsanto sueing indian farmers because the rice they grow is so similar to the one that Monsanto 'engineered' that Monsanto consider the farmers to be in breach of their intellectual property.

This is the future of GM and is the sole reason for all the investment and research, the privatising of the global food chain.

6. To suggest that GM is no different from selective breeding of centuries past is patently ignorant of the technology and of history. Can you show me one example of a farmer of the 18th century inserting a plant gene to produce omega oil in one of his goats, or using a virus to insert genetic material from an insect into a tomato. Comparing GM and traditional breeding is like comparing a ballistic warhead with a rifled musket.

Here's another headline "Science chief says Nuclear Power Planst are vital to feed growing population".

What about: "Science chief says DNA Database is vital to feed growing population".

Or: "Science chief says HP Sauce is vital to feed growing population".

#9 Not really, everyday there are millions of random unknown various in the genes of plants theoretically turning something harmless into a carcinogen.

When the scientists create a chimaera it is heavily monitored and the results and pored over - it's not some lab throwing out mutants for the hell of it.

The genes selected are done so because of their known properties and condsidering there is a high commonality of genes between plants, animals and insects - indeed most of the genes are interchangeable, there is little conncern.

The earth has only one lego box to work with - there only so many parts.

Recently scientists transfered a similar gene from a human into a drusofola. The gene does the same thing and indeed the fruit fly lived a normal life.

Take any human gene and run it in BLAST and see how many non-human hits you get.

Genetic homology is conserved throughout most of the life on earth (indeed all life) - even first year biologists know that.

Why are studies done on yest to understand human cancers!

yest? I meant yeast.

GM is all about Mansanto controlling - nay - owning the worlds food crops. That GM foods have proven safe is nonsense -

"Dr. Arpad Pustzai, the world’s leading scientist doing research on GM effects on animals at Scotland’s Rowett Institute, found alarming evidence of danger to their organs, including the brain. He was fired in 1997 for saying so, on the direct intervention of Tony Blair and Monsanto."

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/End%20of%20the%20World/Gen...

and:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0606-05.htm

How about suicide genes?

http://www.ectgroup.org

and:

http://www.biotech-info.net/eco_disaster.html

Get real and get rid of GM foods!

Read the "Seeds of Deception" by Jeffrey M Smith. Then follow the money, I wonder where this "science chief" will be working when he steps down.

#6. Captain Flint. Nick Byrne is right. let me put it simply. When you eat sardines in tomato sauce you are digesting unrelated organisms. When you insert one or two beneficial, known GMOs in 15-20,000 other plant genes, they do not have any automatic competitive advantage over the majority. See http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/pubs/geneflow.htm
As for GM food safety issues being "scarcely explored" nothing could be further from the truth. Please bother to read British Medical Association's agreement with Royal Society’s over safety. How do you think THEY came to that decision? http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/GMFoods
Finally, animal feeding anecdotes are no more than that. Pure myth. See http://www.fass.org/references/Feeding_Transgenic_Crops_t... So please do not accuse others about their ignorance without bothering to do your own basic research of the facts.

#9. The Bob Campbell. A single piece of evidence re GM increasing yields? There's dozens of peer-reviewed ones used in this 2007 review of the relevant scientific literature. QED. http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/Global_impact_of_biotech_cro...

#14. Bad Yin. BTW, Jeffrey Smith does not deal in facts. He's a yogic flyer, member of the Maharishi Natural Law Party and practices transcendental meditation. You waste your time and your money if you believe him rather than 99% of geneticists. See http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/jeffrey-smith%20article

Monsanto - bully boys, with big bucks trying
to control the worlds food crops!

I'm with you on this one #14

NO TO GM CROPS