"Bry" wrote in message
s.com...
Everywhere I look and turn, people are telling me to get involved and to
make a stand against GM. I have leaflets through the door, people on
the high street with petitions and it's all over the internet. It seems
everyone is anti-GM right now, and they all assume I will agree with
them and want to fight the mean GM monster (or whatever personification
of frankenstine they've given it).

Well, I can't tell you if it's safe or not - but I can say the whole
argument has lost direction. It's not about calculating the risks and
making a fair descision, it has also got nothing to do with our future
and has become a media hype driven by little more than emotive paper
articles. I have never seen so many people who clearly haven't done
their research object so loudly. Most of the people I've asked don't
agree, yet few can tell me anything about the process, how it works or
even name a single example of modified crops currently in usage. It
seems to have been entirely overlooked that cross bred plants are used
by the hundreds with excellent safe results, despite being unatural and
alien to our ecosystem. I have a hybrid Japanese flowering cherry in my
garden, it does not fit in with our brittish ecosystem and is just as
alien as a GM cherry tree would be, yet it has been there over 80 years
and despite being cross fertile with english cherry trees has done no
harm at all. The idea unatural plants will go on the rampage
contaminating everything in their path isn't a fully formed concept at
all, in fact it's highly unlikely.

If the propsal was to plant GM crops on mass outside the lab and sell
them in the stores right now, yes I would totally object. However the
propsal is to start the early stages of trials and tests in a lab, just
simply to find out more info so we can make a better informed choice
later when we know what its impact will be. If the government scrap the
GM testing by outlawing at such an early stage, it won't be because
it's unsafe or a risk, it will be because the public outcry presurised
them in to doing it to gain popularity. If this does happen they will
be very popular on this debate, and all of us will miss out on the
valuable information and benifits we could gain from safe testing. I
feel it's wrong to make a descision before we know all the facts, but
that's what most people want to do. It's no better than outlawing trial
by jury, after all many people have pronounced GM 'guilty' before we
even fully know what it is or any firm data on it.

When we have so much starvation and environmental dammage, it seems
crazy to pass up trying the technology which could solve so much of it.
I strongly feel we should be presurising for highly regulated trials
with a calculated risk, then perhaps we can make the right descision in
the future based on real facts, and not unfounded propaganda and
pictures of evil vegitables with bolts through their necks. I don't
want to say no to GM anymore than I want to say yes, I just want to
know what I'm being asked to accept or reject before I make a
descision...
--
Bry

As a scientist, I suspect that most GM plants will be safe and harmless to
the environment, but like all theories, this needs to be verified by
adequate, independent assessment.

However my main suspicion is that the large companies are acting primarily
to boost their own profits, rather than to benefit mankind. For example, for
thousands of years, farmers have used some seed from thie current crop to
produce next year's crop. I understand that some of the large companies have
specifically banned this procedure, claiming patent rights (and fees) over
use of the seed from GM plants - or alternatively, designed plants that
cannot produce viable seeds. This means that in future, farmers will have to
purchase 100% of their seed requirement each year - leading to increased
sales & profits for the GM seed producers.

Bevan