Are they hippies?
GM foods Page 2
Pretty much!
You can't move for hippies in Devon.
I used to have this really awful tutor at college who was very into forum theatre and setting the world straight but was actually an appauling snob who didn't have a clue what she was talking about. I remember after 9/11 she cancelled a dance sesson to make sit in a circle with this guy who talked to us about the horrors of war and what America was doing was wrong. My main tutor lost his nut when he found out.
Quote: zooo @ September 13 2009, 8:45 PM BSTYou love an amusingly shaped vegetable, and you know it.
But enough about Katie Price.
Timbo is correct though, bring in a new species of plant or animal life that's at odds with the rest of it's surroundings and you could have big trouble. Look at Austrailia, it's overrun with Cane Toads, Mixamatosis and Minogues.
I can't afford to go organic! How would I afford my girlie things?
Quote: Timbo @ September 13 2009, 8:42 PM BSTWe are well above sustainable levels of agricultural output already, so unless something dramatic is done about population growth millions are going to starve whatever we do. The problem with feeding the poor is that more of them survive to breed, so at best you are putting off the day of reckoning, and possibly making it worse. (Much like Labour's policy of borrowing to spend.)
Quote: RubyMae - Glamourous Snowdrop at Large @ September 13 2009, 9:02 PM BSTI can't afford to go organic! How would I afford my girlie things?
Unfortunately, it's the 'girlie things' which are helping to starve people to death. Rape seed oil is used in a lot of cosmetics and the third worlders are changing over their rice paddies (or whatever) to grow this cash rich crop.
Then again, do I want to survive in a world where women don't have make up? (The living would envy the dead).
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ September 13 2009, 8:54 PM BSTTimbo is correct though, bring in a new species of plant or animal life that's at odds with the rest of it's surroundings and you could have big trouble. Look at Austrailia, it's overrun with Cane Toads, Mixamatosis and Minogues.
And criminals.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ September 13 2009, 9:05 PM BSTThen again, do I want to survive in a world where women don't have make up?
I do.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ September 13 2009, 9:05 PM BSTUnfortunately, it's the 'girlie things' which are helping to starve people to death. Rape seed oil is used in a lot of cosmetics and the third worlders are changing over their rice paddies (or whatever) to grow this cash rich crop.
Then again, do I want to survive in a world where women don't have make up? (The living would envy the dead).
I'm very good actually Mr Twistiepants!. I buy from very nice ethical companies, I don't buy anything animal tested or containing products like palm oil, and minimal or recyclable packaging where possible. I actually did a piece on animal testing on my site!
'Cause I'm nice... 
But the kids still have to make my jeans...
(JOKE!!)
So what is your stuff made from?
Bet it's whale fat and dolphin tears.
The body fat and skin of annoying self rightous know it alls who think it's clever to try wind me up.
Good for the complexion. 
Love you all 
Quote: RubyMae - Glamourous Snowdrop at Large @ September 13 2009, 9:24 PM BSTThe body fat and skin of annoying self rightous know it alls who think it's clever to try wind me up.
Good for the complexion.
Love you all
You also think whales take the piss?
Giant mamalian wankers I shit 'em.
I wouldn't want to follow you after you've used the toilet.
I find Lush are very very good.
Quote: Tim Walker @ September 13 2009, 7:34 PM BSTI'm not massively worried, as humans have been creating GM foods (both plant and animal) for thousands of years. It's called farming.
This is not really true - traditional selective breeding is not genetic modification in the sense of the modern debate. Selective breeding is the selecting of offspring for desired characteristics that occur naturally within the genetic material of the organism. Technological GM is rather different, in the sense that the farmer can now effectively (though not literally) cross a carrot with a mackerel.
Probably the closest real-world analogy with GM is viruses. They too insert alien genetic material into a host cell.
Quote: Aaron @ September 13 2009, 7:24 PM BSTThere are other concerns of course, such as religious nutters who reckon it's "playing God" (yawn).
Many non-nutters feel uneasy about the technology.
Quote: Aaron @ September 13 2009, 7:24 PM BSTand the possibility of a negative effect on other wildlife and vegetation - although this is being described as "negligibly tiny".
And it's being described as negligibly tiny by its advocates. They're hardly going to say otherwise, are they?
The cigarette cancer debate was very similar in its early days. Both sides proclaiming they were right. The difference is that when cigarettes were proved to be dangerous people had a choice to continue or give up. With GM, if it does go tits up, there is no way we can go back.
This technology has to be 100% safe, and proven so, by those for and against. Because we aren't screwing around with smoking beagles and wired-up mice, we're placing our trust in a new technology of which even the advocates admit there is a potential risk. The difference is that once 'alien' genes (as in alien to the organism) are out of the lab and into the real world, where many unpredictable and unknown processes occur, we could face the unravelling of ecosystems. There will be no recall or cancellation. The changes will be irreversible.
Plus Science hardly has a track record that inspires confidence. We can't even accurately predict the effects of drugs until they're out of the labs. Many drugs declared safe in the labs have been recalled because of unforeseen circumstances in the real world.
The world is facing huge ecological change. And instead of trying to conserve the fragile balance, our answer (typical of mankind) is to throw even further chaos into an already creaking machine.
But the arrogance of man (and especially Science) is such that we will introduce GM and we will live with the consequences. Sadly, I suspect, every other species will have to live with our decision too.
Quote: SlagA @ September 13 2009, 9:46 PM BSTThis is not really true - traditional selective breeding is not genetic modification in the sense of the modern debate. Selective breeding is the selecting of offspring for desired characteristics that occur naturally within the genetic material of the organism. Technological GM is rather different, in the sense that the farmer can now effectively (though not literally) cross a carrot with a mackerel.
It is and was genetic modification, often with unforeseen consequences (including development of new species). And viruses have been naturally altering other organisms' DNA for millions of years. Recombinant DNA techniques as used today are not simply splicing DNA of unknown origin into existing organism DNA. The target known and predictable gene sequences and represent at most tiny changes in the original genome. If you were to replace a lot of original DNA you'd cause cellular death or loss of the ability to reproduce.
Without genetic modification via various "natural" and "traditional" methods, we wouldn't have the fruit and veg varieties that we have today (at least not in any recognisable form).
Quote: Aaron @ September 13 2009, 8:43 PM BSTI think you mean before, not after.
(And even after the rebate, £40 million is still an outdated figure.)
Your right it is an out dated figure. I have checked what it actually is, and it is £55.8 Billion a year, £150 million a day. The rebate was 7 Billion.
