David Cameron: "It is time to look again at GM food"

The Prime Minister said he wanted to foster a “pro-science culture” in the UK, and this started with a shift in Britain’s attitude towards so-called GM food, dubbed "Frankenstein food" by its critics. The comments come ahead of a major speech by Environment secretary Owen Paterson on Thursday next week which is set to signal a change in GM policy. Advocates argue that GM techniques increase crop yields, avoid the need for pesticides, and could be essential in assuring Britain's future food security. The Government is reported to be ready to call for European Union restrictions on cultivation of the crops for human consumption to be relaxed. The Coalition has allowed small-scale cultivation trials for GM food but widespread use is effectively banned.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Well this is just great, even though day by day we're finding out what we suspected of GM food being unsuitable for consumption we now have our Prime Minister trying to push genetically modified frankenfoods on us as well as in the EU. The recent Bilderberg meeting springs to mind.

At the rate Britain is being dismantled and decayed the less chance there is of saving it. How I wish UKIP were in charge right now.

I expect the timing might have something more to do with the current disaster underway in UK food production. The wheat crop is likely to be 33% down this year compared to last, and last years was itself a very poor harvest, some 11% down on the year before.

Potatoes are looking equally bad.

So yeah, I'm sure Monsanto are hard at work lobbying our politicians with promises of drought/flood resistant crops. Because the UK is going to have to start importing wheat this year for the first time in... a very long time indeed.

Good point there actually, it's sad really because once it's there it's there with cross-pollination and all. This news is just perfect timing with that study showing low levels of that estrogenic chemical Monsanto uses in the urine of most Europeans.

Strange Cameron goes to the Bilderberg meeting and now he is peddling Monsanto BS after it was banned by the EU.. Just as he was saying the UK should have a referendum about staying in the EU before Bilderberg, then 3 days after it he says Britain needs to be at the top table in Europe.

He really is a shill for the moneymen, in fact its becoming ridiculous how see through it all is.

Originally posted by Horus12
Strange Cameron goes to the Bilderberg meeting and now he is peddling Monsanto BS after it was banned by the EU.. Just as he was saying the UK should have a referendum about staying in the EU before Bilderberg, then 3 days after it he says Britain needs to be at the top table in Europe.

He really is a shill for the moneymen, in fact its becoming ridiculous how see through it all is.

edit on 14-6-2013 by Horus12 because: (no reason given)

You cannot be Prime Minister unless you're a Bilderberger.

Think about that, you have to attend an event that facilitates 'cosy chats', before being considered worthy of becoming Premier!!

Hmmmm makes one wonder why its so important to the US that the UK stays in and plays a key role in the EU
but one thing to the OP
Do you know what ukips policy is toward GM ?
My guts tell me they're pro GMO'S also

This whole issue revolves around a great unknown: we don't really know for certain if genetically modified organic structures is actually bad.

Intuitively, it does seem so. The way nature is is a result of millions of years of highly precise, selective, and complex mutation. There is something called "homeostasis", where all things within a living ecosystem live in harmonious relation.

But the scientist thinks to himself: So? Why do we have appendixes? Should we just leave them be when someones dealing with a bout of appendicitis? Or do we remove it? At one point in time, the appendix may have served a digestive-immunological function, but nowadays, its utterly superfluous.

There are also genes which cause diseases, which, if you believe in the medicinal value of gene therapy, could cure myriad diseases. Is this also "tampering" with nature? Or is attempting to better what appears to have negative attributes unequivocally wrong.

I'm not sure where I stand, to be honest. The "play it safe" option is to prefer organic, non-GMO foods. Yet, at the same time, the evidence is scant that GMO food actually causes disease.

I think an even better argument against GMO food is the effect is has on the wider ecosystem.

Originally posted by Astrocyte
This whole issue revolves around a great unknown: we don't really know for certain if genetically modified organic structures is actually bad.

Intuitively, it does seem so. The way nature is is a result of millions of years of highly precise, selective, and complex mutation. There is something called "homeostasis", where all things within a living ecosystem live in harmonious relation.

But the scientist thinks to himself: So? Why do we have appendixes? Should we just leave them be when someones dealing with a bout of appendicitis? Or do we remove it? At one point in time, the appendix may have served a digestive-immunological function, but nowadays, its utterly superfluous.

There are also genes which cause diseases, which, if you believe in the medicinal value of gene therapy, could cure myriad diseases. Is this also "tampering" with nature? Or is attempting to better what appears to have negative attributes unequivocally wrong.

I'm not sure where I stand, to be honest. The "play it safe" option is to prefer organic, non-GMO foods. Yet, at the same time, the evidence is scant that GMO food actually causes disease.

I think an even better argument against GMO food is the effect is has on the wider ecosystem.

You got in one. But you, all of us need to see this video in the hope of understanding better,



It's long, but you will also understand that anything David Cameron says in a soundbite does not come close to any reasoning as to why or why not we should 'look again' at GM.

reply to post by Wulfric


Well I guess Monspanto get away again with forcing populations into accepting their poison because that is what GMOs are poison.

Follow the money trail, I imagine that David Cameron is nothing but a money whore like the politicians in the US and will do anything even selling their own money for a change getting monspanto poison money.

After all while they stuff the common citizen with GMOs poisons they get to dine in splendor with organic delivered food.

reply to post by Neocrusader


UKIP is opposed to GM food in Britain.

www.ukip.org...

Got to love them.

3.8 GM Foods UKIP is opposed to the production of GM crops in Britain, but open to scientific research, advice and consumer demand. UKIP would require all imported GM produce to be labelled to indicate the presence of GM.

reply to post by Wulfric


Thank you very much for that

I did have a wee look at ukip policies a little while ago and they didn't appear to really have much of a policy at all.
But this is good and reassures me that UKIP is the way to go as my wife is a registered voter in the UK

That was one of my few fears for the UK and Europe, that if the UK left Europe it would be more open to influence and subversion from the pro GMO side away from the EU's dislike for GMO
People have argued that Nigel is pro big banks, not being pro GM casts a shadow on that argument for me

After reading that report on pig's stomachs, and what GMO does to them, perhaps Cameron should try a diet of GMO's, I know I would really not like to eat any sort of GMO's. The pictures of the stomachs were horrendous. ,

Originally posted by Wulfric
reply to post by Neocrusader

 

UKIP is opposed to GM food in Britain.

No, UKIP is only opposed to the manufacture of GM food in Britain. They're quite happy to accept imported GM food., provided it's approriately labeled:

UKIP would require all imported GM produce to be labelled to indicate the presence of GM.

Vote UKIP for imported GM food!

reply to post by Wulfric

Well this is just great, even though day by day we're finding out what we suspected of GM food being unsuitable for consumption we now have our Prime Minister trying to push genetically modified frankenfoods on us as well as in the EU.

It seems to be a case of our government doing a very good impression of someone who is deaf, dumb and blind.

Thing is speak no evil, see no evil and hear no evil isn't going to wash when it's realised GMO's, consumed for a while start destroying our livers, our Stomachs and our endocrine systems and millions of people are getting ill and dying.

Jumping up and down with your fingers in your ears, shouting la, la, laaaa won't make it go away.

GMO's won't fill up the wheat and potato shortfall either.

The families of around 150,000 Indian farmers killing themselves because they've lost everything after planting GMO cotton crops that required more land, and produced only around half their traditional varieties yields will tell Cameron and all about the so-called 'increased yields'.

We have a healthy attitude to science in the UK...we're good at science here, we export our science skills and technologies all over the world...we're famous for it.

The reason we're so good at it, is because we're careful, we don't take unreasonable risk, simply to push science for the sake of science.

Arguing for GMO's, with the cases mounting that proves the crops produced using GMO seed are both hazardous to human and animal health, decreased yields and generally are the worst thing we can be doing in food production in a country-wide scale right now.

Compact hydroponics and aeroponics, even aquaponics are the way forwards.

The yields from these fairly simple systems are exponentially larger than traditional methods and certainly better than the dangerous GMO offerings.

They require up to 20 times less resources than traditional crops and certainly many times fewer resources than GMO does...20X less water, less land space to grow, less nutrients, less pesticides etc.

They are predominantly crops that are grown organically in the majority of cases, certainly in the case of aquaponics the fish used as a symbiotic component are organic, and they grow FAST...up to 3 X faster than traditional crops..GMO's don't.

The Government needs another new science advisor, the one they've got now is broken, because he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

reply to post by Wulfric

isn't it amazing how no where along the lines does anybody say this is being done to make people healthier? It's all about profit. They are marketing a profit producing product with no claims on how it benefits the consumer. It's all about them not having to tell us about it whether it is healthy or not. Wouldn't they put the health benefits on the label if there were any? and if they haven't studied it enough yet why wouldn't they side with caution and at least inform people they were part of a huge experiment?

Originally posted by Painterz
I expect the timing might have something more to do with the current disaster underway in UK food production. The wheat crop is likely to be 33% down this year compared to last, and last years was itself a very poor harvest, some 11% down on the year before.

Potatoes are looking equally bad.

So yeah, I'm sure Monsanto are hard at work lobbying our politicians with promises of drought/flood resistant crops. Because the UK is going to have to start importing wheat this year for the first time in... a very long time indeed.

Monsanto hasn't taken over potatoes yet, and they haven't gotten any strains of GM wheat to meet approval yet.

So you will need to find another crop to justify this.

Cameron's got nothing behind his assertion that the UK needs to 'take another look' at GMOs.

Originally posted by Astrocyte
This whole issue revolves around a great unknown: we don't really know for certain if genetically modified organic structures is actually bad.

Intuitively, it does seem so. The way nature is is a result of millions of years of highly precise, selective, and complex mutation. There is something called "homeostasis", where all things within a living ecosystem live in harmonious relation.

But the scientist thinks to himself: So? Why do we have appendixes? Should we just leave them be when someones dealing with a bout of appendicitis? Or do we remove it? At one point in time, the appendix may have served a digestive-immunological function, but nowadays, its utterly superfluous.

There are also genes which cause diseases, which, if you believe in the medicinal value of gene therapy, could cure myriad diseases. Is this also "tampering" with nature? Or is attempting to better what appears to have negative attributes unequivocally wrong.

I'm not sure where I stand, to be honest. The "play it safe" option is to prefer organic, non-GMO foods. Yet, at the same time, the evidence is scant that GMO food actually causes disease.

I think an even better argument against GMO food is the effect is has on the wider ecosystem.

The appendix does have a purpose - it acts as a a reservoir for healthy bacteria that help break down food during digestion. That's why it gets infected, the flow of food through the digestive system gets blocked and the bacteria breed out of control.

reply to post by Sankari


Well at least it would be labeled as opposed to the stealth GM that is currently on British dinner tables slipped in through processed foods, packet mixes, jar sauces and the like, as recently admitted by a Brit MP