“We have long known that concerns about a new and unknown technology diminish over time, and in regard to gene technology and biotechnology we’re now seeing that played out in the public’s minds…
“The second factor was a perception that genetically modified crops could be of benefit in helping to address a range of new concerns in people’s minds, which included drought, climate change, rising salinity levels and fuel shortages…
“Now this is going to present a challenge for many environmental groups who will be overjoyed to know that the public are increasingly concerned about the environment, but will be less overjoyed to know that the public strongly support gene technology as a possible solution to environmental problems, when many environmental groups are not particularly supportive of gene technology.
“I suspect that many of these groups might need to reconsider, or update, their positions and at least consider that the mantra of ‘all gene technology is bad’ should be re-examined carefully and modified to a more realistic statement of ‘some gene technology is bad, but some gene technology is good.’ …
Read more here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2008/2259355.htm#transcript
Of course there is already an environmental group that recognises the benefits of technology: The Australian Environment Foundation.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
My worry with GMO is that there can be no way back from a mistake. Once it is in the field and becomes part of the environment, if it does come unstuck, how do we remove it? Do we really need another “cane toad” or “rabbit” genetically speaking?
Case in point: Showa Denko K.K. of Japan,in 1988. genetically engineered the bacteria used in the manufacture of the food supplement tryptophan. This allegedly resulted in 37 deaths and 1500 cases of permanent damage from the effects of eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS). It was assumed to be equivalent to the more natural product derived from an un-modified bacteria, and was even packaged as the same product without any warning.
In these days of food manufacture, it could be next to impossible to backtrack to find any offending product that may produce symptoms months or even years down the track.
J.
So, independent survey results confirm that public acceptance of GM foods has risen by 50% in two years, from 2005 to 2007, to a level now where 3 out of 4 people support GM technology. This is not surprising to members of the Australian Environment Foundation that have been strong supporters of this technology and the environmental benefits that it will bring.
As is speculated in the ABC interview, many ‘environmentalists’ will now have to examine the basis for their opposition in light of public opinion.
Progress for the environment, based on science and evidence will prevail.
Max Rheese
Australian Environment Foundation
This is interesting, new approach from Monsanto:
“This section of our corporate web site is about our commitment to help farmers produce more and conserve more. It highlights three commitments:
1. Develop better seeds – We will work to double yield in our three core crops of corn, soybeans and cotton by 2030, compared to a base year of 2000. We are also establishing a $10 million grant designed to accelerate breakthrough public sector research in wheat and rice yield.
2. Conserve resources – Monsanto will develop seeds that will reduce by one-third the amount of key resources required to grow crops by the year 2030. We will also join with others to address habitat loss and water quality in agriculturally important areas.
3. Help improve farmers’ lives – Our company is committed to help improve the lives of farmers, including an additional five million people in resource-poor farm families by 2020.”
http://www.monsanto.com/responsibility/sustainable-ag/default.asp
That sounds very environmentally friendly and sustainable for farmers.
How does seed patents and so called “suicide seeds” fit into the picture.
Or is that all forgotten?
What happens with cross pollination of the adjacent field’s product, does it reduce the value of the non GM product, and if so who pays for the loss?
And will Monsanto or whoever produced the GM seeds sue the adjacent landowner for infringing on their patent?
Just curious, as these questions seem to be forgotten in the heat of the moment.
J.
Why do we need GM?
Why are companies such as Monsanto being so altruistic? Shouldn’t Monsanto’s shareholders have something to say about wasting resources on altruism.
You need GM because farmers like me are choosing to grow energy crops (canola) over food crops (wheat) to feed cars rather than humans. 1/3 of my crop this year will likely go to the combustible engine. Its nothing personal but I have to make a buck. As a consumer, with likely no farmers as friends, that should worry you.
A hyperinflating oil price means previously expensive grain commodities are now looking cheap again. Expect shortages to appear in key food groups soon (matter of years) as biofuel and grain for heating use ramps up.
The major concern for food consumers world over is now in the process of moving from improving quality to security of supply. Read the end of quality based payment systems.
Glossy magazine Vanity Fair , features heavy attack on Monsanto.
Vanity Fair had a harsh article on Monsanto in its annual green issue ( btw Vanity Fairs issues were NOT printed on recycleable paper).
Vanity Fair’s article is called ” Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear” and states ” Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country” and ” Jeff Kleinpeter , of Baton Rouge , was accused by Monsanto of making misleading claims just for telling his cows are free of artificial bovine growth hormone”.
An interesting and a bit frightening read….
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805
A critical review of Vanity Fair’s article as well here :
http://www.openmarket.org/2008/04/21/vanity-fair-does-frontal-assault-on-monsanto-2/
I really do not understand why so many environmentalists seem to think that a person’s (including as “person” the artificial person – a corporation) motives must always be either utterly corrupt and self-interested or utterly altruistic. The possibility that a corporation might suffer a degree of enlightened self-interest, or a mixture of altruism and legitimate self-interest, appears to be too mind-boggling for them to even begin to contemplate.
The fact that Monsanto wishes to protect its intellectual property (i.e. the product of expensive research, including paying scientists, who suffer an apparently, to some, bizarre view that they are entitled to remuneration for their work) by preventing freeloaders capitalizing on Monsanto’s research by getting an inexhaustible supply of free seed, does not detract from Monsanto’s assertion that it wishes to make a profit while doing good things. Equally, that’s not to say that it’s possible that Monsanto may at times be too self-interested.
No doubt the perrennial view that people are not entitled to be paid for work that produces outcomes which have in whole or part intellectual and abstract components of their value (consider, for example, the lack of adequate protection of the artists rights in the visual arts) partly explains the attitude.
However, most of the explanation probably lies in the immature black & white perspective which taints so much of the environmental movement, so much so that more mature people have difficulty taking environmental issues as seriously as they might, and should, otherwise.
To put it more bluntly, the infantile left tends to hijack and trivialise environmental issues,and in so doing, they inevitably trivialise and marginalise those issues.
Of course, they’re not alone in this. Orwell’s remarks concerning the impact of cranks on Socialism apply equally well to the impact of the same sort of cranks on environmental issues. Animal liberationists and vegetarians are perfctly content to use concern for the environment to lever up their particular obsessions, when in fact there’s a fair degree of tension between their ideological obsessions and the practicalities involving environmental protection. (Consider, for example, the environmental damage caused by the mindless anti-fur campaign; Australian wildlife, New Zealand forests and even endangered birds in Scotland suffered because of the protection extended to the Fox in Australia and the Possum in NZ, and the liberation of minks in Scotland.)
Time to grow up kiddies, if you’re not to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.