the disturbing part you all know, having discussed it here.
i just saw steven sackur interview peter kendall on hardtalk. p.k. is the head of the farmers' union in the uk. he made a point about GM in its defence, stating that trials were going on that aimed to produce plant proteins that require 30% less fertiliser.
is this hype? ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
The basic fact, however, is that the big money has gone to making "pesticide" GMs, which are the only ones on the market. Where R&D is at with nitrogen-fixing, I don't know offhand. There is, however, hype in holding out the promise of plants that will need less water, less fertiliser, and will produce double yields of more nourishing food: a hypothetical free lunch.
Eating less meat was not an option P.K. endorsed, though S.S wisely pointed out the health bennies, and how much it would save the NHS.
as for GM food, i suspected that this would be the advocates' technique, to point to some potential future fantasy, while the real agenda is to sell more roundup, and much worse even, force farmers to rebuy seed every season. ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
