Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on August 9, 2015
Scotland to ban genetically modified crops
Scottish ministers are planning to formally ban genetically modified crops from being grown in Scotland, widening a policy divide with the Conservative government in London.
Ministers in Edinburgh are to apply to use recent EU powers that allow devolved administrations to opt out of a more relaxed regime, which is expected to increase commercial use of GM crops around the EU.
The move will reinforce a long-standing moratorium on planting GM crops in Scotland and allow the Scottish National party to further distance itself from the UK government.
Backed by agribusiness, scientific bodies and the National Farmers Union, ministers in London have already signalled that they plan to allow commercial cultivation of GM crops such as maize and oilseed rape in England, despite significant resistance from consumers and environmental groups.
The Scottish government announcement on Sunday did not say whether this new legal power would extend to a ban on scientific and experimental research, but a spokeswoman confirmed that laboratory research on GMOs would continue.
Scottish scientists, including those at the James Hutton Institute and the Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health, have taken a leading role in GM research. The Scottish government’s former chief scientific officer, Dame Anne Glover, who became the European commission’s chief scientific adviser before the position was abolished, is a keen advocate of GM crops.
The spokeswoman for the Scottish government said: “These changes would not affect research as it is currently carried out in Scotland, where the contained use of GM plants is permitted for scientific purposes, for example in laboratories or sealed glasshouse facilities.’’
Richard Lochhead, Scotland’s environment secretary, said he wanted to uphold the precautionary principle – that the potential risks to other crops and wildlife from GMOs outweighed the likely benefits of the technology – by banning the commercialisation of GM crops.
“There is no evidence of significant demand for GM products by Scottish consumers and I am concerned that allowing GM crops to be grown in Scotland would damage our clean and green brand, thereby gambling with the future of our £14bn food and drink sector,” he said.
“The Scottish government has long-standing concerns about GM crops – concerns that are shared by other European countries and consumers, and which should not be dismissed lightly,” he added. “I firmly believe that GM policy in Scotland should be guided by what’s best for our economy and our own agricultural sector rather than the priorities of others.”
His announcement was applauded by environment campaigners. Richard Dixon, director of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: “The Scottish government has been making anti-GM noises for some time, but the new Tory government has been trying to take us in the direction of GM being used in the UK, so it is very good news that Scottish ministers are taking that stance.
“If you are a whisky producer or breeding high-quality beef, you ought to be worried if you don’t want GM but it is going to come to a field near you and you were worried that there was going to be some contamination. It is certainly in Scotland’s interests to keep GM out of Scotland.”
The new measure angered NFU Scotland, which described the decision as naive and taken without an adequate debate. Scott Walker, chief executive of NFU Scotland, said: “Other countries are embracing biotechnology where appropriate and we should be open to doing the same here in Scotland.
“Decisions should be taken on the individual merits of each variety, based on science and determined by whether the variety will deliver overall benefit. These crops could have a role in shaping sustainable agriculture at some point and at the same time protecting the environment which we all cherish in Scotland.”
Murdo Fraser, for the Scottish Conservatives, said there was no great pressure for commercial use of GMOs in Scotland but that the weight of scientific opinion was in favour of the technology.
“I think this decision puts superstition before science,’’ he said. “There’s a very strong scientific consensus that GM foods could be hugely beneficial, increasing the volume of food for the world’s population.
“There are two specific issues here for Scotland: if the rest of the UK moves to encourage GM foods and Scotland doesn’t, our farmers will be at a competitive disadvantage, and secondly, a lot of our research institutes which are keen to pursue this technology will lose talent.”
15 Comments on "Scotland to ban genetically modified crops"
kanon on Sun, 9th Aug 2015 9:39 pm
http://www.foe.org/news/blog/2015-06-new-report-exposes-how-front-groups-shape-story-of-food
This links to a report of PR efforts, bought experts, astroturf groups, and other deceptive promotions by the corporations in favor of GMO crops. Unfortunately, the pollution of the US from these crops is ubiquitous and we may never have a “clean and green brand” here in the US.
HARM on Mon, 10th Aug 2015 4:24 pm
Slate recently ran a nasty hit piece against anyone NOT wholeheartedly embracing food designed by Monsanto. It became one of the most widely shared and read pieces this year.
Basically, the take-away was, if you have any reservations about self-regulated transnational for-profit corporations playing dice with genetics and the world’s food supply, then you are a science-denying Luddite. And why do you hate poor starving people?
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html
PrestonSturges on Mon, 10th Aug 2015 7:26 pm
In the US, the number of anti-GMO activists seems to be tiny and nearly every anti-GMO web site is also anti-vaxxer.
Makati1 on Mon, 10th Aug 2015 10:05 pm
Another country smartens up and gives the finger to Monsanto and it’s clones.
GMO is nothing more than a money and power grab using the peasants as paying guinea pigs.
There is NO proof that they actually increased food production anywhere.
http://www.naturalnews.com/037289_Monsanto_corporations_ethics.html
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/05/monsanto200805
When your son and daughter is sterile and/or has cancer from eating GMO corn products…Thank Monsanto.
PrestonSturges on Tue, 11th Aug 2015 11:44 am
>There is NO proof that they actually increased food production anywhere.
>http://www.naturalnews.com/037289_Monsanto_corporations_ethics.html
Thanks for the link to an anti-vaxxer site!
Apneaman on Tue, 11th Aug 2015 12:13 pm
Preston, I don’t trust the natural news or the fucking idiot who runs it, but that does not actually prove anything.
Genetic Fallacy
Explanation
The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.
Even from bad things, good may come; we therefore ought not to reject an idea just because of where it comes from, as ad hominem arguments do.
Equally, even good sources may sometimes produce bad results; accepting an idea because of the goodness of its source, as in appeals to authority, is therefore no better than rejecting an idea because of the badness of its source. Both types of argument are fallacious.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/genetic/
PrestonSturges on Tue, 11th Aug 2015 12:27 pm
>Genetic Fallacy
America’s anti-GMO movement is part of the conspiracy theory subculture of anti-vaxxer, chemtrails, and the New World Order.
But more importantly, it’s not just the same generic sources, it is the same individuals. It’s not that anti-GMO “experts” publish in the same forums as anti-vaxxers, it’s that they are often the same people. The lady from MIT that says Roundup causes autism? She says nobody get any vaccines, and you can find that as a youtube interview.
So sure, you should definitely rely on the opinions of insane people, because they occasionally have a reasonable idea. You should drop off your kids with them for a couple days too.
Apneaman on Tue, 11th Aug 2015 12:57 pm
Not what I’m say. What I’m saying is that you need to make a case – provide evidence – if you want to convince someone like me that has not spent very much time researching GMO’s. One thing I am aware of is how Monsanto operates and their disregard for human health life. Agent orange – purple- Rainbow Herbicides.
Agent Orange birth defects
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHIEcUP1VBI
Davy on Tue, 11th Aug 2015 1:03 pm
I was one of the early users of GMO beans in 2000. I was impressed with roundup and how it changed the whole herbicide application situation. Previous to roundup there were some nasty cocktails going on the fields. I was not impressed with yields. This was strictly an ease of herbicide application situation not increased yields. I have been out of production agriculture for nearly 10 years now so that could have changed. Now I am hearing about supper weeds able to survive roundup.
I am currently against modern agriculture and GMO. To be against GMO and not against industrial agriculture shows a lack of understanding of how terrible both are for us and the land. I am now in permaculture grass fed cattle and goats. I still use herbicides but only where they are really needed and still sparingly. I hate chemicals and I am sensitive to them when I smell them. I usually pay a neighbor to apply them. The sad situation is with 7BIL people we cannot survive without production agriculture. We are trapped in something of our own making.
PrestonSturges on Tue, 11th Aug 2015 1:04 pm
It’s adorable when anti-GMO folks use words like “logical fallacy” then they immediately resort to an endless stream of red herrings and emotional appeals.
PrestonSturges on Tue, 11th Aug 2015 1:08 pm
> if you want to convince someone like me
Why do I want to convince someone like you? The internet is full of trolls of all kinds begging for people to try to “convince” them of this or that. The anti-GMO people I see on line have been trolling on various random subjects for many many years, and that’s all they do.
Apneaman on Tue, 11th Aug 2015 1:32 pm
Where did I say I was anti GMO? Can you not fucking read that I just said I am not up to school on that subject? Missed that eh even though it was only 5 minutes ago? Sorry, but showing the evidence/consequences of Monsanto and Dow’s products is not an emotional appeal – it’s evidence to back my assertion that they are concerned with profit above all else. Your the one getting all emotional accusing anyone who does not agree 100% with you of being a conspiracy nut. An ad hominem if there ever was one. It’s common failing I see in overly emotional apes everyday. – lot’s of claims and little or no proof. Funny how that works at while the biggest research machine ever is right at their finer tips. I’m guessing people don’t use it because they are either too fucking stupid or too lazy.
PrestonSturges on Tue, 11th Aug 2015 2:05 pm
Pedantic trolling from random person on the internet? Wow, let me cancel all my plans and clear my calendar! Oh wait, I don’t care….
Apneaman on Tue, 11th Aug 2015 2:18 pm
If GMO’s are bad enough for Neil Young, then they are bad enough for me. No evidence needed, I’ll just go with my ape emotions.
Neil Young & The World vs. Monsanto, GMO & Glyphosate
”Follow Neil Young as a focal point of the larger paradigm shift while the world rejects genetically modified food, their toxic chemicals and an entire agrochemical business model. Activating the public with his album “The Monsanto Years”, Young’s recent tour came at a historical turning point when the promises of agrochemical corporations became fully transparent and empty. Standing up for the People of Vermont, Young publicly picked a fight with Starbucks and Monsanto for suing the state to reverse an already passed GMO labeling vote. The rest of the story is history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=16&v=U2RgVTA2veU
Davy on Tue, 11th Aug 2015 2:27 pm
I hate the fact Monsanto is STL based. I see there evil office and green houses when I land at Spirt of St. Louis airport.