GM benefits under scrutiny

One of the problems people have with GM biotechnology is trusting the promises behind it. This seems understandable when alleged benefits don’t stand up to scrutiny, and when potentially huge problems are identified. Take a look at the 10 reasons listed by Mark Anslow in The Ecologist for a sample of evidence-based criticism levelled at GM crops.

Dr Brian John also established reasonable doubt in his article “Approving GM Crops is Anti-science“ by asking some simple questions:

“… Are GM crops needed? No. Do they taste better? No. Are they more nutritious? No. Are they cheaper? No. Are they better for the environment? No. Do they lead to greater yields? No. Are the management systems associated with their use easier for farmers? No. Do they reduce herbicide use? No.

As far as the consumer is concerned, there are therefore no perceived benefits associated with the use of GM crops, and that is why the consumer sees no need for them. Not only are they not needed, but the consumer also sees a whole host of problems associated with the introduction of GM technology. …”

Read the article by Dr Brian John.

Jason Ball, Sheepdrove Organic Farm.


Tags: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: