Economist debates

"THE voting has shifted dramatically during this debate, starting out heavily in favour of the motion, swinging strongly in the other direction (seemingly in response to an organised campaign by anti-GM activists), and then swinging back towards the middle."

The above is pathetic, I must say. I am from Eastern-Europe. Everybody in this region knows this tone, this way of argument so well. "There seems to be opposition and it must be the result of the underground activites of the enemy lurking in the dark." Who used to use this paternalistic, false tone? Yes, The Party. Anyone read Animal Farm?
The Economist is playing with its reputation. The formulation of the issue is tricky, the moderator is biased just like the featured guest.
Why do I call the no-voters enemy? Because the whole setup stinks of pro-GE. The Economist itself seems highly pro-GE.
It is a shame. And in fact you are assisting mass murder, which, I am sad to say, is probably not an overstatement, just look at the rise of some diseases in the past 20 years in the US. Some stuff don't kill instantly.
Taking part in it is, in the last analysis, a very deep and highly personal affair for everybody involved.

Hoax like Tessa88's comment are part of the antiGM campaign. How can a Doctor tell that the cause of a deformity can be atributted to GMG soy ingestion?. There is no scientific paper in the world that support this supposed alegation. Not in humans, not in animals.

What you call an "organised campaign by anti-GM activists" was more like a shout-out to and from people such as myself who feel strongly that GM food technology is unproven, unsafe and has unintended consequences.

I tweeted about this debate a few times to my 600+ followers because I was so shocked that a publication as prestigious as the Economist could run a debate on GM, sponsored by a GM company.

I was also shocked by the way the debate question was framed.

As one of your commentators put it, the question was non-specific yet requiring a specific yes/no answer; and was also potentially confusing.

The quality of the comments critiquing GM technology were stunning. I was touched to read comments from farmers in the Majority World who have good reason to be deeply wary of GM technology that ties them in further debt to multinational concerns.

At this moment developed countries thinking about organic food, sustainable agriculture and hazards of GM crops but developing countries and under developed countries are still having food scarcity.

Considering increasing population of these countries they have to modify their cropping pattern to GM crops. Sustainable agriculture could not serve the purpose of these countries.

Genetic modification controlled by bio-technical industries does not equal sustainable agriculture. The world does not yet trust any humans/industries/inventions/genetic modifications due to their intent. Profits--
If industries were regulated to the point of having to divulge all their test results, the public may trust them if they were allowed to use and test the product for a reasonable cost. Instead much is behind closed doors, results are shady and products are too expensive.
Sustaining the integrity of the environment, soil water and air, must always usurp the desire to produce more - by destroying the environment. Losing a robust misunderstood differential gene pool in favor of a homogeneous profitable gene pool is dangerous. Lets not rush into this one encase the results become irreversible.

heated

I think the pro-GMO arguments are going to wane even more as the "science" behind GMO foods comes more into the light. In the US at least, the proponents, not surprisingly, were not all the forthcoming about full disclosure. http://organicconnectmag.com/wp/2010/11/the-hidden-story-of-gmos/

I voted in this poll. For consumer awareness. I am a mother of a young boy, at 18 mos. he had to undergo penile surgery for a deformity. The doctors attribute this type of deformity to GMO soy injested by me when he was in utero and, in addition, I supplemented GMO infant formula between breast feedings and fed him Morning Star and may GMO soy products, albeit (unbenownst to me, it wasn't on the label). My son may very well be sterile. One day, I will have to explain this to him and it breaks my heart. :(

I have worked a bit with biotechnology scientists and, like all scientists, they don't know all of what is going on -- that is why they do research. I would say that using biotechnology on curing deadly diseases such as cancers and HIV would be a more controlled way to understand how biotechnology works. Until we know which barriers can be penetrated by different DNA modifications, I am not feeling secure about letting bioengineered species into an uncontrolled environment such as the food market.

Remember the radioactive discoveries fifty to a hundred years ago. Skin cream with radium, illuminescent watches with cobolt 60 and walking soldiers up on a hill and have them turn their back to the nuclear blast as protection. The radiation was not life-giving as first believed, it caused cancer.

We need to know more before we let bioengineered creatures loose in the environment -- when people with no knowledge about any potential risks have access to bioengineered material we have let it loose in the environment.

I found it interesting that the speaker against the motion took charge of the debate and moved it towards a grounding in current biotechnology practice (particularly in genetically modified organisms) rather than in a speculative context. When I read the debate statement and the moderator's opening comments, I had hoped for a straight answer to the debate's question - that is, CAN biotechnology be compatible with sustainable agriculture, rather than IS it compatible. The fact that the side arguing against the motion took charge of the debate and the opponent ceded momentum and ended up on the defensive made this an uninteresting discussion.

The following phrase is typical for neo-Luddite propaganda: "The laws of nature responsible for sequencing of DNA"... Sounding quite 'scientific', it shows total lack of understanding both of what "law of nature" or "sequencing of DNA" means.

Unfortunately, such purely organic crap was the staple food of the 'debate'. LOL!

I visited the debate in the very beginning, and returned to it several times. There were really quite a lot of informative and interesting viewpoints posted both by those who backed biotechnology (erroneously called GE by neo-Luddites), and from those who oppose it.

The whole affair was totally spoiled by propagandists and, first of all, by the vote itself. I cannot see any point in this pseudo-plebiscite. Scientific truth cannot be established by a majority vote, as history of science shows us again and again. Can anyone tell what was the purpose of this, and what consequence, practical or otherwise, will the final result have? What real difference would it make if it was in favour, not against biotechnology?

Reminder to 'ianok' who wrote: "Sounds like an American election lets have a recount ,oh yes of course Bush is the winner,he has the bloodline"

The initiative of recount belonged to the future Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, as well as the idea to go to court for that. So Mr Bush had all the grounds to be grateful to him, not to Bush Sr.

I WOULD STATE UNEQUIVOCABLY, THAT GMO FOODS ARE A HAZARD, ORGANINC HAS ALWAYS PROVEN BETTER, REFERENCE DROUGHT RESISTANCE, BUG RESISTANCE, NUTRIENT VALUE, ETC. GMO FOODS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO RESULT IN THE DEATH OF TEST ANIMALS. I WOULD VOTE A RESOUNDING NO TO THE USE OF GMO TECHNOLOGY, AND END THE CORPORATE DOMINANCE OF OUR VERY EXISTENCE IN THIS PLANET.

And another thing: ;) If you do learn about this, and your blood doesn't boil (figuratively of course), then I would wonder if you actually have a pulse.

I like that, if you have an opinion about this against what the moneybags want to have enforced, you are labeled an anti-GM activist. Thank you. I resemble that description. I am a mother of two elementary school age children and I live in a rural area. I never wanted to have pets but now we have our own chickens so that we can get eggs that aren't from chickens living on GM grain. I had no clue about any of this until last March. I've been learning a lot as quick as I can by reading books, going to websites and studying both sides. What I have found out about the Pro side is that they are congratulating themselves for keeping the U.S. consumers in the dark for so long. We've been eating this crap for years, "all unknowing" well, shame on everyone involved in that. At least cigarettes come with a warning label and ingredients list. I'm mad as hell with the FDA and the USDA and our lovely mass media for their role in this fiasco. We are getting healthier day by day and losing weight and thinking more clearly. Go Figure! Do the research yourself and get a clue.

From slow poison to time bomb. The earlier we realise the damage that we are doing to this unique planet in the vast expanse of the cosmos, the better. Why not genetically modified food for genetically modified people. In the next few millenia, life is going to vanish from the face of the earth not because of natural courses but because of our making. We want to show better we know than nature......

No confusion -- just had to see past the wording of the motion! So very clever... Can you believe there are still genetically natural people who are capable of seeing through the disguise of genetic modification? The laws of nature responsible for sequencing of DNA are far deeper than any guise in someone's mind for any benefit to mankind, and the whole of the cosmos, in altering the genetic code. The design is in nature. The defeat of this motion is a win for the universe.

Where is the evidence of "Genetically mutated pollen is destroying the Bee population"? Is it imagination or real evidence? Is it anti-GMO based on imagination rather than scientific evidence?

Don't call them "environmentalists" just because they are AGAINST biotechnology. I consider myself 100% environmentalist and I'm PRO tech in biology. As long as ethical and strict-to-the-protocol research is done, it's the only rational way to have better crops and products in general to feed and satisfy close the 6+ billion souls of this earth.

Sorry I entered my blog twice by mistake I forgot to say ,it it could be that all this Genetically mutated pollen is what is Destroying the Bee population, They cannot process the pollen it turns their intestines black, Also the Chemtrails contain pesticides and toxic metals Once the bees die out our time is limited ,think about it. Love to everyone and the mother Earth

This is completely bizarre. The Economist has allowed a technical question to be settled by a vote of people (on both sides) who made up their mind before the debate. Shall we next have a vote on Evolution v. Creation "Science" or the doctrine of the Trinity perhaps?