A bit of help.....

[cliftyhanger]

My daughter is at Uni, and is doing some research into peoples attitudes to GM food.
If any of you could spare a few minutes to complete the short survey it would be a great help (I reckon "we" have the right sort of ideas!)
Thanks for looking!
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/2DQKWB6

[xvivalve]

Done.

I finished with "If the EU didn't throw away so much food, the world would have less need to try to grow more efficient crops!"

[sprint95m]

I completed the survey.




Ian.

[Mahesh]

Survey done.

[cliftyhanger]

Thank you! I am certain it needs "our" type of people to balance my daughters peer group

[Galileo]

Ah, I fear I might have been the wrong type, as I think strong EU control is needed as GM crops do not honour made up country borders!

[cliftyhanger]

Not at all. "we" tend to be (ahem) a tad older, and generally have opinions that are based on thinking rather than what we are told. That is the important stuff. Bit like this vote, as long as people don't vote because of fear or immigration, then whatever they vote is fair.

[Sico40]

Survey done.

[Galileo]

Not at all. "we" tend to be (ahem) a tad older, and generally have opinions that are based on thinking rather than what we are told. That is the important stuff. Bit like this vote, as long as people don't vote because of fear or immigration, then whatever they vote is fair.

Sorry Cliff, my social media experience of late has been unpleasant over this wretched polarising referendum so I'm a bit prickly at the moment... Still, you're right about age, almost old enough to be full on cantankerous as well!

[Tamworthbay]

But do the 'older' type understand the technology and science enough to make informed decisions on GM foods? As a biochemist I have found the level of misunderstanding regarding GM technology to vary from hilarious to scary and would doubt that 0.01% of the population have enough understanding to make a sensible judgement either way. Sadly far too many people believe the 'facts' given to them by the tabloids.

[cliftyhanger]

But do the 'older' type understand the technology and science enough to make informed decisions on GM foods? As a biochemist I have found the level of misunderstanding regarding GM technology to vary from hilarious to scary and would doubt that 0.01% of the population have enough understanding to make a sensible judgement either way. Sadly far too many people believe the 'facts' given to them by the tabloids.

ooh, grounds for debate!

No, I disagree, you don't need to understand all the process to understand the possible outcomes. All too often we are given just spin, be it EU referendums or indeed the "fact" on GM foods. Who is a reliable source of info? most scientists have a vested interest one way or vendetta the other.

The huge danger is now once the genie is out, it can never be put back. And the possible consequences are largely conjecture.
OK, it was a film, but Jurrassic Park had a couple of decent soundbites. One along the lines of "everybody was so concerned about if they could, they never though if they should" and another referring to chaos theory. But that is the possible issue, the small effect of GM may just have consequences that nobody has considered. And although the GM companies are keen to sell their products on the back of yields and so on, the bottom line seems to be profits. There are other possibilities for increased yields (but not as much) Flipside, is the facts that there have not been any serious issues recorded with GM foods. But who knows what the future holds? I have a balanced view but reject arguments that are based on (a) interest in profits (b) unfounded fear

[Tamworthbay]

But your reply ignores the fact that there are a whole range of ways of genetically modifying an organism and a wide range of people who may do it. For example you may choose to genetically modify tomatoes to over express the lycopene production gene (something I actually worked on during my PhD!), the resulting tomato would have no extra chemicals but would have a higher concentration of a chemical shown to mop up free radicals and have general 'health benefits'. Or you may choose to introduce a herbicide resistance gene into a species which can cross breed with a known pest species. Unless you have understanding of the processes you cannot make an informed decision of the risks involved. You may feel you don't like it, but that is not based in fact, it's purely a personal opinion which cannot be backed up by fact. You mention the issue of vested interest and this is a critical issue across the whole of science, there are far too many people prepared to prostitute themselves for a decent pay packet and non more so than those who argue against climate change as a reality. The issue is that the media give the same air time to someone in the pockets of the big corporations and saying what they are told to as they do someone who may have spent years actually researching the issue. And this is the reason why you need an understanding of the science to make a real appraisal of the facts, even down to where those 'facts' are published, is it a peer reviewed and respected publication? Of a vanity journal? Sadly the very great majority of the public are not in a position to make judgements of these things, if they were there would be far more stringent control on emissions, fracking, various production techniques, energy production etc etc etc.

[Carledo]

I consider myself to be both intelligent and well read. But I don't know enough about GM production to say whether it is good or bad and I guess Joe Public is in much the same boat. I am much too cynical to believe everything I am told, but these days it seems nobody can be trusted to give an impartial opinion on anything, especially anything involving huge profits for someone.
I also have no doubt that there are individuals and companies unscrupulous and greedy enough to produce and sell unsafe GM stuff if it will make them rich (Google search Ford Pinto)

Steve