Since the UK government believes in the value of animal testing, and tests on rats, pigs and mice have....?

Question

....found that GM crops have very serious health impacts, such as a 30 % reduction in life span , how do they justify their support of GM crops ?

Also ,it's worth noting that proximity to GM crops has caused organic status to be lost to some farmers ,with no compensation.
Is this a 'war on simple living' , in support of big business ?

The source of the animal tests information is a right leaning newspaper . The loss of organic status for a crop of organic maize was at Riverfords Farm ,a successful local organic business ,with shops ,many staff etc..
The purpose of most GM crops is to enable More pesticide to be sprayed ,by making the plant immune to otherwise fatal doses.
The 30% life expectancy drop was in rats ,as my question says ( we'll have to wait some years before we see the effects in humans, but I'm guessing from the extremity of problems in the pig experiments ,maybe 10 years).

I the field , Gm crops initially had lower yields . Although more recent figures challenge that , so it's not clear yet .

Why not check information rather than guess it please .

Answer 1

I don't think the government actually supports GM crops but i do agree they don't do enough to deter people from buying them. There was a big campaign a couple of years ago from major supermarkets and brands to display which products are GM and which are not. At the end of the day its up to the buyer to choose which they buy.

Answer 2

I guess the justification is in the giving people the choice to buy gm or organic. Giving poorer people the chance to eat comfortably. I dont know any facts, but im sure that when a piece of land has been used for GM crops, its not entirely organic for a matter of decades. So if they ban gm crops, that alot of wasted farm space and food supply. Pushing up the cost of food in general because the demand will be the same but supply will decrease. Also with Organic, theres no guarentee of the yield, GM crops are more reliable to create a forecast on how much will be produced and ready for sale so the gov can see what it will need to import. But the way I see it, ok, 30% reduction on life if you are right, but if they arent going to outlaw smoking, how can they ban GM crops on that basis? Oh well, encourage people to eat GM, people live 30% less, thats less people on the pension in future, and so countering the Pension time bomb!!!

Answer 3

Hmm...genetically modified crops....first of all, what is the source of your data....from a enviromental group, or a legitamite source?
Stateside, we've have few problems with Genetically modified foods, grains, and the like. As far as it reducing the lifespan of someone by 30 percent, it's kinda farfetched, considering that the technology hasn't been around too long....and I haven't heard of any human dying from eating it.
As for goverment supporting GM crops, would you prefer bug-infested, or DDT sprayed crops?
The goverment, to all intense purposes, is not out to kill off everyone....they tinker with things, to try and improve life. Granted, some things work better than others, example, in the Cold war, our goverment stockpiled little red candies, with enough calories to sustain a person, on 6 a day.
What they didn't know, later, is the red ones, contained a dye, that was later found to cause cancer....oops.
So, that's where we are.....but honestly, if we were afraid of everything the goverment did, a lot of people would have died from polio, mumps, diptheria, and other diseases.

Answer 4

if you want progress than you can't stand in it's path.

Answer 5

your facts are not correct