The Engineering EcoWarrior

Many people oppose genetically modified crops. There is fear that s plicing genes from one species in to another will, for example, turn ordinarily benign rice in to a ravaging carnivorous organism akin to Wyndham's triffids. While that may be an exaggeration, there are good reasons to, if not fear, at least be wary of creations made by artificially changing or combining genes. Concerns mainly fall in to one of the following categories: unforeseen or unintended impacts on stable ecosystems; control of seeds by powerful agri-corporations limiting farmers' ability to grow the crops; or adverse health effects from unnatural Franken-foods. Let us consider the first category, which has the biggest potential impact on the environment. Crops have been genetically modified for a number of reasons, all with the aim of increasing yield. Increased yield is not a bad thing but at what cost. One method is to improve resistance of plants to pesticides, meaning that more pest...

That's a fact? According to environment secretary Owen Patterson, the time is right for GM crops and it is the duty of the British Government to convince the public that this is the case. He then said that GM crops are probably  safer than conventional crops and seven million children have gone blind or died over the past decade because attempts to grow a strain of GM rice ( Golden Rice ) commercially have been thwarted (implying, perhaps, by anti-GM campaigners and that there are no other solutions to malnutrition). The minister went on to back a scientific approach: "We need evidence-based regulation and decision-making in the EU. Consumers need accurate information in order to make informed choices. The market should then decide if a GM product is viable,"  A rigorous and transparent scientific evidence-based approach is to be welcomed,  although this goes a bit further than Mr Patterson's statement. Assuming that the evidence based regulation allows only GM...