Meacher on GM

Michael Meacher does in fact ask an interesting question:

All of this begs the question: is genetic modification of food safe?

He then goes on to tell us that he doesn’t think it is:

Within the last few months a Russian scientist, found
that an astonishing 55 per cent of the offspring of rats fed on GM soya
died within three weeks of birth compared with only 9 per cent in the
control group.

Then an Italian researcher found
that mice fed on GM soya experienced a slowdown in cellular metabolism
and modifications in liver and pancreas. A third study, in Australia,
showed that genes from a bean introduced into a pea created a protein
that caused such serious inflammation of lung tissue in mice that the
research was halted.

However, just a few days back we had this report:

Over the next months, Fitzpatrick carried out an exhaustive study of
soya and its effects. "We discovered quite quickly," he recalls, "that
soya contains toxins and plant oestrogens powerful enough to disrupt
women’s menstrual cycles in experiments. It also appeared damaging to
the thyroid."

Soya itself appears to be dangerous. Meacher again:

Enough, you might think, for the Government (or the EU, for the
Commission is now in charge of GM policy) to stop the import of GM
processed foods until exhaustive tests had been carried out.

Well, you see, this is the thing. GM foods are indeed subject to testing, in a way and manner which non-GM foods are not. Given the sort of standards Meacher is asking that GM foods be held to it is extraordinarily unlikely that the potato (yes, it can kill people, cause birth defects) would be approved. I don’t mean just GM variations of it, I mean the plant at all.

Yet we now know from leaked documents what the EU really believes. On
human safety it says that "there is no unique, absolute, scientific
cut-off threshold available to decide whether a GM product is safe or
not".

Quite. There is no unique, absolute, scientific cut-off threshold available to decide whether any product is safe or not. If we are to hold the world to the standard being demanded here we would never have anything new ever again. In fact, we would have to go back through the stock of what we already consume and we’d probably have to excise potatoes, tomatoes, nuts (people die every year from nut allergies), rhubarb (not a great tragedy, I agree), possibly coffee…..

Get the picture? Meacher is being absurd in the standards he wants GM crops to be held to.

6 responses

  1. I believe this is what they call FUD.
    Oh yeah and Meacher is the Lord of the Smegheads.

  2. Have you also noticed how these simpletons think that their is a strain of crop called “GM”, when in fact GM is a method of creating strains? Maybe one strain is dangerous, but that doesn’t mean another will be.
    Also, we have hear a case of failure being the only thing that is noteworthy. All the tests of the hundreds of strains that fail to show significant hazard will go unannounced. It is only when a crop fails that it becomes public knowledge. Then they can make it look like all GM crops are failing.
    Charlatans!

  3. Good thing Meacher’s not still a minister. He’d probably try to bolster the anti-GM loonies by putting two of the biggest cranks on a commitee and bullying the other members to come to the ‘right’ conclusion. Not like he hasn’t tried before:
    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1334680,00.html

  4. Hmm, think I’ll try that again…
    Not like he hasn’t tried before.

  5. By using 2 examples – 1 “in the last few months” & the other “more recently” he is clearly using examples which have not yet been subject to peer review let alone duplication by other scientists.
    Basicaly the method is for some dubious researcher after a grant to say something is or even might be dangerous, give it full media coverage worldwide & then when, much later, others check it & find it to be rubbish, give that virtually no media coverage. There have been a number of such stories about GM (& nuclear, passive smoking, salt, video nasties, pot, hamburgers, Slobodan Milosevic & other things the government want to be paid to protct us from.
    That Meacher cannot find any GM scare that has been around for a while proves the point.

  6. Typical of a person of Meacher’s profoundly limited intellect and learning to use ‘beg the question’ in the sense of a question that should have been addressed but has not been. ‘Begging the question’ is the vernacular form of petitio principii, the assumption as true of a fact whose validity is not established. It’s the direct opposite of Meacher’s usage, and in this case is nonsense on its face. GM has been subject to a degree of scrutiny that vastly exceeds, both qualitatively and quantitatively, that given to other selective breeding methods.
    Quite apart from that, he’s using the witless precautionary principle as his lodestone. Trying to prove a negative is even more boneheaded than mislabelling a basic logical fallacy. He joins Mandy in the ranks of complete tits.
    Josh is right: confirmation bias is one of the hallmarks of pseudo-science. Take any recent scare, be it MMR and autism, power lines and leukaemia, celphones and brain cancer (etc ad nauseam), and the field is replete with ‘meta-studies’ and cherry-picked datasets. Even then you’re lucky to see an RR greater than 1.1 or so, when every honest epidemiologist will tell you 2 or 3 is the threshold for these effects to be taken seriously.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading