20 1 min 9 yrs

I am not normally in favour of direct action protesters, they are usually ill-informed, seeking a thrill and a fight against the ‘Establishment’.

But in the case of  ‘Take Back the Flour’ I reckon an exception should be made.

Their cause is just, their thinking impeccable.

The GM wheat under test  is being grown at the behest of giant GM companies, and any patents resultant would go elsewhere.

Why should British tax money be spent enriching GM companies whose products are not welcome in Great Britain?

The crop should not sprout, it should be burnt!

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

20 thoughts on “Wrong plant, wrong place, wrong cash.

  1. I am not normally in favour of direct action protesters, they are usually ill-informed, seeking a thrill and a fight against the ‘Establishment’.

    I bet the establishment love you!

  2. ” they are usually ill-informed, seeking a thrill and a fight against the ‘Establishment’.”

    Sounds very much like so many in the UK, – ‘all mouth and no trousers’, – in other words, they spend so much time moaning they have little time to spare in suggesting, or even thinking about an alternative solution.

    The internet has its plague of trolls, – these specimens are the real life version, getting their kicks from provoking nothing more than thoughtless mischief and argument.

    In this case, – do we carry on spraying DDT, and other equally toxic solutions on fields, and end up killing all the useful wildlife, such as bees, and butterflies? Sounds pretty much like another case of ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’.

    In the news pics of the ‘protest’ I noticed a sign proclaiming ‘We love aphids’, – how very appropriate that one group of parasites should support another similar group.

  3. Petr,

    I have never ever been concerned what someone, even an amorphous ‘Establishment’, thinks of or about me.

    When I pick a cause, or a fight, I stand by my beliefs.

  4. I totally agree. I am against the growing of genetically modified crops, “interfered with” livestock, or abortion on demand.
    Ethical scientific research is fine, but we must resist the pressure of private conglomerates imposing their corporate wills on the rest of us.

  5. Which GM Company? General Mills ? Please be more specific, I’m not thrilled about the genetically modified crops either. now a little off topic,

    What I did find interesting though I heard last week that as part of the dodd frank bill they created a government commission that basicly picks institutions “that are to big to fail” Well they just added two derivative companies you know those companies that gamble on a high swing in a commodity price and such. Well there adding a third one, one in London so if that fails US tax money is now going to back it up. Ain’t that nice.

  6. Agit8ed,

    ‘I totally agree. I am against the growing of genetically modified crops,…”

    Why? do you really know the ‘why’s and wherfore’s’ of it, or is it just that it ‘doesn’t seem right’?

    Is agriculture so sacrosanct, that even when conducted in the right way, – and the lab did try to speak with and show the protesters how it was being done, and were snubbed for even trying, – it is forbidden to even try to improve quality and quantity.

    Are these ‘holier -than-thou’ types to have the last say in what is good, or bad, without even allowing experimentation and testing, – and all literally, ‘on a fashionable fad, fancy, or whim’.

    So carry on using pesticides, – then you can all moan about the dearth of bees and lack of pollination.

    Now if you had been writing re the ‘genetic modification’ of the population over the past forty years, I might have agreed with you!…

  7. Ernesto,

    my objections stem from the “knock on” effects of tampering with plant or animal organsims which have developed over how ever long.
    Again, it goes back to the evolutionary hypothesis. Life forms have adapted to their surroundings. Man has come to a place where he is able to modify/interfere with that process, but not only can he not be sure of the long term effects on the rest of bio diversity, he can’t be sure that he will be able to deal with a negative side effect.
    My second objection is that I fail to see the logic in assuming that maintaining an ever growing population is the only thing that matters.
    I noticed that when I posted on the dubious wisdom of giving aid to Africa because unless properly thought through it resulted in ever increasing population growth, no one argued.
    So why would those who believe in evolution want to interfere with natural processes that have developed over millenia? What happened to the idea of adaptability and “blind alleys” and limitations of development?
    Why would you want to eat genetically modified cereal or meat products without first researching the longer term side effects?

  8. It is interesting that GM crops is a big issue in Europe, but its hardly an issue at all in the US or in other parts of the world.

  9. Ill informed protest usually turns violent. Destroys crops and terrorises scientists. Anyone recall Huntingdon? Where protestors even dug up the remains of a scientists dead granny? Scum just scum and villainry.

    It’s no slam dunk multi billion pound earner for Team UK and we will be saying goodbye to that. The research will be done elsewhere maybe even by the re-located same people . Then the protestors can lament the ‘Brain Drain’ and our poor balance of payments situation.

    Fools – utter ill imformed anti scientific fools.

  10. Agit8ed,

    “Man has come to a place where he is able to modify/interfere with that process, but not only can he not be sure of the long term effects on the rest of bio diversity, he can’t be sure that he will be able to deal with a negative side effect.”

    Which surely, is one very good reason to conduct controlled tests.

    “What happened to the idea of adaptability “

    Yep! – cut back on the cereal content of our diets, and replace it with what? – root veggies and all that good stuff, – they will still be infested with aphids etc, and will need an alternative to mass spraying of pesticides. Or perhaps increase imports of nuts from abroad, where the use of pesticides is more easily ignored.

    A sign seen on tv by one of the protesters read – ‘I love aphids’, – how very appropriate that one parasite should support another!…

  11. p.s.

    Agit8ed,

    Re the ever growing global population problem, – nature has its own way of controlling over population.

    If it can happen to rabbits, it surely can happen to the supposedly intelligent homo sapiens….

  12. Ernest,

    “Which surely, is one very good reason to conduct controlled tests.”

    But the problem is that once the modified crop is growing outside, it is no longer controllable! It interacts with the soil, with wild animals, birds and insects.
    Have you noticed how oil seed rape is gradually moving into the verges and uncultivated open spaces?
    If genetically modified cereals are assumed safe and grown commercially, what happens if they discover an unwelcome side effect?
    Look at what has happened with imported animals and plants which have scaped into the wild and proliferated almost out of control.
    I am not anti progress, but when you consider how much money is spent on research and development, it would be surprising if lies weren’t told about the safety of a product..

  13. Dave,
    I don’t much like pesticides either, but it is alsothe consequences of what might happen in our food chain which bothers me.

  14. Dave,
    I don’t much like pesticides either, but it is also the consequences of what might happen in our food chain which bothers me.

  15. Ernest

    ‘A sign seen on tv by one of the protesters read – ‘I love aphids’’

    Nearly as good as the sign at a similar protest that reportedly said ‘we don’t want DNA in our tomatoes’

  16. I just don’t see the need for us to genetically modify crops, or anything else. It’s pure greed, nothing else. There’s more than enough arable and live food resources to feed the world a hundred times over, without us trying to modify nature. We don’t need to alter the DNA of wheat, or to make cows’ udders swell to twice their natural size in order to extract more milk from them.

  17. There’s more than enough arable and live food resources to feed the world a hundred times over, without us trying to modify nature.

    Every single thing we eat has been genetically modified by selective breeding.

  18. Fews,
    But selective breeding and selecting hardier, more productive varieties of cereal/vegetable types is much safer than mixing bits of animal with bits of plant…

    “Genes from other species can also be used to add new traits to a particular organism. For example, bacteria, mice, and plants have all had luminescent (light glowing) genes from jelly fish added to their genomes. Another reason for adding genes to a foreign organism is to manufacture various nutritional or pharmaceutical products. Some cows have been modified so that they can produce human insulin or vitamins in their milk in bulk. Pigs have been modified to overcome a number of transplantation problems so that some limited transplantation of organs can be carried out from pigs to humans, also called xenotransplation.”

    http://science.jrank.org/pages/2134/DNA-Technology.html

    Read more: DNA Technology – Genetic, Genes, Gene, and Sequence – JRank Articles http://science.jrank.org/pages/2134/DNA-Technology.html#ixzz1wEvLZo9e

  19. TomTyler; “There’s more than enough arable and live food resources to feed the world a hundred times over”
    Are you really saying this? despite large parts of the world going hungry and world wide food shortages in recent years.

Comments are closed.