anyone on here voted SNP. why?

cheers for the link scottroutes

a GM free Scotland is central to our vision of a free Scotland.

luddism nicely summed up

I suppose theyll be booting out the multi £million, Roslin institute then

seeing as its entire purpose is erm GM farming

http://www.roslin.ed.ac.uk/about-roslin/documents/economic-impact-report.pdf

For every £1 of public funding, The Roslin Institute generates £12.87 GVA for the UK economy

was that in their manifesto?

Its OK, Im sure any university in any city in Emgland would take it

Ah – because it makes money it must be right?

scotroutes – Member
Ah – because it makes money it must be right?

erm no , because its one of the greatest institutes from one of the best universities in the world

its benefits to science are imho much greater

erm no , [/quote]So why make that argument?

because the direct returns from that institute alone is a £300 million bonus in a country that fancies independence and just happens to be hugely dependent on the price of oil…..

its a bad idea on so many levels,not just financially, itll be bad for universities, research institutes, industry, it sends out a ridiculous message to the public ,it would have knock on consequences in other areas of genetic and medical research, it will harm scotlands scientific reputation, not to mention unless they can set up some kind of pollen filter accross the entire country its laughably unenforceable

One of the problems with the GM debate is that it is the rhetoric of fear and ideology (from both sides), served to a largely ignorant public (note – not the same as stupid).

Not all GM crops are the same. GM crops that are herbicide resistant to allow easy weed control for yield are in all likelihood bad for ecological diversity, water and soil contamination with unknown effects on human health from the herbicide (not the GM part).

On the other hand crop varieties that have been engineered to be resistant to a pathogen (Phytopthora on potato or Mycosphaerella on wheat) by the transfer of a resistance gene from another wheat or potato variety require less spraying/chemical control agents, have no negative effects on human health beyond that of the parental varieties and reduce harvest yield uncertainty.

Each case must be judged on it’s individual scientific merits, but with the current baseline of ignorance apparently being acceptable who knows how long it will be until we can have a sensible debate on the matter.

And it is rather ironic that the Scottish government fund and encourage GM research directly through their research institutes but won’t allow them to be tested here. Double standards?

It was, after all, in the SNP manifesto for the 2015 GE

Usually I’d buy that logic, but this a Scottish Government decision. None of those making it were elected at the 2015 GE. GM isn’t mentioned in the 2011 manifesto on which they were elected.

To counter the cynicism on the point above about it making money so its OK, the 2011 manifesto comments on Universities include increasing their economic contribution and on food & drink economics is a key point. The politicians know the money matters.

I say that despite not being a fan of GM, just like I’m not a fan of battery farmed chicken, but blanket exclusion of a technology rather than reviewing any output from it on a case by case basis just seems wrong.

Ah – because it makes money it must be right?

Like the O&G industry that the SNP/Scottish Government are so keen on? Makes stacks of cash. Awful for the environment. When’s that going to be banned for the negative impact it will have on our clean and green country?

I think the ban makes a lot of sense, on three fronts.

Firstly: lets not forget the most important thing in all of this, discarding all of the agri-business arguments for a wee minute….

Food.

This is also about growing crops to feed people and industries, and to export elsewhere.

Scotland has decided that GM crops are not needed for growing crops- and certainly, from what I know of this, they aren’t. So no need to plant them here.

Secondly: Scotland as a brand. Scotland exports vast amounts of goods abroad, and the notion that anything produced here is non-GM is attractive to importers.

Thirdly: there’s no ban on research into GM crops, they just can’t be used in Scotland. Nothing hypocritical about that as far as I can see, and also: see point 1.

Scotland has decided that GM crops are not needed for growing crops- and certainly, from what I know of this, they aren’t. So no need to plant them here.

Right now, this instant, could go either way depending on where your desired yield/environmental impact/profit sliders are set so long as you are prepared to import the majority of the food that we consume.

With climate change and other factors putting food security further up the “we are all going to die” agenda we need crops that give good consistent yield, minimise environmental impact, are compatible with current and incoming EU/national chemical/pesticide/fungicide/herbicide usage regs, can fight off pests and diseases more efficiently or last longer in storage.

Conventional breeding takes 20-30 years to get a single variety out to farmers, GM can do it in under 10, even less if appropriate germplasms and trait loci are already identified and prepared (as is currently underway). GM would allow for forward planning and, when optimised, would allow for much more rapid response to needs than breeding of any form could provide.

Secondly: Scotland as a brand. Scotland exports vast amounts of goods abroad, and the notion that anything produced here is non-GM is attractive to importers.

Much of Scotlands brand consists of selling whisky. From barley. Currently Scotland can’t produce enough high quality barley to satisfy malting requirements so imports it from Scandinavia and England. In bad years over 2/3 of barley for whisky is imported. In good years it is only 25%. As the success of brand Scotland increases so does its need for non-scottish barley (from Europe with those GMO regs that brand Scotland doesn’t like). Almost the dictionary definition of ironic. I wonder if French wine could be made with Spanish grapes and still sold as French without any reference to Spain? Obviously the French would never do this unless they wanted to sell the wine to England but my general point holds.

Oats and tweed. Now here are things Scotland can claim to produce all of that itself. All we need to do is make oatcakes, porridge and itchy fabric as popular as whisky 😉

Thirdly: there’s no ban on research into GM crops, they just can’t be used in Scotland. Nothing hypocritical about that as far as I can see, and also: see point 1.

So nothing hypocritical about commercialising GM crops (as is happening right now using SG funded research in SG institutes where the money goes back into the public purse) for use in other countries but not in our own? I’d say hypocritical and morally questionable!

I could go on and on and on. As you can probably tell I work in this general area. I have no particular pro/anti-GM leaning beyond not wanting anyone to starve to death (see earlier comments about each case on its merits). I go to conferences about global and national food security and feel sick from looking at the (best case) food shortage projections. Then I go home and see farmland being bulldozed for houses and watch ill-informed “political” debates by our glorious numpty leaders where science and forward planning beyond the next sound bite doesn’t get a look in.

I would have voted SNP had I not seen the type of people who were voting for them.

I would have voted SNP had I not seen the type of people who were voting for them.

What type are 50% of Scottish voters?

bencooper – Member
What type are 50% of Scottish voters?

😆

Not my type! Seriously though I wish King Alex would join a proper political party. He would make a great leader for the UK, instead of wasting his time fannying around trying to split it up.

Yeah, he’s mad, what’s he doing messing about in the most popular political party by head of population in the UK by far?

I think his popularity can be likened to the fact that ‘The Sun’ is the most widely read ‘newspaper’ in the UK.

The Sun explains SNP popularity? 😆

So why did everyone start voting SNP after he resigned and Nicola Sturgeon took over?

Sorry I should have said SNP popularity Mr B. In actual fact I know bugger all about politics. I just drove past a few SNP election offices at campaign time. And cringed. Having said that at least they do have election offices.

My main whinge against the GM lobby is that ieven if every crop was replaced with drought/ pest resistant gm strains, we still have a long way to go in supplying fresh drinking water for our current population.

greatbeardedone – Member
My main whinge against the GM lobby is that ieven if every crop was replaced with drought/ pest resistant gm strains, we still have a long way to go in supplying fresh drinking water for our current population.

Eh? How is it the responsibility of the GM lobby to supply fresh drinking water? Given that Scottish Water typically want to charge between £1,000 and £1,500 to install a water meter it can’t be that much of a pressing concern…

There is no evidence of significant demand for GM products by Scottish consumers

This is the bit that really wound me up, perhaps there’s no evidence because consumers aren’t aware of what produce is GM and what isn’t? It’s easy to say there’s no evidence for demand if you don;t measure it.

The GM lobby has no responsibility to supply clean water for the worlds population, BUT if they use the argument that GM crops are necessary to feed an ever increasing population without acknowledging the major problems with global water supply or even the ability for farmers to actually pay for these crops then they’re kind of putting the cart before the horse…
And that’s before we consider how to clothe or house an ever increasing population…

Water for crop use has nothing specifically to do with GM though, any crop needs water. Any group who ignores the water issue in the context of either GM or conventional agriculture are either idiots or deliberately misleading people.

GM does offer the prospect of reducing water use/tonne crop through the introduction of increased respiratory efficiency (long term) or stress tolerance (short term). Even pest/fungus/bacteria resistant varieties offer reduced average water use/tonne crop as you don’t need to plant as much land for a given yield.

World wide water shortages could be reduced dramatically if we grew the right crop in the right place at the right time. Barley and tatties in scotland now are good but potatoes are thirsty. If we have reduced rainfall (hah!) in the future due to climate change we may have to swap potato for something more drought tolerant or at least less thirsty. Look at the situation with Almonds in california or green veg/salad crops in Kenya. Madness. And Why? Because they are cash crops, nothing to do with sustainably feeding people locally or globally, neither crop is a staple and the bulk is exported. Maybe capitalism isn’t all it’s cracked up to be….. 🙄

As an aside this is a particularly interesting method of producing fresh food in hot environments, could be very useful in the future for protecting fresh water supplies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater_greenhouse

The problem is there are good and bad uses of GM technology – there needs to be a better way to distinguish between GM that’s truly helpful for humanity from that which is for the benefit of the large multinationals.

Shackleton – Member

So nothing hypocritical about commercialising GM crops (as is happening right now using SG funded research in SG institutes where the money goes back into the public purse) for use in other countries but not in our own? I’d say hypocritical and morally questionable!

Why? Genuine question. We research loads of stuff in Scotland that doesn’t have any direct application here. If the government line was “GM is evil and must be stopped” then yes, it’d be hypocritical. But despite attempts to paint them as luddites, that’s not the case is it? They’ve been very clear what the rationale is and it’s not anti-science or even anti-GM in general.

Personally, I don’t agree with it but I think there’s a legitimate concern on consumer perception. Some folks in the thread have rightly point out that it’s bollocks- frinstance as above we import barley for whiskey. But that’s missing the point, this is image/perception. And you can say “educate the public” but we export worldwide.

Personally banning GM crops is not something I would support – for many of the same reasons that Shackleton has explained.

But I’m also not naive enough to think that a political party that i support must be in 100% agreement with my own views.

Let me know when they start abstaining on government welfare bills.

Northwind – OK, I take your point about the “evil” side but I still think it is hypocritical to profit from selling GM crops to others while saying “we won’t grow them because it makes us look bad to consumers”. To me it is a bit like a drug dealer not wanting people pushing on his own street to maintain respectability. Or a catholic country exporting condoms. I think there is a difference between not being able to use something we create and not being willing but still selling it to others.

I still don’t get why the green lobby are anti-GM. Given the potential for GM to reduce water, pesticide, herbicide use and the concomitant reduced carbon footprint and soil compaction over the industrialised farming we currently have I’m surprised. Particularly as GM crops could offer the opportunity to be more “organic” than currently possible. I’m starting to think that they could be politically rather than rationally motivated……………..

I still don’t get why the green lobby are anti-GM.

because science is scary.

I think you are probably right. The politics of fear and ignorance.

You only have to look at the previous policies of the Green Party (which I accept is not the same thing as the green lobby) to see that many part of the movement are anti science.

Argh, random, delayed double post!

I am in favour of the ban. Some of the debate over gm crops may be academic though if TTIP goes ahead. John Hilary Chief executive of WAR ON WANT said in his 2015 update on TTIP chapter 4 “restrictions on genetically modified organisms ,hormone treated beef,and growth promoters are among the principal targets that business groups have identified for removal in the TTIP negotiations ” Don’t have a link to the booklet but
http://www.waronwant.org/say-no-ttip

The big question, and one that didn’t yet get answered to my satisfaction, is: why does Scotland need it?

Not the world- just Scotland.

I’ve not seen anything to convince me of this, and as some have stated already, we’re at a crossroads where we can end up in lock-step with agri-business, or not. I’d rather we didn’t- not because I’m anti-science, but because I’m troubled by the practices of large, shareholder-beholden organisations.

Just saying “trust me, I know more about this than you do”, or claiming that anyone against this is living in fearful ignorance will not change my mind.

GM has a place, but according to all I’ve read has a high cost- socially, environmentally, legally, and the companies are not run by benevolent individuals.

gordimhor – could I ask why you are in favour of a total ban? FWIW I agree with blocking TTIP and one of my reasons is the potential threat of being unable to stop the growing of certain GM crops.

Shackleton – Member

Northwind – OK, I take your point about the “evil” side but I still think it is hypocritical to profit from selling GM crops to others while saying “we won’t grow them because it makes us look bad to consumers”.

“But you may feel differently, it is your decision”. Or “Your local situation is different to ours and you may get more benefits”. Or in many cases “This strain is resistant to a pest we don’t have”. There’s nothing unusual about offering people a choice you didn’t take yourself!

There’s nothing unusual about offering people a choice you didn’t take yourself!

Yes, but by having a ban, you’re not giving farmers in Scotland a choice about what they want to use. The reaction of farmers to this would appear, on the surface anyway, to show that they weren’t consulted or listened to. By declaring that this is about image, the Government are not making it about relevance to farming or what we need or what the science says. Opinion over fact. Slippery slope.

we’re at a crossroads where we can end up in lock-step with agri-business

really, who do you think makes all of the fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides currently sold to scotland’s farmers?

according to all I’ve read has a high cost- socially, environmentally, legally, and the companies are not run by benevolent individuals

I think thats the problem, 90s scare stories about ‘Frankenfoods’ in the Sun and Daily Mail, despite being obviously bollox have left a lasting impression, while a well organised PR savvy antiGM lobby has emerged quite happy to capitalise on these fears

The fact that ‘GM Free’ is considered to be a positive marketing slogan speaks volumes about societies failure to understand the science

analysis of GM crop growth show that they lead to an increase in yield a decrease in pesticide use and a big increase in profits for farmers.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
Theres only a handful of GM cops approved for use in Europe and these crops have been studied assessed and analysed more than any other plants in the world!

Currently Im not sure that theres much that can benefit scottish crops, but the GM techniques have improved so significantly recently that the potential is huge, a blanket ban is simply shortsighted and naive

GMAgriculture has a place, but according to all I’ve read has a high cost- socially, environmentally, legally, and the companies are not run by benevolent individuals.

Fixed that for you.

EDIT – cross post with Kimbers

We are already in lockstep with agribusiness. The same companies that are developing GM are the ones who currently supply seed, etc. and supply the chemicals for pest and weed control as well. Most of the crops under development are not round-up ready varieties that tie you to a herbicide (bad GM in my opinion) but contain engineered resistance to late blight, wilts, rusts, etc. (possibly very useful GM). Please stop assuming that both types are the same.

Why does Scotland need it?
As I have already said, right now it possibly doesn’t. 20 years down the line with the effects of climate change, chemical control legislation, expanding populations, housing pressures, water use issues, emerging pathogens (exacerbated by climate change), etc. things may be very different. Breeding a new crop takes a long time, and needs to be suited to the local growing environment. GM allows a much more rapid response than conventional breeding ever would. How long do you wait before taking some kind of positive action to safeguard national food security? (FWIW growing barley isn’t part of it).

Ironically, Scotland’s green image could be even greener with the right use of GM plants as the environmental impact of agriculture could be reduced (see earlier comments). But this would rely on placing science fact before political and marketing fiction.

“But you may feel differently, it is your decision”. Or “Your local situation is different to ours and you may get more benefits”. Or in many cases “This strain is resistant to a pest we don’t have”. There’s nothing unusual about offering people a choice you didn’t take yourself!

+1 to what Kit said. The Scottish people haven’t been given the choice. Most scottish GM focuses on potato, specifically resistance to late blight. Not 100 yards from where I’m sat is a glasshouse full of GM potato plants resistant to late blight pathogen that I can already see affecting potatoes growing behind my house. But those GM potatoes are destined for Europe, the US and China as we wouldn’t be allowed to grow them. Between 2017 and 2020 the only effective chemical control agents for late blight are being withdrawn due to environmental and health concerns. It’s going to be interesting to see what happens to the Scottish potato crop over the next 10 years.

Thanks Shackleton- you make some thought-provoking points, I’ll have a think- cheers.

Shackleton – Member

The Scottish people haven’t been given the choice.

Oh comei]on[/i]. Elected government delivers on longstanding pledge and you say “we didn’t get a choice!” What level of choice would satisfy you?

Shackleton – Member

Why does Scotland need it?
As I have already said, right now it possibly doesn’t. 20 years down the line with the effects of climate change, chemical control legislation, expanding populations, housing pressures, water use issues, emerging pathogens (exacerbated by climate change), etc. things may be very different.

And future governments will be free to change policies should it prove wise.

Kit says “farmers aren’t getting a choice” but this isn’t a matter that individuals can choose- the question is a national one, you can’t sell the image of Scotland as green and natural just by having some farmers not use GM. So that also takes away choice.

(whether that’s an important choice is open for debate; it basically depends on whether you believe that the non-GM thing is a worthwhile selling point. It could very well all be bollocks. But ironically nobody seems to be tackling this, the one key point of the entire debate.)

The major difference there is permanence; this decision today can be revoked. A decision to allow GM crops today isn’t so easily reversed.

As a slight aside, and since TTIP was mentioned, AFAIK the SNP support TTIP and would only defend intrusion into NHS services. That’s at odds with protecting our cherished environment, since TTIP may/will allow multinationals to sue governments over environmental protection laws which don’t suit them.