Greenpeace has lost its moral compass

The problem with golden rice is the problem of most gmos that the company developing it wants to take the right to grow away from the countries it is grown in.
I know it's not golden rice, but how many of you eat pink lady apples?
uk.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A7x9QXhpNVlS0TgABElLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTE0cHZmbzJiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDOQRjb2xvA2lyZAR2dGlkA1VLQzAwMl83Mg--/SIG=12d80gt4g/EXP=1381606889/**http%3a//patentaz.com/1143/trademark-fight-moves-to-apples/
Although they were developed in Australia over 30 years ago, the US has now patented the brand and is complaining about other countries importing the brand into America. Same sort of thing happens with gmos in many countries. The companies developing the plants want to make as much money as they can for their shareholders.
It's interesting that Nestle was the first company approached to develop golden rice, but turned the chance down. Don't know why.

www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/foodindustrysectorreport/geneticmodificationoffood.aspx

GM food from Ethical Consumer.
In this country many restaurants use GM oil in cooking and baking, but do not always put it on the menu, which they should.
When I had the guest house in York,I went to an exhibition at Scarborough where a food standards officer gave a talk on GM. There were about half a dozen of us there from the whole of the YTB area.
All of us were using organic food, and we were told that we were breaking the law by saying that we were not using GM food as far as we were aware. We could only say that if we were sure and could produce test results. Yet we were the only ones who were interested in what the law said.

Apologies to these who don't want yet another link, but for those who are interested in knowing a little more about Patrick Moore, here's something else. I feel quite sickened by this man.

www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/02/sumatra-rainforest-destruction-patrick-moore

George Monbiot certainly gets people wound up. He has an interesting take on fracking and windturbines. David Bellamy lives about 15 minutes drive from us, so I often read what he's up to.
Monbiot says that we take the views of those people we believe in and work backwards with out proof, dismissing those who disagree with us as irrational. Certainly a lot of people seem to do that on here.
www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/aug/30/fracking-climate-change-fossil-fuels-debate

The Guardian article is worrying. Sounds like he has lost his way too.

jend, re your post about Pink Lady apples (I don't eat many apples but I do like a Pink Kady now and again), it seems to me, from what you say, that the problem is patenting law not GM.

Lady even

I like Gala.

I agree Jendurham people need to find their own truth, be their own guru, not blindly listen to the views of others. I think this is a huge problem with the way people think. They follow one particular party, religion or dogma etc and can't see there are other facts. You can pick a mile on GN those who would be easily enticed into a sect.

I very much doubt that we'd all pick the same 'sectable' people were we to indulge in such an exercise.

Wouldn't it depend on the kind of sect one had in mind? Or are all sects of similar construction?

I wouldn't know. Never belonged to one.

Unless you count Greenpeace

The way people treat you is a statement about how they are as a human being. It's not a statement about you.

Thatbags, about Pink Lady apples you obviously did not think it through far enough.
The companies who make GM food want to patent the product. All novel foods can be patented.

Which still suggests to me, jend, that it is current patenting law that is the problem, not the food. If GM (or other) foods couldn't be patented (presumably as new 'inventions'), the companies that patent foods wouldn't be able to prevent others from growing the same food, would they?

thatbags Patenting law? No, patenting laws in the plural – a hugely complex global issue and it is unlikely that there will ever be sufficient simplification for a consensus. Incidentally, it is perfectly possible to patent a natural something that is far from new. There have been instances of traditional medicines and foods that have been used by some peoples for generations being patented by business outsiders. The traditional users may no longer grow and use them.

Which further suggests to me that patenting laws are the main problem when it comes to food production, at least when it comes to who decides who can grow what.

I think people are quite right to object to practices that prevent them from growing traditional foods, genetically modified or not. That's a separate issue from objecting to the food itself.

I don't think it is (a separate issue). With something as big as introducing a completely new crop into a country, you have to look at all aspects and then weigh them up. You can't go trampling over people, especially when they have valid points to raise.

I still think golden rice would be good.

Aka that's an interesting thing you said there, about how people treat others. Slightly off subject though!

It could be a thread in itself.

Golden rice isn't a "completely different" crop from what people are growing already. It's a slightly modified rice. They grow rice already.

Agree about trampling. Are rice growers being forced to grow golden rice? I haven't got the impression that that was the case.

Yes you can't go trampling over people, it makes me angry with all the information at our fingertips that anyone would think it is okay for the likes of Monsanto to profit from poor farmers in third world countries.

Here are two links from Aljazeera, the first about the farmers in India who have committed suicide.- Seeds of Suicide The second article - Dirty White Gold Monsanto boasting about it being a sustainable agriculture company.

The price of seed in India has jumped 8,000 per cent. I would very much know how that is helping to feed starving children in India - baggy JessM?

Faye it just gets worse.

Oh there is more to come Aka.