Just a simple question.

I wonder if your descendents will be as grateful?…

Not having any descendants, it is of zero importance to me.

But if you are happy that your descendants continue to ingest a lot of noxious chemicals for fear of the unknown bogeyman that is GMO then I am happy with your choice. Why shouldn’t I be? Even though I rather feel there may be a better way.

Moggy

Maybe the wrong phrase for the notion, but I mean as in only having the planet for a short period of time before ‘handing it on’ to your children, grand children, great grandchildren and on into the future. What we do with the planet now may not affect us in the short term, but may have a disastrous result for future generations.

No doubt someone will know the correct phrase…

Custodians of the planet? What does that mean, in reality? We live here -we have evolved from single cell organisms and doubtless we will be exterminated by our our own or or others evolution. We do not hold the planet in custody for anyone but our own race.

It will ultimately die with or without us.

There is always Soylent Green….

Which would be really nice if there was some way, other than buying premium priced organic veg, that we could avoid ingesting all the pesticides, herbicides and fungicides that are currently sprayed in huge quantities on the non-GMO veg that we now consume.

If GMO can reduce or eliminate any or all of this, it gets my vote as being the least worst option.

Moggy

It is the price we and our descendants are paying and will pay for a burgeoning world population trying to feed its self from finite and increasingly exhausted agricultural land.

GM produce ? I’m reminded that, if a thing can go wrong; it will.

It may get your vote, but don’t forget, we are only the custodians of this planet – I wonder if your descendents will be as grateful?…

Thank you Alan. Of course I remember Derek Cooper very well – his knowledge of and passion for Scottish malts was considerable.

I totally endorse Moggy’s last sentence. The misinformation and lack of knowledge about GMO is one of the tragedies of the times we live in.

By whom and it what context? And what does the phrase “controlling the worlds food production” mean?

The late Derek Cooper: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/20/derek-cooper
His programme about food production must have been over 20yrs ago. This website touches on the same
subject though.
http://www.econexus.info/publication/agropoly-handful-corporations-control-world-food-production.

I have no way of knowing how valid the comments are.

Which would be really nice if there was some way, other than buying premium priced organic veg, that we could avoid ingesting all the pesticides, herbicides and fungicides that are currently sprayed in huge quantities on the non-GMO veg that we now consume.

If GMO can reduce or eliminate any or all of this, it gets my vote as being the least worst option.

Moggy

I’m not happy with the march of GMO – I’m not some gullible eco-warrior either.

There is only one reason these companies are creating these GM crops – money. And the people calling for any EU bans against the use of GMO are usually getting well paid by the likes of Monsanto – either directly or “indirectly”. They roll out the argument that it will ensure food for poor areas of the world, but I do not buy it. Nor will the poor farmers when they stick the price of the seed up…

I read that field trials of GM crops HAS shown that non-GM crops can be affected up to a distance of 20 miles from the trial sites. Hard to accept that farmers not wishing to use GM products for whatever reason (cost/ethics) will be at risk from the modified crop spreading.

GMO has crept into all sorts of food stuff in the US – I have probably eaten it. Maybe there is a lot of FUD about GM but I’d prefer to have some control over what I consume. Call me old fashioned….

My question was half rhetorical as I am well aware of the misinformation and half truths pumped out by the media and saddened but not that surprised to see our “beloved” broadcaster in the mix as well.

I honestly think a small minority would actually be happier living in the Stone Age. Or at least they imagine they would be!

Nobody really knows, but if you go onto the websites followed by the gullible eco-warriors you’ll find all manner of this sort of ill-reasoned rubbish

“Big Pharma” is another favourite target for suppressing the knowledge that sticking a daisy up your bum cures every known cancer so they can sell their highly profitable cures instead. (I paraphrase)

Moggy

By whom and it what context? And what does the phrase “controlling the worlds food production” mean?

Who or what is Monsato the devil incarnet ?
.

Some years ago, on the BBC’s Food programme, it was said that they were one of three companies who
controlled 70% of the worlds food production.

http://chemicalfreelife.tumblr.com/post/28131121945

Who or what is Monsato the devil incarnet ?
I could google it but cant be sure of the answer, so the ones who know on here will help I am sure of that.

I do agree about the constant meddling.

You rang?

Rather than back covering, it was just another of the conspiracy theories mentioned in the original post.
I personally have never heard of a school where sport of any kind, especially competitive sport, was ‘banned’ to save feelings. I know of schools where the physical education was not given high priority because of other curriculum pressures but sports fixtures always took place, often in the staff’s spare time after school or weekends.

I do agree about the constant meddling.

Playing fields were mostly sold off to raise money, not because of any antipathy towards competitive games.

Not what was said at the time; a little back-covering going on, perhaps.

Regarding spelling, I think you may be behind the times.

What is happening now is of little concern. My point is they can’t resist meddling, and telling the peasants what’s good for them, then, when it’s proven to be a load of old toffee, others have to come along behind and clear up the mess.

This is not intended as political comment, even though political parties are mentioned in passing, just comment on the points raised above

We had school playing fields sold off, because losing wasn’t good for the little dears’ psyche, so sport should be banned; we’ve had spelling decreed as passé, so some school-leavers can’t construct a job application letter to save their lives. .

Playing fields were mostly sold off to raise money, not because of any antipathy towards competitive games.

From the Telegraph,

huge damage has been done across Britain. A staggering 10,000 playing fields were sold off under the 1979-1997 Conservative governments; their Labour successors sold, on average, more than 20 a year; the Coalition is running at 17 annually. Often these latest were for understandable reasons, such as when schools merged or closed. Two years ago, however, the then education secretary Michael Gove had to apologise after The Telegraph revealed he had sold off more than the Coalition admitted, at times overruling official advice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/schoolsports/11092344/Is-it-game-over-for-school-playing-fields.html

Regarding spelling, I think you may be behind the times. Spelling is at the core of the national curriculum, and one of the (few) good things about the recent changes to GCSE and A level specifications are the greater emphasis on spelling and grammar.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239784/English_Appendix_1_-_Spelling.pdf

Not that academies, private schools or free schools have to follow the national curriculum