British attitudes to genetically modified crops are still divided

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,800
7,297
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
British attitudes to genetically modified crops are still divided



According to a Farmers Weekly survey, a majority (61%) of farmers in the UK would grow genetically modified (GM) crops if it were legal to do so. However, a YouGov survey of UK consumers shows that only 21% are willing to support GM food.

The two surveys examine the attitudes of 625 independent farmers and 2,301 UK consumers, and reveal a sharp distinction between the views of farmers and consumers.

Almost half (47%) of farmers in the UK believe GM crops are a good innovation and UK agriculture should be using them to maximise output and profitability. Almost one in five (19%) say that the biggest advantages are the reduced environmental impact, and 16% say it would put them on a level playing field with farmers overseas who are already growing GM crops.

However, the majority of consumers are against the technology, and if given the choice, 67% of UK adults would prefer to buy conventional food. Less than a quarter (24%) would prefer to buy organic food and only 3% would prefer to buy genetically modified food.

In addition, only 22% of consumers believe the UK government should be promoting the adoption of GM technology, and just under half (43%) are completely against the idea. Interestingly, 41% of London consumers opposed GM food, the most compared to other regions.
Perceived public resistance

The research showed that farmers in the UK are aware of consumer attitudes towards GM crops. For those farmers not willing to grow GM crops, it was mainly due to the perceived public resistance to the technology (30%), followed by the fact that the technology is unproven and no one fully understands the long-term effects of eating GM crops (20%).

On the topic of government support, the consumer research also revealed that even though 30% of younger people (aged 18-24) were against the government promoting the adoption of GM technology in the UK, a far higher number (48%) of older respondents (40-59 years old) shared this view.

Around a third (32%) of farmers said their attitude towards GM crops had become more positive in the past 12 months, while 17% have become more negative. However, 46% of consumers said they held a negative view of GM crops and only 24% are positive towards them.

source: FoodBev.com | News | British attitudes to genetically modified crops are still divided
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
so in short, farmers want the profit and consumers won't buy it...8O

kind of an important discrepancy here
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
So the farmers put money over the health of the population and the population cares about their health more than the farmer's profit. Sounds pretty normal to me except the govt sided with the populace instead of Monsanto....that is really different in today's world.
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
farmers are just businessmen so it makes sense that it's about profit, I don't know of any business that would place public health over profit
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
it's not just about "income" it's about profit, if a business does not "profit" there's no reason to be in business...
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
farmers are just businessmen so it makes sense that it's about profit, I don't know of any business that would place public health over profit

It doesn't say they lose money growing non-GMO. It says they make bigger profits growing GMOs. That means they are profitable growing conventional crops but put greed over public health. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that those farmers for GMOs are not private but corporate managers for Monsanto.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,348
11,418
113
Low Earth Orbit
it's not just about "income" it's about profit, if a business does not "profit" there's no reason to be in business...
If you lost money doing it would you continue to give away food that you've grown?

It doesn't say they lose money growing non-GMO. It says they make bigger profits growing GMOs. That means they are profitable growing conventional crops but put greed over public health. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that those farmers for GMOs are not private but corporate managers for Monsanto.
Do you grow food? Is non-GMO profitable without tax credits or subsidies?
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
If you lost money doing it would you continue to give away food that you've grown?


Do you grow food? Is non-GMO profitable without tax credits or subsidies?
No Pete, I'm not a farmer. I certainly don't want GMO foods though and would like to see Monsanto disappear from the planet rather than control all of it's food production. Their practice of not allowing farmers to keep seed from the crop and taking their farms away if they do is criminal and should be stopped.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,348
11,418
113
Low Earth Orbit
So you're okay with Bayer and Aventis GMO crops? You can keep your seed and replant all you want. There is A LOT of misinformation out there.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
So you're okay with Bayer and Aventis GMO crops? You can keep your seed and replant all you want. There is A LOT of misinformation out there.

I like my food natural the way nature made it thanks. No, I don't support any GMOs. If you can keep your seeds then what about all the news stories stating different, or has that changed recently?
 

Christianna

Electoral Member
Dec 18, 2012
868
0
16
Luther Burbank (7 March 1849 – 11 April 1926)[1] was an American botanist, horticulturist and a pioneer in agricultural science. He developed more than 800 strains and varieties of plants over his 55-year career. Burbank's varied creations included fruits, flowers, grains, grasses, and vegetables. He developed a spineless cactus (useful for cattle-feed) and the plumcot.
Burbank's most successful strains and varieties include the Shasta daisy, the Fire poppy, the July Elberta peach, the Santa Rosa plum, the Flaming Gold nectarine, the Wickson plum, the Freestone peach, and the white blackberry. A natural genetic variant of the Burbank potato with russet-colored skin later became known as the Russet Burbank potato. This large, brown-skinned, white-fleshed potato has become the world's predominant potato in food processing.
All genetically modified, so you wouldn't eat any of those ?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,348
11,418
113
Low Earth Orbit
I like my food natural the way nature made it thanks. No, I don't support any GMOs. If you can keep your seeds then what about all the news stories stating different, or has that changed recently?
When you buy GMO seed, you sign a contract to use a 'package" of seed, fertilizer and herbicide. If you keep the seed and replant, you can't legally use the fertilizer or herbicide solds as part of the package.

It's like using non-Toyota parts on your car and calling Toyota criminals who are trying to control the auto parts and repair shops because they voided your warranty.

All genetically modified, so you wouldn't eat any of those ?
Those aren't GMO, they have no unique non-peach or plum genes.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
When you buy GMO seed, you sign a contract to use a 'package" of seed, fertilizer and herbicide. If you keep the seed and replant, you can't legally use the fertilizer or herbicide solds as part of the package.
Say what? The seed from my crop is mine isn't it? So would any left over fertilizer or herbicide I may have purchased last year. Once I purchase a product it is mine and I can do as I please with it. If Monsanto or others want a contract to keep residual control of a product after taking my money for it they can f*ck off, I'll buy elsewhere. That kind of contract should be illegal.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,348
11,418
113
Low Earth Orbit
When you buy the seed the contract states you are to sell the seed to the agent you signed on with. If you don't want to break the contract and be held liable for breaking the contract, don't sign a contract. You are a producer contracted to grow for whoever you contracted with be it Viterra, Louis Dreyfus, Agrium etc.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
When you buy the seed the contract states you are to sell the seed to the agent you signed on with. If you don't want to break the contract and be held liable for breaking the contract, don't sign a contract. You are a producer contracted to grow for whoever you contracted with be it Viterra, Louis Dreyfus, Agrium etc.

Like I said, I wouldn't sign it. That type of one-sided contract should be illegal when it comes to the food production for a nation.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,348
11,418
113
Low Earth Orbit
Like I said, I wouldn't sign it. That type of one-sided contract should be illegal when it comes to the food production for a nation.
Why? It guarantees you're crop is bought and the price set is the price your paid.

Has anyone ever died from eating a green onion?

Green onion are round-up resistant, so if a green onion gene were inserted into flax to make the flax resistant, would it make the flax a threat to life on earth?
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Why? It guarantees you're crop is bought and the price set is the price your paid.

Has anyone ever died from eating a green onion?

Green onion are round-up resistant, so if a green onion gene were inserted into flax to make the flax resistant, would it make the flax a threat to life on earth?

If a green onion gene is inserted into flax then it is no longer flax....it is a man-made facsimile of flax and I just don't trust man to make my food safely when it's all about profit.