Yeah, an accident... we believe that one...

... who is your marketing company? BP or Monsanto?

Here.

I rather unashamedly include the (partially edited) response from my friend TF as he summed it up very succinctly...

This is about as accidental as Google collecting payload data by 'mistake' in 30 countries. It's also the technique mentioned in 'The World According to Monsanto' re. Uruguay - release the GM by 'accident', then where it's already spread, a ban is pointless.

The new UK 'environment' minister was a agro-business lobbyist for 15 years? (and her husband) Apparently she's in favour of GM - what a surprise - but only in the 'right' circumstances - here.

The pro-GM lobbying is shocking. On BBC World, they had a spot whereby they falsely claimed that the Indian government was about to approve the GM aubergeine, as the answer to world hunger. I googled, and could only find what I already knew, namely that in Feb, the Indian goverment BLOCKED the GM aubergeine. The BBC then (falsely) claimed that scientists were in favour of GM - and cut immediately to a guy in a white coat, who was actually the owner of a seed company. Thereby giving the impression that his pro-GM stance was impartial scientific truth!

However, the strangest part of all, is the claim that 'GM is safe'. While it could be the case that individual GM manipulations are 'safe' (whatever that is quite supposed to mean), GM is a technique, and can be applied for good or bad. If you believe that a GM manipulation can cause wheat to become drought-resistant, you also have to accept that this - or another - GM manipulation could induce cancer.

So while it's logically viable to claim that all GM is inherently 'unsafe', it make no logical sense at all to say blanket-wise that 'GM is safe'. What the GM proponents should be claiming is 'not all GM is necessarily unsafe'. I wonder why they don't take this line? :-)Of course, the most hypocritical argument is that (holding small onion to eye), GM will feed starving children (sob) in the 3rd world. Because how else are we going to support 9 billion people? Which is assuming that the sole bottleneck to increased food production is poor-yielding crop varieties. What about scarce water supplies, Peak Phosphorous, depleted soil, global warming? And even if 9 billion people could be fed - for how long? What if they all have 4 children?