just a quick post to let you know that you can find out more about last night's Animal Farm programme and the issues surrounding GM Food and Cloning at:
Is having the show presented by two opposing zeolots really the best way of exploring the genetic modification of our environment? I mean, far be it from me to question Giles Coren's extensive knowledge of expensive London eateries, but perhaps there are others out there somewhat better qualified to undertake a show such as Animal Farm? The biologist, Judson, on the other hand seemingly has no ability to look beyond the sexy cutting edge science to consider the social and ethical implications of such work (hats of for failing to even mention battery hens during the segment on featherless chickens). There are actually a group out there whose careers involve studying such issues, unfortunately c4 seems to have no awareness of them. Social scientists who study science just *might* be slightly more informed than Coren, and slightly less blinkered than Judson, what with spending their lifes looking at such issues (as opposed to being mates with Gordon Ramsey). Of course, this argument assumes that the channel behind Gillian Mckeith and Martin Durkin has any interest in promoting understanding and knowledge of science, rather than ratings and sensationalism. If you have an background in science, Mr Science Editor, you must be depressed indeed by the actions of your employer.
In the space of just two weeks Channel 4 have screened TWO appallingly conceived documentaries (The Great Climate Change Swindle and Animal Farm).
This was a genre (docu's) I used the think C4 did particularly well. It seems that - either standards have simply been allowed to get very sloppy as of late, or that all C4's docu content is now sanitized so as not to offend in any way government or big business (the same in most cases).
harry m is quite right.
What sort of one-sided argument is it when a hapless food critic is pitched against a GM scientist in a debate about the merits of GM foods? Also, fighting the corner of the sultry scientist sporting the gestapo boots and weird Bostonion accent, were numerous other GM-loving scientists declaiming their 'expert' opinions with gravitas, whilst on the anti-GM side there was no-one! Just Giles, who was absolutley clueless on the issue and totally out of his depth when it came to countering any of the GM scientists claims.
As in the 'Swindle' docu, some totally outrageous arguments were allowed to go without challenge, (and some of them extraordinarily dangerous to the unwitting general public), most notably the notion that GM crops like Golden Rice have been invented by 'benevolent' GM transnationals in order to 'save the world's poor from hunger'. On this, the viewing public were treated to neat, heartfelt, sound bites from 'upset' GM scientists about how unfair it was that their revolutionary 'hunger-ending' plants were being locked-away in sheds by foolish bureaucrats who don't 'get' their magical science.
Anyone, who's ever looked into hunger, famine and why it happens will tell you that for the most part, hunger and famine do NOT occur because of food shortage. There is enough produced to feed the world anually twice over. The problem is food 'availability' / distribution, and this is linked to a whole raft of socio-political problems that GM foods on the whole will do VERY LITTLE to solve. The miracle of Golden Rice, we are told, is that it will put an end to vitamin A defficiency - a chronic problem especially in India. This may be so, but is the solution to Vitamin A defficiency really to convert India's diverse rice agriculture into a monoculture? One where farmers become totally hostage to the whims and demands of the patent-holders of the seed? Where the fertilisers, pesticides etc designed for this GM crop are also exclusive to the parent company?. Where suceptibility to one disease can wipe out an entire seasons crop? And should we really expect anyone to exist on a staple diet of two bowls of ('Golden') rice per day when a more diverse diet would not only restore the Vitamin A imbalance but also promote other healths benefits? The only reason millions of Indians suffer from Vitamin A defficiency is because they're not getting it from OTHER foods, not becaus its not present in the rice! The real problem is that many farmers are no longer able to produce the diversity of food they themselves (and their families) need because they have been pressed into turning over their land to cash crops to satisfy the demands of the IMF, and World Bank. Unfortunately this is all completely unknown to Giles Coren, and also - evidently - to the producer of Animal Farm! Or is the documentary paid for by Monsanto, Aventis and Bayer, to name a just a few of these ruthless profiteering organisations?
I too think that this programme was too intellectually unbalanced to provide useful debate. However I also wonder if that's what Marc_UK really wants, as the language in the post is not entirely consistent with reasoned debate. Examples ? "
quote:
fighting the corner of the sultry scientist sporting the gestapo boots and weird Bostonion accent, were numerous other GM-loving scientists declaiming their 'expert' opinions with gravitas"
Not very objective or scientific.
quote:
"some totally outrageous arguments were allowed to go without challenge, (and some of them extraordinarily dangerous to the unwitting general public), most notably the notion that GM crops like Golden Rice have been invented by 'benevolent' GM transnationals in order to 'save the world's poor from hunger".
A "notion" is not the same as a "totally outrageous argument"; I don't recall anyone in the programme suggesting that the companies are making GMs to be "benevolent". They are in business to make profits and that is a fact of life.
quote:
"Anyone, who's ever looked into hunger, famine and why it happens will tell you that for the most part, hunger and famine do NOT occur because of food shortage".
Indeed but the issue of Golden rice is not about hunger but about Vitamin A deficiency.
quote:
is the solution to Vitamin A deficiency really to convert India's diverse rice agriculture into a monoculture
Er where did this non-sequitur come from and how can it be substantiated; certainly not from the rant that follows. Monsanto, Aventis and Bayer are unlikely to have paid for the programme since the Golden rice work was clearly presented by Syngenta, and yes they all have to make profits but I'm sure you have evidence for them being "ruthless profiteering organisations". I am an independent scientist with no affiliations on either side of the GM debate, but would hope for better than this.
You can dismiss what I say all you like...my post was intended as a criticism of the way C4 chose to represent the issues. If I use colourful language to express myself instead of "intellectual and scientific 'reason', then that's because I'm expressing a sentiment, not an abstract for a doctoral thesis.
We indeed witnessed 'incredulous' scientists doing their 'piece to camera' about how thier science was being ignored at the expense of the worlds poor and needy. Splitting hairs over the syntax of my comments doesn't change that. Many GM companies have spent fortunes formulating sweet-sounding propaganda about the work they're doing, spinning it as benevolent so as to win over the general public.
Actually, I believe Golden Rice is owned by an agribusiness corporation called Astra Zeneca. My point was general, and I named those GM companies most widely recognised. Again, splitting hairs over this and patronising me for my 'non-sequiturs' (as you put it) doesn't take away the truth of the matter, and yes...all the evidence suggests they are nothing but ruthless proifteering organisations.
Personally I think you're too used to talking to other scientists. If your saying that no-one's opinion is valid because it's delivered in colloquial language or because you spotted a non-sequitur, then that goes a long way towards explaining the GM problem.
No, I'm saying that by using the words you do instead of putting forward arguments based on evidence and reasoning that you are not advancing the debate. In your own words you are "expressing a sentiment", but you put it forward as an argument against the science of GMs. As a sentiment it's fine, as a contribution to the debate it doesn't move the subject forward. You acknowledge in your last paragraph that what you said was your opinion, which of course we are all entitled to. However, surely one's opinions more valid when informed by evidence than "sentiment"? Syngenta is the Corporate name of the organisation formed from the merger of Novartis and Astra-Zeneca. Maybe you don't believe me but I'll reiterate that I have no fixed view on the goodness or badness of GMs, but have a professional interest in the evidence.
I agree with what you say. I have read Colin Tudge's latest book, and he says to things relevant to this issue. Firstly that vitamin A deficiency has largely been caused by the adoption of monoculture in some third-world areas, and that the solution is for less monoculture not more (any green or red vegetable has beta-carotene). Secondly that people can get all of the protein they need from starchy staples like rice, even without the addition of some legume. In the past the amount of protein that people needed was overestimated and now science tells us we don't need much.
It is a question of education. Teach people the importance of cabbage leaves or carrots. Teach people that they don't need chicken or fish, GM or otherwise. People like to eat chicken and fish, but this is nothing to do with 'feeding the world'.
One geneticist on the programme said something like 'I am a geneticist, so I sought a geneticist's answer to the problem'. Experts often don't understand the issues.
quote:
Originally posted by Marc_UK: In the space of just two weeks Channel 4 have screened TWO appallingly conceived documentaries (The Great Climate Change Swindle and Animal Farm).
This was a genre (docu's) I used the think C4 did particularly well. It seems that - either standards have simply been allowed to get very sloppy as of late, or that all C4's docu content is now sanitized so as not to offend in any way government or big business (the same in most cases).
harry m is quite right.
What sort of one-sided argument is it when a hapless food critic is pitched against a GM scientist in a debate about the merits of GM foods? Also, fighting the corner of the sultry scientist sporting the gestapo boots and weird Bostonion accent, were numerous other GM-loving scientists declaiming their 'expert' opinions with gravitas, whilst on the anti-GM side there was no-one! Just Giles, who was absolutley clueless on the issue and totally out of his depth when it came to countering any of the GM scientists claims.
As in the 'Swindle' docu, some totally outrageous arguments were allowed to go without challenge, (and some of them extraordinarily dangerous to the unwitting general public), most notably the notion that GM crops like Golden Rice have been invented by 'benevolent' GM transnationals in order to 'save the world's poor from hunger'. On this, the viewing public were treated to neat, heartfelt, sound bites from 'upset' GM scientists about how unfair it was that their revolutionary 'hunger-ending' plants were being locked-away in sheds by foolish bureaucrats who don't 'get' their magical science.
Anyone, who's ever looked into hunger, famine and why it happens will tell you that for the most part, hunger and famine do NOT occur because of food shortage. There is enough produced to feed the world anually twice over. The problem is food 'availability' / distribution, and this is linked to a whole raft of socio-political problems that GM foods on the whole will do VERY LITTLE to solve. The miracle of Golden Rice, we are told, is that it will put an end to vitamin A defficiency - a chronic problem especially in India. This may be so, but is the solution to Vitamin A defficiency really to convert India's diverse rice agriculture into a monoculture? One where farmers become totally hostage to the whims and demands of the patent-holders of the seed? Where the fertilisers, pesticides etc designed for this GM crop are also exclusive to the parent company?. Where suceptibility to one disease can wipe out an entire seasons crop? And should we really expect anyone to exist on a staple diet of two bowls of ('Golden') rice per day when a more diverse diet would not only restore the Vitamin A imbalance but also promote other healths benefits? The only reason millions of Indians suffer from Vitamin A defficiency is because they're not getting it from OTHER foods, not becaus its not present in the rice! The real problem is that many farmers are no longer able to produce the diversity of food they themselves (and their families) need because they have been pressed into turning over their land to cash crops to satisfy the demands of the IMF, and World Bank. Unfortunately this is all completely unknown to Giles Coren, and also - evidently - to the producer of Animal Farm! Or is the documentary paid for by Monsanto, Aventis and Bayer, to name a just a few of these ruthless profiteering organisations?
I have to admit that I missed the first Animal Farm and had my first dose last night; I found it to be remarkable; the scientific advancements; the way that they could manipulate nature, etc. However, from what I can gather, which was confirmed by the recent forum debate, there is a lot that can be criticised about the shows content and implementation. I’m no scientist like the rest of you seem to be (apart from Coren) but I also have another point to raise: the animal’s welfare.
Coren seems to think animals are meant to be killed and eaten as nature intended, he mentions organic food on the C4 website, but I find it hard to believe that being a food critic he has the pleasure of consuming only food that he knows the history of. Wouldn’t it be more common that what he’s eating has been intensively farmed? Injected with growth hormones and sent to the abattoir to be butchered as quickly as possible, more often than not inhumanely. In all seriousness, the animals on Animal Farm seem generally quite well looked after compared to that of the damned, fluffy critters on their somber excursion to the slaughterer’s knife. Realistically speaking they’re all going to end up in the same place, it’s just a matter of where and at who’s hand.
And Judson with the contradictory heart of steel; one minute smiling as she pats the little calves and piglets, but within minutes is discussing how great it would be to have a flock of sheep carrying spare human organs for us incase ours fail, rearing and ready to be “harvested”. Are we talking about a field of crops here? Apart from common sense, there are scientific facts which suggest that there are significant differences between non-human animals (don’t forget what we are) and plants. One has a nervous system and will show physical signs of pain and fear by such actions as moving away and, depending on its abilities, audio expression. Questions like Judson’s: “how long until these cows start to feel uncomfortable?” As they stand locked into metal restraints, blood being pumped from their necks, fidgeting and salivating profusely- it doesn’t take a biologist!
I’m a realist and know that the testing/research will continue and I also know that humans reside too easily to the notion: ignorance is bliss. The show lacked the intelligent opposition of a veterinarian who has compassion for the Animal Farm inhabitants and an interest in animal rights in relation to use as research. They can’t speak for themselves, at least give them the respect of someone who gives a rats.
Kerry E, I really enjoyed reading your post. I felt appalled when watching the program and I focused especially on points that you yourself brought up. Like the scientist patting the calves one minute and discussing them being butchered for human organs the next! or what you said about the cows..like you i noticed how uncomfortable they were and they were salivating profusely. Later on you could also the the cows stepping back in fear when the camera approached them too closely! how far do we need to go before understanding that animals experience pain and fear just like us? The way those chicken were treated was incredible, but even more incredible were comments like 'making featherless chicken is focusing on their welfare!!?" really?? i thought that it was because FIRST you genetically modified chickens so that they grown faster (greedy chickens). These chickens have an abnormally high heart rate (300 or more) which makes them 'hot' and could lead to their death..so..solution! create featherless chickens..that way you can have the greedy chickens and less the amount of them that will die! great news for animal welfare! how disguting are such comments!!! we create problems then solve them by creating further problems! does anyone else feel shame at being human when seeing these programs?
While I agree it's not a scientific debate in the traditional sense because the Food Critic(?) is ill equipped to argue, he does fulfill the role of the average chap in the street, who, for the most part, has been filled with not an insubstantial amount of counter-propaganda.
The idea that GM crops, Stem Cell research, Microbiology, DNA research etc., etc., are essentially the devils play-ground is a point of view promoted by much of the mainstream media and it's kind of liberating to see the counter propaganda. If that's what it is. Certainly seeing many of the clearly pseudo-scientific myths and folklore about such science being dispelled is actually quite good to watch. Often one feels that such science is viewed in a manner tantamount to witchcraft in the middle-ages.
At least it stimulates debate and gets a much needed rise out of the anti-globalization groups, who somehow, have manage to give the appearance of hijacking every facet of society and seemingly speak for everyone.
As for the "swindle show"? I thought that was great too, for much the same reasons.
I firmly believe that an intelligent balanced societies media should allow for all sides of an argument to be presented. Whether people agree with it or not. After all - we're not communist.
The "Environment" is a serious issue, I totally agree, but the whole "Eco movement" smacks just a little of the dot.com era. i.e. Everyone is jumping on the band wagon. And when every tax, every advert, every device, every company, man, woman and child is being stamped with a 'green' or 'not green' certificate (or so it seems)then it's good to see the counter argument again getting some air time.
As for the lady in the Animal Farm series. The next Carol Vorderman? Thinking mans strumpet Especially since Ms Vorderman has gone all Posh Spice.
I'm not into this field but I've got great admiration for those who pushing science beyond recognition. From Animal Farm and other sources I can Only bow my head to scientists who're already capable to do things that not so long ago seemed like from fiction books.You,British,can only be proud of your goverment that made some decisions in the past,which make Britain leading in this area.And this area of stem cells and genes is ,by no doubt,the most exciting and the most important in science altogether.For me,some things they do,looks like a miracle.At the moment they working with pets and animals,but that will definitely transform on people one day.This stuff is definitely going to change lifes of many.
Best wishes to those who contribute to this biggest shakeup!
everyone on this program is psychotic including the host animals just like us they have feelings and emotions they are not "meat" or material for experiments
But I'd like to reply to barabosa007: you believe that we should all be proud, but at what cost? How can I be proud of a government, which supports an elite group of scalpel-happy scientists to hack up our fluffy friends and play God. I'm also certain that the experiments we see on TV are edited into "PG" rated versions for public viewing and we don't see the real horrors that are actually taking place in their Animal "Freak Show" Farm.
Can you imagine the experiments that go wrong? The clone animals that are born twisted, the dissections that are conducted without the proper anesthetic, etc.
Do basic humane rights not apply when we as "proud" human beings have a selfish cause? We fear disease, death and the demise of our loved ones so much that we omit to remember that we are meant to be evolved and compassionate. As the stronger race we’re meant to care for the weaker, not use them so carelessly for our own gains. As ardina2007 has already referred to, that certainly doesn’t make me “proud” to be a Briton, nor human.
Barabosa007 quote: “At the moment they working with pets and animals,but that will definitely transform on people one day.”
Have you seen the movie 'The Island?' Where will these "advancemants" end?
I really enjoyed this programme. I had no idea that much of what we saw is even possible, and I think that showing these things was all that the programme intended.
The adverse reactions to this seem to me to be expecting far more than I would consider appropriate, in so far as they attack the programme. The programme was primarily just demonstrations of 'there it is'. The debate about the things shown is appropriate to these messageboards and elsewhere, not within the programme itself. I am tired of rewriting this. I think that I have mangled what I am trying to say.
Originally posted by Arthur_Penney: The adverse reactions to this seem to me to be expecting far more than I would consider appropriate, in so far as they attack the programme. The programme was primarily just demonstrations of 'there it is'. The debate about the things shown is appropriate to these messageboards and elsewhere, not within the programme itself.
You mean we should give up on expecting TV to prompt any debate these days, and just be happy that it produces a nice display of pretty colours? The reason I'm so annoyed by this show is that it is a fascinating, and very complex area, that airbrush tv like this does nothing to explore.
You say- 'The programme was primarily just demonstrations of 'there it is'.' Again, nonsense. If the show was purely to present some scientific discoveries (al la 'Tomorrow's World') then what is Giles' presence for? Furthermore, this is how C4's own website describes it - "Down on Channel 4's Animal Farm, scientist Olivia Judson and food critic Giles Coren take a journey of discovery through the strange new world of GM and the tangle of ethical and moral issues that surrounds it."
As for the Will2097's argument that its good because it provides a pro-science account, I agree its good to see a scientist's point of view, but the show is so intellectually emaciated that its nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory for science. The questions that scientists should have to be aware of, such the social and ethical dimensions of growing GM monocultures in Africa and Asia, are completely missed. Instead we have Giles and his withering critique - 'its not natural!'.
Genetic engineering has a million benefits I have just one reason against it yet any figure multiplied by zero is zero Technology is supposed to support human existence, whereas if genes are written by ‘all’ the conditions of nature isn’t ‘quoting out of context’ man outlawing himself?
The temperature on the Earth’s surface is within ±50ºC It’s a very small range in the thermometer of the universe but just the home for us, the creature of 37ºC, to survive Believers wonder at God’s co-ordination, yet it’s only nature All existing species are adapters to this condition; those otherwise either never had a chance, or have been eliminated
Should God, seized by a whim, play at ‘planet engineering’ rearranging the order of the solar system, what would happen? If Earth were one step inwards to the position of Venus the mighty 480ºC would evaporate us into clouds If Earth were one step outwards to the position of Mars the minus 140ºC would cast us into super-ice
Earth is in our genes! Genes are nature’s vertical memory and horizontal logic The process of adapting and eliminating carves different species while millions of special codes are millions of locks and doors – shutting foreign viruses out with DNA incompatibility So we don’t catch cats’ flu, nor do dogs our hepatitis
On the other hand, manufactured genes come suddenly sharing no responsibility of history and short-circuiting species When transgenic pig-organs are successfully implanted into humans pigs’ viruses also leap over millions of years to join us We would be exposed to innumerable biological weapons AIDS and SARS may just be a humble beginning
The biological world is a self-contained all-dimensional computer Messing up one sequence could throw the whole system into chaos which means God would have to restart it all over! So, He would rather man even play with planets than modify genes: ‘If you must, My children, please modify Mine first To recreate the world, I’d need enhanced energy and perseverance’
You obviously think that anti-globalisation groups / thinkers are a good target for mocking. Well, the era of globalisation has done almost nothing to narrow the gap between the rich and poor, to improve the lot of third world countries and its citizens, to engender a safer world for us all to live in..... perhaps the anti-globalisers have something important to say?? The world is now run by giant corporations. Is that what you want?
By the way, I thought that The Great Swindle COULD have been a good programme, and I was interested in some of the 'other'science put forward, which challenged me. However, I say it was appaling conceived because of some of the scandalous and downright idiotic arguents postulated by the scriptwriting team, such as ...the Global Warming movement being a cynical ploy devised by powerful western governments to enable them to maintain political and economic dominance over lesser-developed nations. What nonsense! That's what the globalisation puppet-masters hopes (and manages)to acheive, led by USA Inc. I didn't see Bush clamouring to sign-up to the Kyoto protocol or even recognise global warming in any way until very recently. Are we to suppose that's because he cares about developing nations in Africa and Asia, or because he and his cronies make a shed-load of money and political capital out of the oil business? You don't need to be Einstein to work that one out!
Especially since Ms Vorderman has gone all Posh Spice.