Scientist who claimed GM crops could solve Third World hunger admits he got it wrong

[nosmokes]

original-dailymail

Sir David made an "honest mistake." I wonder how much an honest mistake cost these days?
--###--

Scientist who claimed GM crops could solve Third World hunger admits he got it wrong

By SEAN POULTER - » Last updated at 23:50pm on 18th December 2007

A claim that GM technology is helping deliver higher crop yields in Africa was wrong, the Government's chief scientist has been forced to admit.

Professor Sir David King recently caused uproar with his assertion that GM crops could help feed the hungry of the Third World.

He called on the Government to campaign for the adoption of GM technology and said the Daily Mail's campaigning stance against it was holding up progress.

Yesterday however he was accused of "letting off blasts of hot and sometimes rancid air" after it emerged his latest GM crop claims were wildly innaccurate.

Dr Richard Horton, the editor of medical journal The Lancet said Sir David took his faith in science into "the realms of totalitarian paranoia".

Writing in his online blog he said: 'If he lost the debate on GM, it was because his arguments failed to convince people.

~snip~
.
.
.
complete article here

[soothsayer]

1. death to monsatan!

down with GM crops!

[Skidmore]

2. Hunger has less to do with the crops to be grown in this world than

fact that food is treated as a commodity and its distribution is determined by wealth. We didn't need new species of food. We need new and more fair distribution systems.

[Scribe]

4. Food is a commodity. What else could it possibly be?

It is the original commodity, in fact, People who grow food have always wanted to be paid for growing it. Food will always be a commodity subject to the law of supply and demand. At present, there are worrisome indications that human population growth is out-pacing world food production.

That means the price of food will go up. No new distribution system will be capable of obscuring the basic fact that human population expansion cannot continue at the present rate without substantial increases in food production.

[bettyellen]

9. there's currently an over production of food. it just doen't get to those who need it most.

because they are poor. it's not how much that's needed that's the crucial issue- it's where it's needed.

[TheWraith]

10. It's not cost, it's infrastructure.

Food is very cheap, to the point where we in the US have to subsidize our food production to keep farmers in business. World hunger isn't caused by people getting out-bid for food. It's because of the failure or disruption of local food supplies and the inability to move food from where its plentiful to where it's needed. How do you move 50,000 pounds of corn from Iowa to the rural areas of the Congo, exactly? If you want to solve world hunger, invest in highways, and airports, as well as irrigation and stabilization.

[LeftishBrit]

3. Warning: This is from the Daily Mail

It is a very right-wing, unreliable tabloid. Imagine a cross between Fox News, the National Enquirer and Rush Limbaugh's talk-shows.

See the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2174684

That being said, I agree with Skidmore's view about the causes of world hunger.

[KittyWampus]

7. Here's the heart of the matter- King cited example where NATURAL methods to control

pests were used and then extrapolated that to mean that GM crops could yield same result.

"The chief scientist had used the example of crop trials around Lake Victoria in Kenya to boast how useful GM farming could be in feeding the Third World.
He claimed scientists had discovered the identity of a chemical in food plants that attract pests such as root borers.

Sir David suggested it had been possible to "snip" the gene responsible for this chemical out of the food crop and then insert it into grass that is grown alongside it. He said the pests then eat the grass rather than the food. He told Radio Four's Today programme: "You interplant the grass with the grain and it turns out the crop yield goes up 40-50 per cent. A very big advantage."

The only problem is Sir David failed to accurately describe the research in Africa, which did not involve the use of any GM technology at all.
The research actually involved finding plants that can be cultivated alongside food crops and provide a natural solution to boosting yields.
Researchers identified one set of plants that naturally deters parastic weeds, while another set, a species of grass, attracts the pests.
The net result of this "push and pull" regime is that the food crop can grow more easily and produce a much higher yield.

Green pressure groups are demanding a public apology from Sir David, whose credibility has been shaken by the error.
Director of the GM Freeze campaign, Pete Riley, said: "We find it quite staggering that Professor King made such misleading comments.

"The 'push pull' project in fact illustrates how the problem pest and weeds which plague farmers in the Global South can be tackled by well researched crop management techniques.
"These have the advantage of being cheap to apply and being free of the potential environmental and health impacts of GM crops or pesticide usage.

"If Africa is to become more self reliant in food supply without locking farmers into very expensive GM seeds and their associated herbicides then the Government need to be funding more projects like 'push pull'."

[TZ]

8. Yes, I make sure to get all my science from Bill O'Reilly

myself...:sarcasm:
And lets also remember that one scientists OPINION does not make it the truth. Or perhaps everyone here thinks that becuase Dr. William Grey says Global Warming isn't a problem thats the truth?

[KittyWampus]

12. actually, if you gave a crap about the truth, you'd know that King used an example

to bolster the case for GM, when that very example had absolutely NOTHING to do with GM and everything to do with natural methods of controlling pests. Natural methods which are less expensive and leave Monsato out of the loop.

From the article (reposting AGAIN for DU'ers such as yourself):

The chief scientist had used the example of crop trials around Lake Victoria in Kenya to boast how useful GM farming could be in feeding the Third World.

He claimed scientists had discovered the identity of a chemical in food plants that attract pests such as root borers.

Sir David suggested it had been possible to "snip" the gene responsible for this chemical out of the food crop and then insert it into grass that is grown alongside it. He said the pests then eat the grass rather than the food.

He told Radio Four's Today programme: "You interplant the grass with the grain and it turns out the crop yield goes up 40-50 per cent. A very big advantage."

The only problem is Sir David failed to accurately describe the research in Africa, which did not involve the use of any GM technology at all.

The research actually involved finding plants that can be cultivated alongside food crops and provide a natural solution to boosting yields.

Researchers identified one set of plants that naturally deters parastic weeds, while another set, a species of grass, attracts the pests.

The net result of this "push and pull" regime is that the food crop can grow more easily and produce a much higher yield.

Green pressure groups are demanding a public apology from Sir David, whose credibility has been shaken by the error.

Director of the GM Freeze campaign, Pete Riley, said: "We find it quite staggering that Professor King made such misleading comments.

"The 'push pull' project in fact illustrates how the problem pest and weeds which plague farmers in the Global South can be tackled by well researched crop management techniques.

"These have the advantage of being cheap to apply and being free of the potential environmental and health impacts of GM crops or pesticide usage.

"If Africa is to become more self reliant in food supply without locking farmers into very expensive GM seeds and their associated herbicides then the Government need to be funding more projects like 'push pull'."

[nosmokes]

13. That doesn't change the reportage of the fact another GMO

proponent is using dishonest and underhanded tactics trying to push a technology that no one asked for and no one wants and no one benefits from except the people that sell it. The safety of the technology is questionable at best, and it's negative environmental and social impact is huge.

[ixion]

5. indeed. Quite the opposite, professor dumbass

GM seed has contaminated our seed supply, with potentially devastating results.

[Subdivisions]

6. GM = Genetically Modified. Almost without

exception, anytime I see an article about "genetically modified" foods the term "genetically modified" is abbreviated to "GM". And the first thing I think of when I see "GM" is General Motors.

I don't think there is anything remotely palatable about General Motors corn or wheat.

[windoe]

11. D'oh!

Don't mess with Mother Nature!!!!!

[enki23]

14. it may be hyperbole to claim GM crops will solve world hunger.

but the knee-jerk anti "GM" bullshit here leaves me shaking my head at least as often.

[Pastiche423]

16. You think it's safe?

Then you eat it and only it.

[Recursion]

18. Fine: if it's safe, why are they so resistant to labeling it?

If it's so safe why don't they admit when they use it?

[nosmokes]

19. You're damn right I'm anti GMO.

Farmers never asked for it. Greengrocers never asked for it. Consumers never asked for it. It is, as Vandana Shiva so eloquently and succinctly put it, a solution in search of a problem. So far not a single GM crop grown by farmers under real world conditions has come close to the hype of it's press release and reported performance in the closely tended conditions of the test plots. The supposed cutbacks in the use of pesticides is a myth and in fact farmers using RR seed are using far more pesticide than counterparts as weeds become tolerant of the glyphosphate based herbicide. As I stated, the only folks benefitting from the GMO craze are those involved w/ the AgBiotech industry. The rest of us are just getting our plants contaminated and our planet poisoned and picking up the tab for it in the process. Me,I at least like to get kissed when I get fucked.

[killbotfactory]

15. The entire world could be fed, right now, without GM food

The problem is that refuse to consider ways to do that.

[Recursion]

17. GM would be a great idea of shortage of food was the problem

We've got more than enough food in the world; the problem is that governments and corporations use food distribution as a weapon against people