This week is Cereals – a huge arable farming event. Sadly I’m watching from the sidelines of Twitter, but at least things have quickly got interesting.
Our President tells #Cereals17 that we will continue to make the strongest case for regulation based on robust scientific evidence. pic.twitter.com/1F2HrFY34d
— NationalFarmersUnion (@NFUtweets) June 14, 2017
This new video from Wellcome is so relevant to the GMO debate: ‘How to be convincing: 5 tips for the next time you’re trying to change someone’s mind’.
Watching it is 0:45 seconds very well spent, but I can summarise the message as approach a debate from the other person’s perspective and not your own.
This was created as part of Wellcome’s ongoing #ExpertDebate about whether we have really had enough of experts. Join in on Twitter. Continue reading
A recent article about the ‘spread of ignorance’ has prompted me to go back once again to the theme of balance.
Science historian Robert Proctor points out that ignorance can be promoted in the name of a balanced debate. The tobacco industry and climate change deniers have used ‘experts disagree’ to paint a false picture. Continue reading
I recently woke to the news that environmental activists were arrested for scaling the roof of New Zealand’s parliament to raise awareness of climate change (my alarm is set to the Today programme, so I guess I’m not alone). This didn’t fill me with hope. I’m not sure awareness is the problem – what we’re lacking is action.
Take healthy eating as an example – it’s widely known what a healthy diet looks like, and also widely ignored. So I was interested to read a Global Food Security blog post about research into behaviour change. What could make people switch to a healthy, sustainable diet?
This week I went to a debate at the British Library about ‘Biotech on the Farm’. A geneticist, an economist and a Friends of the Earth campaigner talked genetic modification, taxes and eating meat as part of the regular TalkScience series. There was far more which the panel agreed on than might have been anticipated, driven by the common understanding that we need to increase food production while protecting the environment.
The geneticist and Friends of the Earth campaigner found plenty of common ground, and plenty to disagree on. They both believe genetic modification is a distraction. Professor Sang believes the method of production is just a distraction – it’s the product that counts. She was keen to see regulations changed from process-based to product-based: if you produce a herbicide-resistant crop it should be assessed for safety in the same way regardless of how you produce it.
Vicki Hird from Friends of the Earth believed that GM is distracting us from the political issues preventing the distribution of the food we already produce. Continue reading
This week nine environmental charities (including Greenpeace) wrote to Jean-Claude Junker requesting the abolition of the position of Chief Scientific Advisor to the President of the European Commission.
The scientific community rallied together to write counter-letters to Mr Junker, speaking out in support of the Chief Scientific Advisor position and its role in evidence-based policy making. I’m pleased to say that I’m a member of two organisations which signed one of these letters. Continue reading
I wanted to quickly share some words of wisdom from Nobel Laureate Sir Paul Nurse, who I was lucky enough to see speak at a recent event in Parliament.
First, he gave a quote which speaks for itself: “Data trumps everything, even the most beautiful theory.” I hope more people can remember this when dealing with the GM crops debate. Continue reading
I recently stumbled on an article in China Daily with the headline ‘Agriculture minister reaffirms safety of GM foods’. The China Daily a publication I take strange pleasure in reading, mainly trying to understand the level of censorship and fruitlessly attempting work out whether people believe any of what’s in there.
The article itself is very accurately summarised by the headline – you learn the specifics of where he was, but there’s nothing approaching analysis. 
Pretty much everyone with an environmentalist streak tends to be of a ‘better safe than sorry’ mindset when making decisions about the future of the planet. This even has an official term to make it acceptable in policy situations: the precautionary principle. It’s often used as an argument against GM crops.
Taking fewer risks with the environment sounds extremely wise to me, but life involves some risks, so do we need to move towards a thorough cost-benefit analysis?
This is being debated in London on Tuesday (1st April) and sadly I will be at a plant science conference so can’t come. Instead I’m going to persuade lots of people to go so they can tweet, and get my word in here.
Last week, the Council for Science and Technology released a (very positive) report on GM, calling for more trials, more investment, and a more evidence-based regulatory system. This was widely reported elsewhere with barely a mention of unhelpful phrases such as ‘frankenfood’, so for a summary I would suggest the BBC, the Guardian, or the Guardian’s analysis.
Sadly, the next day the Daily Mail had its say: ‘Scientists’ hidden links to the GM food giants’. For a start the headline is misleading because information about industry funding of research institutes is freely available. It then goes on to attack individual scientists in a way that is not constructive to the debate (including names and photos). Here are my problems with their article: Continue reading
View from the fence 