‘GM a safe, proven and beneficial innovation’?
I wonder if the secretary of State, who is meant to be representing my interests, is really speaking for the best interests of the British and European public here or is he speaking for a multinational industry determined to push into Europe?
Where is the evidence that farmers aren’t really going to lose out through extra seed fees, ecosystems altered and the British public ultimately paying more through higher production costs. Surely we should still be following the precautionary principle at this stage? Owen Paterson needs to open his mind a little and start listening to the other side of the argument.
For a strong viable and crucially less risky alternative to GM read this article from argylesock – http://argylesock.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/are-gm-crops-out-of-date/.
thinkingcountry.com 
This. I think Mr Paterson’s opinion is outdated and not sufficiently evidence-based. Which as you know, doesn’t mean that I’m anti-GM in a simplistic way – I like the authors who remark that there’s no simple answer to food security. Thank you for linking to the article I wrote about a different kind of biotech.