lol i fail to see the controversy? can you refute any of the claims made therein?Lando said:Remember the BBC Horizon programme that used the pin-up pig farmer Jimmy Doherty to front Jimmy's GM Food Fight?
While supposedly investigating the science of GM foods, the TV programme had Jimmy - once a purveyor of all things natural, telling the audience how "simple" and "natural" genetic modification was. And by the end of the programme, Jimmy was enthusing that it would be "madness to turn away from this technology. The science is absolutely amazing. It offers hope."
The producer and director of this prime time soft-sell advertisement was Michael Lachmann. After viewer complaints, the BBC investigated whether the programme was biased. For ages, the BBC refused to answer one viewer's persistent query as to whether the programme's director was in any way related to Sir Peter Lachmann, a notoriously aggressive pro-GM scientist. Eventually, persistence paid off, however, when the BBC finally admitted during the appeal process that: "Sir Peter Lachmann is indeed the father of Michael."
http://www.bangmfood.org/mediawatch/25-mediawatch/40-sir-peters-gm-food-fight
and an interesting article Genetic Engineering and Corporate Agribusiness: GMOs and the Impacts of Glyphosate Herbicide
http://www.globalresearch.ca/genetic-engineering-and-corporate-agribusiness-gmos-and-the-impacts-of-glyphosate-herbicide/5337096
do you understand why the anti GMO crowd hates Lachman? because he destroyed the bullshit papers published about those bogus rat cancer claims.
from wikipediaLachmann’s helped produce the Royal Society’s first report on GM crops in 1998. The report, Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use, outlined the benefits of GM plants in agriculture, medicine, food quality and safety, nutrition and health, especially in alleviating food shortage in third-world countries. This caused him to be regarded as a controversial figure by the anti-GM food lobby. In 1999, he tried to persuade the editor of The Lancet not to publish Árpád Pusztai’s research on the adverse effects of GM potatoes on rats on the grounds that it was not sound science. The Lancet’s editor, Richard Horton, received what he described as an aggressive phone call from Lachmann. Someone eavesdropped on this conversation and reported to two Guardian journalists that it was said that "publishing Pusztai’s paper would “have implications for his personal position” as editor. Lachmann categorically denied saying any such thing, but the news made the front-page of The Guardian in November 1999. Lachmann's own account of GMOs and the Pusztai affair can be found in Panic Nation (2005).[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lachmann
if your argument is that the documentary i posted is invalid because the director is related to a respected scientist, than i reject it completely. you will note that this same director has made many documentaries unrelated to this subject.
whereas the documentary director i posted about previously about is clearly subsumed with one viewpoint, and is possibly a fraud all together.
believe what you want, but dont just blast it all over the internet as if its a fact, when just the most superficial of objective research will show you it is not.