25 Jun 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeI find it interesting that the only people who are apologists for roundup ready GMOs have never seen the film and avoid watching it as if it is the plague or something.
No. I have not yet had the time (or inclination)
However that's besides the point.
I am discussing the pro's and cons of GM not whether or not a particular
corporation is good or bad.
If your response to questions about the safety/value of GM foods is to say
"Monsanto is bad" then the link I posted is completely relevant.
I have no trou ...[text shortened]... ack home were trying to deny them these things."
Well said."[/i][/quote][/b]
I don't think that is merely coincidence.
I call that willful ignorance.
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainI find it interesting that you have totally failed to explain what is so bad about GMOs and instead keep referring us to a thread in debates or a movie or a website. You have failed to show that any GMO crop whether produced by Monsanto or not is harmful to humans or harmful to the environment. The claims you have made with regards to genes spreading to other peoples crops and causing harm are clearly false.
I find it interesting that the only people who are apologists for roundup ready GMOs have never seen the film and avoid watching it as if it is the plague or something.
I don't think that is merely coincidence.
I call that willful ignorance.
The reason I haven't bothered to watch the film, is you are yet to convince me there is anything in it worth watching. Others have asked you where and what specifically claims are made are made and instead of providing them you have stated that you yourself do not have the time to watch it again.
It seems to me that it is you that is wrong, and wilfully wish to remain so due to your hatred of Monsanto.
25 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThought
Why are you obsessed with peas?
Sorry I don't really have the time or inclination to argue this any more, the debate strikes me as circular, and I'm way off my field. However here is a point to consider - given that using current non-GM methods we can feed the world several times over what is the point in genetically modifying crops?
Why are you obsessed with peas?
I am not. But if I am to give an specific arbitrary example of a crop to argue my point, I have to choose SOME arbitrary choice of crop. Have you got another kind of crop that would be a better choice?
Sorry I don't really have the time or inclination to argue this any more,
I was speaking to Metal Brain.
given that using current non-GM methods we can feed the world several times over what is the point in genetically modifying crops?
Three main benefits although I have heard of others:
1, increase disease resistance thus reducing our dependence on expensive pesticides.
2, increase tolerance to drought and certain other harsh conditions.
3, increase yield
all three above would help improve our food security and also make hunger and famine less likely esp in the third world.
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyI really had intended to not post more in this. There's an article in New Scientist (15th June 2013) talking about agricultural pests gaining resistance to BT crops, due to farmers not following the instructions correctly - so the advantage of a given GM crop is temporary. If they get themselves into an arms race with the pests then you can expect seed prices to go up as the job of finding more and more resistant traits becomes harder.Why are you obsessed with peas?
I am not. But if I am to give an specific arbitrary example of a crop to argue my point, I have to choose SOME arbitrary choice of crop. Have you got another kind of crop that would be a better choice?Sorry I don't really have the time or inclination to argue this any more,
I was sp ...[text shortened]... p improve our food security and also make hunger and famine less likely esp in the third world.
I'm totally unconvinced by the food security argument as there's plenty of spare capacity in world food production.
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by DeepThought
I really had intended to not post more in this. There's an article in New Scientist (15th June 2013) talking about agricultural pests gaining resistance to BT crops, due to farmers not following the instructions correctly - so the advantage of a given GM crop is temporary. If they get themselves into an arms race with the pests then you can expect seed ...[text shortened]... d by the food security argument as there's plenty of spare capacity in world food production.
There's an article in New Scientist (15th June 2013) talking about agricultural pests gaining resistance to BT crops, due to farmers not following the instructions correctly
Then this is not an issue of us not being able to benefit from GM but rather an issue of making sure farmers follow instructions correctly so that they do benefit.
I'm totally unconvinced by the food security argument as there's plenty of spare capacity in world food production.
Wouldn't increasing that 'spare capacity', Esp in the third world, improve food security?
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThis is a common problem for all insecticides, just as it is a problem with antibiotics. It doesn't not however negate the usefulness of either.
I really had intended to not post more in this. There's an article in New Scientist (15th June 2013) talking about agricultural pests gaining resistance to BT crops, due to farmers not following the instructions correctly - so the advantage of a given GM crop is temporary. If they get themselves into an arms race with the pests then you can expect seed prices to go up as the job of finding more and more resistant traits becomes harder.
I'm totally unconvinced by the food security argument as there's plenty of spare capacity in world food production.
Of course hunger has very little to do with total world food production. But that is not what he said. He said increased yield would improve food security in the third world. I can confirm that increased yield does make a significant difference to food security in the third world.
Until the west is willing to start dishing out food for free, we in the third world need to grow more for ourselves, and increased yields is the best way to do that. This is a goal of all farmers worldwide and your attempt at downplaying it just shows your total ignorance of farming.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAnd you know better than Norman Borlaug?
I really had intended to not post more in this. There's an article in New Scientist (15th June 2013) talking about agricultural pests gaining resistance to BT crops, due to farmers not following the instructions correctly - so the advantage of a given GM crop is temporary. If they get themselves into an arms race with the pests then you can expect seed ...[text shortened]... d by the food security argument as there's plenty of spare capacity in world food production.
from this article: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112
"In 1943, what became known as the Green Revolution began when Mexico, unable to feed its growing population, shouted for help. Within a few years, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations founded the International Rice Research Institute in Asia, and by 1962, a new strain of rice called IR8 was feeding people all over the world. IR8 was the first really big modified crop to make a real impact on world hunger. In 1962 the technology did not yet exist to directly manipulate the genes of plants, and so IR8 was created by carefully crossing existing varieties: selecting the best from each generation, further modifying them, and finally finding the best. Here is the power of modified crops: IR8, with no fertilizer, straight out of the box, produced five times the yield of traditional rice varieties. In optimal conditions with nitrogen, it produced ten times the yield of traditional varieties. By 1980, IR36 resisted pests and grew fast enough to allow two crops a year instead of just one, doubling the yield. And by 1990, using more advanced genetic manipulation techniques, IR72 was outperforming even IR36. The Green Revolution saw worldwide crop yields explode from 1960 through 2000.
No discussion of GMO is complete without a mention of Norman Borlaug, the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize winner, 1977 US Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, 2006 Congressional Gold Medal winner, and best known as the father of the Green Revolution. The unanimous act of Congress states "Dr. Borlaug has saved more lives than any other person who has ever lived, and likely has saved more lives in the Islamic world than any other human being in history." The Nobel committee put a number on this, estimating that he was personally and directly responsible for saving over one billion human beings in the Third World from starvation. Dr. Borlaug did it by pioneering the use of hybrid and genetically modified crops, designing new strains that could thrive in arid conditions where pesticides or herbicides were not available. He's also known for "Borlaug's Hypothesis" which proposes that the best way to reduce deforestation is to reduce demand for new farmland by using our best existing farmland to its maximum potential.
The third world (and much of the first) would be starving already if not for GMO.
So your being unconvinced by it's effectiveness smack more of your complete ignorance than anything else.
25 Jun 13
1 edit
In the UK in some supermarkets they don't list ingredients on 'baked in store' products . I suspect its because they contain emulsifiers with long complex names that would put consumers off (the same chemicals they put in economy bread)
I don't like it when they don't list the ingredient's, but even a fussy person like me would put up with the odd additive if the product looks nice. This is relevant to GM because I don't want them adding it without it on the label, it would not put me off, but not knowing its there would, if that makes sense.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainYeah and you are doing everything listed in my argumentum-ad-monsantium link:
I find it interesting that the only people who are apologists for roundup ready GMOs have never seen the film and avoid watching it as if it is the plague or something.
I don't think that is merely coincidence.
I call that willful ignorance.
http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/11/08/argumentum-ad-monsantium/
I am not an apologist for anyone, let alone Monsanto.
I am arguing for the benefits and necessity of GMO for our species to stay alive
without completely trashing the planet.
Your response is 'You must love Monsanto, Monsanto is evil, why do you love evil'.
I have no doubt that Monsanto acts like any other massive multinational corporation,
in it's own interests.
I don't however believe that it's the root of all evil.
And all that is irrelevant as to whether or not GMO is beneficial or necessary.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by e4chrisWell that would be fine if everyone was rational.
In the UK in some supermarkets they don't list ingredients on 'baked in store' products . I suspect its because they contain emulsifiers with long complex names that would put consumers off (the same chemicals they put in economy bread)
I don't like it when they don't list the ingredient's, but even a fussy person like me would put up with the odd additiv ...[text shortened]... the label, it would not put me off, but not knowing its there would, if that makes sense.
Unfortunately almost nobody is.
Take, for example, organic foods.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019
Organic foods take up more farmland than non-organic foods, increasing
deforestation and environmental damage.
Organic foods are more likely to contain higher concentrations of toxins
than non-organic foods as the "natural organic" fertilisers and pesticides
have to be used in much greater quantities as they are less effective and
they also carry all kinds of diseases (like E. coli).
Organically reared animals are less healthy as they are denied antibiotics.
However organic foods can be sold at a high premium because people believe
that "Natural" and "Organic" mean that it's healthier and more environmentally
sustainable.
Many people believe that GMO food is unsafe and environmentally sustainable.
They do this because environmental groups bombard them with lies about GM foods.
If you force companies to put GM on the label then in the west people wont buy it.
If people wont buy it then the farmers wont grow it.
And the rich west uses up more land (including in the third world) growing land intensive
resource wasting organic food which helps contribute to third world hunger and
malnutrition.
Because the fact is most people listed as dying from malnutrition are not dying of hunger.
They are getting enough calories in their diet.
What they are not getting is enough nutrients.
GM could help fix that. Being able to grow more crops on the same land would help
fix that.
Putting GM on the labels in western supermarkets will hinder fixing that.
So frankly I say screw the rich western irrational idiots who wont eat GM because it's
not fashionable.
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyRe farmers not following the protocol. The article indicated that this was fairly unavoidable for the farmers as following the protocol reduced their overall yield. It's generally better if a system is designed so it's robust against the people using it.
Then this is not an issue of us not being able to benefit from GM but rather an issue of making sure farmers follow instructions correctly so that they do benefit.
Originally posted by twhitehead
This is a common problem for all insecticides, just as it is a problem with antibiotics. It doesn't not however negate the usefulness of either.
[b]I'm t ...[text shortened]... mers worldwide and your attempt at downplaying it just shows your total ignorance of farming.
Re Food security.
I'm fairly sure most of the Third World are net food exporters. Britain imports about 40% of it's food - so we aren't really in a position to give food to the Third World - free or not. The Wikipedia article "Geograpy of Food" makes some interesting points about food production - it talks about villages in South Africa that were given an electricity supply and food production went up, they say because less time was spent collecting fire wood and more time on tending the crops. In much of the world water shortage rather than the theoretical maximum yield of a given crop presents the largest problem.
The wiki page contained a link to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation: www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/thematic-sitemap/theme/spi/en/, which spends some time talking about increasing yields by various methods. It doesn't directly mention GM crops in the genetic legacy section, but the website is huge and I spent about 5 minutes there, so they may be advocating them somewhere I didn't look. The point I'm making is that there more ways of increasing or at least maintaining yield than just using GM crops.
25 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThought
Re farmers not following the protocol. The article indicated that this was fairly unavoidable for the farmers as following the protocol reduced their overall yield. It's generally better if a system is designed so it's robust against the people using it.
Re Food security.
I'm fairly sure most of the Third World are net food exporters. Britain impo there more ways of increasing or at least maintaining yield than just using GM crops.
Re farmers not following the protocol. The article indicated that this was fairly unavoidable
If that is the real issue, then why not campaign to make sure farmers do follow protocol thus allowing the full benefit of GM to be realized?
Doctors often don't follow protocol when giving out antibiotics and patients often don't when taking them and this has lead to the acceleration of the evolution of antibiotic resistance -so what should we conclude from this? Should we:
(1) stop using antibiotics?
Or
(2) stop people use antibiotics irresponsibly?
Personally I would say (2) and I would say the same applies to GM for I am using the same logic here which is:
The way to respond to misuse of GM, or any thing else that has potential benefits, is not to stop having it but to stop the misuse.
Irresponsible car drivers kill people by misusing cars.
So should we:
(1) stop using cars
or
(2) stop people using cars irresponsibly?
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadGMOs may be harmful to bees and causing CCD.
I find it interesting that you have totally failed to explain what is so bad about GMOs and instead keep referring us to a thread in debates or a movie or a website. You have failed to show that any GMO crop whether produced by Monsanto or not is harmful to humans or harmful to the environment. The claims you have made with regards to genes spreading to o ...[text shortened]... me that it is you that is wrong, and wilfully wish to remain so due to your hatred of Monsanto.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/04/09/mystery-of-the-disappearing-bees-solved/
I'm sure you will claim there is no convincing evidence as you have all along so I will provide you with this link so you have the option to contact John McDonald and ask him questions.
http://www.naturalnews.com/025287_bees_honey_crops.html
Originally posted by Metal BrainWell lets actually read the link:
GMOs may be harmful to bees and causing CCD.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/04/09/mystery-of-the-disappearing-bees-solved/
I'm sure you will claim there is no convincing evidence as you have all along so I will provide you with this link so you have the option to contact John McDonald and ask him questions.
http://www.naturalnews.com/025287_bees_honey_crops.html
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/04/09/mystery-of-the-disappearing-bees-solved/
“...
But scientists believe that exposure to toxic pesticides is only one factor that has led to the decline of honey bees in recent years. The destruction and fragmentation of bee habitats, as a result of land development and the spread of monoculture agriculture, deprives pollinators of their diverse natural food supply. This has already led to the extinction of a number of wild bee species. The planting of genetically modified organism (GMO) crops – some of which now contain toxic insecticides within their genetic structure – may also be responsible for poisoning bees and weakening their immune systems.
...”
So ONLY those GM crops that have SPECIFICALLY been engineered to have insecticides toxic to bees, and not other GM crops, MAY also be PARTLY responsible for the decline of the bee population but it would be false to simplistic say the decline of the bee population is as a result of GM because there are at the very least several other major causes and they haven't claimed that they have established that these particular GM crops are definitely one of the main causes.
I would say just perhaps those GM crops engineered to have those particular insecticides SHOULD be banned! -I am not necessarily arguing against that because I haven't seen all the relevant evidence for and against.
However, even if they should be banned because they harm bees, this doesn't do anything to discredit the huge potential benefits from GM. I have already listed some but not all of those benefits and you can have all those benefits from GM without having GM crops that have been made toxic to bees.
read my last post to DeepThought I made above this post; it is highly relevant to what I am saying here and adds to my point.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyAlso the plants designed to have built in insecticides are simply producing the same kind of
Well lets actually read the link:
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/04/09/mystery-of-the-disappearing-bees-solved/
“...
But scientists believe that exposure to toxic pesticides is [b]only one factor that has led to the decline of honey bees in recent years. The destruction and fragmentation of bee habitats, as a result of land development and ...[text shortened]... can have all those benefits from GM without having GM crops that have been made toxic to bees.[/b]
insecticides that we otherwise spray onto plants.
So it's the use of insecticides that effect bee's that is the problem, rather than the delivery
method.
And given that there have also been GM crops developed that emit a sent that keeps away
certain pests (rather than killing them) GM crops potentially have much less damaging
potential options we can explore.