27th of May protest of GM research

[kılıç_mehmet]

Foodie is a colloquial term. It is an aficionado of food and drink, whom is able to discern difference in quality to minute detail. Most of us think a tomato tastes tomato-ey and leaves it at that.

You don't need that either. I am a smoker for like how many years now, and I don't have the best senses when it comes to taste, but I know a tomato that is of the local Ayaş variaty in Ankara, and one that has been raised in a greenhouse somewhere. An ayaş tomato is always better in taste, smell and sight, this is why it is so famous in Turkey. The tomato shares a special relationship with the land on which it's grown, and has developed a taste according to it.
They are just like grapes that are used to make wine.
It's like saying, just use the same grapes to produce wine, who really cares about taste anyways?

Government funding is still even worse, in my eyes.
What if in the late future, the country that grows the seeds decides to put a blockade on goods that come from that country and go to the other?
If I'm not able to buy seeds, I cannot grow crops. You can buy planes, tanks and etc. , Iphones, laptops and everything that you don't eat, but once you become dependent on the outside to even grow food, saying, not to buy or import food, but to grow the food that you produce domestically, that means that you have relinquished a large portion of your people's sovereignity to another nation.
The GM, are in my eyes, weapons of mass destruction. They are just like nukes. You don't need to fire the nukes to know how destructive they are.
Similarly, GM food.

You're capable with economics.

What happens when you increase the supply and reduce wastage?

What you're saying is that GM crops generally make the foodstuff cheaper. And I'm saying, that this will not be the case, as in places of starvation, people are not even growing food anymore due to the low buying power that exists there. You cannot increase supply because supply is already going downhill with less people actually producing things, and lesser people having the money to buy things. How would GM's benefit countries and their peoples? They would not. GM food is not the solution to the worlds hunger problems.

[NoMoreFaith]

A tomato is a tomato to me sorry. I'm sure you can tell the difference, and maybe I could if I cared more about it, but I'd rather go for the one that costs the least amount, it all makes bolognase in the end.

I suppose you could also call a foodie as someone who gives a fuck. Same goes for wine, I don't like acidic wines, but otherwise, mostly not caring.

Also the government funding, as Tiberius dug a bit deeper (cheers) is going public domain, which restricts your "blockade" concept.

In terms of the GM crops, crops that can withstand drought more hardily will easily benefit countries which struggle to grow basic crops, and reduce the amount that is lost. You obtain greater yield from the same square acre, and greater nutrition from the plants themselves.

Forests are being decimated by farmers trying to find more productive soil, that would be solved by varients of GM crop, which will have a far more destructive element to the environment than anything the crops introduce. (Original Source: Fedoroff, N.V. and Cohen, J.E. (1999) 'Plants and population: Is there time?')

The multinationals who control much of these GM crops, are starting to show increased interest in donating their crops to developinng countries (Source: Qaim, M. (1998) Transgenic virus resistant potatoes in Mexico: Potential socioeconomic implications of north-south biotechnology transfer.)
Hopefully this will become a reality sooner rather than later.

Before I respond to the claim that supply is going downhill due to reduction in buying power, I'd like to see the original source thou.

[kılıç_mehmet]

A tomato is a tomato to me sorry. I'm sure you can tell the difference, and maybe I could if I cared more about it, but I'd rather go for the one that costs the least amount, it all makes bolognase in the end.

Well, if making sauce or ketchup is the only way for a tomato to end up on your table, sure, grow your tasteless tomatos. We eat tomatos raw at our breakfasts, in our salads and we barbecue them.

Besides, even if a person is piss poor, he'll probably choose the better tasting tomato to his bread rather than the tasteless, sponge-like tomato.

Also the government funding, as Tiberius dug a bit deeper (cheers) is going public domain, which restricts your "blockade" concept.

Well, it's going public domain, but how many countries are able to grow these, actually?
And who are going to grow these?
Certainly not us. The blockade concept is just one possible outcome. I'm sure that this research is not done by just investments of governments.
Private investers, stakeholders are in place.

In terms of the GM crops, crops that can withstand drought more hardily will easily benefit countries which struggle to grow basic crops, and reduce the amount that is lost. You obtain greater yield from the same square acre, and greater nutrition from the plants themselves.

Surely, but to which extent? If such countries are unable to grow basic crops, how are they going to produce the seeds needed to grow these crops? Or how will they buy it?
GM crops may produce more yields, but what good is your yield when it's all going down the trash anyways? We've always had a good yield when it came to sugar beet. But no one bought it from us(even though it was non-GM), so the government bought it and let it rot on the fields.
They weren't used anywhere, as this would mean more and more investment.

Forests are being decimated by farmers trying to find more productive soil, that would be solved by varients of GM crop, which will have a far more destructive element to the environment than anything the crops introduce. (Original Source: Fedoroff, N.V. and Cohen, J.E. (1999) 'Plants and population: Is there time?')

I've already done a research on the GM crops once. Slash and burn agriculture can take you as far as a frog can leap. Farmers know this already. But we're not discussing environmental damage anyways, we're discussing world hunger problems.

The multinationals who control much of these GM crops, are starting to show increased interest in donating their crops to developinng countries (Source: Qaim, M. (1998) Transgenic virus resistant potatoes in Mexico: Potential socioeconomic implications of north-south biotechnology transfer.)
Hopefully this will become a reality sooner rather than later.

Donating? And which countries are these? Why does africa still go down from hunger? Have they not donated enough?
Even if they donate 100% of their products each year, what good are seeds if there is no one to buy your crops?

Before I respond to the claim that supply is going downhill due to reduction in buying power, I'd like to see the original source thou.

I'll be looking for one.
Besides, it's just a matter of logic to realize that fact.

[NoMoreFaith]

Besides, even if a person is piss poor, he'll probably choose the better tasting tomato to his bread rather than the tasteless, sponge-like tomato.

I rather think they'll choose the better tasting, more nutritious, cheaper GM tomato, rather than the incesticide covered version which is not GM.

Or are you arguing for organic tomatoes over mass produced tomatoes, because one of the benefits of GM foods IS to produce better tasting product.

Well, it's going public domain, but how many countries are able to grow these, actually?
And who are going to grow these?

At the moment, extensive safety trials in poor south american countries. Extensive to do their best to alleviate the worries of anti-GM protestors. Which is fair.
Theres a few good articles in Nature magazine on this issue if you want some links.

Surely, but to which extent? If such countries are unable to grow basic crops, how are they going to produce the seeds needed to grow these crops?

Where trials are in place, the seeds are not modified to become infertile as they are in many of the "corporate" GM modifications. We're talking about people growing foods to become self-sufficient, instead of buying externally.

The whole teach a man to fish thing.

But we're not discussing environmental damage anyways, we're discussing world hunger problems.

Granted, I simply wished to highlight the advantages to the reasearch being done, not just in terms of world hunger. Although it is a related note still.

Donating? And which countries are these? Why does africa still go down from hunger? Have they not donated enough?

Scarily enough, and surprisingly enough, the US is doing its fair share in this respect.
Its the anti-GM protestors which are slowing down the transfer, through demands of research lasting many years before committing to the GM versions. Extended trials aren't a bad idea thou, to catch any unexpected side effects (such as the famous butterfly killing pollen often cited).

Even if they donate 100% of their products each year, what good are seeds if there is no one to buy your crops?

In areas where people are starving? Well, they'd be good enough to eat themselves.
Although I'm happy to admit to a touch of naivete.

I'll be looking for one.
Besides, it's just a matter of logic to realize that fact.

Don't be insulting, its clearly not a matter of logic.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I rather think they'll choose the better tasting, more nutritious, cheaper GM tomato, rather than the incesticide covered version which is not GM.

Or are you arguing for organic tomatoes over mass produced tomatoes, because one of the benefits of GM foods IS to produce better tasting product.

Better tasting, nutritious and cheaper GM tomato? I am certain that if a tomato of such a quality would have been archived, it would only be reserved for the richest of richest, not for the poor. No one would sell a high quality product to a poor person by giving them the notion of choice.
You have the choice of choosing between a better quality laptop, but have to buy the cheap one due to your buying power.
How do you expect a GM tomato of such supposed high quality to become so cheap as to feed them to the poor? We can feed our poor with better quality tomatoes from our bazaars, directly bought from the producers in high quantities, our own tomatoes, not someone else's tomatoes, from the bosom of our lands.

I am not really sure how "better tasting" tomatoes GM can produce, really. I believe that taste is not something that is only something that is produced by genes alone. It depends on many many different variables, such as soil quality, the fertilizers used and etc. and etc. In that regard, GM can only aid in protecting the product, not increase it's "quality".
Even though non-gm, a lamb that has fattened by grazing will taste a lot better than the lamb which has received only maize throughout it's entire life. I, and many other people can testify to this fact.

At the moment, extensive safety trials in poor south american countries. Extensive to do their best to alleviate the worries of anti-GM protestors. Which is fair.
Theres a few good articles in Nature magazine on this issue if you want some links.

Well, they obviously must try to alleviate concerns. I rather still be independent on the seeds with terminator genes in them, even if they're giving it out for free.

Where trials are in place, the seeds are not modified to become infertile as they are in many of the "corporate" GM modifications. We're talking about people growing foods to become self-sufficient, instead of buying externally.

The whole teach a man to fish thing.

Trials. And what if they do not want to buy the product after these trials?
I'm sure the producers would be in deep trouble. What are they going to do? Confiscate the seeds?
And as I said, teaching a man to fish is another thing. Those people probably know how to grow crops. They probably have local varieties of seeds to grow crops with. But what they don't have is the funds to grow crops with. Farmers in poor countries don't need GM seeds. They need government cooperation and funding.

Granted, I simply wished to highlight the advantages to the reasearch being done, not just in terms of world hunger. Although it is a related note still.

Indeed, genetic research is a good thing, and I'm not saying that research should not be done. But it should be done to allow the growing of crops in impossible conditions, like for example, in a desert, or on the moon or someplace else. Local varieties of crops should be protected by their respective owners as they are the guarantee of that nation's independence for food on the outside.

Scarily enough, and surprisingly enough, the US is doing its fair share in this respect.
Its the anti-GM protestors which are slowing down the transfer, through demands of research lasting many years before committing to the GM versions. Extended trials aren't a bad idea thou, to catch any unexpected side effects (such as the famous butterfly killing pollen often cited).

What I'm saying is, you should rather give the farmers the much needed machines and fertilizers to grow crops, not give them the seeds to grow crops.

In areas where people are starving? Well, they'd be good enough to eat themselves.
Although I'm happy to admit to a touch of naivete.

Yes, of course, they can eat their own crops. Which is what farmers do, they don't buy their bread from the shoppe in the town, if they grow wheat. They don't buy meat from the town if they own a herd. But their surplus is what really makes a farmer a "farmer". And if that surplus is not sold, what good is it then? You'll store it in a granary, but you won't earn any money to actually allow the farming business to go on.
Like for example, if no one buys bread, a bakery won't buy any more grain. The farmer that grows the grain won't produce anymore if he thinks he cannot keep going, and will only produce enough to keep himself alive, with the most basic forms of agriculture, like using animal/manpower instead of machines, which is what people do in the most areas with starvation. And if he does not have the means to grow his own seeds, he won't be able to plant them next year.
He'll starve eventually. And for how long do your suppliers intend to give out "free trials"?

[Darth]

What exactly, do people think scientists are trying to achieve with GM crops?

Triffids

Face it, if you were a (mad) scientist working on GM crops, you'd be making a triffid. I know I would.

[The Grand Nudger]

You've managed to get this entire issue ass backwards Mehmet. Usually I'd be honestly surprised, but with you, not so much. Where would you like to begin? Should I address your tinfoil hat shit? Should I explain that you would have to have inhuman senses to distinguish gm crops by taste?
Maybe I should explain that GM crops are also designed specifically for 3rd world countries (IE, less mechanization/fertilization/irrigation)? I mean really, what would you like to know?

(The smart farmer buys cheaper crops from his competitors and sells his own, btw. Ag 101. This goes double for the starving farmer. He'd be able to buy more food by selling his own crops than he could ever grow all by his onesies-and this is exactly what they do.... Subsistence farming hurts more than it helps.)

[kılıç_mehmet]

Inhuman taste? Wow, I guess you've been chewing on a ton of tobacco each day of every year to actually being unable to differentiate between different types of tomatoes, or, say, potatoes. In my country, people prefer certain vegetables to be of a certain region from Turkey, some even go through the bother to actually go where those are grown, and buy them in large quantities. Say, for example, the olive oil from the Kilis region in Turkey is actually much better in taste than the ones grown in the Izmir region. I and many others can attest to this fact, and we do not have "inhuman" tastes, simply normal tastes, that every person should have. You obviously lack even the basic forms of taste to differentiate between sorts of the same foodstuff.

Now to what you consider to be "tinfoil" theories. GM crops are especially designed for 3rd world countries, because no 1st world or even 2nd world country would even consider buying it. They are outlawed in my country, and in Europe.
They don't want your seeds, sorry.
Besides, all the farmers I know generally use their own stuff for their yearly needs, same, for any olive growers I know, for example, and I know a lot. Why buy your oil from someone else, if you have set aside some surplus from what you want to sell to the outside?

[The Grand Nudger]

People do that here as well. Vidalia Onions, Florida Orange Juice, etc. That doesn't actually mean that people can tell the difference, lol. It's called "branding". Sigh.

Differences in taste due to region have nothing to do with the crop in question. For example, the Vidalia Onions above became famous (Vidalia is a Granex Onion, commonly grown everywhere) due to large levels of sulfur in the soil in, you guessed it, Vidalia Georgia. The producers banded together and had the "Vidalia Onion Trademark Act" (I shit you not) passed. Nevertheless, any producer that dumps sulfur on his Granex onions will end up with a bulb that no human being could distinguish from the "real article". Again, the largest component oif what we percieve as a difference in taste between two of the same vegetables that come from different places are post production and logistics.

The US "considers" it, and we're a major producer. In fact, you'll find us at #1 for most commodities, and usually in the top 5 for those we don't completely dominate. Nevertheless we import more food than we grow, and export most of what comes out of our ground. If people decide they don't want increased yields, resistances, shelf-life, and flavor, or they decide that they don't want decreased fertility requirements, irrigation, and loss, that's no skin off anyone else's back Mehmet.

"All the farmers you know" need to take (or at least audit) a course in agribiz. They're losing money. If your oil is the cheapest it would make sense, but what the fuck are you doing producing the cheapest oil (and somehow I doubt the farmers you know are producing the cheapest oil) when you could be producing a crop with better profit margins (or courting a market for the same crop that afforded better profit margins)? Or maybe, just maybe, you don't actually know why they do what they do, they are competent producers, and you are simply ignorant of how their operations are run.



If this subject is anything more than a vehicle for your usual shit, I'd suggest an entry level textbook like
http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Agribus...im_sbs_b_2

I am honestly interested in what you seem to feel is wrong with GM crops. You've referenced tinfoil blockades, oppression of indivdual producers by large Ag Conglo's, none of this has anything to do with a GM crop. I know you imagine, for some reason, that there is just "something better" about the "local" varieties, but you'll have to be able to determine what this is if you want to hang your hat on it. "Many people believe there is a difference in taste" doesn't cut it, not just because many people can be wrong, but because studies have shown that they are. We overestimate ourselves, and our abilities.