GMO vs Organic

[Clueless Morgan]

I still think organic is better then GMO. Mainly the GMO that have built in pesticides that kill the insects.

Uuuh, dude, naturally evolved plants have "built in" pesticides that kill insects.  That's why they're still around.  If they didn't have such naturally occurring pesticides all the plants of that species would have been consumed by insects and it wouldn't be around to propagate any more.

What GMO does (in theory) is make plants that produce their own pesticides that don't also affect taste (naturally evolved pesticides tend to impart a bitter taste) or that produce more effective "built in" pesticides so that fewer artificial pesticides (such as spray-on pesticides, herbicides and fungicides) need to be used on the plants.

GMO is not the same as selective breeding to create different strains of a species, like cross pollination to create desirable traits.

It is true that GMO technology is not the same as selective breeding techniques; it is a faster way to achieve the same, or similar, results.

GMO is intentionally changing the DNA of a plant to create a desirable trait, such as built in pesticide.

Selective breeding techniques also intentionally change the DNA of a plant to create desirable traits.

Am I to conclude that the problem that you have with GMO over selective breeding is that its occurs in a matter of years rather than over centuries or millenia?  If that's the case, I do believe that is special pleading.

Monsanto for example creates plants that don't produce seeds so farmers can't use the seeds of the previous crop to grow the next harvest. In fact it has led to many suicides in India because they can't afford to farm the land due to having to buy seeds each season.

Get your facts right.

GMO and Indian Farmer Suicide
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index...r-suicide/

Even while anti-GMO articles were playing the “Indian suicide” card, the scientific evidence was already coming in showing that such claims were largely baseless. A comprehensive review in October of 2008 by the International Food Policy Research Institute found:

We first show that there is no evidence in available data of a “resurgence” of farmer suicides in India in the last five years. Second, we find that Bt cotton technology has been very effective overall in India. However, the context in which Bt cotton was introduced has generated disappointing results in some particular districts and seasons. Third, our analysis clearly shows that Bt cotton is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the occurrence of farmer suicides.

Essentially the evidence shows that there was no increase in farmer suicides, and farmer suicides are not linked to the use of Bt cotton (the primary GMO approved for use in India). Sure, some Bt crops failed, just like all crops can fail, and crop failure can lead to indebtedness and in some tragic cases to suicide. But the GMO crop was not the critical element in such tragedies – it was a complex interplay of economic and farming choices combined with bad luck.

A recent study looking at farmer suicides in India comes to a similar conclusion – there is no increase in farmer suicide linked to the use of GMO, in fact if anything there is a slight decrease.

There is also an excellent review published in The Conversation – an academic journal funded by universities the purpose of which is to inject objective facts into policy discussions. After a review of the evidence they found that the suicide rate among Indian farmers is actually less than the suicide rate among non-farmers in six out of the nine cotton-growing states. Further, the rate of suicides has decreased slightly...

...

Conclusion

The claim that the introduction of GM crops in India has caused an increase in farmer suicides was not based upon any rigorous evidence. Rather it seems to have been based on individual stories and facts taken out of context. When the data is reviewed in a more objective and thorough way it seems clear that there is no correlation between the use of Bt cotton by Indian farmers and farmer suicide, and if anything there is a small decrease (although too small to conclude causation).

Whether or not you support or condemn the use of GM technology, it is to everyone’s advantage that the conversation be as evidence-based as possible. Critics of GM should be especially offended by the propagation of the GM suicide myth (still a common claim on anti-GMO sites), because it harms their credibility. Obviously this one point does not settle the complex issue of using GM technology in agriculture. It does, however, reveal the propaganda aspect of some anti-GMO activism. In the end such myths may cause more harm to the reputation of the propagators than the targets.