New roots

[ib.me.ub]

Basically, they are just better.

For the Western World it seems. And I'm sure they will fuck off because you said so ;-).

[Shinylight]

For the Western World it seems.

Actually they are better for underdeveloped nations, they give much higher increases in yield in developing nations. The Western World does not need helping as much.

[ib.me.ub]

Greenpeace can fuck off in this case. If we Genetically Modify crops so that they are more xerophytic and give a higher yield we could feed a lot more people. They can also become more pest resistant so less harmful chemicals need be administered. This means they would be cheaper for poorer farmers in LEDCs and more likely to survive.

Basically, they are just better.

For the Western World it seems. And I'm sure they will fuck off because you said so ;-).

Actually they are better for underdeveloped nations, they give much higher increases in yield in developing nations. The Western World does not need helping as much.

Thats right, but the information provided states;

Genetic Engineering does not feed the world. 99.5 percent of farmers around the world do not grow Genetically Engineered crops.

Also;

Ten corporations control nearly 70 percent of the world's seed market. This corporate control of agriculture means farmers have less choice.

I understand this is only a small piece of information, but what makes you think the developing World will ever see these crops.

[Shinylight]

This is the whole point of trying to make these beneficial crops available. If the corporations would get off their capitalist fat cat asses and actually help people then maybe poorer nations wouldn't have so many people unable to feed themselves.

It's not that they GM crops don't have the potential, they just haven't been given the chance yet.

[thesummerqueen]

No fair while I'm napping. The phone kept buzzing with updates.

by the University of Leeds, shows tropical forests absorb about 18% of all carbon dioxide added by fossil fuels.[17]

I said environmentalists - of the tree-hugging, drum-beating sort, I should have specified. I wish I could find the article that stated that scientists had done a study that suggested their numbers might not have been what they thought, but quite frankly I'm tired and you're going to have to wait until I've had a shower and coffee before I continue my earch.

Well, I don't know much about GM crops, but I am for the Rainforests. I don't support any crops, GM or not, that are going to destroy the Natural Eco-Systems of the World.

That's just your opinion against humanity in general. The fact is we're here - and more efficient use of the exisiting developed land, as well as making use of less viable lands through crops developed to grow in them, is the only way to feed starving nations.

It will, but do you really think this will ever happen in reality. As if the food produced goes to the correct place.

The crops do - people like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug try their best to help out. Unfortunately, he recently passed away, and he has to fight against this: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/...-our-rice/

Genetic Engineering does not feed the world. 99.5 percent of farmers around the world do not grow Genetically Engineered crops.

Of course - because much of the world is still undereducated and easy to scare with sciencey sounding talk that isn't science.

The problem is too many people, the polution they produce, and the resources they use.

We have a problem: over burdened resources. Solution: modified crops that require less fertilizer (less polution on one level) and better yield (less burden on resources. Trying to see how this is less viable than letting people just starve to death, which I suppose would take care of everything but is cruel as only a well-fed, smug white elitist asshole can be. I've been hungry - and that was only the "I have one top ramen packet for the entire day" hungry. Not "I only have one for two days, or a week...or indefinitely" This is not America we're talking about, with food stamps and shit or even the western world with its beautiful climates made for an assortment of crops that could be grown in back yards. This is mostly the third world, where there are shitty climates with a need for drought or disease resistant strains of crops that could be produced faster and more powerfully in a laboratory than by some 'organic' method of breeding and waiting while people die.

We believe:

GMOs should not be released into the environment since there is not an adequate scientific understanding of their impact on the environment and human health.

We advocate immediate interim measures such as labelling of GE ingredients, and the segregation of genetically engineered crops and seeds from conventional ones.

We also oppose all patents on plants, animals and humans, as well as patents on their genes. Life is not an industrial commodity. When we force life forms and our world's food supply to conform to human economic models rather than their natural ones, we do so at our own peril.

GMO's are under way higher standards than crops that someone is breeding in their backyard and releasing into the wild. Again I stress that there has been "genetic modification" going on for thousands of years - it's called domestication. It's why the poodle next door doesn't look like the wolf I met at the zoo. Wild corn, or rather 'maize', looks nothing like what you get in the store. In fact, the crops you buy in the store wouldn't even survive in the wild (nor would most dogs - even when feral, they depend on human refuse rather than hunting - not true of cats or pigs oddly, and yet everyone hates cats...because they don't depend on us?). But we eat it because it's tasty and we've continually bred strains to make even more tasty sweet corn. And it's good! Laboratories create controlled testing environments where the reasons for a plant's successes or failures are much better understood than in someone's field. Also, plenty of accidents happen in nature through cross pollinization. You don't need humans for that. Arguing that us "forcing" nature makes us more dangerous than nature itself is ridiculous. No one needed to force nature to give humans allergies to certain things. That's nature's way.

That idea of forcing nature is an ideological issue, btw, and the heart of pretty much every argument against GMO's, paired with a deep mistrust for government and any seemingly run government institution. This isn't Pandora (from Avatar). The planet isn't something we can plug into to understand. There are people who are trying as best they can to save humans and the planet alike, but claiming that we can only do it by not touching the environment at all is bullshit. Even Native Americans, who people like to tout as the great nature conservators, practice controlled brushfires to aid the forests in natural cycles - that's human intervention. A sort of 'gardening' if you will. I'm sorry if people don't like it, but life is not Disney bullshit.

Patents are put on just about anything, including the tools people use when they garden - the seeds wouldn't be much different. One still has to pay the price for the patent included in the price of the shovel when you need to dig. You'll have to do the same for seeds. Introduce an economy where having the lowest price outside of that gains you the most customers, and no one will have an issue. But again, most of these people have a hatred of globalization and government.

Except when that government sends scientists into those same rainforests they are saving to search for medicines that are developed by big pharma to further alleviate suffering. By the way...insulin is a GMO. I'll tell my good friend that the government that is making it possible for her to live and teach disabled children and go out on the town with me occasionally shouldn't have developed it.

---

Also - not every botanical accident is a disaster.

Kudzu spreads like a disease down here, but futher understanding of its properties is giving rise to its use as fodder for livestock, and it's actually edible as salad greens for humans as well as jelly from its berries. Funny how people forget that when they talk about 'accidents'. Kudzu wasn't even modified.

Also: http://thesaltedslug.blogspot.com/2009/0...foods.html

[ib.me.ub]

You just don't get it do you.

by the University of Leeds, shows tropical forests absorb about 18% of all carbon dioxide added by fossil fuels.[17]

I said environmentalists - of the tree-hugging, drum-beating sort, I should have specified. I wish I could find the article that stated that scientists had done a study that suggested their numbers might not have been what they thought, but quite frankly I'm tired and you're going to have to wait until I've had a shower and coffee before I continue my earch.

This is from the University of Leeds, not the so called tree huggers.

Well, I don't know much about GM crops, but I am for the Rainforests. I don't support any crops, GM or not, that are going to destroy the Natural Eco-Systems of the World.

That's just your opinion against humanity in general. The fact is we're here - and more efficient use of the exisiting developed land, as well as making use of less viable lands through crops developed to grow in them, is the only way to feed starving nations.

Don't you get it. No Eco-System = No Humanity. Without the biosphere there will be no goddam humanity.

It will, but do you really think this will ever happen in reality. As if the food produced goes to the correct place.

The crops do - people like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug try their best to help out. Unfortunately, he recently passed away, and he has to fight against this: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/...-our-rice/

A very small proportion of the Worlds food goes to countries that really need it. Also, GreenPeace and other NGO's help with feeding the World's poor.

Genetic Engineering does not feed the world. 99.5 percent of farmers around the world do not grow Genetically Engineered crops.

Of course - because much of the world is still undereducated and easy to scare with sciencey sounding talk that isn't science.

It has more to with Economics, not education. >

Ten corporations control nearly 70 percent of the world's seed market. This corporate control of agriculture means farmers have less choice.

The problem is too many people, the polution they produce, and the resources they use.

We have a problem: over burdened resources. Solution: modified crops that require less fertilizer (less polution on one level) and better yield (less burden on resources. Trying to see how this is less viable than letting people just starve to death, which I suppose would take care of everything but is cruel as only a well-fed, smug white elitist asshole can be. I've been hungry - and that was only the "I have one top ramen packet for the entire day" hungry. Not "I only have one for two days, or a week...or indefinitely" This is not America we're talking about, with food stamps and shit or even the western world with its beautiful climates made for an assortment of crops that could be grown in back yards. This is mostly the third world, where there are shitty climates with a need for drought or disease resistant strains of crops that could be produced faster and more powerfully in a laboratory than by some 'organic' method of breeding and waiting while people die.

Then you get more people, who use more resources and the problem never ends. More food=More People=More Growth=More Food......where does it end.

Patents are put on just about anything, including the tools people use when they garden - the seeds wouldn't be much different. One still has to pay the price for the patent included in the price of the shovel when you need to dig. You'll have to do the same for seeds. Introduce an economy where having the lowest price outside of that gains you the most customers, and no one will have an issue. But again, most of these people have a hatred of globalization and government.

Good luck telling that to the Corporations that control the World's food supply.

There are people who are trying as best they can to save humans and the planet alike, but claiming that we can only do it by not touching the environment at all is bullshit.

Well the problem is, the Planet is coming second at the moment. The problem with that is, in the long term, without a healthy planet there will be no people to save.

[thesummerqueen]

You just don't get it do you.

This is from the University of Leeds, not the so called tree huggers.

Wait...where did I deny the authority of Leeds? I said environmentalists, which is who I meant in my original post stating that and I should have specified what kind - the sensationalist retard kind. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with the information we had - I'm saying that new information came up that may or may not change the assumptions we base decisions on when it comes to how we think about the planet and the way we interact with it. Excuse me for not specifically stating so but I rather thought that was implied when new data is explored.

For the record, I quipped about the movie Ferngully because I love jungles. I was rather obsessed with them as a child. I'm an army brat who was born in a tropical country, if you really want to get woo-woo about it. Save the rainforests! I'm all for it.

Don't you get it. No Eco-System = No Humanity. Without the biosphere there will be no goddam humanity.

You're right - the quote I responded to about your opinion of crops, I did not read correctly. By the by, nature's stronger than that - if we introduce something that takes over, it will still act like a plant does - the eco-system will shrug into a new position. We'll be forced to adapt or fail. You're correct. But I'm hard-pressed to think of something that's going to be released into the wild that will truly make it so humanity dies out because it took over the earth and destroyed every option we had left to us. We're an adaptable lot.

A very small proportion of the Worlds food goes to countries that really need it. Also, GreenPeace and other NGO's help with feeding the World's poor.

Absolutely - on their terms. Which is their right I suppose - it's their money and their supporter's money - but I don't have to agree with the scare tactics and bullshit they use, or the terms of their help. In fact, it usually gets me angry. I think they are wrong based on what I've studied and read, and I try to read both sides. Will I change my mind in the field? Maybe.

Ten corporations control nearly 70 percent of the world's seed market. This corporate control of agriculture means farmers have less choice.

That quote came from Greenpeace and I've already stated I'm under the opinion they have a certain agenda. I'll certainly be looking into those facts today - I'm actually working on a paper for school concerning this - and you're welcome to try to convince me otherwise, but I didn't see a link under that statement showing where they got their numbers, so I'm skeptical. I'm also not convinced that a little more education wouldn't prove to farmers that GM crops are more economical - if you're getting bigger bang for your buck...

Also, here's a quote from Monsanto at the other side of the spectrum, which should be treated with the same skepticism but presents another side:

The reality is that the commercial seed market is only about 33 percent of the total volume of seeds used globally. Another 33 percent is farmer saved-seed and the remaining 33 percent comes from national or public institutions. More than 1,000 separate seed companies supply the commercial seed market globally. We're one of the largest commercial seed companies, but we what we offer is less than five percent of the world's seeds. We also actively license our traits to a number of other seed companies, which means farmers have many choices for accessing the technology.

On a really really small scale, in my own backyard, this is what I do: I save seeds from what I grow, be it flowers or veggies or herbs, and I could in theory grow those plants and sell the produce and reap mostly profit. If I have to pay a small royalty for selling something with a brand name on it, it's no worse than if I am a department store selling a brand name and paying mark ups because of it. Even if there are only 10 corporations, they're still competing with each other - the smartest ones charge the least to have their name put on something. I shop at Wal-mart because their brands cost less than other store brands. And if it's something sold in other stores as well, such as Starbucks coffee beans, their mark up is usually less than another store's. I am NOT an economics major or expert by any means, but I am a consumer who has to pay attention to who is catering to me the most - and unless I'm dead wrong, is this so different on a wider scale? What people like Greenpeace and other groups are doing are using weasel words to get you to follow their principles for what nations should buy, just as someone who has a grudge against Wal-Mart might tell me their products are inferior. I really can't tell the difference in taste or nutrition value between a can of beans with Wal-Mart's little logo on it compared to Harris Teeter's or some other country-wide brand, but I can see a difference in price/yield. Nor, after a little education, do I see a point in the same store, say Harris Teeter, in buying organic over 'regular'. The reason people go to Teeter instead of Wal-Mart or buy organic instead of regular is that they've bought into the advertising people have used to discredit a certain corporation or way of living and encourage you to subscribe to their principles instead. Otherwise there is no reason for anyone to spend money on more expensive products. Educating people as to whether or not the product you're buying at a more expensive price and higher labor is really worth it will make a huge difference. Telling people who don't have the same relaxed access to information that we do that the crops they could get "more bang for their buck" for will harm them in order to enforce your own beliefs is wrong. No one is deliberately trying to harm anyone, and if it came out that something a corporation put their name behind WAS harming people monetarily or physically...don't you think it'd come out and bite them on the ass?

From NPR:

People who are a little older, make more money and have at least a college degree are most likely to think safety is not an issue for the foods, whose qualities have been altered by laboratory manipulation of DNA.

Then you get more people, who use more resources and the problem never ends. More food=More People=More Growth=More Food......where does it end.

You tell me - I thought one of the other issues we discussed on this forum was population control - it's one of the reasons I have a huge problem with religion since there's that whole "be fruitful and multiply" and discouragement of birth control, yada yada. I do believe there are plenty of children out there that could be adopted rather than pushing more kids out into the world. I don't know how to solve the highly personal and emotional issues that go behind us needing to have something of our own image rather than taking in another person's child. What I do know is that even if you disregard future population statistics, the food supply we have now doesn't feed the world - or rather, there is disproportionate access, and I'm not going to be the one who has to make the judgement over who should live or die because of it.

Good luck telling that to the Corporations that control the World's food supply.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you do believe there is some conspiracy to keep people hungry and in debt.

Well the problem is, the Planet is coming second at the moment. The problem with that is, in the long term, without a healthy planet there will be no people to save.

I agree to an extent. But I'm also a realist and I realize that no one who is hungry is going to give a good goddamn about the planet over their own stomach or their children's. I know this personally because in my own hunger pangs, I did whatever I could with commercial fertilizers and commercial seed to buy the cheapest, most effective products to grow food for my roommate and I. It's hard to successfully bring up not just enough food from the earth to eat, but also to have surplus to store in the times you can't grow it. It's backbreaking, and labor intensive. To do it organically is even more so - putting a little compost on my roses and vegetables was nowhere near as effective as a commercial fertilizer - and a commercial one cost a fuckload less than a "organic" commercially produced one, for all they have to contain the same chemicals (by the way - commercial ones are regulated. We haven't quite figured out firm regulations for things labeled "organic"). GM crops and better product management will eventually lead to a population better in tune with nature/the planet and how to get what we need without raping it and without relegating certain portions of the world's population to die of starvation until then.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I do have my own garden to tend to.

[Anomalocaris]

Genetically modified crop is by nature hard to contain. You only need to go to where it is planted to collect a few seeds or get some pollens to grow it yourself. The argument that genetically modified crops will be restricted by corporate interests to benefit the rich countries is thus unsustainable. Good genetically modified crop will grow where it is suitable for growing within a couple of decades.

[Autumnlicious]

The primary problem with GM crops is the inclusion of the "terminator" gene, which when the plants naturally cross pollinate because the morons at Monsanto can't be bothered to brush up on the obvious, ruins non-GM crops.

The procedures of farmers have always been where they maintain a steady seed supply from the previous generation. Monsanto, in including the terminator gene, has ignored that custom instead of finding a way to profit off of it, like usual licensing fees or something.

Not to mention the ethics of their patenting of plant genomes, instead of purely their novel changes.

Kinda like patenting a map of Scandinavia - stupid at best and unenforceable.

However, the ethics of genetic modification to crops is sound.

Because it is a tool. And improving and inventing tools is the story of human innovation.

[HeyItsZeus]

Leave nature alone.