GM crops "feed the world"!!??!!

sovtek

My ass!
I get sick of people blindly repeating this mantry when the argument for GM crops is made.
I'm also sick of the only issue discussed on the news is if they are safe to consume or the environment.
The main concern about GM crops is what the companies want to achieve with them.

Syth

One of the reasons that article used against GM food is that companies patent the GM food, and hence have too big a hold on the vital food market. The problem is not in GM food, but in the laws that allow food and other biological to be patented. I don't think there should be patents on biological organisms, but I have no objection in principal to GM food. Companies as it is have a hugh hold on the food market. It's not GM food that's the problem, it's making sure that we keep the companies in check.

Sparks

Originally posted by Syth
It's not GM food that's the problem, it's making sure that we keep the companies in check.

And the fact that GM seeds don't breed true - meaning that a farmer has to buy all fresh seed every single year. Which would eliminate all possible profits and then some. It'd drive most small farmers out of business.

Moriarty

What's stopping people from just using the current species(strains? damn the words on the tip of my tongue )?

Sparks

Cross-pollenation and lawsuits. GM crop next to standard crop. GM pollen fertilises standard plants and the standard plants can be harvested but they won't breed true for seed.

Plus, there's already been one lawsuit in the US where a farmer was sued for theft of intellectual property by a company when their GM strain cross-pollenated his crop.

Moriarty

Was the lawsuit succesful? Seems daft++

Syth

And the fact that GM seeds don't breed true - meaning that a farmer has to buy all fresh seed every single year. Which would eliminate all possible profits and then some. It'd drive most small farmers out of business.

I'm opposed to the principal of patenting organisms, and not to GM food. But I also think it's wrong for companies to sell sterile seed, as it gives them too much control on the market.

Plus, there's already been one lawsuit in the US where a farmer was sued for theft of intellectual property by a company when their GM strain cross-pollenated his crop.

That's just stupid. The farmer should counter-sue the company for damaging his crops.

RampagingBadger

If you want companies to develop GM food they have to have some way of making money out of it. Either a patent or the ability to make their seed infertile is necessary in this instance. The only alternative is to have government fund the production of GM crops (not a terrible idea) but that would require a lot of taxpayers money as it ain't cheap.

Sparks

You're assuming that there's a demand for GM crops, something that's not actually been seen yet.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
You're assuming that there's a demand for GM crops, something that's not actually been seen yet.

Depends what you mean. There is a massive amount of them grown and consumed - mostly in the US.

The US - rightly or wrongly - claims that there would be a far greater demand for GM crops in developing nations if there wasn't such opposition against it in places such as the EU marketplace.

But would people choose GM by choice?

Well, quite a number of them probably would, and probably have. Even allowing for the pricing model of constant seed-purchase, the savings to farmers in terms of decreased pesticide usage, increase crop-yields, etc. means that GM crops generally make the farmer more money and sell to the consumer for less, so the logic is that everyone does well out of it.

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by bonkey
Depends what you mean. There is a massive amount of them grown and consumed - mostly in the US.

The US - rightly or wrongly - claims that there would be a far greater demand for GM crops in developing nations if there wasn't such opposition against it in places such as the EU marketplace.

But would people choose GM by choice?

Well, quite a number of them probably would, and probably have. Even allowing for the pricing model of constant seed-purchase, the savings to farmers in terms of decreased pesticide usage, increase crop-yields, etc. means that GM crops generally make the farmer more money and sell to the consumer for less, so the logic is that everyone does well out of it.

jc

But there are many studies (sorry I don't have links) that I've read about that show that neither of these is necessarily the case. As well the implications of proprietary seeds and pesticides is far too much control for companies like Monsanto and other multi-nationals to have. Historically there is no reason to believe they wouldn't exploit this situation to the detriment of many in the developing world not to mention the developed.
I don't necessarily think there is a great demand for GM food when all implications are considered. The fact that the same companies have alot of access to politicians and the media (Monsanto virtually bought GWB) aids them in creating a market rather than supplying one.

Lear

Originally posted by Syth
One of the reasons that article used against GM food is that companies patent the GM food, and hence have too big a hold on the vital food market.

Hardly. GM offers new varieties of crops that allow for less pesticides, are less liable to rot and have greater nutritional value.

But you are always free to eat all that old stuff that's been around for hundreds of years.

The problem is not in GM food, but in the laws that allow food and other biological to be patented. I don't think there should be patents on biological organisms, but I have no objection in principal to GM food.

Get a grip. Without patent rights there would be no incentives to create new, better crops.

Companies as it is have a hugh hold on the food market. It's not GM food that's the problem, it's making sure that we keep the companies in check.

We'd best keep all those companies with market power over energy, transportation, clothing and especially beer in check.

Last I heard Guiness has hugh hold on the beer market

Lear

Originally posted by bonkey

Even allowing for the pricing model of constant seed-purchase, the savings to farmers in terms of decreased pesticide usage, increase crop-yields, etc. means that GM crops generally make the farmer more money and sell to the consumer for less, so the logic is that everyone does well out of it.

jc

clap, clap, clap .....

Yes, unless a product shows some benefit over other, existing products, people wouldn't generally buy it

shotamoose

Originally posted by Lear

Without patent rights there would be no incentives to create new, better crops.

Maybe not for Monsanto. Farmers will continue to develop new and better crops as they have done for centuries. The idea that patent rights are a prerequisite for agricultural development is laughably naive. Get a grip.

We'd best keep all those companies with market power over energy, transportation, clothing and especially beer in check.

Yes we had. What's your point?

BattleBoar

GM crops have a brilliant future. Research is being done that will allow crops to be grown in climates that they could never grow in normally (like extrememly arid ones), crops that stay fresh longer (a great advantage when there are no refrigerators around), and crops that require far less maintenance in terms of pesticides (another great advantage in 3rd world countries).

Generally, I'm highly supportive of GM efforts. I agree the companies that market these products need to be watched closely to make sure they aren't abusing the system, and studies on health of GM foods should be ongoing. *HOWEVER*, if they develop seeds that allow people in Africa to grow enough food to make the continent self-sufficient, it could remove one of the principal burdens preventing Africa as a continent from developing and prospering, and if they can do that, they'd deserve all the profits they'd make and then some.

Lear

Originally posted by shotamoose
Maybe not for Monsanto. Farmers will continue to develop new and better crops as they have done for centuries.

Well, three issues:

First, Farmers RARELY develop new crop strains. Corporations and Governments do. Farmers are generally not able to engage in selective breeding programs that lead to successful new crop strains.

Second, anyone developing new strains of crops can and generally do apply for the same patent protection as the genetic engineers. It's all about profit.

Third, traditional breeding programs cannot achieve what genetic engineering can in terms of new products. I don't think any selective breeding program can take a single gene from a beet plant and splice it into corn -- or remove the gene from a tomato plant that causes ripe tomatos to spoil quickly.


I suggest that you rethink your reply

Yes we had. What's your point?

Oy! Obviously you have a problem with anyone making a sucessful product or honest profit. Best you make your own clothing, grow your own crops and brew your own beer.

Me, I'm simply happy that someone saw a need, fulfilled it and enriched the market with new choices for consumers.

Lear

Originally posted by BattleBoar
GM crops have a brilliant future. Research is being done that will allow crops to be grown in climates that they could never grow in normally (like extrememly arid ones), crops that stay fresh longer ...

Don't forget about "golden rice", which is a hearty, vitamin-rich variant that will prevent millions of cases of blindness and other diseases in the third-world.

Darn those evil corporations!

shotamoose

Regardless of whether Monsanto and pals are involved or not, agricultural development will continue. Much of the best work in developing GM crops is being done in public research institutes around the world, and if corporations only interested in a money-spinning wheeze exit the scene I don't think they'll be missed.

Oy! Obviously you have a problem with anyone making a sucessful product or honest profit. Best you make your own clothing, grow your own crops and brew your own beer.

Well, obviously anyone who suggests that curbing the market power of dominant corporations might be a good thing is a hairshirt-wearing communist :rolleyes: . As opposed to someone who wants to see markets actually work. Please consider how market power might not be good for free markets, and come back when you've worked it out. Fact is, a small number of companies dominate the buyer's market for food exports from the developing world, and this keeps prices down and farmers poor.

Finally, GM foods are not necessary to make Africa self-sufficient. Africa can grow at least most of the food it needs and could import the rest with a little bit of sustained and equitable economic growth.

Lear

Originally posted by shotamoose
Regardless of whether Monsanto and pals are involved or not, agricultural development will continue.

Really? What will be developed and when? But for the patent system and financial incentive, 99% of all new crop strains would not be developed and marketed.

Finally, GM foods are not necessary to make Africa self-sufficient. Africa can grow at least most of the food it needs and could import the rest with a little bit of sustained and equitable economic growth.

Practically EVERY CROP Africa now grows was developed in the West by US or European corporations, including Monsanto and GM, so your point is inane. Regardless, an Africa with golden rice and pest-resistant crops is better-fed and healthier than an Africa without such crops.

Part of Africa's problem is that their leaders have let their populations starve rather than eat genetically modified corn based on the baseless rantings of various Euros who insist all that "Frankenfoods" will kill them.

And as to importing food, that IS the amazing issue, isn't it. Africa cannot feed itself despite having plenty of arable land. Mostly due to corruption and such, but regardless Africa could definitely benefit from improved crops.

but oh, gee, using improved crops might mean a profit for some corporation so best let then starve according to your logic.

Lear

Originally posted by shotamoose
Well, obviously anyone who suggests that curbing the market power of dominant corporations might be a good thing is a hairshirt-wearing communist :rolleyes: . As opposed to someone who wants to see markets actually work. ...

First, I'll bet a weeks salary (mine or yours) that I'm more familiar with anti-trust issues than you are.

That offer on the table I do affirmatively state that anyone who suggests that market power per se is somehow a bad thing in of itself is a leftist reactionary who's probably too stupid to make his own hairshirt.

Market power can be achieved through means that are detrimental to society as a whole (that antitrust thing), but market power is more often than not achieved through hard work and inventiveness. Motorola, Analog Devices and Texas Instruments practically own the entirety of the DSP market, but as far as I can tell they did it by making damn GREAT products. Intel, Motorola and AMD practically own the general purpose processor market, but mostly because they make more processors that are faster, better and cheaper than the also-rans. Bitch all you want about Xerox, but without their inventiveness and hard work, you'd be making copies on a mimeograph.

I can't think of a single reason to take their market shares away from these companies and plenty of reasons to allow them to continue their daily biz.

bonkey

Originally posted by Lear
Hardly. GM offers new varieties of crops that allow for less pesticides, are less liable to rot and have greater nutritional value.

But you are always free to eat all that old stuff that's been around for hundreds of years.

Yes, that old stuff that we know virtually everything about from a nutritional and ecological point of view, as well as any possible side-effects it may have on humans, the ecology in general, etc. as well as what way it behaves around other crops etc. etc.

Simple fact - the wheat genome is one of the most complex known on the planet. In fact, it is massively more complex than the human genome. So complex, that they are only starting to map it now, and will hopefully have the project finished in 7 to 10 years.

Combine this with the emerging facts that so-called junk DNA is now being discovered to be not-so-junky any more, and we end up in a situation where the so-called wisdom of genetically modifying anything is increasingly dodgy....both from the point of view of being able to understand any long-term implications it may have on our own biology/physiology and/or the ecology in general.

But you know...I'm obviously just a science crackpot conspiracy theorist because, hey, this stuff which hasn't been around for as long as I have is obviously safe....right? I mean...if problems haven't shown up within one lifetime, its bound to be safe.....and the people selling it to us swear that its all ok.

Practically EVERY CROP Africa now grows was developed in the West by US or European corporations, including Monsanto and GM, so your point is inane.

While virtually every crop grown in Africa may be a strain which was created by a western power of some description, the vast, vast majority of those crops were not created through genetic modifications but rather through traditional means, which no-one has a problem with, and which the EU would not refuse.

I can't believe that you don't understand the difference, but I equally can't believe that you do understand the difference and are still making the point that the two are somehow equivalent.

Regardless, an Africa with golden rice and pest-resistant crops is better-fed and healthier than an Africa without such crops.

Tell me, what would happen should the GM modification for pesticide-resistance (which is a common one) make a "species jump" and end up in the weeds that the pesticides were supposed to kill???? You do, I assume, know that this has been observed on a limited scale already in the wild, so its not scary make-believe science.

I would also draw your attention to the massive amount of material concerning your beloved golden rice which calls its benefits into question. From the "I'm feeling lucky" on google from typing in "golden rice", I found this :

Manila/Amsterdam: Genetically engineered "Golden Rice" containing provitamin A will not solve the problem of malnutrition in developing countries according to Greenpeace. The Genetic Engineering (GE) industry claims vitamin A rice could save thousands of children from blindness and millions of malnourished people from vitamin A deficiency (VAD) related diseases. But a simple calculation based on the product developers' own figures show an adult would have to eat at least twelve times the normal intake of 300 grams to get the daily recommended amount of provitamin A.(1)

Well thats brilliant. As long as they eat 12 times more than they normally would, they'll actually get the benefit of the modification. Gosh. You've convinced me. Golden rice will make all the difference......just as soon a we grow enough for every African adult to eat somewhere between 3 and 4 kilos of the stuff per day.

And this is based on the figures supplied by the developers. Its not some wacko tree-hugging freak refusing to accept their nutritional figures. Its some wacko-tree-hugging freak taking their supplied nutritional figures, applying them to known nutritional equations, and coming to the conclusion that the stated benefits are a load of old cobblers.

Golden Rice may offer a better source of nutrition than "normal" rice, but that doesn't come without its own potential risks and costs....and on its own it will save no-one.

Part of Africa's problem is that their leaders have let their populations starve rather than eat genetically modified corn

No, the problem is that Africa have let their populations starve rather than plant genetically modified corn, because should those GM modifications species jump, then Africa will potentially lose the possibility of ever exporting [/i]any[/i] edible foodstuffs to Europe if and when it (Africa) sorts itself out.

based on the baseless rantings of various Euros who insist all that "Frankenfoods" will kill them.

You now, such an ill-educated comment as that just shows how solid your own arguments are. "Not very" would be a charitable assessment.

Not only is that not what the various Euro's have insisted, but also what they have insisted - and continue to insist - is far from baseless.

But, you know, the use of factually inaccurate emotive arguments is something thats become standard for proponents of GM foods, so its not like we paranoid Euros aren't already used to it.....

The real fact is that the vast majority of crops grown in Africa are not genetically modified, because the African nations know that would give them a hard time to ever export those crops, or any other crops grown near them should the GM foods ever cross-pollinate or the genetic modifications ever species-jump : both events which are known to occur with GM foods, and both events which no-one has any sort of reliable model about what the impact could be.

That is coupled with the fact that the economics of having to purchase seeds every year is something that the African nations are not sure they can afford to sustain.

Its relatively easy for developed nations with farming subsidies to manage this, but when you start talking about people who can barely feed themselves and keep enough seed for next years crop at the same time....you have to figure out where the money to buy the seed each year will come from - especially when your nearest significant market won't purchase the stuff.

ut oh, gee, using improved crops might mean a profit for some corporation so best let then starve according to your logic.

According to his logic, using genetically modified crops is not necessary to prevent starvation....not that we should let them starve rather than encourage the use of GM foods.

Are you actually reading whats written here, or are you just deliberately misconstruing whtas being said to make it easier to put forward your own case?

jc

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
But would people choose GM by choice?

That's pretty much what I meant by demand bonkey. As I understand it, GM crops in the US don't have to carry labels identifying them as such, so saying there's a demand for them isn't accurate, since there's no way to identify the product on it's GM status. There's a demand for corn, certainly - but GM corn?

Even allowing for the pricing model of constant seed-purchase, the savings to farmers in terms of decreased pesticide usage, increase crop-yields, etc. means that GM crops generally make the farmer more money and sell to the consumer for less, so the logic is that everyone does well out of it.

I'm afraid that that's just the salesman's pitch JC, the actual field trials in the UK showed that the GM crops needed more pesticide and herbicide, not less. Apparently there were unexpected interactions between the crops and the local pests and weeds.
The upshot was the the GM crops cost more per unit harvested than the regular crops, and they didn't breed true so after taking a loss on your normal profits, you (the farmer) now have to take a further loss in buying new seed - and if you stay with your old variants, anyone within twenty or more miles of you (that figure also based on field trials where cross-pollenation distances turned out to be longer than anticipated) can contaminate your crops through cross-pollenation.

The example that keeps jumping to my mind here isn't a GM one though, it's a cross-breeding one from south america where someone thought crossing the stronger, healthier, more productive african honeybee with the docile, managable european one. A minor accident in the experiment (a hive left open on a weekend) released the bees before the experiment was completed and now, a few decades, several dead people and more than one bad B horror movie later, we have the african honeybee taking over throughout both americas, and the european bee an endangered species because when the african bee mates with a european bee, the offspring are african bees. It's bee-come (sorry, couldn't resist) a serious problem.

Similarly here, cross-pollenation between GM and "natural" results in sterile plants which means that the older variants could be wiped out completely inside of a generation - a scarily short time period on the appropriate timescales.

That's not to say that GM techniques don't have merit - it's to say that rushing to deliver a product for which there is no demand and on which no long-term testing has been completed in either lab or field, is a bad idea.

bonkey

Originally posted by Lear
Me, I'm simply happy that someone saw a need, fulfilled it and enriched the market with new choices for consumers.

Choices? I'm sorry...you did say "new choices" there, didn't you???

Thats funny....because I could have sworn that you've been criticising the Europeans for exercising this choice that you say is being offered to us.

So which is it? We can rightly choose whether or not we want these new products, or we are wrong for not choosing what you think we should?

If its not about choice, then stop suggesting that choice has anything to do with it. If it is about choice, then stop criticising others for exercising it.

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by Lear
Don't forget about "golden rice", which is a hearty, vitamin-rich variant that will prevent millions of cases of blindness and other diseases in the third-world.

Darn those evil corporations!

If you had read the article you would have seen the part where it says that the variant of Vitamin A in "golden rice" isn't absorbed by the human body.
As well it takes MORE pesticide...not less. And that goes for every independent study I've read about GM crops.

sovtek

Originally posted by bonkey
No, the problem is that Africa have let their populations starve rather than plant genetically modified corn, because should those GM modifications species jump, then Africa will potentially lose the possibility of ever exporting [/i]any[/i] edible foodstuffs to Europe if and when it (Africa) sorts itself out.

Do I need to mention the IMF and WTO conditions they place on African countries that also largely contribute to the hunger problem in Africa? As well as the military aid "we" supply to these people that "can't get their act together"?

Villain

sorry to butt in here, but is it legal to grow GM foods in Ireland??

sovtek

Originally posted by Lear

Darn those evil corporations!

When they use their economic and political power through such things as the IMF/WTO to force their will on the poorest of the world in order to extract even more money for the richest of the world...then yes!

Lear

Originally posted by sovtek
When they use their economic and political power through such things as the IMF/WTO to force their will on the poorest of the world in order to extract even more money for the richest of the world...then yes!

Gee, can you give me an example where Monsanto or any other developer of GM foods has forced its will on the poorest of the world? No, you can't, but that doesn't seem to stop you from making untrue rants.

According to you, the poor are better off starving to death if the atlernative means that companies like Monsanto might make a profit while selling superior products. You'd best get to making that hair shirt to go with your tin-foil hat.

Sparks

Originally posted by Lear
According to you, the poor are better off starving to death if the atlernative means that companies like Monsanto might make a profit while selling superior products. You'd best get to making that hair shirt to go with your tin-foil hat.

'Scuse me? Every study run by anyone other than the people trying to sell this stuff shows that it isn't more nutritious, takes more pesticide and herbicide to grow a crop, doesn't produce seed, contaminates nearby crops, and costs far more than regular crops to grow. What's good about it?

Egalitarian

Given the amount of spleen vented by opponents of GMOs, it is surprising that all but one genetic scientist, worldwide, rejects the notion that genetically manipulated seeds present a risk to the environment or humans. Dr Putszai is, however, a rather maverick voice in the wilderness of modern scientific understanding, who stiil maintains the bizarre Lamarckian notion of genetic inheritance in opposition to natural selection. So, in spite of the absence of any credible scientific evidence that GMOs are harmful its opponents are really talking about something other than genetics.

What we have is a rather anxious sentiment which does not trust scientific experimentation, and demands the precautionary principle to outlaw any technical advances which may have potentially have side effects. This turns science upside down, asking scientists to experiment only when they know all the answers - and if there is no evidence of unknown unknowns then hold back even longer since one can't say with any confidence that these unknown dangers may have evaded our limited observations. The paralysis this produces for technological solutions to real agricultural barriers in different climates is indefensible.

Alternatively, we are told that GMOs are being imposed by IMF/WTO in tow to big business. As an old adversary of external interference in LDCs, I would share this viewpoint if it had any resemblance to reality - but it doesn't. The public funded CGIAR and FAO have long been the key players for technological diffusion of improved seeds, and it is in these institutions that the benefits of biotechnology is being paralysed. The only tangible external interference that poor countries feel is the restraints imposed by appropriate technology dogma which dismisses tractors, fertiliser and GMOs as ill-suited to the rustic tradition of subsistence farming in Africa.

If GMOs can improve the agricultural yield, fertiliser dependence and climactic tolerance with little or no evidence that there exist any meaningful risks, then GMOs are go! But African farmers have had their hands tied behind their back by the IMF and the World Bank. These farmers are being discouraged from mechanised, modern farming practices. It's the large foreign owned plantations who are free to circumvent the 'aid' and 'development' agencies and plant GMOs. In Africa, poor farmers are given a chicken or goat when what they need is the modern means to produce crops efficiently.

sovtek

Originally posted by Lear
Gee, can you give me an example where Monsanto or any other developer of GM foods has forced its will on the poorest of the world?

But one

No, you can't, but that doesn't seem to stop you from making untrue rants.

Who's ranting? Even if I am ranting, the untrue part is far from being established by yourself.

According to you, the poor are better off starving to death

That's known as a logical fallacy

if the atlernative means that companies like Monsanto might make a profit while selling superior products.

Profit isn't the issue unless you are talking about the victim country's inability to benefit from something that they had no choice in the first place.

You'd best get to making that hair shirt to go with your tin-foil hat.

Look up ad hominem.

*sniff* I smell American.

Sparks

Originally posted by Egalitarian
Given the amount of spleen vented by opponents of GMOs, it is surprising that all but one genetic scientist, worldwide, supports the notion that genetically manipulated seeds present a risk to the environment or humans.

So, in spite of the absence of any credible scientific evidence that GMOs are harmful its opponents are really talking about something other than genetics.

'scuse me? Those two sentences in the same paragraph contradict each other.

Besides which, two things:

1) GM crops represent a possible threat to our food supply. The consequences should that threat be realised are so serious that being highly cautious is the correct response, especially when GM foods are not currently needed.

2) There has been scientific evidence demonstrating that GM foods have adverse reactions on their environment, and that they cross-pollinate over large distances. This isn't the MMR debate again, where risk perception was badly exploited by a group using dodgy research done by a scientist with a vested interest in one set of results.

What we have is a rather anxious sentiment which does not trust scientific experimentation

Actually, in the EU it's more a mistrust of US corporate motives in promoting these products.

and demands the precautionary principle to outlaw any technical advances which may have potentially have side effects.

Who's asking for that?

This turns science upside down, asking scientists to experiment only when they know all the answers - and if there is no evidence of unknown unknowns then hold back even longer since one can't say with any confidence that these unknown dangers may have evaded our limited observations.

That's just noise. It's patently not the case here. Further, scientific experimentation being subject to strict safety measures is not just normal in many fields, but necessary - you don't run virology labs without safety measures for example.

The paralysis this produces for technological solutions to real agricultural barriers in different climates is indefensible.

That's a nice sentence. Now tell me, what agricultural barriers are these crops (which have lower yields, produce no seed, are nutritionally equivalent to normal crops, cross-pollinate other crops, require more pesticide and herbicide and cost more money to buy seed and grow) going to solve?

If GMOs can improve the agricultural yield, fertiliser dependence and climactic tolerance with little or no evidence that there exist any meaningful risks, then GMOs are go!

Agreed! But they do not, and there is evidence.

But African farmers have had their hands tied behind their back by the IMF and the World Bank.

Actually, these bound farmers are the ones refusing GM seed from the US, because oddly enough, they don't want them.

Egalitarian

Originally posted by Sparks

GM crops represent a possible threat to our food supply. The consequences should that threat be realised are so serious that being highly cautious is the correct response, especially when GM foods are not currently needed.

Since when do we not need technological improvement? Also, since you asked who does demand the precautionary principle then you might like to read your first remark again.

Actually, these bound farmers are the ones refusing GM seed from the US, because oddly enough, they don't want them

May I ask when you visited farmers in Africa to elicit their views on GMOs?

sovtek

Originally posted by Sparks
Actually, these bound farmers are the ones refusing GM seed from the US, because oddly enough, they don't want them.

Yea but that's Europe's fault for not choosing GM products either. :rolleyes:
Choice...what a beautiful thing.

Sparks

Originally posted by Egalitarian
Since when do we not need technological improvement?

The phrase you're thinking of is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Also, since you asked who does demand the precautionary principle then you might like to read your first remark again.

You're not being clear. Please be more explicit.

May I ask when you visited farmers in Africa to elicit their views on GMOs?

I didn't have to, they chose to reject shipments of GM seeds and returned them to the US. It was reported by the news media.

Lear

Originally posted by Sparks
'scuse me? Those two sentences in the same paragraph contradict each other.

Besides which, two things:

1) GM crops represent a possible threat to our food supply.

Fine, everything is a possible threat to our food supply.

Show me an iota of scientific evidence that the costs of GM crops outweigh the benefits.

2) There has been scientific evidence demonstrating that GM foods have adverse reactions on their environment, ...

No, there have been hysteric rantings of theory without any meaningful study to affirm such theories.

Actually, in the EU it's more a mistrust of US corporate motives in promoting these products.

Well, that's fine. The EU should be free to accept or reject GM technology, I simply question the motivation of these EU activists.

That's just noise. It's patently not the case here. Further, scientific experimentation being subject to strict safety measures is not just normal in many fields, but necessary - you don't run virology labs without safety measures for example.

We aren't talking virology. We are talking about food crops that have been specifically altered by taking a gene out of one plant and splicing it into a second plant.

That's a nice sentence. Now tell me, what agricultural barriers are these crops (which have lower yields, produce no seed, are nutritionally equivalent to normal crops, cross-pollinate other crops, require more pesticide and herbicide and cost more money to buy seed and grow) going to solve?

Oy! First, not all of these crops do not have lower yields, and often these crops will grow in areas where their progenators will not.

Second, these plants WILL produce seeds. Rice grains are a seed, for example, as are kernels of corn. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Agreed! But they do not, and there is evidence.

I'll make a bet with you. If I can show that there is a GM crop that requires less chemical treatment, you never post here again. If I cannot, I will leave here forever.

Agreed?

Actually, these bound farmers are the ones refusing GM seed from the US, because oddly enough, they don't want them.

That's perfectly fine with me, but I suspect that the farmer's choices have more to do with whether they could sell a GM crop in the EU as opposed to whether such a crop will be more cost effective.

Sparks

Originally posted by Lear
Fine, everything is a possible threat to our food supply.

Not at this level. This isn't a threat of killing off a harvest or reducing yield - this is a threat of replacing an entire seed line with a lesser strain that doesn't breed true.

Show me an iota of scientific evidence that the costs of GM crops outweigh the benefits.

How about instead I show you the more "practical" economic fact that GM crops cost more and yield less than regular crops, as shown in the UK trials?
Or do you prefer to read the sections of the UK report detailing the cross-pollinations with regular crops during the trial outside the proposed quarintine zone?

No, there have been hysteric rantings of theory without any meaningful study to affirm such theories.

Cross-pollination with a species that does not breed true is a significant impact on the environment, and the increased demand for pesticide and herbicide by GM crops is as well.

Well, that's fine. The EU should be free to accept or reject GM technology, I simply question the motivation of these EU activists.

And others question the motivation of the US companies pushing GM produce.
The point is that the GM foods are unproven, inferior, more expensive and damaging to normal crops.

We aren't talking virology. We are talking about food crops that have been specifically altered by taking a gene out of one plant and splicing it into a second plant.

Do I need to say "killer bees" to point out that even cross-breeding by traditional methods isn't trouble-free, and that I have shoes older than genetic manipulation on this order?

Oy! First, not all of these crops do not have lower yields, and often these crops will grow in areas where their progenators will not.
Second, these plants WILL produce seeds. Rice grains are a seed, for example, as are kernels of corn. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Yes, seeds you can eat. However "does not breed true" means that those seeds which you can eat will not grow to produce more of their progenitors.

I'll make a bet with you. If I can show that there is a GM crop that requires less chemical treatment, you never post here again. If I cannot, I will leave here forever.
Agreed?

So if you can find an exception to the rule, I have to leave for pointing out the rule? Nice logic.

That's perfectly fine with me, but I suspect that the farmer's choices have more to do with whether they could sell a GM crop in the EU as opposed to whether such a crop will be more cost effective.

Really? If you would go broke selling a crop on an open market because of increased production costs, how does it matter that that proposed market doesn't actually exist?

Sparks

Here's a collection of articles pointing out the less-than-stellar attributes of GMO's for those interested.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Lear

I'll make a bet with you. If I can show that there is a GM crop that requires less chemical treatment, you never post here again. If I cannot, I will leave here forever.

Agreed?

Here's a thought. Realise that this is not a western, and you are not Lee Marvin. You're new here, so maybe you don't know that this isn't how we have debates. Here, we pay attention when other people talk. Hopefully, we actually take into account what they say. So please stop with the insults and gamesmanship, because - for someone who claims to be so knowledgeable and well-travelled - it does you no favours.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Lear
First, I'll bet a weeks salary (mine or yours) that I'm more familiar with anti-trust issues than you are.

You do like making these bets, don't you? Personally, I can't see why anyone interested in a rational debate would do so. The only possible reason is to scare the other person into silence.

Anyway, I care even less about your experience with anti-trust issues than I care about your analysis of 'the DSP market'. Stick to the point. Your arguments have been exposed by bonkey who knows more about the relevant science than either I or, apparently, you do. Since you haven't tried to contest his points and have instead engaged others with more bets and accusations, I'm guessing you can't contest them.

So let me just discuss your defence of market power. Like I said, the activities of Intel etc are irrelevant to the point in question: market power in agriculture and Africa's prospects for feeding itself. Let's look at coffeee production. There are 25 million coffee farmers around the world, and the countries most dependent on earnings from coffee exports are among the poorest in the world Burundi, Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda and Honduras. Unfortunately for them, the global coffee industry is extraordinarily concentrated at the trading, roasting and retailing stages: those 25m farmers are faced by four companies who control 39% of the trading market, three companies who control 45% of the roasting market, and 30 companies who together control 33% of the global retail market.

The end result is farmers receive only a tiny percentage of the price of retailed coffee, with the vast bulk of the profits going to roasters and retailers: out of every kilogramme of coffee retailing at $3.57, farmers get less than $0.05 and the roaster and retailer get over a dollar each. Maybe you think Nestle or Proctor and Gamble deserve this because of
the incredibly GREAT job they do roasting coffee?

In summary, the market power of traders, roasters and retailers keep down the prices they pay and keep millions of farmers in Africa in poverty. Poverty which is getting worse, by the way, as coffee prices have lost two-thirds of their value since 1997.

source

Redleslie

Originally posted by shotamoose
the activities of Intel etc are irrelevant to the point in question: market power in agriculture and Africa's prospects for feeding itself.

I was thinking something similar when I read Lear's post. Control of the food chain is a bit more important that control of the photocopier market.

George Monbiot mentions that GM crops will be grown to feed animals not humans anyway, because the IMF orders 3rd world countries to switch from producing food for local markets to producing cash crops for export, in order to earn foreign currency to pay off debts. Biotech corporations like Monsanto are not in the business of feeding the poor. They don't do charidee. They make money for shareholders. That's acceptable, until they (and their technocrat cheerleaders) try to pretend that they're altruistic and concerned with feeding the world's poor as well.