Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

GM in Ireland

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Right, banned for 3 days for discussing moderation in-thread and carrying on the bickering,

    Get back on topic.


  • Options
    #33
    whiteonion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 837 ✭✭✭whiteonion


    Well let's see, GM soy has caused havoc in South America. In places like Paraguay they have huge monocultures of GM soy. They have cut down huge areas of rainforest to clear way for GM soy. http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/wp-content/uploads/Rainforests-getting-cut-down-for-soy.jpg This leads to soil degradation and destruction of the land. Is this the future you want for Ireland?


  • Options
    #34
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    whiteonion wrote: »
    Well let's see, GM soy has caused havoc in South America. In places like Paraguay they have huge monocultures of GM soy. They have cut down huge areas of rainforest to clear way for GM soy.
    Surely that's one of the drawbacks of agriculture in general, rather than something that is specific to GM crops?


  • Options
    #35
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    whiteonion wrote: »
    Well let's see, GM soy has caused havoc in South America. In places like Paraguay they have huge monocultures of GM soy. They have cut down huge areas of rainforest to clear way for GM soy. http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/wp-content/uploads/Rainforests-getting-cut-down-for-soy.jpg This leads to soil degradation and destruction of the land. Is this the future you want for Ireland?

    How much more land do you think they would need to deforest if they weren't using the gm high yield crops? They have to deforest so much because there is so many people to feed, its thanks to gm crops that they dont need (yet) to deforest the lot.


  • Options
    #36
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    Mark Hamill, I already answered all of that in this topic.

    I checked and you didn't. I await your response to my post in three days.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    whiteonion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 837 ✭✭✭whiteonion


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    How much more land do you think they would need to deforest if they weren't using the gm high yield crops? They have to deforest so much because there is so many people to feed, its thanks to gm crops that they dont need (yet) to deforest the lot.

    that gm crops generate higher yields that traditional crops doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny. http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/new-study-gm-wheat-yields-48-56-percent-less-in-field-experiments/


  • Options
    #38
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    whiteonion wrote: »
    that gm crops generate higher yields that traditional crops doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny. http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/201/07/18/new-study-gm-wheat-yields-48-56-percent-less-in-field-experiments/

    Read the actual paper:
    The crop in question gave increased yields and had resistance to the mildew it was GM against, the decreased yields (in two of only four strains, btw), can be attributed to the fact that none were treated with fungicide.


  • Options
    #39
    daithiordave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭daithiordave


    this documentary http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/future_of_food/ answered a lot of questions i had on gm and food, anyone see it ?

    thought this was funny on it http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80839


  • Options
    #40
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    daithiordave wrote: »
    this documentary http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/future_of_food/ answered a lot of questions i had on gm and food, anyone see it ?

    Never seen it. From the wikipedia article it seems to come out strong against the business practises of the likes of Monsanto (terminator gene etc) which I would also be against. However I see a difference between decrying the business practises of GM companies and the benefits of GM food itself.


  • Options
    #41
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    daithiordave wrote: »
    this documentary http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/future_of_food/ answered a lot of questions i had on gm and food, anyone see it ?
    Nope - could you provide a synopsis?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    daithiordave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭daithiordave


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    However I see a difference between decrying the business practises of GM companies and the benefits of GM food itself.

    I agree but the problem is it is difficult to separate the two, because of the power of these companies. Gm crops is relatively new and as such we really only have one country to look to on this subject, america. But that isnt what that documentary is all about, its a general warning to all about gm crops and how not to do things, which are being done.

    If we go by america as basis for the planting and eating of gm crops, there has been a lot of shady goings on around the testing, regulation and advertising of gm grops in america, in most cases it hasn't been tested and is completely unregulated. In many respects they have been testing it on the american people.

    There is also a number of problems around gm crops, like patenting cross pollination, increased use of pesticides, anyway i shouldn't be posting right now , back to work, the documentary is only an hour and a half long. Can be watched free.


  • Options
    #43
    daithiordave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭daithiordave


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Nope - could you provide a synopsis?
    You mean further then what is written in the reviews and description from the link ? , well i would like to do a write up on the subject soon, but like many other topics i havent had the time :) , reading up on such things and watching docs takes up so much of my free time as it is :) . But i will, i think. Its a very important topic and one that people need to look into.


  • Options
    #44
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    daithiordave wrote: »
    You mean further then what is written in the reviews and description from the link ? , well i would like to do a write up on the subject soon, but like many other topics i havent had the time :) , reading up on such things and watching docs takes up so much of my free time as it is :) . But i will, i think. Its a very important topic and one that people need to look into.
    What you have in your previous post is fine. As a general rule, we ask that people do not post links sans discussion, but you've explained the nature of the documentary above, so that's fine.


  • Options
    #45
    daithiordave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭daithiordave


    djpbarry wrote: »
    What you have in your previous post is fine. As a general rule, we ask that people do not post links sans discussion, but you've explained the nature of the documentary above, so that's fine.

    Apologies, should have read it, rarely post


  • Options
    #46
    SuperInfinity
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,449 ✭✭✭SuperInfinity


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    How much more land do you think they would need to deforest if they weren't using the gm high yield crops? They have to deforest so much because there is so many people to feed, its thanks to gm crops that they dont need (yet) to deforest the lot.

    Mark Hamill, you have a cute line of thinking here, and that is how a lot of people think. "the GM foods will feed people, shur isn't that what we want?!".

    The more people you feed, the more people there will be to feed in the future. It's a vicious circle. People should be left to starve to death if it means not having GM foods. I would genuinely starve to death if it gauranteed that no GM foods were ever available to anyone.

    It's time to face facts. Everyone dies at some point, what makes a life worthwhile is if you have left your descendants something good behind. We can't stop people from having children in poorer countries, if they have too many that they can't feed then they should be left to starve to death. Otherwise, they are putting us all and all our descendants in jeopardy. In the long run, it would be a mercy. In the long run, LESS people would starve and we wouldn't have ruined food. There would just be more to feed otherwise, you won't "save" anyone.

    I also have another avenue that I didn't really express or emphasize before, I hope this might answer your question:

    The food a farmer owns in his field is his food, right? It is his property. If GM foods should contaminate his crops, then they have irreversibly modified his crops, right? It doesn't MATTER if you say: "show me the evidence that it's bad". Many GM contaminations have ruined crops, but even if they didn't... it is the farmer's property. He has every right to keep his crops how they are. These people are going to rape the planet if they're allowed, and it's a very slippery slope. They should not be allowed to alter other people's property.

    I hope that goes some way to answering your questions, if not then I have nothing more to add so won't be replying back here. Again, I do not believe anyone who is remotely scientifically-minded person could possibly be in favour of GM foods, I'm saying this because of the ad hominem attacks thrown at me.


  • Options
    #47
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    The more people you feed, the more people there will be to feed in the future. It's a vicious circle.
    Then why are birth rates so low in developed countries?
    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    I would genuinely starve to death if it gauranteed that no GM foods were ever available to anyone.
    Good for you – don’t expect too many people to share that point of view.
    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    We can't stop people from having children in poorer countries, if they have too many that they can't feed then they should be left to starve to death.
    Very easy when it’s not your kids, eh?
    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    Otherwise, they are putting us all and all our descendants in jeopardy.
    How?
    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    In the long run, LESS people would starve and we wouldn't have ruined food. There would just be more to feed otherwise, you won't "save" anyone.
    Utter nonsense – there is already plenty of food to go round, GM or no GM. The reasons for the large numbers of starving people in the world are largely political.
    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    Many GM contaminations have ruined crops...
    Such as?
    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    ...but even if they didn't...
    You just said they did – make up your mind.
    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    ...it is the farmer's property. He has every right to keep his crops how they are.
    Whether the farmer likes it or not, genetic mutations happen all the time. Whether you like it or not, genetic mutations (modifications) are occurring in your body as we speak.
    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    Again, I do not believe anyone who is remotely scientifically-minded person could possibly be in favour of GM foods...
    And I don’t believe that anyone who is remotely scientifically-minded could not possibly see any benefits in the study of genetics.


  • Options
    #48
    SuperInfinity
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,449 ✭✭✭SuperInfinity


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Then why are birth rates so low in developed countries?

    How am I supposed to know why they are so low in developed countries? That has nothing to do with it. The fact is that they're not low in these third world countries and the populations will keep expanding. Surely you agree with that.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Then why are birth rates so low in developed countries?
    Utter nonsense – there is already plenty of food to go round, GM or no GM. The reasons for the large numbers of starving people in the world are largely political.[/quote]

    There is plenty poor food to go around if it weren't for politics, not fresh, organic food.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Such as?

    GM cotton are said to have made bt crops worse than they are, according to the documentary I watched they made them much worse than if they had just used their original crops.

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/12/gm-cotton-fails-pests-thriving-when-they-should-be-dead.php

    djpbarry wrote: »
    You just said they did – make up your mind.

    Of course I said they did. You are an IDIOT. I am saying that they did but even if they didn't. Do you even know what "even if they didn't" means?
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Whether the farmer likes it or not, genetic mutations happen all the time. Whether you like it or not, genetic mutations (modifications) are occurring in your body as we speak.

    Yes, but they are not being done by scientists. What you are saying is like saying: "Whether you like it or not, your skin is being touched as we speak, so why not allow these scientists to do it for their own benefit" or "Whether you like it or not, insects are going to eat some of your crop as we speak, so why not allow people to steal your crops in bulk?"

    Ridiculous arguments. These GM organisms could ruin the world and anyone who can't see that is a fool. Don't talk to me again.

    And to say that the terminator gene is something unnecessary or unwanted is something that is just so retarded and such a despicable and disgusting thing to say that it sickens me.


  • Options
    #49
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    How am I supposed to know why they are so low in developed countries? That has nothing to do with it.
    You said that “the more people you feed, the more people there will be to feed in the future”. But in the developed world, where people are very well fed, birth rates are very low – what gives?
    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    GM cotton are said to have made bt crops worse than they are...
    Eh, Bt-cotton is GM cotton.
    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    Of course I said they did. You are an IDIOT.
    Right, that’s a permanent ban for you. You had your chance, now take your ranting elsewhere please.


  • Options
    #50
    daithiordave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭daithiordave


    Birth rates tend to be effected by education, availability of contraception, poverty, and government policies. I could try go more into it but im not sure its applicable to this thread or that im that much of an expert on it :)

    People are starving around the world from lack of access to food rather then the availability of food on a global scale. Many reasons on this but mainly people have been driven from either access or the ability to farm there own food sustainably, we want there workforce as cheap labor, not to compete with us selling food.

    GM right now, has nothing to do with feeding the world, it may well help a lot in the future, but that is not why it is here today. Its about profit, and control of food. Companies pertain that feeding the world is the reason so that every one can go back to sleep, comfortable in the knowledge that these companies know best and are going to save the poor children :)


  • Options
    #51
    MalteseBarry
    Closed Accounts Posts: 82 ✭✭MalteseBarry


    Anyone who thinks they are not eating GM foods is delusional. Man has been genetically modifying foods and animals for hundreds of years. Just because it is now done in a laboratory rather than the cowshed or barn doesn't alter the fact.

    There have always been luddites who have opposed progress, and those who oppose GM foods seem to have no arguments at all except to try to stir up others emotions and create scares about "big business" and "frankenstein foods".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    daithiordave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭daithiordave


    MalteseBarry wrote: »
    Anyone who thinks they are not eating GM foods is delusional. Man has been genetically modifying foods and animals for hundreds of years. Just because it is now done in a laboratory rather than the cowshed or barn doesn't alter the fact.

    There have always been luddites who have opposed progress, and those who oppose GM foods seem to have no arguments at all except to try to stir up others emotions and create scares about "big business" and "frankenstein foods".

    Are you just trolling ? , seriously your 2 contributions to the thread are

    1) the anti-science argument which makes no sense, since when did questioning of gm and proper research and testing on its effects become anti-science

    2) that we have been doing gm for hundreds of years ? How do you compare cross breeding with todays genetically modified foods ?


  • Options
    #53
    MalteseBarry
    Closed Accounts Posts: 82 ✭✭MalteseBarry


    daithiordave wrote: »
    Are you just trolling ? , seriously your 2 contributions to the thread are

    1) the anti-science argument which makes no sense, since when did questioning of gm and proper research and testing on its effects become anti-science

    2) that we have been doing gm for hundreds of years ? How do you compare cross breeding with todays genetically modified foods ?

    1) to notice that the arguments made by those who oppose genetic modification are often emotional and try to create scares, is not anti-science, but pointing out the lack of a scientific approach.

    2) Cross breeding is an attempt to modify the genetics. Genetically modified foods are an attempt to modify the genetics.

    I can't help notice you don't make any argument, but ask rhetorical questions such as "are you just trolling?" which don't seem to add much to debate.


  • Options
    #54
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    Mark Hamill, you have a cute line of thinking here, and that is how a lot of people think. "the GM foods will feed people, sure isn't that what we want?!".

    That wasn't my point, although a lot of people do make it. My point was that, when taking into account the number of people there is to feed in the world, you must realise that its inevitable that some deforestation will occur. The benefit of gm food, with its increased crop yields, is that less defoestaion is needed than non gm foods.
    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    The more people you feed, the more people there will be to feed in the future. It's a vicious circle.

    These are two different issues, gm food and population control. Its perfectly possible to inpliment population control witout the need for starving vast quantities of people to death (ensure economic stability, give better education and contraception etc.).
    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    People should be left to starve to death if it means not having GM foods. I would genuinely starve to death if it gauranteed that no GM foods were ever available to anyone.

    Frankly, this is pretty disgusting and, I'm sure, is only easy to say when you have never gone hungry for days and had to watched your family starve to death.
    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    It's time to face facts. Everyone dies at some point, what makes a life worthwhile is if you have left your descendants something good behind. We can't stop people from having children in poorer countries, if they have too many that they can't feed then they should be left to starve to death. Otherwise, they are putting us all and all our descendants in jeopardy. In the long run, it would be a mercy. In the long run, LESS people would starve and we wouldn't have ruined food. There would just be more to feed otherwise, you won't "save" anyone.

    Lets face facts, we dont need to let anyone starve. We have the ability to feed everyone alive today and the knowledge to curb population growth for a more sustainable future. The fact that you are advocating for the deaths of millions just shows how little thought you hvae put into your position.
    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    The food a farmer owns in his field is his food, right? It is his property. If GM foods should contaminate his crops, then they have irreversibly modified his crops, right? It doesn't MATTER if you say: "show me the evidence that it's bad". Many GM contaminations have ruined crops, but even if they didn't... it is the farmer's property. He has every right to keep his crops how they are. These people are going to rape the planet if they're allowed, and it's a very slippery slope. They should not be allowed to alter other people's property.

    This is a point for stronger legislation against the improper practises of food companies. I am not against it, but it is a different issue than being against gm food themselves.
    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    I hope that goes some way to answering your questions, if not then I have nothing more to add so won't be replying back here. Again, I do not believe anyone who is remotely scientifically-minded person could possibly be in favour of GM foods, I'm saying this because of the ad hominem attacks thrown at me.

    You missed a few key questions, but I will reiterate the basic jist:
    Why is it impossible to do "better" than nature?
    Do you actually understand evolution and how humans have overcome or altered the interpretation of many facets of it?
    Do you have evidence of human lifespans being +100 years in primitive times?
    Do you have any evience that family size is dependent on food availability rather than economic stability and education level?
    Do you accept that the $60 billion natural food industry is in it just as much for the money as gm food companies are?


  • Options
    #55
    MalteseBarry
    Closed Accounts Posts: 82 ✭✭MalteseBarry


    Mark Hamill wrote: »

    Lets face facts, we dont need to let anyone starve. We have the ability to feed everyone alive today and the knowledge to curb population growth for a more sustainable future.

    I read a while ago that if the orientals changed to potatoes from rice, then most hunger in the world could be eradicated due to the potato being 4 times as valuable in carbohydrates per acre to rice.

    As to a more sustainable future, the real problem with sustainability in the future in the expected population growth. The population is expeced to rise from 6.5 billion to 10 billion by 2050 - imagine all that extra carbon dioxide to make the climate alarmists froth at the mouth!


  • Options
    #56
    skregs
    Registered Users Posts: 746 ✭✭✭skregs


    Macha wrote: »
    Right, banned for 3 days for discussing moderation in-thread and carrying on the bickering,

    Get back on topic.

    What a dope, he had no idea how to play the long game


  • Options
    #57
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    skregs wrote: »
    What a dope, he had no idea how to play the long game
    Eh, thanks for that.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement