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

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.