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
Veggies and GM food
Options
Comments
-
I would NOT eat GM foods even if they where vegetarianWhen do I get a chance to make my own opinion heard without you trying to refute it?
This is a text based forum, I cant shout over you and seeing as I'm not a mod, I can't alter any of your previous posts, so they will be there forever for anyone to see, so I don't see how I'm stopping you from having your own opinion heard.Do I need evidence of my own opinion?
Personally I like to have evidence to back up my own opinions.If you are looking for sources, as a man of science of course, you could always stick these things into google and im sure you'd find a reputable article to prove it or disprove it. I'm not trying to prove anything I'm just stating my opinion.
Generally, if ou want your opinion to be taken seriously you need to be able to back it up. You have made claims in stating your opinions and if you want to convince me (or anyone else on this forum, I would hope) you need to back up your points with facts.Congratulations.
For what?0 -
I would NOT eat GM foods even if they where vegetarian
Well...Do I need evidence of my own opinion?
This is the essence of your opinion and it isn't refuted. No one has said that you don't prefer not to eat GM foodsI would PREFER not to eat GM foods
Stated as facts, not opinion, and so fairly refuted.the methods of farming are better, safer, more ecological and economical.0 -
Since when has boards become wikipedia?
http://www.greenpeace.org/india/news/all-you-wanted-to-know-about-o
http://health.msn.com/fitness/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100142205
And to prove a point, This is a Royal Society of Chemistry website which says the opposite
http://www.rsc.org/Chemsoc/Chembytes/HotTopics/Organic/Index.asp
The internet is not the be all and end all of science fact. You can publish what you want here and make your own mind up from what is available to you.
http://www.rense.com/general68/rats.htm
The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day (FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.
GM is not the answer here if people cannot afford to grow it. The land problem is not an issue because if you grow more on a particular patch of soil, the plans need more nutrients from the soil, providing a crop that is of a lesser nutritional quality.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html?startindex=20
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-rebutted-822763.html
http://www.nutraingredients.com/Industry/Time-for-an-organic-GM-peace-treaty
0 -
I would NOT eat GM foods even if they where vegetarianSince when has boards become wikipedia?
Er.... what?
There are many contradictions and nonsense claims in this article. It starts off saying that organic farming avoids the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals, but then sings the praise of biopesticides and organic based fertilizers. First of all, everything in existence that is made of atoms is a chemical. It does not matter if its naturally occuring or artificially produced, if something has a specific chemical make up (like bio pesticides or grass based fertilizer) it is a chemical. Secondly its claims of organic food being healthier to everyone from the consumer to the farmer isn't actually backed up by any science. In fact it is contradicted by the report I linked to for you yesterday from the bbc website.
Brings me to a MSN fitness forum page with nothing on it.And to prove a point, This is a Royal Society of Chemistry website which says the opposite
http://www.rsc.org/Chemsoc/Chembytes/HotTopics/Organic/Index.asp
No it doesn't. Try reading the link. The page only talks about what the pro or anti organic food lobbies say, for every point it gives, it gives a counter point as it is suppsed to be an unbiased review.The internet is not the be all and end all of science fact. You can publish what you want here and make your own mind up from what is available to you.
Publish?
An opinion peace on an unpublished scientific study that was first released to the world at an anti GM conference with a strong media presence. No wonder no-one takes it seriously. Here's a response to it referencing a published peer reviewed paper which found the oposite results. (Hey, I even found the peer reviewed paper itself for you)The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day (FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food. GM is not the answer here if people cannot afford to grow it. The land problem is not an issue because if you grow more on a particular patch of soil, the plans need more nutrients from the soil, providing a crop that is of a lesser nutritional quality.
I dont see how this is an argument against GM food (at least outside people too poor to afford it, in areas with really bad soil).
You need to read up on your own links. The piece you link here references a study by a Professor Barney Gordon of the University of Kansas which it says shows that GM crops actually resulted in a decreas in crop yields (thus obliterating the myth that GM crops give greater yields). Things is, Professor Barney Gordon has himself come out and said his study says nothing of the kind.
A seven part article disputing Organic food myths and its seven part rebuttal.
The first point rebuttal claims that organic farming is only 60 years old (so much for it being from the agricultural revolution :rolleyes:) and that more funding has gone into GM methods so it isn't perfect. It claims that it has been shown that organic farms have more 30% more species and 50% more of those species in numbers but this is actually completely logic if you think about it. If non-organic foods are better at resisting insect attack then there will be fewer insects around eat them and thus fewer animals to eat the insects.
The second point rebuttal claims that organic farming is better at keeping carbon in the soil, but this is actually contradicted by the RSC article you linked to above, which states in the second section : "weed control is carried out mainly by mechanical cultivation methods thereby disrupting the soil structure, releasing carbon into the atmosphere, removing valuable moisture and increasing soil erosion." Also none of the claims are substanciated with references.
The third point rebuttal just appeals to the natural is better than non natural argument ("we use pesticides and sprays, but ours are natural"). Also the point about organic farming using pesticides wasn't a rebuttal against organic farmers claiming otherwise, it was a rebuttal against the public attitude to organic food which seems to be of the opinion that organic food uses no pesticides whatsoever.
The fourth point rebuttal again talks about a study which it doesnt give any information about, so the accuracy of the interpretation has to be called into question (its not like the independent hasn't completely misundertood a scientific article before, see above).
The fifth point rebuttal does a poor job of refuting the point about the differing weights of organic vs non-organic animals, claiming that because the cut up parts of the animals are packaged under the same weights this must mean that animals themselfs must be the same size :rolleyes:.
The sixth point rebuttal. Yay! you finally have study that shows that one thing organicly produced can be potentially healthier than the alternative. The study shows that organically produced milk, when drunk by breastfeeding mothers resulted in kids with lower incedences of excema, hypothetically through increasing the amount of conjugated linoleic acid isomers present in the mothers milk, thus preventing excema. Hmmm, now if only there was a way in which we could have the cows themselves produce more CLAs themsleves, so its not only the kids lucky enough to be breast feeding who gets the benefits. If only there was a way to genetically modify them so they produced more CLAs themselves, or artificially add it into the milk. If only there was a way...
The seventh point rebuttal is actually largely irrelevent (for both sides of the arguement) as the general publics desire for organic food is not really a determining factor in wether organic food is more beneficial than its alternatives.
TWO final things
1) Please do not respond in the same multi format way. Trying to edit down all the font, size and colour changes you made while quoting your response is a pain and shouldn't be necessary. Your points mean the same to me wether in Veranda font, size 3 , black colour as they do in the default format.
2) Read your own links. To be honest, a claim without support is just nonsense to me. Much of what you have linked here is people saying that there are studies that show that organic food is healthier/tastier/etc. but almost none of them actually give the source they are getting it from. And seeing as I have given sources to show where my claims are coming from, it makes yours look like they where made up.0
Advertisement