Yeah, I was actually trying to be respectful and non confrontational by introducing some generally recognised facts for consideration without attaching you or your silly beliefs. But if you really want be to be a dick, I'd be glad to see if I can work myself up to your level. It may take a few posts, but the record in the D&D should show that if you really want to fight, I can be unpleasant with the best of them. You should keep in mind that none of what you quote in any way supports your ridiculous claims that pesticides and fertilizers don't increase yields. Rather they say exactly the opposite - yields are increased but increased yields in practice don't end up being used correctly or that the effects/costs of increased production of food are negative. Here's another quote from the Wiki: [rquoter] He dismissed certain claims of critics, but did take other concerns seriously and stated that his work has been "a change in the right direction, but it has not transformed the world into a Utopia". Of environmental lobbyists, he said: "some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels...If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things". [/rquoter] Worrying about whether your food is GMO before you decide to eat is a typical first world problem. I guarantee you nobody in South Sudan is turning away food because they are concerned it is GMO.
as was I? All I did was quote paragraphs from a link you posted, I saw it as, yes mono crops and pesticides will get the job done of growing food, but along with the pesticides, and mono crops comes cancers, malnutrition, disease and environmental issues.
This simply isn't true. Maybe not in Sudan, but certainly in Zambia. If you would watch the interview I posted, you can see this is a subject Jeffery Smith brings up. Zambia and 3 other African countries refused food aid from the USA during a time of famine because it was GMO. The 3 other countries said they would accept only if milled, because they did not want GMO's planted in their country. USA refused to mill it, but south africa stepped in and milled it for the 3 countries (Malawi, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe). Although, Zambia, still refused GMO's due to the dangerous and risk. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/280...e-zambia-strongest-anti-gmo-stance-in-africa/ http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafrica/articles/art_851.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2233839.stm
Ok, reread what you wrote. Not sure why it seemed really hostile to me earlier. Chalk it up to a difficult evening at work. I still disagree with you but I'll bow out, with an apology for going overboard.
It's cool man no apology needed, these little debates are all fun for me. I get to learn opposing views, I get tested on what I know, and get to strengthen my views by doing more research. It's easy to get caught up in the debate and disagreements but let it be known I have respect for all of you, and your opinions.
I'm going to ask a 3rd time: if you dont believe that GMO increases yields, what do you think the purpose of GMO is? Why does Joe Farmer choose to plant a GMO corn seed instead of a non-GMO one?
Firstly, Joe Farmer isn't the main market for GMO seeds, commercialized farming is. I'd imagine GM plants require less physical maintenance and attention from the farmers/workers. If you don't have somebody checking each of the plants every couple of days on organic or non gm farms for molds, bugs etc you could end up with a big problem due to a disease or pest. On a giant mono crops that's not happening, these crops are hardly even touched, they're planted with a machine, sprayed pesticides by a machine and picked by a machine. So GMO's are more convenient, and require less effort from workers/farmers. They can plant the seeds, not have to worry about disease and well being of the plants, unlike non gmo's. Of course big commercial farming will be all over that. The negatives, by far out weight that positive, in my opinion. And even with the crops strength against disease, pest, weather etc, crop yields still aren't higher. A few even say, conventional yields higher. https://www.google.com/webhp?source...&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=do gmos have higher yields You can read all the articles you want, choose what you find to be credible, I won't subject you to a single article of my choosing. I believe 9/10 of the articles on that first page are about there not being higher yields in GMO crops - now i'm not using that in it self as credibility, only saying you can choose from them and do your own research. Something that might also interest you or others in this thread, indian farmers suicides https://www.google.com/webhp?source...1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=indian+farmer+suicide+gmo
I'm sure its been said before me but every food we eat in the past 1000 years has been genetically modified. From Potatos to cows its all been modified by humans for a more efficient way of feeding a growing (over growing if you ask me) man kind numbers. almost everything now can be made in a lab from a few cells- from tomatos to steaks. our fear is more fear of the new and unknown and its understandable, I myself prefer the taste of the tomato I grow in my garden than the waxed tastless tomato I can buy in Publix or wallmart that can last a scary 2-3 weeks in the fridge. However in order to feed the over grown man kind, science has to find a way, which will be efficient and economic to provide nutritious food to everyone, even if it doesn't taste as good. I did not see a credible conclusive research that prooves that Genetically modified food causes cancer or any known desease for that matter. If I will see one I will be alarmed, espacially for the people that can not affored an organic, water wasting vegetables.
Basically, they looked at 100 billion animal livestock before and after genetically engineered food was available. And they found no evidence that GMOs were harmful, like all the other evidence before it has said.
Good. More independent studies needed. We are all eating this stuff. It's to all our benefits that safety testing of GM crops get to a point where this issue can rest (either as safe or they need to remod their mod to make it safer or abandon it). The benefit (massive cheap food) is clearly why this is accepted worldwide and that will continue with good reason [IOW, we need to eat, so oh well, let's hope it's not coming back to bite us]. But if it's not safe, we better all find out sooner or later.
Today all the foods are safe, but it's not true that breeding and genetic engineering are the same things. The impact of genetic engineering on the environment has to be taken into consideration. Also, as the technology becomes more widespread the opportunity for making something that is indeed harmful is there. It doesn't hurt to have greater scrutiny on what is being done to food.
She worked for Monsanto between 1998 to 2002. No longer a Monsanto employee, bro. Keep your tin foil hat on.
Anyone heard or read any recent news on the lawsuit against Maui _ http://rt.com/usa/205655-monsanto-dow-gmo-hawaii/ The only articles I can find is from last year. If Monsanto wins that would be a powerful statement considering the citizens voted against it.
