Why GM crops are vital

[:) Smiley]

Re: Why GM crops are vital

Originally posted by Oerdin
it also details how we're going to need between 35%-50% more food being produced world wide by 2050 in order to feed everyone and we're going to have to do it with less farmland and worse farmland.

Uh, how about simply not paying farmers to not grow crops on existing farmland?

[Dinner]

That's mostly been phased out. There simply isn't a lot of spare farmland just laying around waiting for farmers.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Oh, but they are. Notice the thousands of percent increase in claimed cases in the last few decades? Notice how most people don't have any identifiable physical reaction? Instead we have a mass of people claiming something which very few of them have had any reaction which scientists can even observe.

But at the same time doctors are getting better at diagnosing coeliac disease. Which do you think has driven the development of various gluten-free food products - fad-followers or genuine sufferers?

How likely is that to actually occur? We can be 99% certain that by 2035 the world population will be 10 billion which is 66% larger then it is today. We can be 99% certain that urbanization and desertification are going to mean significantly less farm land in 2035 then we have today. We can also be certain that people who are currently poor, like India & China, will have developed to the point where vast numbers of people will no longer be poor. One thing always happens as incomes rise, they start demanding more food and better food. Instead of meat once a week they want it every day if not with every meal and meat take ALOT of grain to eat. World food production is going to have to grow substancially in the next 30 years even if 1st worlders learn to eat and waste less.

The world's population is expected to hit 10 billion in 2050, not 2035.

As for a drive to cut down on wasted food, I can see it happening as a side-effect of a campaign against obesity - smaller portions, etc.

India and China's development will presumably be accompanied by the same changes to agriculture that happened in developed countries, with or without GM foods, meaning fewer subsistence farmers and higher yields.

In any case, much of the world's hunger is caused by not having enough money to buy food, something your article blithely ignores. India's not had any famines since independence, but it still suffers from chronic malnutrition, despite being a food exporter.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin
That's mostly been phased out. There simply isn't a lot of spare farmland just laying around waiting for farmers.

All in all Oerdin I must say your posts have been spot on.

The problem unfortunately with this one is that its a little too little a little too late. The inane practice of "set aside" policies have essentially driven a whole generation of farmers (read family farms) out of existance as it was more profitable for family farmers to move into different occupations (and collect on subsidies to augment and keep afloat) then to continue farming. In the process the kids move on to greener horizons. I predict you'll likely see a whole slew of last genration farmers die off with no kids to inherent and run family farms. Lovely.... The end result of course being either sell off of property to developers or if lucky to large co-op type farms.

[Geronimo]

[edit... removed original post because others had said it better than I did]


One problem with this "we already grow enough food we just don't distribute it right" attack on GM foods is not only is it irrelevant (because "proper" distribution of foods is about as realistic and likely as peace on earth and an end to poverty), but it fails to explain why slash and burn agriculture continues to occur in places where government actively opposes it. Obviously slash and burn destruction of rain forests is done to grow crops. Maybe technologies that allow the increase in crop production will help reduce the pressure to engage in such activities. By the logic of kyoto we should at least give such an effort a try rather than claiming that it simply won't work. Perhaps all those who oppose GM crops will also need to take care that they not support Kyoto in this manner so as to be consistant.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Sandman


But at the same time doctors are getting better at diagnosing coeliac disease. Which do you think has driven the development of various gluten-free food products - fad-followers or genuine sufferers?

product purchase choices are far more likely to be based on all sorts of "fads" rather than based on health outcomes. Do you really think that because a product that makes a health claim sells well that this is evidence that it provides a health bennefit? Consumers can be collectively stupid, and if they buy a product based on the epxectation that they are less likely to get sick by eating it how would they ever know if that expectation was wrong?

Originally posted by Sandman
The world's population is expected to hit 10 billion in 2050, not 2035.

As for a drive to cut down on wasted food, I can see it happening as a side-effect of a campaign against obesity - smaller portions, etc.

India and China's development will presumably be accompanied by the same changes to agriculture that happened in developed countries, with or without GM foods, meaning fewer subsistence farmers and higher yields.

In any case, much of the world's hunger is caused by not having enough money to buy food, something your article blithely ignores. India's not had any famines since independence, but it still suffers from chronic malnutrition, despite being a food exporter.

How do you think the situation would look if loud mouth pseudo-environmentalists had successfully lobbied to block the Green Revolution?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sandman
In any case, much of the world's hunger is caused by not having enough money to buy food, something your article blithely ignores. India's not had any famines since independence, but it still suffers from chronic malnutrition, despite being a food exporter.

Agreed, a lot of hunger/malnutrition is caused by food being to expensive for people to buy enough of it or the right kinds. Increased production will lower costs also the only reason India and China avoided famine in the 1960's was because scientists started using radiation to mutate plant DNA and force the creation of new strains. Years of trial and error produced a few new super hybrids which increased farm yields by 3-5 times depending upon the plant in question. Tell me that isn't crude genetic engineering and we've been doing it since the 1950's.

As yet no one seems to have been harmed but billions now have food to eat because of it.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Geronimo
product purchase choices are far more likely to be based on all sorts of "fads" rather than based on health outcomes. Do you really think that because a product that makes a health claim sells well that this is evidence that it provides a health bennefit? Consumers can be collectively stupid, and if they buy a product based on the epxectation that they are less likely to get sick by eating it how would they ever know if that expectation was wrong?

I was remarking on the uncharitable description of wheat allergies as a fashion in the article. It lumps them with the Atkins diet as well.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Az
Man, some of the anti-GM rethoric is bizzare...

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Agreed, a lot of hunger/malnutrition is caused by food being to expensive for people to buy enough of it or the right kinds. Increased production will lower costs also the only reason India and China avoided famine in the 1960's was because scientists started using radiation to mutate plant DNA and force the creation of new strains. Years of trial and error produced a few new super hybrids which increased farm yields by 3-5 times depending upon the plant in question. Tell me that isn't crude genetic engineering and we've been doing it since the 1950's.

As yet no one seems to have been harmed but billions now have food to eat because of it.

Cheaper food is only part of the solution. A family of subsistence farmers sells their only cow to buy a week's food; now they can buy two weeks worth. It's just as important to provide a cash safety net.

There were loads of other reasons for the Green Revolution than just radiation-mutated wheat strains. There were (and are) plenty of advanced propagation techniques used that didn't involve radiation, for starters. Better use of water resources was another one.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Creating hybrids is not the same as genetic engineering because you cannot introduce genes from individuals that cannot reproduce sexually with the crops you have.

As discussed before GM crops have huge problems. So we need to look elsewhere - such as start eating algae.

I hope you will read the article, it's not just about GM crops and I think you will find it quite interesting.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Sandman


Cheaper food is only part of the solution. A family of subsistence farmers sells their only cow to buy a week's food; now they can buy two weeks worth. It's just as important to provide a cash safety net.

There were loads of other reasons for the Green Revolution than just radiation-mutated wheat strains. There were (and are) plenty of advanced propagation techniques used that didn't involve radiation, for starters. Better use of water resources was another one.

So obviously you have devoted as much time and enthusiam to opposing use of the green revolutions irradiated random mutants as you have to GM crops?

[Sandman]

Yes, in that I've not devoted any time or enthusiasm to 'opposing' GM crops. I am indifferent to them. I'm indifferent to the the organic food movement as well. Both sides use sloppy logic and dubious factoids to prop up their cases.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Sandman
Yes, in that I've not devoted any time or enthusiasm to 'opposing' GM crops. I am indifferent to them. I'm indifferent to the the organic food movement as well. Both sides use sloppy logic and dubious factoids to prop up their cases.

I guess we don't really have any differences to debate.

[Sava]

I'm not terribly informed on the subject. However, the principle of genetically modifying foods seems like a good idea to me.

And most of the arguments against it seem like conspiracy theory type stuff with little factual evidence.

I don't see why there shouldn't be continued research into this field. A breakthrough could have enormous potential for good things. What's the harm in research?

ZOMFG TEH ZIONIST ILLUMINATI CORPORAETIONISTSAS IS GOING TO CONTROL EVRTYGHING ZOMFG