Why GM crops are vital

[Odin]

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

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Geronimo




And if you'd bothered to read the OP (let alone the entire thread) you'd see it has nothing to do with your comments about organic food which you (quite oddly) decided drop in without any sort of connecting comment. Don't be offended if we assumed that you imagined there to be some understood connection.

You can't win a debate simply by being cheeky.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by General Ludd


You can't win a debate simply by being cheeky.

Aye, that's the point. Is this the post you were drawing my attention to?

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
GM can kiss my arse. I eat 100% organic and I'm not budging on that.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Don't be offended if we assumed that you imagined there to be some understood connection.

Who's this "we"? You mean we've got more people with an inability to follow a debate in context?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Any proof this has happened any where? To anyone or anything?

Rich people are free to attempt to ban GM foods due to what ever reason they wish. I just hope they realize that this increases the odds that a lot of poor third worlders will not get enough nutrious food. Either because they can't afford it or because they can't grow enough of it on their small degraded plot of land. There is a viable organic market so it seems absolutely self centered and small minded to attempt to ban all GM foods or place so many restrictions on it that it becomes small minded. That's just ignorance on a mass scale. If you really think organic is so much better then why are you denying consumers a choice? Are you afraid that people might not make the choice you want? You know, like buy the more nutritious food which costs less?

The reason these arrogant people move to ban GM is because they know that in a free, fair, and open competition their claims would be proven wrong and people aren't going to opt to pay 50% more to get inferior food.

Did the poor countries get charged royalties for the new crops of the original green revolution? It seems to me many of the new GM crops are exactly the kind that the poor can't grow, because you have to pay, you need support stuff (the cvompanies sell a range of products with the crop), and besides, the crops that the poor in the most needy places grow haven't been modified as much yet, exactly because it is not as profitable to modify Millet as opposed to a new corn or rice variety than rich agricultural concerns can afford.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by child of Thor
indeed. We need to be wary of the GM agenda - it offers much that is good but behind its friendly facade of "we want to produce more food for the hungry" lies the agri-bio labs greed for creating non-self reproducing crops, the dollar sign sadly leads much of the GM revolution.

*sigh*

If using GM crops actually makes one less profitable, why does anyone use them?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Why do people lament the loss of the family farm? Let's throw back 100 years to the time when most Americans were farmers...farmers were poor, usually in debt, were threatened by drought, lived at hte mercy of crop prices, worked long hard work weeks, and had little or no education. Thankfully, the family farm is already dead. The efficient, massive company farms we have today are necessitated by economic and societal needs, and no one really wants to go back to toiling on the farm to make ends meet.

But that's another thread's concern.

GM foods

Fewer farmers

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


*sigh*

If using GM crops actually makes one less profitable, why does anyone use them?

That is not whjat he was saying- what he is saying is that the GM indurstry wants to create dependence on their product, so once you start using their crop, well, you have to be in business with them for the long term. That makes it incredably profitable.

[Kuciwalker]

You can always go back to normal food.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

Why do people lament the loss of the family farm? Let's throw back 100 years to the time when most Americans were farmers...farmers were poor, usually in debt, were threatened by drought, lived at hte mercy of crop prices, worked long hard work weeks, and had little or no education.

How is that really any different from the urban society of today?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You can always go back to normal food.

Not if they put addictive heroin or cocaine genes in the food

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You can always go back to normal food.

Though re-establishing bio-diversity might prove tricky.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Any proof this has happened any where? To anyone or anything?

http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/0/80256ad800554549802567e0004dc698?OpenDocument

http://www.guardian.co.uk/antibiotics/0,2759,192972,00.html

Routine antibiotic use is endemic in intensive meat farming. Do you honestly think that's a good thing?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You can always go back to normal food.

Why would a small poor farmer start in the first place?

GM crops are great right now, for RICH farmers and agricultural concerns. BUt from how the GM business operates, I don;t think it is that much of a godsend to the poor, the supposed "beneficiaries" according to Oerdin, anymore than the pharmaceutical industry is the savior of the poor. MUsh like that industry, GM concentrates on what makes it the most profit (duh), and products to hell the poor are not where the money ever is.

[Kuciwalker]

Why would a small poor farmer start in the first place?

GM crops are great right now, for RICH farmers and agricultural concerns. BUt from how the GM business operates, I don;t think it is that much of a godsend to the poor, the supposed "beneficiaries" according to Oerdin, anymore than the pharmaceutical industry is the savior of the poor.

It's not supposed to save the poor farmers. We don't need the poor farmers. They should get a job doing something useful rather than doing something that can be done far more efficiently without them.