Why GM crops are vital

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
When did I say I was for a blanket ban on GM?

And many people don't try to find the difference between corporations and public programs.

If there weren't any blanket GM bans the OP and the article it cited would not be necessary. And yet when people object to these blanket bans they get jumped on by people complaining how important it is to not leave GM products to the greedy corporations. Hence the assumption that those people support the blanket bans as they are.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Anyways, what do you mean by public?

Public is government. Anything else is private.

Government funded research has a vital role to play precisely because the private sector (including corporations) can't be soley relied upon to explore all of the necessary avenues of research. Those in the private sector have to think too short term, too narrowly, too secretively (with respect to trade secrets at least) and too selifishly in general to be left as the only means of research available.

But government funded research obviously can't even begin to be contemplated where there are blanket GM bans in place. Those blanket GM bans have to go.

[Flip McWho]

Human beings may be the only creatures that have fewer babies when they are better fed.

Thats called better security. If you have a kiddie in a county where the chances of that kiddie reaching anywhere near adulthood is slim, you're gonna have a number more.

If there weren't any blanket GM bans the OP and the article it cited would not be necessary

No instead we'd have articles from Child of Thor and those peoples side off the argument about corporations who do **** people over.

Blanket GM bands aren't the answer. But neither is having no GM bans.

And you know what they say about assumptions.

[Kuciwalker]

Thats called better security. If you have a kiddie in a county where the chances of that kiddie reaching anywhere near adulthood is slim, you're gonna have a number more.

It's more a function of economics and women's rights.

[Flip McWho]

But government funded research obviously can't even begin to be contemplated where there are blanket GM bans in place. Those blanket GM bans have to go

I agree. Though removing bans altogether isn't wise either.

[Flip McWho]

It's more a function of economics and women's rights.

Well with a better economy comes better food and more quantity available, so I don't see how thats different. Womans rights though you'll have to argue. Even though of course they aren't seen as baby making factories no more but I can't see how you can attribute the less children thing to womans rights.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Well with a better economy comes better food and more quantity available, so I don't see how thats different. Womans rights though you'll have to argue. Even though of course they aren't seen as baby making factories no more but I can't see how you can attribute the less children thing to womans rights.

The statistical analysis has shown that the ONE thing that determines the average number of children per family is the amount of education women have. As women gain more and more education their time is more valuable economically. Sure they could be housewives, but they can earn a very hefty salary in the working world. This means that the time spent outside the workforce when pregnant or directly after pregnancy is far more of an economic blow than in earlier generations when women were expected to be in the home and thus didn't get the education that men got.

It's basically a function of oppertunity costs and women judging their time is better spent using their education to the fullest rather than staying at home churning out babies.

This is why you'll see 1st world countries with less children per family then those not as economically advanced. Not coincidentally those countries not as economically advanced tend to be far more patriarchal about things.

And, of course, women's rights make greater women's education more of a possibility.

[Flip McWho]

Ok fair enough. Thanks for the lesson

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Here are two links. The first is anti-GM, while the second is pro-GM.

http://www.sgr.org.uk/GenEng/CaseAgainstGMcrops.html

http://www.health24.com/dietnfood/General/15-742-775,32410.asp

Given the fact that both of them are clearly packed full of bull**** and have holes in their arguments that trucks could be driven through, which strain of bull**** do you prefer?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Here are two links. The first is anti-GM, while the second is pro-GM.

http://www.sgr.org.uk/GenEng/CaseAgainstGMcrops.html

http://www.health24.com/dietnfood/General/15-742-775,32410.asp

Given the fact that both of them are clearly packed full of bull**** and have holes in their arguments that trucks could be driven through, which strain of bull**** do you prefer?

When it comes to the stench of sh!t, people tend to prefer their own.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

This is the pro-GM article in full.

The lowdown on GM foods
At present there is probably no topic related to food production that engenders more divergent feelings among consumers than genetically modified (GM) foods.
Some people regard GM foods as toxic and dangerous, while others hail these foods as the solution to mass starvation.



Advertisement
In this article, we consider some of the aspects associated with this hotly debated subject.

Definition
GM foods can be defined as foods in which the genetic makeup has been changed so that one or more desirable attribute of the food is enhanced.

Generally speaking, all foods eaten in the 21st century are genetically modified. As soon as man learnt how to cultivate grains, fruits and vegetables and keep domestic animals, genetic manipulation of the characteristics of these food sources began. The human race has, therefore, been involved with genetic modification of foods for thousands of years.

Desirable traits – such as high milk yields in dairy cattle or pest-resistance in crops – have been repeatedly bred into our domestic animals and plant foods.

More recently, selection and breeding of desirable traits in food-producing animals and plants has become more scientific and targeted thanks to the use of genetic modification techniques.

Instead of having to breed plants for many years to obtain the desirable characteristic of drought resistance, scientists are now able to select a gene from another plant that is drought resistant, remove the drought-resistant gene from the parent plant and introduce it into the plant they want to improve.

Similar desirable traits such as resistance to plant pests, increase in nutritive value and the removal of negative components such as those that cause food allergies, can now also be introduced into foods.

So, we need to keep in mind that genetic modification is not new, that it has been going on for centuries and that the modern technique of genetic modification is targeted to improving food supplies and potentially removing harmful food characteristics.

The public reaction
When we speak about GM foods, we immediately enter the realm of conjecture and public hysteria and many readers probably think GM foods are “mutant meals” or "Frankenstein foods".

You may have seen pictures of tomatoes with fish tails, which are used by the media to create public fear and rejection.

Such pictures imply that genes derived from fish are being introduced into tomatoes and that this constitutes a "mutant meal".

Will GM foods affect human health?
Allergic potential
The first question that is always asked when people hear that the genetic makeup of a food has been altered is: “Will this make the food cause allergies?”

While no one disputes the fact that genetic engineering has the potential to transfer an allergenic gene into a previously non-allergenic food, any company that would make themselves party to such an act would be downright stupid.

Put yourself in the position of a company that is trying to improve one of the staple crops of the world, like maize. Would you put the gluten gene from wheat, which causes gluten allergy, into your maize? Or would you stop and think of the consequences and decide that this would be totally self-defeating? No one would want to buy your gluten-enriched maize and you would go bankrupt.

No, if you were trying to enrich maize via genetic engineering you would firstly try and add a beneficial nutrient such as lysine (an amino acid) from a source that is totally free of all allergens.

Secondly, you would test the lysine-enriched maize repeatedly to make quite sure that it does not cause an allergic reaction.

And this is what is being done in genetic engineering. Every step of the way, there are exhaustive tests to ensure that any genetic change in a foodstuff does not increase the allergenicity of the food.

The opposite is actually true. Research is in progress to remove the allergic genetic material from foods such as wheat, soya and peanuts (Madden, 1995).

The Brazil Nut Scandal
Early in the history of GM foods, a Brazil nut protein was cloned to improve the protein content of staple foods and was introduced into soya in the laboratory.

However, before this protein was transferred to staple foods, it was recognised as the major allergen in Brazil nuts and research stopped immediately. No genetically modified, soya-containing Brazil nut protein was ever commercialised and no one has ever died of eating GM soya.

Thanks to this incident, all scientists involved with genetic engineering were given a timely wake-up call. The consumer can now rest assured that no one will ever make this mistake again (FACS, 1999).

It was actually good that the “Brazil Nut Scandal” occurred, because it will prevent future generations of scientists from using any gene that has an allergenic potential in GM foods.

Removing allergens
It is probable that GM foods will make positive, instead of negative, contributions to eliminating food allergens.

Allergen-free wheat is currently being researched and will hopefully become available in years to come so that individuals with wheat or gluten allergy can use GM wheat without being exposed to the allergens associated with this staple food. Given the chance, genetic engineers will come up with allergen-free milk, eggs and peanuts in future. – (Dr Ingrid van Heerden, DietDoc)

(References: (FACS, 1999, Clarifying Common Concerns About GMOs & Biotechnology, Pretoria; Madden, D (1995) Food Biotechnology - An Introduction, ILSI, Brussels)

Now here's a challenge to the pro-GM advocates. How many flaws and/or ludicrous statements can you spot in it?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap

Oerdin keeps oging on about the greateness of GM crops to feed the very poor, but the very poor can't afford GM crops for the most part, not the way the business is right now, and many of the crops the poor grow haven't been modified much.

Don't be a tosser. The very poor need cheap food and this is the only way to get it to them. The vast majority of the world's poor don't have land and this will help every single one of them. True, there are some peasant farmers who will need free grain such as the type foreign aid or NGOs provide but that can still be done with GM as well.

You've found a tiny ant hill and your trying to make it into a mountain but it is nothing more then an anthill.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Oerdin

The very poor need cheap food and this is the only way to get it to them.

I'd challenge that. The biggest global problems in terms of food production are lack of water resources and desertification caused by attempting to impose unsustainable farming practices on ill-suited land. To make a real impact in the areas that really need it, do the following-

1- Invest in irrigation, wells and education in sustainable agriculture on marginal land.

2- Shoot every ****ing goat on the planet.

[Kuciwalker]

Won't someone please think of the Kiwis?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

No, but they still multiply faster than agriculture grows.

No they don't.

Example: Europe.

We're talking about the world here, not just Europe. Try and find an example when world food has grown faster than world population - it only ever happens with mass disease, natural disasters or large scale wars. These are needed to keep population in check, otherwise there ends up being a lack of food.