Gm activist does backflip based on science

Discussion in 'News from around the damp planet' started by Michaelangelica, Jan 16, 2013.

  1. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The organic farming movement doesn’t escape Lynas's scorn either. He claims its low yields mean larger areas of wilderness need to be cleared to create the same amount of food.

    ‘Organic farmers and organic federations shouldn’t claim a monopoly of virtue here because their yields are much lower and in many ways they are much worse for the environment,’ he said.

    He also derided the anti-GM movement for targeting farmers in African developing nations who need increased yields and disease resistant crops to escape poverty and famine.
    https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/gm-food/4466858
     
  2. matto

    matto Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    MADGE Australia
     
  3. Steve Burgess

    Steve Burgess Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2012
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Heres a more well thought-out paper on ways to meet the challenge of global food production into the mid 21st century. Foresight Project on
    Global Food and Farming Futures


    The statement in the ABC article that organic farming is less productive per hectare, therefore necessitating clearing more land to produce the amount of food needing for a burgeoning human population, is extraordinarily simplistic, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of agricultural systems. Most data I have seen suggests that traditional or new 'sustainable agriculture', intensive, small-scale mixed farms are much more productive in terms of overall useful food yield per hectare than large scale corporate commodity farms, particularly in the countries where food supply is an acute problem.

    I think the word 'organic' is not a useful distinction to apply to these intensive small mixed farming systems, although I believe that most of the practices used would fit within the concept of organic farming as understood in strange, unusual places like Australia.
     
  4. annette

    annette Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I agree Steve.
     
  5. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    https://allafrica.com/stories/201207120414.html

    I may get shot down but i don't see all GM as bad. Transgenic cotton has helped reduce the masses of pesticdes previously used on these crops
    Lord Sainsbury's (and CSIROs) work has helped extend the range of some food crops

    However to make a plant resistant to a chemical that you produce (roundUp) just seems all wrong to me.
    Further, trans-species (insect/animal genesinto food plants) food crops seems a bit premature. We have evolved with the foods we eat for thousands of years. Do we know enough about the health and enivironmetal effects of these crops yet? This seems to be Playing God and fidding with the basis of life- evoution
    Further, patententing such crops, and bully-boy tactics to get farmers and governments to adopt them seems all about, some, making money, not food
     
  6. CraigMackintosh

    CraigMackintosh *****

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not attempting to shoot you down (that's a bit harsh), but I do see all GM as bad. Even if you discard all other issues, there's one that often gets overlooked, and it shouldn't. That is that when you insert genes from one species into another, you're bypassing the plant/animals natural genetic defenses, and introducing gene instability within the target organism. What happens then is that we (the human interferer) have no ability to control what happens next, and very little ability to even monitor it. But what we do know that happens, is that the dna of the target organism starts to produce new proteins that would not have been there before. These proteins can be completely unknown, and they've often been shown to be toxic - causing allergies, toxicity and in some cases even death.

    You mention cotton. People don't eat cotton, but sometimes animals do, and insects interact with them also. In India there have been instances where livestock have died after feeding on the cotton plants after harvest.

    And, once you bypass the target organism's natural defenses, these 'liberated' genes can now move to other species (it's called horizontal gene transfer). We don't understand all the possible consequences, but we're seeing some of them through the creation of 'superweeds', where immunity to chemicals has been passed from plants like corn and cotton to wild plants in the area. If we think this through, then we must realise that if chemical resistance is being transferred, then we know we cannot stop 'liberated' genes from moving through the food chain in ways we may never completely understand.

    And the reality is that this high-tech tinkering is not only completely unnecessary, it's also completely inefficient, as natural plant (and animal) breeding techniques are proven to enable farmers to 'create' improved strains of plants much, much faster at a tiny fraction of the cost. In comparison, natural plant breeding techniques are in all ways superior. The only 'downside' is that the big corporations cannot copyright them.
     
  7. Ludi

    Ludi Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    779
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    "For years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields. That promise has proven to be empty, according to Failure to Yield, a report by UCS expert Doug Gurian-Sherman released in March 2009. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields. Failure to Yield is the first report to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States. Based on those studies, the UCS report concludes that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report finds, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices." https://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agr...tem/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html
     
  8. Ludi

    Ludi Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    779
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Cottonseed oil is a common ingredient in processed foods.
     
  9. CraigMackintosh

    CraigMackintosh *****

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
  10. CraigMackintosh

    CraigMackintosh *****

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    On how traditional plant breeding is better/faster/cheaper:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html

    On the above note, it should be recognised that GMOs require several years (often up to a decade or more) to develop a single strain, and costs millions of dollars. And that single strain of seed is then expected to function well worldwide (i.e. different climate zones and soil types and different levels of water availability). This goes against common sense, where traditional plant breeding can be done locally, with strains already adapted to the local situation, to create strains suitable for each respective locale, developing plants that locals want, and not what large-scale distribution networks want (i.e. the latter want uniform size, straight cucumbers, tomatoes that, although tasteless, will survive long distant transport, etc., etc.).

    On how GM crops are thirstier (not more drought tolerant):

    https://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2253
     
  11. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Craig
    We don't disagree
    But i did forget about cotton seed oil I guess cause I never use it (I hope)
     
  12. Synergy

    Synergy Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    With the science of how nutrition affects our actual genetic functions , nutritional genomics , being not very advanced , and the further implications of how nutrition and other environmental facters affect all other life forms , it really concerns me that GMO is even on the table for consumption by people or animals . Not only do I worry about it affecting immediate health but altering genetics of subsequent generations of life, not restricted to mankind.
     
  13. Ludi

    Ludi Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    779
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
  14. purplepear

    purplepear Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,457
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Farm manager/ educator
    Location:
    Hunter Valley New South Wales
    Home Page:
    Climate:
    warm temperate - some frost - changing every year
    for me - one of the most obscene aspects of GMO's is the ability of people or corporations owing a seed dna. This may well lead to a monoply on food! I see danger in this.
     
  15. matto

    matto Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    For me - the problem with GMO's is that they are trying to find a solution to problems that have developed because of a system of agriculture or food distribution, that on a whole needs a massive overhaul.
     
  16. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
  17. Grahame

    Grahame Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    36
    The whole GMO thing is a perfect example of mankind's delusional belief that we exist outside of nature and that we can do things better than nature can.

    Delusional.
     
  18. annette

    annette Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    The thing is, nature took millions of years to change and adapt so that it was a gradual process. This gm program seems to think that they can change things in the blink of an eye and not have any adverse effects. It's delusional and frankly egotistical. Nature must be thinking, you guys need a damn good slapping. When it all ends on the floor in snot and tears don't come crying to me.
     
  19. eco4560

    eco4560 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,925
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes Annette - and there's every sign that a damn good slapping is headed our way...
     
  20. Pakanohida

    Pakanohida Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,984
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    "When you throw nature out the window, she comes in through the front door with a pitchfork." -M. Fukuoka.


    ...yep.
     

Share This Page

-->