• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corporate Scientists Attack Greenpeace over GMO opposition

joG said:
Hiding behind the unknown unknowns to prevent populations having more to eat seems disingenuous,
Click to expand...

GE crops do not produce more food. None of the traits that have been engineered into these crops do anything to increase the amount of food (known as "inherent yield") they can produce

The argument that GE crops are needed to produce more food (particularly for starving populations) is nothing more than unscientific propoganda
 
RetiredUSN said:
I think it is stupid when people fall totally on one side of the GMO argument.

There are proven benefits from the results of plant GE, and there have been a few disasters as well. The science is still in it's infancy stages and we will have a better understanding of it as time passes and we will learn how to benefit from it. I am more concerned with overuse pesticides than I am with a plant that was modified to resist drought. The half life of some of the pesticides being used today is pretty scary.

Plants have been modifying themselves genetically since the beginning of time.
Click to expand...

What are these "proven benefits" of GE crops?

How many plants have genetically engineered themselves? Please give examples
 
sangha said:
GE crops do not produce more food. None of the traits that have been engineered into these crops do anything to increase the amount of food (known as "inherent yield") they can produce

The argument that GE crops are needed to produce more food (particularly for starving populations) is nothing more than unscientific propoganda
Click to expand...

Reduced crop losses from insects and disease are part of the GE goals.

During the Ceres Forum on Environmental Benefits and Sustainable Agriculture through Biotechnology at Georgetown University (Doyle 1999), several farmers testified that planting genetically modified plants increased their income because of increased production and fewer losses to pests and disease.
Click to expand...

Genetic Engineering, the Farm Crisis, and World Hunger
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Reduced crop losses from insects and disease are part of the GE goals.



Genetic Engineering, the Farm Crisis, and World Hunger
Click to expand...

A goal is not the same thing as an accomplishment, and the fact that "several farmers" say something does not make that a scientific fact. In addition, that citation is very unspecific. It does not say which crops they grew, which genetic traits were engineered into the crops nor does it describe the increased costs (if any) associated with growing those crops resulting from the increased use of pesticides, herbicides, etc
 
sangha said:
GE crops do not produce more food. None of the traits that have been engineered into these crops do anything to increase the amount of food (known as "inherent yield") they can produce

The argument that GE crops are needed to produce more food (particularly for starving populations) is nothing more than unscientific propoganda
Click to expand...

Really?

So farmers just plant them because it's exciting to have to pay for high priced seed?
 
Threegoofs said:
Really?

So farmers just plant them because it's exciting to have to pay for high priced seed?
Click to expand...

Ahhh, the old "it must be good because people are buying it" argument.

It proves the wisdom of Trump, the musical talent of the Insane Clown Posse, and the moral virtues of the Kardashians
 
sangha said:
http://www.greenpeace.org/india/Global/india/report/2007/7/market-report.pdf
Click to expand...

I'm reading your report about the coming disastrous rice export drop that will happen from 2008 on.

And then I looked up the stats.

a7b253bb2cb9b1fcbddd8de9012744a6.jpg


You're gonna have to get a better 'disaster'.
 
sangha said:
What are these "proven benefits" of GE crops?

How many plants have genetically engineered themselves? Please give examples
Click to expand...

Evolution is a process of genetic change. The same is done in the lab by design. One has the word natural on it the other engineering.

Golden rice would stop many many thousands of children going blind from vitimin deficancy each year. It's realease sholud happen ASAP. Opposition to this should be viewed as a crime against humanity.
 
sangha said:
A goal is not the same thing as an accomplishment, and the fact that "several farmers" say something does not make that a scientific fact. In addition, that citation is very unspecific. It does not say which crops they grew, which genetic traits were engineered into the crops nor does it describe the increased costs (if any) associated with growing those crops resulting from the increased use of pesticides, herbicides, etc
Click to expand...

I have been saying that (bolded above) about many government social and alternative energy programs for decades. ;)
 
Threegoofs said:
I'm reading your report about the coming disastrous rice export drop that will happen from 2008 on.

And then I looked up the stats.

a7b253bb2cb9b1fcbddd8de9012744a6.jpg


You're gonna have to get a better 'disaster'.
Click to expand...

I do not see any prediction of rice exports dropping in 2008 or after. It does talk about exports dropping in 2006-2007 and, sure enough, your graph shows a large drop in exports in 2007 compared to 2005
 
sangha said:
wwgpt.jpg
Click to expand...

Yep, why try something new if you can't prove it will be effective (but, then again, see my signature ;) ). Worse yet, why keep doing something if you can show that it has serious negative consequences and a high cost.
 
sangha said:
I do not see any prediction of rice exports dropping in 2008 or after. It does talk about exports dropping in 2006-2007 and, sure enough, your graph shows a large drop in exports in 2007 compared to 2005
Click to expand...

And this is 'disaster'?
 
sangha said:
Ahhh, the old "it must be good because people are buying it" argument.

It proves the wisdom of Trump, the musical talent of the Insane Clown Posse, and the moral virtues of the Kardashians
Click to expand...

So you think the farmers are unaware that they are paying high prices for seed that produces no increase in yield?

Why do they do it then? Peer pressure? To crack those supermarkets that proudly sell only GMO food?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, why try something new if you can't prove it will be effective (but, then again, see my signature ;) ). Worse yet, why keep doing something if you can show that it has serious negative consequences and a high cost.
Click to expand...

Exactly!! For all their mockery for GE-opponents, GE supporters can't point to any concrete benefits from the use of GE crops, nor can they refute the costs and harms associated with the production of GE crops.

The best they can do is arguments like 3G's "If GE is so bad, why are so many farmers growing them?"- an unscientific argument that can be countered with "If those farmers are so smart, why are so many of them going out of business every year?"
 
Threegoofs said:
So you think the farmers are unaware that they are paying high prices for seed that produces no increase in yield?

Why do they do it then? Peer pressure? To crack those supermarkets that proudly sell only GMO food?
Click to expand...

Because it is impossible to purchase enough non-GE seed to grow enough product

Can you say "cartel"?
 
sangha said:
Because it is impossible to purchase enough non-GE seed to grow enough product

Can you say "cartel"?
Click to expand...

Seems to me one can grow their own seed.

Generally, the reason the market doesn't supply something is because demand is low.

GMO crops in general have much better yields per acre, especially when considering the cost and amount of herbicide/pesticide that is used- tremendous drops in use of the most toxic pesticides are due to GMO.

USDA ERS - Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops by U.S. Farmers Has Increased Steadily for Over 15 Years
 
sangha said:
Exactly!! For all their mockery for GE-opponents, GE supporters can't point to any concrete benefits from the use of GE crops, nor can they refute the costs and harms associated with the production of GE crops.

The best they can do is arguments like 3G's "If GE is so bad, why are so many farmers growing them?"- an unscientific argument that can be countered with "If those farmers are so smart, why are so many of them going out of business every year?"
Click to expand...

That could be because of the success of X rather than its failure. Over supply, which drops the crop price, is bad for business and weeds out those that cannot withstand a (temporary?) price drop.
 
Threegoofs said:
Seems to me one can grow their own seed.
Click to expand...

You're wrong about that.

Generally, the reason the market doesn't supply something is because demand is low.
Click to expand...

Again, you're wrong.

GMO crops in general have much better yields per acre, especially when considering the cost and amount of herbicide/pesticide that is used- tremendous drops in use of the most toxic pesticides are due to GMO.
Click to expand...

And again, you're wrong

Is making unscientific claims and insisting they're true the best you can do?
 
katzgar said:
it really isnt my observation, it is obvious
Click to expand...

If you mean from the media sensationalism, then I pity you for believing what is in the news.
 
Northern Light said:
The research into the cross epigenetic effects of GMO crops on neighboring heirloom species is still in its infancy, and may even be deliberately underfunded in order to prevent further opposition to GMO. There are a lot of unanswered questions.

Either way, I demand a right to know if I'm eating GMO or not, not just because the modified foods themselves may be having unknown actions in the human body, but because GMO drops can withstand high degree of chemical saturation without dying, which means higher chemical burden for anyone eating that. IBS, IBD, leaky gut and other bowel diseases have skyrocketed in the U.S. in the past 10 years. Diseases like ulcerative colitis have risen by something like 400% in the past 12 years. Clearly the food system needs some reform.

We already know from ground reports that 48 hours before some crops go to market, they are saturated with pesticides and herbicides to such a degree that workers are advised not to enter the fields without hazmat suits.

People have a right to know what they're eating. Also, the political lobbying by Monsanto and other huge food corps is really gross. They are trying to take over the food system, blatantly, so that there are no alternatives but their crap.
Click to expand...

Why would farmers spend money to saturate crops with pesticides and herbicides two days before harvest?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom