|
|
|
| Authored by: jonathon on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 08:43 AM EST |
>GM plants are a good thing for food supply and food cost. They make
farmers and land more productive and therefore lower the costs of food
supply.
If GM Crops lower the cost of food,. then why is the cost of food projected
to go up 10% in the next three years, and 25% within the next five years.
With most of that increase being an increase in the price of GM Crops?
Note in passing that the food supply is also projected to go down. The
most dramatic drops being for GM crops.
I've forgotten the projected increase in health costs, as a direct result of
GM crops. (My guess is around US$15K per family, because at least one
person in every family is allergic to GM crops. [US$15K was the total
amount billed amount, for my last visit to ER, which was due to food related
allergies.] )[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 08:46 AM EST |
You smart ass clever person. We first destroy the nature that has food for ten
times more people than we are. Then kill ourselves with food that we need to
genetically modify so it is enough to feed us. There are sustainable, healthy
and natural ways to live, it's just greed that keeps us in this miserable
situation.
Whoever tries to escape the system, needs to carry the negatives of the others
that kill nature and/or prefer to do nothing, just live their lives while they
have them. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 11:48 AM EST |
Splicing two plants together to produce a hybrid can fall into a more generic
definition for the term "genetic modification". You suggest a solution of
planting a large number of plants and letting nature weed out (pardon the pun)
those that can't resist the pesticide. Granted, you don't come straight out and
say that's genetic modification. But that's not the same at all as humans
splicing genetic material in trial-and-error applied science.
However,
when you get down to the definition as applied via genetic
engineering you're no longer talking about splicing a couple plants
together, letting nature take over to discard and mold. And you're certainly
not talking about nature molding the dna to be pesticide resistent. You're
talking about humans deciding what's going to be in the DNA.
Humans with
limited knowledge about how genetic material fully works. A science that's only
a couple decades old in it's current form. That had its beginnings about the
mid 19th
Century.
Personally, I'd rather trust the farmers that have been
doing the same thing for a few thousand years and trust the efforts of
Nature.
I'm with P.J. on this one. Let's assume that the Monsanto-style
GM plants are cheaper. I'd rather pay the higher costs of natural
foods.
I also avoid pharmaceutical produced vitamin/mineral supplements
because I'm of the opinion they are just not good for you - let alone as good -
compared with getting your vitamins/minerals via nature.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 02:50 PM EST |
And your evidence is?
We've had a farmer on here say that his traditional seed outperforms all his
neighbours who buy seed in.
I've come across various claims that pretty much all of the increase in
productivity can be laid at the feet of the DOUBLING of atmospheric carbon
dioxide in the last two centuries or so.
I've come across other stuff that shows that fertiliser is of paramount
importance.
But all the stuff I've heard of about GM seems to be self-serving propaganda.
And I'm picking up more and more that all this emphasis on *yield* is actually
seriously damaging *quality*. There's no point in having all the
"food" you need, when it's mostly carbs, and lacking in minerals and
vitamins. Do you want to be BOTH obese AND malnourished? I've come across a fair
few missionary doctors who've come home to my supposedly well-off land and been
shocked by the number of malnourished kids they've seen.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 21 2013 @ 12:15 AM EST |
Surely cocaine is a highly profitable business. If the cocaine plants are now
'Roundup Ready' why hasn't Monsanto got its hand out for its share of the
profits yet?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
