Say "NO" to GMO!
Replies
-
Pretty much all apples are GMO....
From what I know, many apples are hybrids, not GMO.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Omgsh i learnt a lot about GMO's today. They are absolutely horrible! Does anyone agree?
Do you even know what you mean when you say "GMO"? Not trying to be snarky, but really. What specifically counts as "GMO" to you?
Humans have genetically modified every crop we grow and every animal we raise. Are they all bad for you? Are they all bad in the same way? How are they bad?
No, GMO means modified by genetic engineering technique. This excludes historical hybridization.
Why is that not a genetic engineering technique? I mean, what's the defining difference as far as why one makes food better and the other makes it worse/cancerous/evil?
That's possibly the silliest question I've ever seen on here. You might as well ask does seasoning or baking make food worse/cancerous/evil? They are two completely separate processes, neither of which has a demonic relationship of which I'm aware.
i don't find that question silly at all
Agreed. It is actually a very good question considering the level of misunderstanding.
0 -
Pretty much all apples are GMO....
From what I know, many apples are hybrids, not GMO.
Hybrids hey? Hybrids of two different genetic organisms? Meaning they're modified on a genetic basis? Making them genetically modified organisms?0 -
KMCbluestar wrote: »Far as I'm concern even with the GMO... We still aren't feeding everyone. People are still starving.
And even more would be because entitled people like yourself seem to have an issue with an amazing advancement to food that you disagree with based on false information and wavering morals.
Maybe some day you'll experience true starvation and you'll think twice before protesting something that has saved millions of lives.
Why you think she's entitled ? And an awful lot of starvation is happening because of political issues. Like Ninerbuff stated "When a government can keep people starving and be the ones to hand out the food, they stay in control."
0 -
KMCbluestar wrote: »Far as I'm concern even with the GMO... We still aren't feeding everyone. People are still starving.
And even more would be because entitled people like yourself seem to have an issue with an amazing advancement to food that you disagree with based on false information and wavering morals.
Maybe some day you'll experience true starvation and you'll think twice before protesting something that has saved millions of lives.
Honestly… I really do not think that GMOs (or lack thereof) have much to do with people starving…
Besides, if I have to choose between making a few sacrifices in terms of my lifestyle and over-engineering the planet, I will take the first. That is an entirely different matter of debate though.0 -
Pretty much all apples are GMO....
From what I know, many apples are hybrids, not GMO.
Hybrids hey? Hybrids of two different genetic organisms? Meaning they're modified on a genetic basis? Making them genetically modified organisms?
This discussion and the answer to your question happened literally one page ago. Read and come back.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
I was entertained when a US company patented Batsmati rice, which has been grown in India for thousands of years...GingerbreadCandy wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The Luddite arguments against GMOs do serve a purpose. Science and especially industry does need checks and balances in the area of genetic modification and distribution. Issues like monolithic grain supplies, crops selected so that grains don't germinate forcing farmers to re-supply, unwanted crop cross-fertilization are just some of the current issues that need to be addressed.
The historical introduction of a species to fight a pest has often led to unwanted consequences of unintended dominance, selective processes sometimes resulting in more agressive pests.
Like antibiotics, GMOs can be excellent - but the process of use can raise certain risks.
I'm pro -GMO, but cautiously so, and find that the blind "they are totally safe" attitude is actually worse than OP's uneducated position that all GMOs are bad.
There is a reason why legislation limiting the use, requiring incident reporting, etc exists. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/food/sa0015_en.htm and the likes in the U.S. and elsewhere highlight some of the concerns.
As we use and understand better the potential of GMOs both for food and medicine it really is important that we maintain those checks and balances and not follow either camp with blind faith.
Caveat emptor.
Cheers to that!
Whilst the same thought process leads me to siding more on the anti-GMO side, I do also recognise that there may be advantages to GMO crops… IF well-monitored and if crap like monolithic crop supplies and patenting of a new species is avoided.
I'm not against patenting of new species, there is no reason that it is less of an intellectual property process than inventing something else. Where patenting of discovered species, I find, can be easily criticized, the planned invention does deserve some intellectual protection. In the absence of some protection manufacturers would be justified in making non-germination lines to protect their commercial interests.
Just like for medicines, there also needs to be fair use balances and goodwill based on need, and possibly shorter patent expiry dates. Thee is a balance that can be struck within need to drive inventiveness and availability of new species. Plus patent protection is actually a good barrier to monolithic culture development - not everyone has access to the latest so other crops are maintained...
I understand the intellectual property aspect, which is why I think it is a difficult topic. However, I find it very hard not to have a moral objection towards patenting a source of food… The comparison with medicine is very apt, and I find that to be a difficult topic as well. I recognise that most of my reasoning are idealistic rather than rational, though.
I don't know about whether patenting or not would be a good solution against monolithic cultures. However, I assume you know better than me on the matter and take your word for it.
Truly, I guess in the end it is not the patenting itself that bothers me, it is more the ways it could be potentially abused.
Patent abuse and biopiracy exists - however overeaching that case was, it was resolved and the company lost the patent rights.
I figured so much… glad to have it confirmed though.0 -
CrimsonWhite wrote: »
Hybridization occurs in a field by cross-breeding plants, and GMO's are made in a lab using gene-splicing. I can't argue if one is safer than the other but they are two separate things and one can occur naturally and the other cannot.
A specific GMO organism might or might not be possible naturally.
OK, so this is a nitpick, but I've always thought that at a part of the anti-GMO outcry might be that people don't realize that genetic material jumps species with the aid of viruses and bacteria without any assistance from us, and not all that infrequently. That's the only reason for even mentioning this.
^^^ This. It's not exactly true that "gene-splicing" does not occur in nature. There are types of viruses that have been doing this a long time, and I imagine in all plants and animals (virology, while interesting, wasn't my research area). So yah, it's not uncommon at all. Research suggests that up to 8% of the human genome was derived from viral DNA. So we're GMOs too I guess
The extent to which we can now override nature is significant.
Just because something like food poisoning occurs in nature, doesn't mean I get a pass to introduce food poisons into your sandwhich. Appeal to nature is a common fallacy.
http://youtu.be/AGQNztpOnDw
We are 100% modified genetically but 0% GMO. GMO has a very specific definition including genetic engineering (by man).0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Hybridization is taking two or more animals or plants and breeding them together or splicing a bit of macro tissue together. The modified result may have genetic material from both but it's not a major modification and frankly it's bern going on for thousands and thousands of years. Genetic engineering is the insertion of very small genetic material using a bacteria, or a gene gun, a plasmid, etc. It carries additonal risks that the added material will "skip" to other plants or animals or that it will have secondary unintended results.
For examples, research on an eggplant GMO resulted in a species of eggplant that was resistant to a borer. That's great, expect field results demonstrated that the elimination of that borer in that field test gave rise to another pest by leaving the field wide open without competition. Not so good.
We humans have created agricultural catastrophies. Introduction of cats and rabbits in places where they should not have been, destruction of grape varietals, etc. The introduction of non-local species has so many horror stories, now add the risk of antibiotic resistance gene possibly moving from one culture to other areas or becoming the breeding ground for new resistances in soil bacteria...
GMOs carry some risks beyond hybrid processes. It isn't that they are evil, they need more checks and evaluations.
It sounds like, after you strip out all of the other stuff you added in there, that the difference is really that when you create a hybrid, you mix already existing genes, but when you create a 'genetically modified organism', you mix existing genes with synthesized ones?
Or is it just whether you use breeding/splicing versus bacteria/gene gun to effect the genetic transfer?
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Hybridization is taking two or more animals or plants and breeding them together or splicing a bit of macro tissue together. The modified result may have genetic material from both but it's not a major modification and frankly it's bern going on for thousands and thousands of years. Genetic engineering is the insertion of very small genetic material using a bacteria, or a gene gun, a plasmid, etc. It carries additonal risks that the added material will "skip" to other plants or animals or that it will have secondary unintended results.
For examples, research on an eggplant GMO resulted in a species of eggplant that was resistant to a borer. That's great, expect field results demonstrated that the elimination of that borer in that field test gave rise to another pest by leaving the field wide open without competition. Not so good.
We humans have created agricultural catastrophies. Introduction of cats and rabbits in places where they should not have been, destruction of grape varietals, etc. The introduction of non-local species has so many horror stories, now add the risk of antibiotic resistance gene possibly moving from one culture to other areas or becoming the breeding ground for new resistances in soil bacteria...
GMOs carry some risks beyond hybrid processes. It isn't that they are evil, they need more checks and evaluations.
It sounds like, after you strip out all of the other stuff you added in there, that the difference is really that when you create a hybrid, you mix already existing genes, but when you create a 'genetically modified organism', you mix existing genes with synthesized ones?
Or is it just whether you use breeding/splicing versus bacteria/gene gun to effect the genetic transfer?
The major difference is that you can't add genetic code to express huge modification via hybridization. No amount of hybrids will create cats that glow in the dark, apples that don't brown or eggplants that produce spider toxins or antibiotics, or cows that produce human milk - just some of the genetic transfers examples that have been done. Genetic engineering allows a much finer modification with greater impact. Hybridization is a process of breeding and artificially selection (in the Darwinian sense).
In short, one mixes non-relative species gene segments for novel results.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The major difference is that you can't add genetic code to express huge modification via hybridization. No amount of hybrids will create cats that glow in the dark, apples that don't brown or eggplants that produce spider toxins or antibiotics, or cows that produce human milk - just some of the genetic transfers examples that have been done. Genetic engineering allows a much finer modification with greater impact. Hybridization is a process of breeding and artificially selection (in the Darwinian sense).
In short, one mixes non-relative species gene segments for novel results.
Cool, thanks for your patience with me
So there's a line between something that could possibly occur naturally given enough time, and something that would never have happened in (more or less) infinite time without human intervention.
Still unclear on whether it's GMO itself that is "bad" (per the OP), or if it's the lack of discipline/regulation/accountability and some of the poor outcomes that are individually bad? I heard they're growing tomatoes in salt water now in AU - is that good or evil since it's GMO but it seems to be benefitting people? (again this is probably more of a question for anyone who has stated "GMO BAD", I get that it's a straw man to some people here).
Thanks again for your thoughtful replies @EvgeniZyntx
0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Far as I'm concern even with the GMO... We still aren't feeding everyone. People are still starving.
And even more would be because entitled people like yourself seem to have an issue with an amazing advancement to food that you disagree with based on false information and wavering morals.
Maybe some day you'll experience true starvation and you'll think twice before protesting something that has saved millions of lives.
Honestly… I really do not think that GMOs (or lack thereof) have much to do with people starving…
Besides, if I have to choose between making a few sacrifices in terms of my lifestyle and over-engineering the planet, I will take the first. That is an entirely different matter of debate though.GingerbreadCandy wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Far as I'm concern even with the GMO... We still aren't feeding everyone. People are still starving.
And even more would be because entitled people like yourself seem to have an issue with an amazing advancement to food that you disagree with based on false information and wavering morals.
Maybe some day you'll experience true starvation and you'll think twice before protesting something that has saved millions of lives.
Honestly… I really do not think that GMOs (or lack thereof) have much to do with people starving…
Besides, if I have to choose between making a few sacrifices in terms of my lifestyle and over-engineering the planet, I will take the first. That is an entirely different matter of debate though.
Of course you wouldn't think that GMO's would help starvation because you can't see issues outside of your own country. People like you only ever seem to think about political issues that stem within your own country rather than the impact that such a technology can have on the entire world.KMCbluestar wrote: »Far as I'm concern even with the GMO... We still aren't feeding everyone. People are still starving.
And even more would be because entitled people like yourself seem to have an issue with an amazing advancement to food that you disagree with based on false information and wavering morals.
Maybe some day you'll experience true starvation and you'll think twice before protesting something that has saved millions of lives.
Why you think she's entitled ? And an awful lot of starvation is happening because of political issues. Like Ninerbuff stated "When a government can keep people starving and be the ones to hand out the food, they stay in control."
This goes for you as well, you seem to be so absorbed with your own country's politics. No one denies that totalitarian governments in under-developed countries exploit the poor to stay in control but there's a limit to what they can restrict from the public, otherwise you have cases of revolutions or coups happening to displace current leaders. These crops are designed to help those in under-developed or developing countries as opposed to thoroughly developed nations such as the US, UK, Australia, NZ etc however those crops still have a very large place in these countries, especially for the future.
Norman Borlaug himself is attributed to saving over a billion lives WORLDWIDE thanks to an amazing genetically modified wheat seed, increasing food production in many countries such as Pakistan, India, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Mozambique, Nigeria, Uganda and more.
Considering there's roughly 7.12 billion people in the world, this organism has been credited to saving around 1/7th of the population from starvation. Can you HONESTLY say that this is not a substantial and amazing feat?0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Far as I'm concern even with the GMO... We still aren't feeding everyone. People are still starving.
And even more would be because entitled people like yourself seem to have an issue with an amazing advancement to food that you disagree with based on false information and wavering morals.
Maybe some day you'll experience true starvation and you'll think twice before protesting something that has saved millions of lives.
Honestly… I really do not think that GMOs (or lack thereof) have much to do with people starving…
Besides, if I have to choose between making a few sacrifices in terms of my lifestyle and over-engineering the planet, I will take the first. That is an entirely different matter of debate though.GingerbreadCandy wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Far as I'm concern even with the GMO... We still aren't feeding everyone. People are still starving.
And even more would be because entitled people like yourself seem to have an issue with an amazing advancement to food that you disagree with based on false information and wavering morals.
Maybe some day you'll experience true starvation and you'll think twice before protesting something that has saved millions of lives.
Honestly… I really do not think that GMOs (or lack thereof) have much to do with people starving…
Besides, if I have to choose between making a few sacrifices in terms of my lifestyle and over-engineering the planet, I will take the first. That is an entirely different matter of debate though.
Of course you wouldn't think that GMO's would help starvation because you can't see issues outside of your own country. People like you only ever seem to think about political issues that stem within your own country rather than the impact that such a technology can have on the entire world.KMCbluestar wrote: »Far as I'm concern even with the GMO... We still aren't feeding everyone. People are still starving.
And even more would be because entitled people like yourself seem to have an issue with an amazing advancement to food that you disagree with based on false information and wavering morals.
Maybe some day you'll experience true starvation and you'll think twice before protesting something that has saved millions of lives.
Why you think she's entitled ? And an awful lot of starvation is happening because of political issues. Like Ninerbuff stated "When a government can keep people starving and be the ones to hand out the food, they stay in control."
This goes for you as well, you seem to be so absorbed with your own country's politics. No one denies that totalitarian governments in under-developed countries exploit the poor to stay in control but there's a limit to what they can restrict from the public, otherwise you have cases of revolutions or coups happening to displace current leaders. These crops are designed to help those in under-developed or developing countries as opposed to thoroughly developed nations such as the US, UK, Australia, NZ etc however those crops still have a very large place in these countries, especially for the future.
Norman Borlaug himself is attributed to saving over a billion lives WORLDWIDE thanks to an amazing genetically modified wheat seed, increasing food production in many countries such as Pakistan, India, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Mozambique, Nigeria, Uganda and more.
Considering there's roughly 7.12 billion people in the world, this organism has been credited to saving around 1/7th of the population from starvation. Can you HONESTLY say that this is not a substantial and amazing feat?
You sure make a pot full of assumptions. You have no idea what I'm absorbed in and if you think that there is no revolutions or attempted coups happening around the world then I think you may be absorbed in your own little bubble. Sounds to me like you sound awfull entilted yourself.
And people like us WTF ? Get a grip and have a snikers bar .
0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Far as I'm concern even with the GMO... We still aren't feeding everyone. People are still starving.
And even more would be because entitled people like yourself seem to have an issue with an amazing advancement to food that you disagree with based on false information and wavering morals.
Maybe some day you'll experience true starvation and you'll think twice before protesting something that has saved millions of lives.
Honestly… I really do not think that GMOs (or lack thereof) have much to do with people starving…
Besides, if I have to choose between making a few sacrifices in terms of my lifestyle and over-engineering the planet, I will take the first. That is an entirely different matter of debate though.GingerbreadCandy wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Far as I'm concern even with the GMO... We still aren't feeding everyone. People are still starving.
And even more would be because entitled people like yourself seem to have an issue with an amazing advancement to food that you disagree with based on false information and wavering morals.
Maybe some day you'll experience true starvation and you'll think twice before protesting something that has saved millions of lives.
Honestly… I really do not think that GMOs (or lack thereof) have much to do with people starving…
Besides, if I have to choose between making a few sacrifices in terms of my lifestyle and over-engineering the planet, I will take the first. That is an entirely different matter of debate though.
Of course you wouldn't think that GMO's would help starvation because you can't see issues outside of your own country. People like you only ever seem to think about political issues that stem within your own country rather than the impact that such a technology can have on the entire world.KMCbluestar wrote: »Far as I'm concern even with the GMO... We still aren't feeding everyone. People are still starving.
And even more would be because entitled people like yourself seem to have an issue with an amazing advancement to food that you disagree with based on false information and wavering morals.
Maybe some day you'll experience true starvation and you'll think twice before protesting something that has saved millions of lives.
Why you think she's entitled ? And an awful lot of starvation is happening because of political issues. Like Ninerbuff stated "When a government can keep people starving and be the ones to hand out the food, they stay in control."
This goes for you as well, you seem to be so absorbed with your own country's politics. No one denies that totalitarian governments in under-developed countries exploit the poor to stay in control but there's a limit to what they can restrict from the public, otherwise you have cases of revolutions or coups happening to displace current leaders. These crops are designed to help those in under-developed or developing countries as opposed to thoroughly developed nations such as the US, UK, Australia, NZ etc however those crops still have a very large place in these countries, especially for the future.
Norman Borlaug himself is attributed to saving over a billion lives WORLDWIDE thanks to an amazing genetically modified wheat seed, increasing food production in many countries such as Pakistan, India, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Mozambique, Nigeria, Uganda and more.
Considering there's roughly 7.12 billion people in the world, this organism has been credited to saving around 1/7th of the population from starvation. Can you HONESTLY say that this is not a substantial and amazing feat?
LOL. Oh, dear. You have no idea how far away from the truth you are with that accusation. It's actually funny.
Also, even assuming GMOs were the ultimate solution to world hunger, if you really think companies would be producing them solely out of the goodness of their hearts and no ulterior motives that would most likely end up with poverty-stricken countries getting the short end of the stick, you may have not been paying attention to how the world works.
Also, how on earth did you manage to make all those assumptions from two lines of text?0 -
You are welcome.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The major difference is that you can't add genetic code to express huge modification via hybridization. No amount of hybrids will create cats that glow in the dark, apples that don't brown or eggplants that produce spider toxins or antibiotics, or cows that produce human milk - just some of the genetic transfers examples that have been done. Genetic engineering allows a much finer modification with greater impact. Hybridization is a process of breeding and artificially selection (in the Darwinian sense).
In short, one mixes non-relative species gene segments for novel results.
Cool, thanks for your patience with me So there's a line between something that could possibly occur naturally given enough time, and something that would never have happened in (more or less) infinite time without human intervention.
Still unclear on whether it's GMO itself that is "bad" (per the OP), or if it's the lack of discipline/regulation/accountability and some of the poor outcomes that are individually bad? I heard they're growing tomatoes in salt water now in AU - is that good or evil since it's GMO but it seems to be benefitting people? (again this is probably more of a question for anyone who has stated "GMO BAD", I get that it's a straw man to some people here).
Thanks again for your thoughtful replies @EvgeniZyntx
The GMOs currently on the market are considered "generally safe" by the scientific consensus. And a few of them are of significant impact in reducing food scarcity. So that's good. Correction, that is great. The benefits CANNOT be sufficiently underlined.
Genetic modification isn't itself bad - we will not only have new crops, but medicines, even possibly new tissues and organs to treat diseases from this. Great leaps in knowledge and food quality. Imagine a crop of eggplants that requires less insecticide.
However implementation and testing carried out are always close to the minimum (because laws only slowly catch up or it actually doesn't make sense to try every kind of test) or unintended side effects occur when we "fiddle with things".
It is best to go by example.
First, a non GMO example, the introduction of cats into Australia. Cats aren't bad or good. But the introduction of them into Australia, as pets, has let to a huge problem. There are million and millions of feral cats and they result in costly programs to trap, shoot and kill them. They have significantly impacted local fauna and possibly even resulted in the extinction of certain small species. Basically, they have no competitor or barrier to spread. And this might happen with a GMO that has a significant advantage over other crops. Or, as in the case of the eggplant GMO, by removing one pest, we provide significant advantage to another, more difficult to manage.
Second, a GMO example. In the 90s a soybean strain was modified to enhance its protein profile. The soybean was injected with a nut gene. And then, a team decided to test and see if it might cause allergies in susceptible people. And it did. Now this soybean was abandoned and one can say "great, science worked, no one got hurt". Well, except that there is no requirement to test GMOs for inducing food allergies. Suddenly, little Johnny, who's highly allergic to nuts might die from drinking his soy milk, if we aren't careful about how we move forward.0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Far as I'm concern even with the GMO... We still aren't feeding everyone. People are still starving.
And even more would be because entitled people like yourself seem to have an issue with an amazing advancement to food that you disagree with based on false information and wavering morals.
Maybe some day you'll experience true starvation and you'll think twice before protesting something that has saved millions of lives.
Honestly… I really do not think that GMOs (or lack thereof) have much to do with people starving…
Besides, if I have to choose between making a few sacrifices in terms of my lifestyle and over-engineering the planet, I will take the first. That is an entirely different matter of debate though.GingerbreadCandy wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Far as I'm concern even with the GMO... We still aren't feeding everyone. People are still starving.
And even more would be because entitled people like yourself seem to have an issue with an amazing advancement to food that you disagree with based on false information and wavering morals.
Maybe some day you'll experience true starvation and you'll think twice before protesting something that has saved millions of lives.
Honestly… I really do not think that GMOs (or lack thereof) have much to do with people starving…
Besides, if I have to choose between making a few sacrifices in terms of my lifestyle and over-engineering the planet, I will take the first. That is an entirely different matter of debate though.
Of course you wouldn't think that GMO's would help starvation because you can't see issues outside of your own country. People like you only ever seem to think about political issues that stem within your own country rather than the impact that such a technology can have on the entire world.KMCbluestar wrote: »Far as I'm concern even with the GMO... We still aren't feeding everyone. People are still starving.
And even more would be because entitled people like yourself seem to have an issue with an amazing advancement to food that you disagree with based on false information and wavering morals.
Maybe some day you'll experience true starvation and you'll think twice before protesting something that has saved millions of lives.
Why you think she's entitled ? And an awful lot of starvation is happening because of political issues. Like Ninerbuff stated "When a government can keep people starving and be the ones to hand out the food, they stay in control."
This goes for you as well, you seem to be so absorbed with your own country's politics. No one denies that totalitarian governments in under-developed countries exploit the poor to stay in control but there's a limit to what they can restrict from the public, otherwise you have cases of revolutions or coups happening to displace current leaders. These crops are designed to help those in under-developed or developing countries as opposed to thoroughly developed nations such as the US, UK, Australia, NZ etc however those crops still have a very large place in these countries, especially for the future.
Norman Borlaug himself is attributed to saving over a billion lives WORLDWIDE thanks to an amazing genetically modified wheat seed, increasing food production in many countries such as Pakistan, India, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Mozambique, Nigeria, Uganda and more.
Considering there's roughly 7.12 billion people in the world, this organism has been credited to saving around 1/7th of the population from starvation. Can you HONESTLY say that this is not a substantial and amazing feat?
LOL. Oh, dear. You have no idea how far away from the truth you are with that accusation. It's actually funny.
Also, even assuming GMOs were the ultimate solution to world hunger, if you really think companies would be producing them solely out of the goodness of their hearts and no ulterior motives that would most likely end up with poverty-stricken countries getting the short end of the stick, you may have not been paying attention to how the world works.
Also, how on earth did you manage to make all those assumptions from two lines of text?
Lol, is correct. While Borlaug work was fantastic and he was a supporter of GMOs his wheat research was not GMO but selective breeding and genetic crossbreeding as used by his team to develop new wheat and rice types. These are not GMOs. It falls outside of the debate.
As to the motivations of researchers - please, some research is purely done without ulterior motives of corporate gain. Much of the research into GMOs is still certainly without economic value. Commercial interests abound, but let's not paint this black or white.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Far as I'm concern even with the GMO... We still aren't feeding everyone. People are still starving.
And even more would be because entitled people like yourself seem to have an issue with an amazing advancement to food that you disagree with based on false information and wavering morals.
Maybe some day you'll experience true starvation and you'll think twice before protesting something that has saved millions of lives.
Honestly… I really do not think that GMOs (or lack thereof) have much to do with people starving…
Besides, if I have to choose between making a few sacrifices in terms of my lifestyle and over-engineering the planet, I will take the first. That is an entirely different matter of debate though.GingerbreadCandy wrote: »KMCbluestar wrote: »Far as I'm concern even with the GMO... We still aren't feeding everyone. People are still starving.
And even more would be because entitled people like yourself seem to have an issue with an amazing advancement to food that you disagree with based on false information and wavering morals.
Maybe some day you'll experience true starvation and you'll think twice before protesting something that has saved millions of lives.
Honestly… I really do not think that GMOs (or lack thereof) have much to do with people starving…
Besides, if I have to choose between making a few sacrifices in terms of my lifestyle and over-engineering the planet, I will take the first. That is an entirely different matter of debate though.
Of course you wouldn't think that GMO's would help starvation because you can't see issues outside of your own country. People like you only ever seem to think about political issues that stem within your own country rather than the impact that such a technology can have on the entire world.KMCbluestar wrote: »Far as I'm concern even with the GMO... We still aren't feeding everyone. People are still starving.
And even more would be because entitled people like yourself seem to have an issue with an amazing advancement to food that you disagree with based on false information and wavering morals.
Maybe some day you'll experience true starvation and you'll think twice before protesting something that has saved millions of lives.
Why you think she's entitled ? And an awful lot of starvation is happening because of political issues. Like Ninerbuff stated "When a government can keep people starving and be the ones to hand out the food, they stay in control."
This goes for you as well, you seem to be so absorbed with your own country's politics. No one denies that totalitarian governments in under-developed countries exploit the poor to stay in control but there's a limit to what they can restrict from the public, otherwise you have cases of revolutions or coups happening to displace current leaders. These crops are designed to help those in under-developed or developing countries as opposed to thoroughly developed nations such as the US, UK, Australia, NZ etc however those crops still have a very large place in these countries, especially for the future.
Norman Borlaug himself is attributed to saving over a billion lives WORLDWIDE thanks to an amazing genetically modified wheat seed, increasing food production in many countries such as Pakistan, India, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Mozambique, Nigeria, Uganda and more.
Considering there's roughly 7.12 billion people in the world, this organism has been credited to saving around 1/7th of the population from starvation. Can you HONESTLY say that this is not a substantial and amazing feat?
LOL. Oh, dear. You have no idea how far away from the truth you are with that accusation. It's actually funny.
Also, even assuming GMOs were the ultimate solution to world hunger, if you really think companies would be producing them solely out of the goodness of their hearts and no ulterior motives that would most likely end up with poverty-stricken countries getting the short end of the stick, you may have not been paying attention to how the world works.
Also, how on earth did you manage to make all those assumptions from two lines of text?
Lol, is correct. While Borlaug work was fantastic and he was a supporter of GMOs his wheat research was not GMO but selective breeding and genetic crossbreeding as used by his team to develop new wheat and rice types. These are not GMOs. It falls outside of the debate.
As to the motivations of researchers - please, some research is purely done without ulterior motives of corporate gain. Much of the research into GMOs is still certainly without economic value. Commercial interests abound, but let's not paint this black or white.
Indeed, but I was not referring to the motivation of researchers at all. Any field of research has people doing it purely for the love of their field as well as people wishing to make a profit out of it. I will not argue against that and it was never my intention to paint researchers all in one stroke.
However, it is also naive to think that if we were to find a magic grain that could save world hunger where to be discovered, nobody would attempt to make a massive profit out of it.
Or maybe not, maybe it would be declared a basic human right and then I'd be completely wrong. After all, I assume that by that point there would have been further discussions and debates on the ethics behind GMOs etc etc.
Given, however, several past examples of how the developed world and companies deal with third-world-countries, as well as the political situation within the countries themselves, I would be more than cautious saying "if we develop super-seeds world hunger will cease to exist." There are many more ways that could turn out.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions