Why we need GMO

GMO has the potential to save the environment though less intensive/harmful farming, biofuels, carbon sequestration... the possibilities are endless. Monsanto is not a great corporate steward, but the technology itself has loads of potential.

hmmm idk about that. And I think a lot of farmers would disagree.

The fact that nearly all farmers of corn and soybeans use roundup-ready GMO crops to avoid the added work of tilling and weeding would seemingly contradict that statement. GMO crops allow no-till farming which reduces erosion, nutrient pollution, need for fertilizers, labor inputs, etc. Other GMO traits reduce the need for pesticides, making organic farming practices more productive.

I hope, VorJoshigan, that you aren't implying that the larger of the two fish shown in your picture must have been genetically modified based on its size. I live on one of the best salmon rivers in the world, and I can assure you that the larger of the two is not even close to how large a salmon can grow. When I was a young child my father regularly brought home salmon over twice that size. When he was a child, 50 years ago, his father also fished and salmon over 1m long were fairly commonplace.

One of the main issues with GMO in agriculture is that they have to spray the GMO crops repeatedly and much more with insecticides than conventional crops. They are not healthy to eat and are more expensive to produce. They are outlawed in many countries due to cross pollination ruining the conventional seed supply. GMO's are just all around bad. You really need to study the subject.

Another sound arguement! :drinker:

Thanks for the hogwash monsanto

Ditto. OP, pull your head out of the sand and go read a book. You can start with "Essential Environment, 4th Edition" by Jay H Withgott and Matthew Laposata. It's a textbook for an intro to science course, which you could obviously use. I suppose you think glowing sheep and glowing trees are good, too.

A patent by nature has to be detailed enough so it can be replicated by other people. The purpose of patent is both to protect the inventor and to eventually benefit society at large. If the invention is useful and profitable enough, the information in the patent is always enough to create a copy.

You, good sir, have way too much faith in the US patent system if you truly believe that patents are detailed enough to be replicated. I suggest checking out the state of tech patents...

One of the main issues with GMO in agriculture is that they have to spray the GMO crops repeatedly and much more with insecticides than conventional crops. They are not healthy to eat and are more expensive to produce. They are outlawed in many countries due to cross pollination ruining the conventional seed supply. GMO's are just all around bad. You really need to study the subject.

Need GMO's? Are you fu*king kidding me? Thousands of years of sustainable farming on earth would argue

Glad someone said it.

This thread is full retard.

One of the main issues with GMO in agriculture is that they have to spray the GMO crops repeatedly and much more with insecticides than conventional crops. They are not healthy to eat and are more expensive to produce. They are outlawed in many countries due to cross pollination ruining the conventional seed supply. GMO's are just all around bad. You really need to study the subject.

About Organic Produce

Organic produce has become increasingly popular in recent years, as consumers have grown more health conscious and environmentally aware. Many stores and supermarkets now have large sections devoted to organic fruits and vegetables.
WHAT MAKES PRODUCE "ORGANIC"?

Contrary to what most people believe, "organic" does not automatically mean "pesticide-free" or "chemical-free". In fact, under the laws of most states, organic farmers are allowed to use a wide variety of chemical sprays and powders on their crops.
So what does organic mean? It means that these pesticides, if used, must be derived from natural sources, not synthetically manufactured. Also, these pesticides must be applied using equipment that has not been used to apply any synthetic materials for the past three years, and the land being planted cannot have been treated with synthetic materials for that period either.

Most organic farmers (and even some conventional farmers, too) employ mechanical and cultural tools to help control pests. These include insect traps, careful crop selection (there are a growing number of disease-resistant varieties), and biological controls (such as predator insects and beneficial microorganisms).

ORGANIC PRODUCE AND PERSONAL HEALTH

When you test synthetic chemicals for their ability to cause cancer, you find that about half of them are carcinogenic.
Until recently, nobody bothered to look at natural chemicals (such as organic pesticides), because it was assumed that they posed little risk. But when the studies were done, the results were somewhat shocking: you find that about half of the natural chemicals studied are carcinogenic as well.

This is a case where everyone (consumers, farmers, researchers) made the same, dangerous mistake. We assumed that "natural" chemicals were automatically better and safer than synthetic materials, and we were wrong. It's important that we be more prudent in our acceptance of "natural" as being innocuous and harmless.

ORGANIC PESTICIDES VERSUS SYNTHETIC PESTICIDES

Clearly, the less we impact our environment, the better off we all are. Organic farming practices have greatly advanced the use of non-chemical means to control pests, as mentioned earlier.
Unfortunately, these non-chemical methods do not always provide enough protection, and it's necessary to use chemical pesticides. How do organic pesticides compare with conventional pesticides?

A recent study compared the effectiveness of a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture versus a synthetic pesticide, imidan. Rotenone and pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan.

It seems unlikely that 7 applications of rotenone and pyrethrin are really better for the environment than 2 applications of imidan, especially when rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life.

It should be noted, however, that we don't know for certain which system is more harmful. This is because we do not look at organic pesticides the same way that we look at conventional pesticides. We don't know how long these organic pesticides persist in the environment, or the full extent of their effects.

When you look at lists of pesticides allowed in organic agriculture, you find warnings such as, "Use with caution. The toxicological effects of [organic pesticide X] are largely unknown," or "Its persistence in the soil is unknown." Again, researchers haven't bothered to study the effects of organic pesticides because it is assumed that "natural" chemicals are automatically safe.

WHY HAVEN'T WE HEARD THIS BEFORE?

For obvious reasons, organic farmers have done little, if anything, to dispel the myth that "organic = chemical/pesticide-free". They would only stand to lose business by making such a disclosure.
Pesticide manufacturers have little concern in the matter. To them, "synthetic pesticides sold" and "organic pesticides sold" are both "pesticides sold".

As for conventional farmers, they are not really in a position to be critical. It would not be in their interest to draw attention to chemical and pesticide use.

WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN?

The purpose in writing this article is not to discourage you from buying organic produce.
It is only meant to let you know what you are or aren't getting when you make such a purchase. Unless you know your grower personally, there is no guarantee that your produce has been grown without pesticides or other chemicals. It's a point to consider, given the substantially higher cost of organic foods.

There are many choices and decisions that we, as consumers, are asked to make. Hopefully, this has provided some new information that you will find helpful.

* * * * * * *

A formatted MS Word version of this document may be downloaded at:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organics.doc

A patent by nature has to be detailed enough so it can be replicated by other people. The purpose of patent is both to protect the inventor and to eventually benefit society at large. If the invention is useful and profitable enough, the information in the patent is always enough to create a copy.

You, good sir, have way too much faith in the US patent system if you truly believe that patents are detailed enough to be replicated. I suggest checking out the state of tech patents...

Like I said, if the invention is useful and profitable enough, people will recreate it.

Viagra (Sildenafil) is so profitable that other companies found a way to create similar drugs in the same class even before the patent expires.

The problem with Tech is not about barrier to recreating the technology, the problem is patents so broad that they encompass other technologies that by common sense aren't related.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130603/12283823298/planet-money-takes-podcasting-patent-troll.shtml

If you fear genetically modified food, you may have Mark Lynas to thank. By his own reckoning, British environmentalist helped spur the anti-GMO movement in the mid-‘90s, arguing as recently at 2008 that big corporations’ selfish greed would threaten the health of both people and the Earth. Thanks to the efforts of Lynas and people like him, governments around the world—especially in Western Europe, Asia, and Africa—have hobbled GM research, and NGOs like Greenpeace have spurned donations of genetically modified foods.

But Lynas has changed his mind—and he’s not being quiet about it. On Thursday at the Oxford Farming Conference, Lynas delivered a blunt address: He got GMOs wrong. According to the version of his remarks posted online (as yet, there’s no video or transcript of the actual delivery), he opened with a bang:

I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.

As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.

So I guess you’ll be wondering—what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.



http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_admits_he_was_wrong.html




http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/