Gmo

[Mycroft]

So I find, particularly in America where these things usually begin, people are afraid of/opposed to GMOs. Genetically Modified Organisms. Food, in other words.

The funny thing about this is that people have been eating GMOs for centuries. Practically all produce and meat you buy is genetically modified. There are no wild seedless watermelons. There are no wild cows. There are no wild large bananas. People seem to have an exaggerated idea of what is 'organic'. All agariculture is unnatural.

Wheat, be it ever so wholemeal and stoneground, is not a natural food for Homo sapiens. Nor is milk, except for children. Almost every morsel of our food is genetically modified – admittedly by artificial selection not artificial mutation, but the end result is the same. A wheat grain is a genetically modified grass seed, just as a pekinese is a genetically modified wolf.

So what's different this time around? The fact that it's all done in a lab. All done by science. And it is the scientific illiteracy of the people that is fuelling the fear behind GMO. They don't understand science, so they fear it instead. There's really very little difference between genetically modifying the cow via artificial selection and doing it in the lab except that people don't understand the latter.

 

[Drolefille]

There's a lot of conflation with anti-Monsanto attitudes (some of which are perfectly reasonable, others are based on inaccurate information) and anti-GMO. The evidence does not at this point exist to convince me that GMO products are harmful.

 

[Alceste]

I oppose them because of the impact on farming practices and the persecution and exploitation of farmers. I also object to the entire concept of food as intellectual property. We're entering an era of severe food shortage and I don't trust Monsanto and their ilk with the responsibility of mitigating the impact of widespread famine.

 

[Drolefille]

I oppose them because of the impact on farming practices and the persecution and exploitation of farmers. I also object to the entire concept of food as intellectual property. We're entering an era of severe food shortage and I don't trust Monsanto and their ilk with the responsibility of mitigating the impact of widespread famine.

See I haven't even seen evidence of the former: Farmers buy seed every year regardless because crop yields are reduced greatly in second/third generations. So they want to go with the higher. And then the whole "suing due to accidental growing of GMO crops" thing was not based in fact IIRC.

I just don't see that being the case. Not trusting Monsanto is legit of course, but I don't actually see widespread famine as a problem.

 

[Alceste]

See I haven't even seen evidence of the former: Farmers buy seed every year regardless because crop yields are reduced greatly in second/third generations. So they want to go with the higher. And then the whole "suing due to accidental growing of GMO crops" thing was not based in fact IIRC.

I just don't see that being the case. Not trusting Monsanto is legit of course, but I don't actually see widespread famine as a problem.

Percy Schmeiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There, now you have seen evidence of the former. It's not left up to the farmer whether to buy or save seeds. Monsanto prohibits it, and will come down like a tonne of bricks on any farmer who is caught saving rather than purchasing their seeds.

As to famine, this is inevitable. Many of the world's bread baskets are irrigated by diverting glacier fed rivers, and the glaciers are disappearing. This leaves farmers dependent on increasingly unpredictable precipitation and drought cycles.

IPCC report paints bleak picture of war, famine and pestilence:

 

[Drolefille]

Percy Schmeiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There, now you have seen evidence of the former. It's not left up to the farmer whether to buy or save seeds. Monsanto prohibits it, and will come down like a tonne of bricks on any farmer who is caught saving rather than purchasing their seeds.

Reading this, if I understand correctly, Schmeiser had not purchased the RR seeds in the first place. He then found the crops growing via scatter - and then deliberately saved those seeds to replant. He wasn't someone who had bought the RR seeds (or license) and then saved them. Had he licensed them, he would have been fine to grow his saved seed.

I read through the linked article on the court case. Am I missing something? This case is often cited as proof of Monsanto suing people for "Accidentally" growing RR crops, but that isn't what actually happened here. He lost his case because he deliberately saved seed he didn't have a license for/never purchased in the first place. (And clearly he did it because it was "better" seed in his mind, or why risk all the problems?)

As to famine, this is inevitable. Many of the world's bread baskets are irrigated by diverting glacier fed rivers, and the glaciers are disappearing. This leaves farmers dependent on increasingly unpredictable precipitation and drought cycles.

[/QUOTE]
I think it is likely that GMOs are more likely to save us than not. Not that Monsanto, for example, is a white knight in shining armor or that they would be capable of saving us, but developing drought resistant crops via selective breeding vs genetic manipulation may be the key. If the latter is faster, why not?

I do want to emphasize that I really don't like Monsanto particularly. I just don't see gene modification as significantly different from what we've been doing with cross breeds all along

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

See I haven't even seen evidence of the former: Farmers buy seed every year regardless because crop yields are reduced greatly in second/third generations. So they want to go with the higher. And then the whole "suing due to accidental growing of GMO crops" thing was not based in fact IIRC.

I just don't see that being the case. Not trusting Monsanto is legit of course, but I don't actually see widespread famine as a problem.

Watch this when you have the time:

[youtube]N6_DbVdVo-k[/youtube]

 

[Alceste]

Reading this, if I understand correctly, Schmeiser had not purchased the RR seeds in the first place. He then found the crops growing via scatter - and then deliberately saved those seeds to replant. He wasn't someone who had bought the RR seeds (or license) and then saved them. Had he licensed them, he would have been fine to grow his saved seed.

I read through the linked article on the court case. Am I missing something? This case is often cited as proof of Monsanto suing people for "Accidentally" growing RR crops, but that isn't what actually happened here. He lost his case because he deliberately saved seed he didn't have a license for/never purchased in the first place. (And clearly he did it because it was "better" seed in his mind, or why risk all the problems?)

I think it is likely that GMOs are more likely to save us than not. Not that Monsanto, for example, is a white knight in shining armor or that they would be capable of saving us, but developing drought resistant crops via selective breeding vs genetic manipulation may be the key. If the latter is faster, why not?

I do want to emphasize that I really don't like Monsanto particularly. I just don't see gene modification as significantly different from what we've been doing with cross breeds all along

Schmeiser had no idea his field was contaminated with GMO crops until Monsanto demanded payment from him. He is a life-long seed saver. How do you propose he would have gone about distinguishing between his own crops and Monsanto's in order to intentionally save the GMO seeds?

Yours is kind of an odd take on the whole issue, if you don't mind me saying so. I've yet to see Schmeiser blamed for playing any intentional part in this, even by Canadian courts.

As far as Monsanto is concerned, their GMO crops are generally designed to tolerate higher doses of their proprietary pesticides and herbicides, not to feed the world.

 

[Mycroft]

I oppose them because of the impact on farming practices and the persecution and exploitation of farmers. I also object to the entire concept of food as intellectual property. We're entering an era of severe food shortage and I don't trust Monsanto and their ilk with the responsibility of mitigating the impact of widespread famine.

But that's only relevant to corporations. You get that everywhere and in every aspect of life. That has very little to do with the idea of GM stuff itself.

 

[Alceste]

But that's only relevant to corporations. You get that everywhere and in every aspect of life. That has very little to do with the idea of GM stuff itself.

I have no problem with GM technology, conceptually. I'm concerned about it from a more practical point of view, consistent with my beliefs with regards to the most resilient way to produce food in the coming era of climate instability.

 

[Mycroft]

I have no problem with GM technology, conceptually. I'm concerned about it from a more practical point of view, consistent with my beliefs with regards to the most resilient way to produce food in the coming era of climate instability.

We've destroyed the earth. The food will run out soon and we'll be unable to make more without GM technology.

 

[Alceste]

We've destroyed the earth. The food will run out soon and we'll be unable to make more without GM technology.

We won't be able to make more with GM technology, as far as my own reading on the subject has strongly suggested. Especially not if we have to fight against intellectual property legislation that grants patents to seeds, prohibits seed saving and interferes traditional cross-breeding.

GMO is marketed as a solution to food scarcity, but the fact is that the GMO products currently being planted do not increase crop yields. Their primary purpose is to consolidate the profits and control of the process in the hands of some of the world's most obnoxious corporations.

Our food system has a major structural problem, in that the global, monoculture, stock market dependent model of food trading is not innovative or resilient enough to allow humanity to quickly adapt to the reality of climate change.

In the future (hell, even in the immediate present), EVERYBODY is going to have to tear up their lawns and grow food to survive. The most successful gardeners will have to experiment and plant a huge variety of food plants, resilient in a wide variety of conditions.

How does the GMO industry help YOU or ME supplement an ever decreasing and ever more costly supply of grocery store products with food we grow in our own back yards?

My own opinion is that the key to our future resilience is technology like aquaponics, which allow anyone with a small amount of extra space to produce a surprising abundance of food with minimal inputs.

As I said, my issues with the GMO industry are practical.

 

[Sees]

You can eat all the GMO food you like, I'll continue to avoid it as much as possible. Clean, natural food is the best diet and medicine in my opinion.

 

[Alceste]

You can eat all the GMO food you like, I'll continue to avoid it as much as possible. Clean, natural food is the best diet and medicine in my opinion.

Beyond the health benefits of natural, fresh, local food, there's also a major psychological benefit I derive from popping out into the garden for a tomato or a strawberry whenever I feel so inclined.

I swear, it's the most pleasant part of my day.

 

[Sees]

Beyond the health benefits of natural, fresh, local food, there's also a major psychological benefit I derive from popping out into the garden for a tomato or a strawberry whenever I feel so inclined.

I swear, it's the most pleasant part of my day.

Yeah, it is a spiritual thing Corporations controlling, manipulating food and water structure, content, supply is just... :no:

 

[Mycroft]

Clean, natural food is the best diet and medicine in my opinion.

I don't think you understand what 'Natural' means. Natural means 'to occur in nature'. Particularly without outside intervention. But all the food you eat does not occur in nature and, if it does, isn't as sweet, or large and has more seeds.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah, it is a spiritual thing Corporations controlling, manipulating food and water structure, content, supply is just... :no:

I'm totally with you!

 

[Mycroft]

for a tomato or a strawberry whenever I feel so inclined.

But those tomato seeds are GM via artificial selection, so they're not 'natural'.

 

[Alceste]

I don't think you understand what 'Natural' means. Natural means 'to occur in nature'. Particularly without outside intervention. But all the food you eat does not occur in nature and, if it does, isn't as sweet, or large and has more seeds.

I think in this context, "natural" means anything that does not require a laboratory, tens or hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment and a patent to produce.

 

[Sees]

I don't think you understand what 'Natural' means. Natural means 'to occur in nature'. Particularly without outside intervention. But all the food you eat does not occur in nature and, if it does, isn't as sweet, or large and has more seeds.

Preference for natural mutations and selective breeding isn't anything like corporate genetic manipulation. I know a fair amount about nutrition, agriculture, etc.....it's not all ignorant hipsters against GMOs. Corporate food and food-like products has been a big factor in obesity, sickness, disease all skyrocketing.