BF2S Forums GM food

Spearhead wrote:

Jay wrote:

I know I'm bumping an old thread...

I don't get the hubbub over GMO foods. I don't see it as any different from selective breeding. Either way you are searching for mutations you like and discarding those you don't.

There's one monsanto created crop that is basically engineered to die off after one season so farmers have to continue buying it year after year.  Not a big deal for the western world but apparently it's raping places like Haiti and Africa and places with unstable agriculture production.

I for one do not trust corporations to have the best interest of the consumer at heart.  They are interested in profit.  There is a difference.

I agree, stuff like that is evil. Nestle used to give out 'samples' of baby formula in Africa, the mothers stopped producing their own milk, they ran out of formula, and kids started starving to death. But for countries that don't have supply issues like that, it's silly.

Spark wrote:

More to the point that's not the Greenpeace OMG FRANKENFOODS argument which is what you generally hear being bandied around by the environmental movement (including me, four+1/2 years ago )

Environmentalists are more ultra-conservative than fundies even. They got it in their heads that Mother Earth reached her zenith and stopped evolving two hundred years ago and fight every form of technological innovation. There's no such thing as pristine wilderness, and there never has been.

I don't have a problem with GM food in principal, just as long as a lot of care is taken to avoid various issues.  And by GM I mean gene splicing in a lab, not techniques such as cross-polination and selective breeding.

What I do have a problem with is terminator seeds.

And pork in apples?  A self-saucing pork chop sounds pretty good to me!

precisely ^

my favourite anti-organic argument is that doing any sort of grilling or cooking to the point of slight burn marks introduces far more harmful chemicals and carcinogens than the .1% less pesticides organic foods have.  Oh and the fact that there still hasnt been one credible scientific study that proved organic foods are healthier

Superior Mind wrote:

m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19654825

That is precisely the stupid study that set me off and made me bump this thread.

Or better yet why not use this technology to create countless varieties of crops, engineered to meet any environmental conditions?

I disagree, Dilbert. If we use future proof food production technologies, then we establish a timeline that has the potential for two outcomes: either we will face the brunt of climate change, suffer immediate losses, and then persevere with a diminished, but secure population or we will gradually either reduce our population or maintain increased food production.

Superior Mind wrote:

What's stupid about it? "they used the wrong rats?"

Genetically modified foods threaten the future security of food. Unless the technology advances greatly and can effectively counteract the stresses that the environment will be putting on our ability to feed ourselves this technology will only be a threat. Presently we have the ability and technology to feed the world on non GMOs. It simply would require greater effort on the fields and less in the laboratories. We need genetic diversity in our food supply or else we will become extinct.

Because they're French and they went in with a biased viewpoint before they even started the experiment. There have been hundreds of studies testing GMO food and this is one of a very small handful that showed any negative results. Now the French government is going to use these results to ban imports, which is what they wanted in the first place. They're scaring people for no reason.

Superior Mind wrote:

Or better yet why not use this technology to create countless varieties of crops, engineered to meet any environmental conditions?

They do? They create drought resistant crops, crops with higher yields, crops that can survive pesticides etc. Ignore the French. They're completely anti-technology when it comes to food production (not the farmers themselves, but the food snobs). French culinary people will convince you that hand threshed grain tastes superior to machine harvested grain, or that a good bottle of wine needs foot sweat. The French hate change almost as much as originalist Christians.

jsnipy wrote:

Jay wrote:

They create drought resistant crops, crops with higher yields, crops that can survive pesticides etc.

All at the cost of making more, unhealthier people

Because people have the ability to eat more than they would without the crops? That's a flaw?

People want their beef fattened up before its sent to market. If they didn't, slaughterhouses wouldn't bother feeding them corn for the few weeks before they're killed. Fat makes the meat juicier.

...which is why organic food producers have to spend so much time and effort convincing people that grass fed beef is better for them. It's not self evident from the taste and texture.


As for the petroleum argument... should we limit ourselves to producing only as much food as could be produced by horse drawn plows? That actually aids the GMO argument because more food can be produced per acre. This means less fuel burned planting and harvesting, and less inefficient small farms. Saves on water too.

Last edited by Jay (2012-09-21 06:13:41)

Superior Mind wrote:

Why not raise the cattle to 4 years instead of 2, letting them eat graze?

The meat gets tougher.

Superior Mind wrote:

Not if you raise the animals in a stress free environment. Bulls are supposed to reach maturity at four years. Today that time is halved through centuries of selective breeding, but also by over feeding and drugs.

And you double the cost of the meat. They have to be fed hay all winter, they have to be seen by a vet, you increase the chance of loss if the stupid thing steps in a hole etc.