Author Topic: PROS & CONS OF BIOTECH & GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (Read 64652 times)

upthecreek · « **Reply #100 on:** July 31, 2015, 10:30:14 AM »

wolfy, As a youngster helping my father raise cattle, it was all I could do to insure to good cuttings of hay twice a year on the grass that we leased. I couldn't imagine trying to grow and profit from a crop for human consumption. Regardless of ones own opinion I think any farmer needs all the help they can get. Methods vary but good judgement always prevails. Bless our farmers.

Creek

wolfy · « **Reply #101 on:** July 31, 2015, 08:15:08 PM »

Thank you, Creek. It's kind of hard for many to understand, I think......but it IS a continual struggle to survive. By 'survive' I mean making the right decisions as to what type of crop to raise and which one you will benefit most from and still be a good steward of the land. You HAVE to pay the machinery, repair, seed, fertilizer, herbicide & insecticide bills of course, but it's the TAX MAN that gets paid first! You pay him before you even consider paying others and least of all, yourself for the work you've done that year.........you have to or the farm won't be there for you to work next year. There are good years and bad years, but you'd better squirrel some away for those years that you make nothing or, worse yet, see a negative return. We went through THAT with the drought in 2012 and just one more disastrous year like that would have made it VERY hard to survive. I didn't buy any new Moras that season!

MnSportsman · « **Reply #102 on:** August 02, 2015, 07:05:01 PM »

Something to read:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-sound-alarm-over-supercharged-gm-organisms-which-could-spread-in-the-wild-and-cause-environmental-disasters-10434010.html

wolfy · « **Reply #103 on:** October 07, 2015, 11:22:54 AM »

Something else to read on cancer, biotech, Monsanto, etc. from The Washington Post.

http://wpo.st/SyRf0

wsdstan · « **Reply #104 on:** October 07, 2015, 11:56:45 AM »

As a long time user of glyphos products, and more so with the advent of Roundup Ready Alfalfa seed, I think this is easily the most interesting and well thought out article that I have read. Thanks for posting it Wolfy.

I tell my alfalfa customers that it is Roundup ready alfalfa and, so far, not one has had an issue with that. What they get is a forage that is weed free, won't contaminate their pastures, and is palatable for their livestock.

wolfy · « **Reply #105 on:** November 19, 2015, 09:17:38 PM »

I just heard on the news tonight that GMO salmon has been approved by the FDA. Here's an article from Reuter's that I fished from the 'net.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/20/us-aquabounty-technologies-fda-idUSKCN0T826T20151120

wsdstan · « **Reply #106 on:** November 19, 2015, 09:26:21 PM »

Well all the usual players are against it. Nothing new in that.

Unknown · « **Reply #107 on:** November 20, 2015, 11:43:03 AM »

Last month or so I watched a few programs on early Anglo Saxon/Migration Era history. One made a comment that these farmers in England were very successful. I don't have their sources, have not researched further, and can't tell you how it was calculated. It was said that not until the 1940s were farmers able to exceed the tons per acre achieved by these early farmers.

Im sure there are many possible reasons, and could be more complicated than their simple statement alludes to. Still, I found it interesting.

The thing that popped in my head when I read this mornings post was the Biblical sanctions against mixing of kinds. Not even sure where it's at, or exactly what meaning has been ascribed to it, or how Christians are supposed to relate to it. I just know that it is in there, and some people were doing it anyway.

Is that something we can talk about?

wolfy · « **Reply #108 on:** November 20, 2015, 12:57:29 PM »

I believe that comes from Old Testament Jewish law rather than a directive from 'The Big Guy,' himself, Unk, but I could be wrong.

I really don't want to see the thread closed because of religious arguments, but I think we're all OK with finding the true origin of the idea......it would be interesting to find out for sure.

Unknown · « **Reply #109 on:** November 20, 2015, 01:42:46 PM »

This is, imho, a subject that can go down a whole bunch of rabbit holes. We dont have to go into each one, but if they are on the list anyone sparked to interest can make their own effort I suppose.

dont want a religious argument either. Just mentioning what came to mind, fwiw, so I will share what I found. I dont think this is the only place such things are mentioned, but I found what was on my mind in Leviticus 19. A chapter that starts in the NIV with the words-The Lord said to Moses. The related material is verse 19.

wsdstan · « **Reply #110 on:** November 20, 2015, 01:49:34 PM »

There is a biblical reference to not mixing two kinds of seeds nor two kinds of material, not allowing two kinds of animals to breed in the bible. Different versions word it about the same. Try Leviticus 19:19 in the commonly used version in the US.

Unknown and I found the same thing.

duxdawg · « **Reply #111 on:** November 20, 2015, 04:53:20 PM »

(I am aware this post is several months old. Working my way through this thread as time allows.)

Quote from: Draco on May 15, 2015, 02:48:32 PM

I am happy DDT is gone. Look at how much that has helped the comeback of the American Eagle. I see more now than I ever did as a kid. It was here in Michigan on Gull Island in Lake Michigan where they discovered the link between DDT and cracked eggs.

That is a very well disproven myth. Yet still it persists. *sigh*

PCBs and mercury harmed raptor eggs. Not to mention stress from human encroachment, indiscriminate killing, etc.

Funny how everyone forgets that the ban on DDT and the Endangered Species Act's protection of raptors (which were routinely shot on sight back in the day. Now we have wind farms to do that for us. But I digress.) began on the same year. (Or the ESA was enacted the year after the DDT ban, forget which.) Ten years before DDT went into production some areas were reporting raptor populations were declining rapidly. After twenty years of heavy DDT use, raptor populations were booming. Several species of birds (including raptors) in several studies were fed large amounts of DDT. The results? Thicker egg shells and higher hatch rates of healthy chicks. Funny how those things never get mentioned, hey?

Not to get too far into a touchy subject, but the discontinuation of the use of DDT has directly resulted in the deaths of more than 400 million people. Believing lies can have staggering consequences. Many assert that the enviro whacko's ban on DDT did far more harm to Africa than slavery. For the Statists (in this case the subset known as enviro whackos) it was all about control. Banning DDT had absolutely nothing to do with facts. How could it? DDT and its derivatives are utterly incapable of harming raptors in any way.

http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/07/06/bald-eagle-ddt-myth-still-flying-high.html

http://www.gamosquito.org/resources/2006Meeting/JConlonDDT.pdf

http://junkscience.com/1999/07/100-things-you-should-know-about-ddt/

Quote

I also have concerns that some of these chemicals are what is hurting the honey bee but I am a believer in actual evidence not just innuendo.

Sadly there are a staggering number of issues honey bees are contending with. Life on Earth will radically change without them.

duxdawg · « **Reply #112 on:** November 20, 2015, 05:38:43 PM »

Good topic y'all and really well handled. Felt like sitting around a campfire downing a few brews together. Thanks guys!

Growing up on a homestead we saved seeds. Each year planted mostly tried and true yet also tried at least one new variety of most crops. Getting tough to do that these days. Think too about bananas. The Gros Michel was the most popular variety until a fungus decimated it. Now there are concerns that the currently most grown variety, the Cavendish, may succumb to several diseases that are attacking it. Biodiversity is our friend.

I do not worry about selective breeding. I do worry about splicing genes from potatoes into beans, bacteria into carrots and such like. Beyond the Biblical reasons (which I support) there is history to consider. How well did introducing rabbits, red foxes, cane toads, etc work for Australia? How well did introducing smallpox to the American Indians work out? Disasters, each and every one. There is a tremendously long track record of organisms being introduced to new areas with catastrophic consequences. This should give us pause.

wolfy · « **Reply #113 on:** May 18, 2016, 09:26:21 AM »

THE LATEST NEWS: HOT OFF THE PRESS

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_158877.html

madmax · « **Reply #114 on:** May 18, 2016, 11:07:01 AM »

My brother works for the bad guy. Monsanto. Well that's eventually where his paycheck comes from. I don't give a rat's azz if it's GMO or not. I have eaten worse. I do not support their gestapo tactics in seed.

Mannlicher · « **Reply #115 on:** May 18, 2016, 11:14:36 AM »

were it not for folks like Monsanto, half the world would have starved by now. Technology makes today's farming possible. Folks

and moan about things they know little about, and offer no viable alternative.

wsdstan · « **Reply #116 on:** May 18, 2016, 11:43:19 AM »

Quote from: madmax on May 18, 2016, 11:07:01 AM

My brother works for the bad guy. Monsanto. Well that's eventually where his paycheck comes from. I don't give a rat's azz if it's GMO or not. I have eaten worse. I do not support their gestapo tactics in seed.

I don't like their tactics either Max but I buy it because Roundup Ready alfalfa is the only way I can grow a weed free forage for our cows.

Quote from: Mannlicher on May 18, 2016, 11:14:36 AM

were it not for folks like Monsanto, half the world would have starved by now. Technology makes today's farming possible. Folks and moan about things they know little about, and offer no viable alternative.

You hit the nail on the head. The detractors never come up with who gets to eat and who gets to starve if GMO products are banned.

madmax · « **Reply #117 on:** May 18, 2016, 01:10:24 PM »

Far be it for me to question farmers.

wsdstan · « **Reply #118 on:** May 18, 2016, 03:52:24 PM »

I forgot to add something. When I read the report that Wolfy posted on another site this morning while drinking coffee I was surprised at one inconsistency in it. They say there is no evidence that crop yields are increasing because of GMO crops. I find that puzzling. When you plant a GMO crop that is resistant to insects you no longer have to spray for that insect and that insect doesn't reduce your yield for that particular crop. If you use a Round Up ready crop seed you keep the weeds from competing with your crop. Both of those tactics increase yields.

This is a well written report except for that inconsistency. They do go on to say that GMO crops can actually help mankind in a later paragraph. The reason is that we cut back on herbicides or pesticides when those problems are removed and less chemical goes into the system.

Those folks who oppose GMO seeds will find things to criticize about the report as they always do. I think most of the criticism will begin to fall of deaf ears.

wolfy · « **Reply #119 on:** May 18, 2016, 05:08:21 PM »

I have no knowledge of other GMO crops other than the two types type that I have planted and compared with conventional types.....those being corn and soybeans. The first GMO seed we ever planted was soybeans and I'd read a LOT of things, pro & con, on them before we planted them for the first time. We were about the last 'holdouts' around here to plant them......mainly because there is an unavoidable built-in 'yield drag' on the GMO vs. non-GMO soybean and we were reluctant to accept that. I can't remember for sure, but I think that amounts to about 3-4% fewer bushels/acre when compared to a conventional, non-GMO soybean crop....definitely worth the penalty if you've ever 'walked' a field of beans!

Corn yields from GMO seed actually improved on our farm. Genetics for glyphosate-resistance were joined by genetic resistance for root worms, corn borers and other insects. That meant not having to apply deadly carbamates (a known carcinogen) for root worm control......that stuff was DEADLY and a real pain to work with! Far less herbicide and insecticide is needed in GMO crops.....something many people disregard when they rail against GMO crops. I don't think they are aware of how much better that is for the environment, either.

wolfy · « **Reply #120 on:** July 01, 2016, 09:13:01 AM »

The newest legislation on GMO labeling of the nation's food supply......

http://www.agweb.com/blog/the-truth-about-trade/gmo-labeling-compromise-legislation-is-the-best-and-cheapest-lawyer/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT1RVelpUTXlOalJtWWpNNSIsInQiOiI5b2k5cjBheTdWMTljT1wvekoxbGE3YlpyTk15Sm94RmNKTllHOG8rUlFZSXdybGkwcGlEOU5rNVU2TXllZ0cyQjNKT0FlOW41ZnFsMnJyalRMcG42Rkp4MlNXUkw0UjdZWHdzU01wdFJPT2s9In0%3D

Quenchcrack · « **Reply #121 on:** July 01, 2016, 11:08:53 AM »

I am going to guess that mixing of seeds, fabrics and cattle was related tp Gods directive to Israel not to mix with the people already occupying the promised land. This was to keep them from adopting their religious practices that included burning babies.

Unknown · « **Reply #122 on:** July 01, 2016, 01:07:25 PM »

http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16503

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2267255/gm_crops_are_driving_genocide_and_ecocide_keep_them_out_of_the_eu.html

https://www.grain.org/article/entries/4720-gmos-fooling-er-feeding-the-world-for-20-years

http://gmwatch.org/news/archive/2014/15618-biology-fortified-misleads-the-public-on-gmo-safety

http://www.cban.ca/Resources/Topics/Feeding-the-World/Will-GM-Crops-Feed-the-World see the links

https://www.grain.org/article/entries/4929-hungry-for-land-small-farmers-feed-the-world-with-less-than-a-quarter-of-all-farmland

vallehombre · « **Reply #123 on:** July 01, 2016, 01:29:51 PM »

Quote from: wsdstan on May 18, 2016, 11:43:19 AM

Quote from: madmax on May 18, 2016, 11:07:01 AM
My brother works for the bad guy. Monsanto. Well that's eventually where his paycheck comes from. I don't give a rat's azz if it's GMO or not. I have eaten worse

. I do not support their gestapo tactics in seed.

One can make many arguments for and aging GMO but food scarcity is not one of them.

Global food production has, on an annual basis, been sufficient to provide every living human with 1800 Cal/day of nutrition (food) for decades. The issue is not the amount or quality but the distribution of food. None go hungry because there is not enough food but because it is denied them. For whatever reason, another story.

The rationale for GMO is economics. Who benefits and who bears the burden, what the immediate and potential costs are is the discussion.

Simply because we can do something doesn't ecessarily mean we should. A comment every parent is likely to have made ND one to keep in mind.

I don't like their tactics either Max but I buy it because Roundup Ready alfalfa is the only way I can grow a weed free forage for our cows.

Quote from: Mannlicher on May 18, 2016, 11:14:36 AM
were it not for folks like Monsanto, half the world would have starved by now. Technology makes today's farming possible. Folks and moan about things they know little about, and offer no viable alternative.

You hit the nail on the head. The detractors never come up with who gets to eat and who gets to starve if GMO products are banned.

wsdstan · « **Reply #124 on:** July 01, 2016, 02:12:27 PM »

Here is a bit of information on the efforts of some Nobel Laureates to convince Greenpeace that their resistance to GMOs in general and golden rice in particular should be stopped.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/29/more-than-100-nobel-laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/?tid=pm_national_pop_b

wolfy · « **Reply #125 on:** July 06, 2016, 09:52:27 AM »

More information from Lisa Lunz, the past chairwoman of the Nebraska Soybean Board and current board member of the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance. Taken from the July 6th edition of the Omaha World Herald....

http://www.omaha.com/opinion/midlands-voices-safe-gmos-nurture-sustainable-farming/article_32639583-42d8-50e8-8b41-4ad06a3a940a.html?mode=jqm

vallehombre · « **Reply #126 on:** July 06, 2016, 11:07:51 AM »

Quote from: wolfy on July 06, 2016, 09:52:27 AM

More information from Lisa Lunz, the past chairwoman of the Nebraska Soybean Board and current board member of the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance. Taken from the July 6th edition of the Omaha World Herald....

http://www.omaha.com/opinion/midlands-voices-safe-gmos-nurture-sustainable-farming/article_32639583-42d8-50e8-8b41-4ad06a3a940a.html?mode=jqm

The article references gmo soybeans eliminating trans fats. The process of hydrogenation that results in the production of trans fats does not occur in the plant. It is done to plant products during processing to retard spoilage and extend shelf life. The deleterious effects on human health are well researched.

While many consider no tillage environmentally beneficial that practice is not reliant on gmo materials and has been around for quite a while.

The benefits of gmo are economic. But as has been stated repeatedly global food production has long been sufficient to provide for all. It is distribution that remains the problem.
Whether gmo will change that aspect of hunger remains to be seen but since the primary advantage to gmo is economic the likely answer will be, no.

Cui Bono as the legal folks say.

wolfy · « **Reply #127 on:** July 06, 2016, 11:40:35 AM »

Your conclusions are your own to enjoy, I am only bringing news to the table.

If an individual ever had to walk and hand-weed a field of pre-GMO soybeans in 90+ degree heat, it would add yet another consideration for the end-user to contemplate.

The previous article says nothing about hydrogenation.....i t deals with high oleic oils.

http://eating-made-easy.com/what-is-high-oleic-oil/

vallehombre · « **Reply #128 on:** July 06, 2016, 09:12:03 PM »

Quote from: wolfy on July 06, 2016, 11:40:35 AM

Your conclusions are your own to enjoy, I am only bringing news to the table. If an individual ever had to walk and hand-weed a field of pre-GMO soybeans in 90+ degree heat, it would add yet another consideration for the end-user to contemplate.

The previous article says nothing about hydrogenation.....i t deals with high oleic oils.

http://eating-made-easy.com/what-is-high-oleic-oil/

The article you initially referenced stated high oleic acid content soybeans reduced the need for trans fats, a product of hydrogenation. Oleic acid and hydrogenated products are neither chemically nor biologically similar.

One might say that a newer pick up reduces the need for sail boats.

The first paragraph is just fact. Just brining that news to the table. My conclusions are in the pickup boat thing.

Supporters of gmo can claim economic benefits. That may well be the case in some instances. That is a fair basis for evaluation it sense to me.

It is not an argument that plays well in many other places.

wolfy · « **Reply #129 on:** July 07, 2016, 04:29:33 AM »

None of that makes any sense to me.

vallehombre · « **Reply #130 on:** July 07, 2016, 06:45:54 AM »

Quote from: wolfy on July 07, 2016, 04:29:33 AM

None of that makes any sense to me.

Understood. The science can be complicated to begin with and when folks publicly conflate terms in order to push a point facts sometimes are ignored.

Mannlicher · « **Reply #131 on:** July 07, 2016, 07:27:38 AM »

Quote from: wolfy on October 07, 2015, 11:22:54 AM

Something else to read on cancer, biotech, Monsanto, etc. from The Washington Post.

http://wpo.st/SyRf0

an article against Monsanto in the WaPo? Now THERE is credibility for ya. laughing

wolfy · « **Reply #132 on:** July 07, 2016, 09:01:24 AM »

Quote from: vallehombre on July 07, 2016, 06:45:54 AM

Quote from: wolfy on July 07, 2016, 04:29:33 AM
None of that makes any sense to me.

Understood. The science can be complicated to begin with and when folks publicly conflate terms in order to push a point facts sometimes are ignored.

Is it possible to explain your point without resorting to arrogance and condescension?

vallehombre · « **Reply #133 on:** July 07, 2016, 02:04:27 PM »

Quote from: wolfy on July 07, 2016, 09:01:24 AM

Quote from: vallehombre on July 07, 2016, 06:45:54 AM
Quote from: wolfy on July 07, 2016, 04:29:33 AM
None of that makes any sense to me.

Understood. The science can be complicated to begin with and when folks publicly conflate terms in order to push a point facts sometimes are ignored.

Is it possible to explain your point without resorting to arrogance and condescension?

I read again what I posted. If you find a simple explanation about an error of fact as "resorting to arrogance and condescension" that is unfortunate but hardly my intention and certainly not my responsibility.

True the explanation was couched in layman terms. Is it that your knowledge of biochemistry is extensive enough to make a simple explanation seem "condescsnding"? Or is it "arrogance" to point out simple error? Or is it something else altogther?

But in the end it changes nothing. Facts are simply well, facts. The conclusion, as you said, your own to enjoy.

wolfy · « **Reply #134 on:** July 07, 2016, 04:31:21 PM »

DELETED.

I'm bigger than this!

MnSportsman · « **Reply #135 on:** July 07, 2016, 05:42:25 PM »

Quote from: wolfy on July 07, 2016, 04:31:21 PM

DELETED. I'm bigger than this!

"I" read it...

Good call. Don't waste time nor effort when there would be no "positive result" for "anyone".

(I am trying to be a "nice & civil fella", or I would have chimed in earlier with a response. I just followed the Italics sentence advice above... LOL

)

wolfy · « **Reply #136 on:** July 07, 2016, 05:57:47 PM »

Quote from: MnSportsman on July 07, 2016, 05:42:25 PM

Quote from: wolfy on July 07, 2016, 04:31:21 PM
DELETED. I'm bigger than this!

"I" read it...

Good call. Don't waste time nor effort when there would be no "positive result" for "anyone".

(I am trying to be a "nice & civil fella", or I would have chimed in earlier with a response. I just followed the Italics sentence advice above... LOL )

You are indeed a prince among men, JB!

crashdive123 · « **Reply #137 on:** July 08, 2016, 07:17:12 PM »

A bit off topic, but not really. I have no problem with GMO's. In fact I am quite in favor of them and the problems that they solve. I also believe that there should be accurate labeling so that people can make educated and informed choices. There! Problem solved.

vallehombre · « **Reply #138 on:** July 08, 2016, 07:22:38 PM »

Quote from: crashdive123 on July 08, 2016, 07:17:12 PM

A bit off topic, but not really. I have no problem with GMO's. In fact I am quite in favor of them and the problems that they solve. I also believe that there should be accurate labeling so that people can make educated and informed choices. There! Problem solved.

Agree. Well said

wolfy · « **Reply #139 on:** July 08, 2016, 07:32:25 PM »

If you watch the news, you are probably aware that it's in the works.

http://eating-made-easy.com/what-is-high-oleic-oil/

Unknown · « **Reply #140 on:** July 08, 2016, 09:53:26 PM »

I didn't have a winning success with my heirloom corn this year. Probably could have watered rather than waiting on rain, and a little BT would have limited the bug's portion. I didn't do anything to aid pollination either.

I'm thinking I might try to grow another crop if I can find a short season variety at the seed store, then see how many seeds don't bake in hot summer soil.

So if golden rice actually works, how many bowls can one eat before the vitamin A builds up in the body to toxic levels? Doesn't seem like a good idea to me, I'd rather have regular rice.

In all the reading I don't recall seeing any percentages for what part of GM crops go to animal feed/ human food/ other uses. I don't like round up in my meat.

vallehombre · « **Reply #141 on:** July 09, 2016, 08:20:41 AM »

Quote from: wolfy on July 08, 2016, 07:32:25 PM

If you watch the news, you are probably aware that it's in the works.

http://eating-made-easy.com/what-is-high-oleic-oil/

Thanks for the link. There's some reasonable nutritional info which is always welcome. In the comments some pointed out inconsistencies in the author's statements. I found an article that presented another run down albeit from a different perspective in a piece from the Monterey Weekly. No link, no computer just phone.

I was not being cheeky with the science is confusing comment. It is. Recall vitamins were not identified until the 1930s - even though by then Limeys was already a well known reference. Medical knowledge has not, on average, doubled every decade or so because we know too much.

The core issue however, remains the same - profit. Nutritional concerns take a back seat if even on the bus to begin with.

Moe M. · « **Reply #142 on:** July 09, 2016, 10:57:40 AM »

I'd like to suggest that perhaps this thread has run it's course, maybe we could try to get back to discussing Bushcrafty foods, Grilling, and recipes as it was intended, While I understand that feelings about GMO's run hot for and against, the fact is that they are here to stay for the foreseeable future, and any opinion we may have as individuals is not going to change a thing.
As far as what, where, how, and when one grows his/her corn I think has a place in the homesteading section, which is better I think than here tying up the top spot in the food, cooking, and recipes section.

Just saying.

wolfy · « **Reply #143 on:** July 09, 2016, 11:09:46 AM »

Well, what can I say, other than I disagree?

From the thread count numbers, many of us are interested in this subject and will continue to be. As long as it remains civil (amazingly it has

) then I see no reason to close it. News and updates on the safety, benefits, pros & cons, etc. will be with us always......it's good to keep up with what's at the cutting edge. If you don't like reading about it, don't.

Unknown · « **Reply #144 on:** July 09, 2016, 11:49:58 AM »

I was speaking to something Wolfy said earlier about - have you tried it? ( farming, market gardening, making a profit through Agriculture)

Yes, just a little, but not to make money, only to save some spending and guarantee what's in it and on it(food)
The point in mentioning my corn was to say, it is not easy, often disappointing. When faced with hard decisions that involve ones financial security, survival, it's not hard to make a choice that keeps you going a while longer.

That's the situation being presented more often than not, one of survival, desperation. we must make these decisions pro GMO, to save ourselves, and the world. Individual small farmers are pressured to fall in line or they may not be competitive, consumers must fall in line or be accused of denying the poor their food.

Not long ago, when our butts were more clearly under threat and the nation needed to unite under a common cause everyone was encouraged to grow their own food, or to grow as much as they could, anywhere they could. It should be pretty obvious to anyone if quality and quantity of diet was the primary concern, then it would be suggested to go about that in a completely different fashion than what is promoted by Pro GMO

Moe M. · « **Reply #145 on:** July 09, 2016, 02:16:16 PM »

Quote from: wolfy on July 09, 2016, 11:09:46 AM

Well, what can I say, other than I disagree? From the thread count numbers, many of us are interested in this subject and will continue to be. As long as it remains civil (amazingly it has ) then I see no reason to close it. News and updates on the safety, benefits, pros & cons, etc. will be with us always......it's good to keep up with what's at the cutting edge. If you don't like reading about it, don't.

It may have sounded like that's what I suggested old pard, but it's not what I meant, I was thinking that perhaps it may be better suited as a gardening thread in the homestead section, but hey, what do I know, I'm into cooking, eating, and bushcrafting, not growing.

NewEnglandBushcraft · « **Reply #146 on:** July 09, 2016, 03:26:10 PM »

Oh boy.....talk about treading a thin line! But this seems like a civil-enough conversation, so I'll throw in my two pence to the pot:

I'll start with something slightly off-topic, but it nevertheless concerns our food consumption and GMOs (especially since much of the commercial food we ingest is genetically-modified).

I saw this mentioned in a National Geographic catalog from March of this eyar last year, discussing how much edible food goes to waste. It was estimated that about 1/3 of all the food produced and grown in the world goes to waste, a figure of around 2.9 trillion pounds. Some of this has to do with supermarkets only choosing to sell the most visually appealing produce, because (they think) that's what the people want. I'll give another figure - about 6 billion pounds of produce aren't harvested or sold because they aren't up to the aesthetic standards of distributors, even though they are completely edible.

It is calculated that by 2050 there will be a world population of over 9 billion people, and already there's a dominant consensus to simply increase large-scale agriculture; yet this kind of food production is responsible for about 70 percent of the Earth's freshwater withdrawals, and 80 percent of tropical and sub-tropical deforestation. In my mind GMOs will not "save the future" any more than organic farming will. I think the main problem is food waste. If we keep increasing large-scale farming, we will eventually deplete precious natural resources, turning the world into a desert of cleared fields where Nature is not allowed to restore balance to the environment. Another problem is the depletion of soil nutrients due to single-crop farming.

wsdstan · « **Reply #147 on:** July 09, 2016, 06:08:02 PM »

The Green Revolution addressed that starting in the 1920's. Critics now point out that the number of people who will eventually starve has increased dramatically.

Here is a Wikipedia version of the events:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

Your concern about the depletion of the soil begs the question "what is the alternative?" Who gets to decide who starves and who lives?

With your scenario regarding food waste, if it were eliminated, then mankind would buy some time but if you are right about the depletion of the earth then eventually it really doesn't matter.

wolfy · « **Reply #148 on:** July 09, 2016, 06:57:14 PM »

If you really want some sobering figures, do some searches on how much agricultural land is being lost to industrialization and urbanization each year.....not only here, but worldwide.

NewEnglandBushcraft · « **Reply #149 on:** July 09, 2016, 08:48:51 PM »

Quote from: wsdstan on July 09, 2016, 06:08:02 PM

The Green Revolution addressed that starting in the 1920's. Critics now point out that the number of people who will eventually starve has increased dramatically.

Here is a Wikipedia version of the events:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

Your concern about the depletion of the soil begs the question "what is the alternative?" Who gets to decide who starves and who lives?

With your scenario regarding food waste, if it were eliminated, then mankind would buy some time but if you are right about the depletion of the earth then eventually it really doesn't matter.

In short, the Earth cannot support this much human population. Even if we did drastically change our ways to be more ecologically sound, you are right - it would then only be a matter of time.

Call me "crazy", but I think there will be a very drastic event that will affect the whole planet, and I believe it will occur within the next 50 years. And if my suspicions are correct, then our so-called "advancements" and technologies will be our downfall. But that's a topic for another discussion.

News:

Author Topic: PROS & CONS OF BIOTECH & GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (Read 64652 times)