3 ms·

I'm not sure we should get our science from the UN. It's a political institution. Take with a grain of salt. I'm sure the relative yields of GMO vs non-GMO crop

by spikels 10y ago

I'm not sure we should get our science from the UN. It's a political institution. Take with a grain of salt. I'm sure the relative yields of GMO vs non-GMO crops is a well studied topic. What's the consensus? Or is it simply too political to even do objective research in this area. Not a good situation.

kristopolous 10y ago
So how would you test this? Have two fields with different crops? Wind and insects lead to contamination. ...so two greenhouses. There are many ways to deal with things like soil enrichment, what's considered a pest and what's considered a weed. Some think that a consortium of specific "pests" and "weeds" if managed "properly" are net beneficial for instance. There's different ways to water crops, rotate them, and the levels of biodiversity for a given acre over some time. There's climate differences by location and year, multigenerational effects not only on the plant but the soil, the insects... How do you measure yield? What if there's 10% more product but the labor intensive expensive harvesting season in 30% longer... What if the gmo crops come out a different size, or aesthetically different, or having different shelf life, or different characteristics with regard to bruising and shipment or a different ratio of edible to non edible parts... What if there's the same average but a different variance? Now let's presume you have all of that and one multibillion dollar company claims their patented seeds are better through a very expensive trial run. Who funds the confirmations or the counter studies? What money is backing the non proprietary strains? What about climatological and ecological externalities? Perhaps there's a carbon sequestration difference or toxicity not in an insect that come in contact but with the creatures that eat those insects... If the fundamental claim is "this is better and is how we should feed billions of people; deploy this single strain globally at a massive scale..." Maybe it's OK.

by spikels 10y ago

kristopolous 10y ago

So how would you test this? Have two fields with different crops? Wind and insects lead to contamination. ...so two greenhouses. There are many ways to deal with things like soil enrichment, what's considered a pest and what's considered a weed. Some think that a consortium of specific "pests" and "weeds" if managed "properly" are net beneficial for instance. There's different ways to water crops, rotate them, and the levels of biodiversity for a given acre over some time. There's climate differences by location and year, multigenerational effects not only on the plant but the soil, the insects... How do you measure yield? What if there's 10% more product but the labor intensive expensive harvesting season in 30% longer... What if the gmo crops come out a different size, or aesthetically different, or having different shelf life, or different characteristics with regard to bruising and shipment or a different ratio of edible to non edible parts... What if there's the same average but a different variance? Now let's presume you have all of that and one multibillion dollar company claims their patented seeds are better through a very expensive trial run. Who funds the confirmations or the counter studies? What money is backing the non proprietary strains? What about climatological and ecological externalities? Perhaps there's a carbon sequestration difference or toxicity not in an insect that come in contact but with the creatures that eat those insects... If the fundamental claim is "this is better and is how we should feed billions of people; deploy this single strain globally at a massive scale..." Maybe it's OK.