7 ms·

People dislike GMO because they aren't hungry. Wait until there is less food, and they will think differently. Do you think people living in arid conditions s

by imdsm 10y ago

People dislike GMO because they aren't hungry. Wait until there is less food, and they will think differently. Do you think people living in arid conditions said no to GMO crops that increased their yield by whatever-hundred % it was? Did they buggery!

radicsge 10y ago
And in case of GMO wait until, all crops are fallen to one specialized disease or one sudden change of environment. And then what?
- saalweachter 10y ago
  GMO alone does not affect the genetic diversity of the variety. GMO just affects how the first plant(s) of a variety are obtained; in the case of GMO, you shoot a gene gun (or use some other technique) to modify one or more starting seeds. In non-GMO crop development, you simply observe an interesting individual (or cross some number of existing varieties and look for interesting individuals among the offspring). A math teacher of mine once found an exceptionally fuzzy soybean plant he thought might be insect resistant. What happens next is what affects the genetic diversity of the crop. So you have one special plant. How do you turn that into a field? Well, you breed it and hope its offspring are also special. Some plants are self-fertilizing; you may do that, to try to avoid introducing non-special genes into the germ-line. You may also use the pollen from your special plant to pollinate a large number of other plants and hope at least some of their offspring are special. In the case of GMO, you might use your gene gun to shoot the same modification into a reasonably diverse set of initial seeds. Your goal as a seed breeder - GMO or non-GMO - is to get the genes that produce the characteristics of the variety you are trying to produce (flavor or size or color of the fruit; speed of growth; hardiness or resistance) as uniformly as you can into a breeding population of plants, so that all of the offspring of all of the plants can reasonably be expected to express the traits. There will necessarily be a weak point there: if a new virus attacks the gene that is needed to make your new corn variety super-delicious, all the plants will inherently be susceptible to that disease, regardless of how that gene got there. This sort of susceptibility isn't too troubling, however, because it's always there: corn shares a great number of genes with other corn; that's what makes it corn and not wheat or beans. What will vary is how much diversity will be in the rest of the plant's genome. There could be very little, if you simply breed your exemplar starting plant against it self, and then its children against themselves, over and over until you have enough seeds to plant a field. There could be a lot, if you can find or produce a number of unrelated exemplars or you first breed your exemplars against a more diverse gene pool. This second sort of a lack of genetic diversity is more troubling, but it isn't a product of genetic engineering: it's a result of going through a population bottleneck in the recent past; this can happen to non-GMO varieties just as easily.
alex_anglin 10y ago
I agree with you, but at the same time people generally have been shown to do things that act against their perceived best interests. So, we'll have to wait and see. One aspect that isn't getting discussed much here is trade. With CETA set to pass at some point in the not too distant future, Europe will have easier access to Canadian agricultural products. Of course, there will be an impact on prices though.
- patall 10y ago
  From my point of view, that is a weak argument. I mean, we also subsidize coal; not because it is cheaper now but because it keeps jobs in our market as you do not buy from outside. I would therefore not be so sure whether it is the best interest to import cheaper canadian products. And last but no least: I have no idea how most product should become cheaper that way, as canadian supermarkets are mostly more expensive than european. You wont get a litre of milk in Vancouver for 47 cent, nor good bread or eggs for the prices offered around here. Bananas and other import products are cheaper, but that is not the market Canada targets, I assume. The prices would go up if it wasn't all that much subsedized, something that might actually happen under CETA.
muninn_ 10y ago
Exactly. There is absolutely 0 evidence that GMOs cause any health concerns when compared to organic food. Organic food is just for rich countries who can afford to produce food inefficiently in order to feel good about themselves. Now, I don't doubt their intentions, but it's not a solution to any problem, nor is it better for you.
- gmac 10y ago
  You may be right — but it seems to me you are blithely equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    Put it this way. If you see two apples, one organic and one not, but the one that is not is cheaper, you would only buy the organic one if you believe that it's healthier, or you feel like you're doing something "good". But if you do that, you're making that decision without evidence of the organic apple being better for you. The rational decision is to pay for the cheaper one, unless you're at least consciously choosing to buy an organic apple because you believe it's a value statement. If you buy the organic apple because you believe it's healthier than you're doing so without evidence and effectively asserting that such evidence exists. If we're to assume (and I think this is the proper assumption) that you don't have proper knowledge about the health effects, then the default choice where you're not positing that there is any evidence would to simply purchase the cheaper apple. In that case you're saying (I don't know) and taking that factor out of the equation, which leaves either price or lifestyle, which I mentioned above. I used to believe that GMOs were bad and organic was the way to go. I thought I had to stand up to big agriculture and buy local. I still mostly try to buy local for environmental reasons (and others), but I no longer factor "organic" into the decision. You can get "organic" just about anything these days whether or not it's actually "organic", and often times it's worse for the environment.
- siidooloo 10y ago
  The argument isn't GMO vs organic. Non GMO isn't necessarily organic. Someone could vey easily be against both.
DanBC 10y ago
> Do you think people living in arid conditions said no to GMO crops that increased their yield by whatever-hundred % it was? Actually, yes, they did. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560613/pdf/11100623.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560613/pdf/111... >> Dr Jorgen Schlundt, Coordinator for the Food Safety Programme at the World Health Organization, commented: ‘‘Before genetically modified rice can be widely introduced, scientific evidence will need to be provided to assure that the rice is safe and nutritionally adequate, does not pose unacceptable risks to the environment, and will provide the human health benefits suggested.’’ He added: ‘‘WHO, along with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the jointly sponsored FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission are developing the methods and criteria to be used for the international assessment and management of genetically modified foods, including requirements for the labelling of such foods and their products. WHO is studying possible human health hazards from the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment and, as a first step, the WHO Regional Office for Europe has organized a seminar on this topic for September 2000.’’ This pressure meant that some of the patent restrictions and licensing were reduced - the 30 companies holding over 70 patents on golden rice said they'd allow free licensing for farmers earning less than $10,000; and they'd allow farmers to keep seed for replanting.
realusername 10y ago
Hunger stopped because of industrialization of agriculture, not GMO, GMO is a recent invention and people were not starving in the West before it. Most places with hunger are currently facing some sort of war or other internal issues anyway, GMO isn't going to solve that. Let other countries do an industrialization of their agriculture first, then we will see.

by imdsm 10y ago

radicsge 10y ago

And in case of GMO wait until, all crops are fallen to one specialized disease or one sudden change of environment. And then what?

saalweachter 10y ago
GMO alone does not affect the genetic diversity of the variety. GMO just affects how the first plant(s) of a variety are obtained; in the case of GMO, you shoot a gene gun (or use some other technique) to modify one or more starting seeds. In non-GMO crop development, you simply observe an interesting individual (or cross some number of existing varieties and look for interesting individuals among the offspring). A math teacher of mine once found an exceptionally fuzzy soybean plant he thought might be insect resistant. What happens next is what affects the genetic diversity of the crop. So you have one special plant. How do you turn that into a field? Well, you breed it and hope its offspring are also special. Some plants are self-fertilizing; you may do that, to try to avoid introducing non-special genes into the germ-line. You may also use the pollen from your special plant to pollinate a large number of other plants and hope at least some of their offspring are special. In the case of GMO, you might use your gene gun to shoot the same modification into a reasonably diverse set of initial seeds. Your goal as a seed breeder - GMO or non-GMO - is to get the genes that produce the characteristics of the variety you are trying to produce (flavor or size or color of the fruit; speed of growth; hardiness or resistance) as uniformly as you can into a breeding population of plants, so that all of the offspring of all of the plants can reasonably be expected to express the traits. There will necessarily be a weak point there: if a new virus attacks the gene that is needed to make your new corn variety super-delicious, all the plants will inherently be susceptible to that disease, regardless of how that gene got there. This sort of susceptibility isn't too troubling, however, because it's always there: corn shares a great number of genes with other corn; that's what makes it corn and not wheat or beans. What will vary is how much diversity will be in the rest of the plant's genome. There could be very little, if you simply breed your exemplar starting plant against it self, and then its children against themselves, over and over until you have enough seeds to plant a field. There could be a lot, if you can find or produce a number of unrelated exemplars or you first breed your exemplars against a more diverse gene pool. This second sort of a lack of genetic diversity is more troubling, but it isn't a product of genetic engineering: it's a result of going through a population bottleneck in the recent past; this can happen to non-GMO varieties just as easily.

alex_anglin 10y ago

I agree with you, but at the same time people generally have been shown to do things that act against their perceived best interests. So, we'll have to wait and see. One aspect that isn't getting discussed much here is trade. With CETA set to pass at some point in the not too distant future, Europe will have easier access to Canadian agricultural products. Of course, there will be an impact on prices though.

patall 10y ago
From my point of view, that is a weak argument. I mean, we also subsidize coal; not because it is cheaper now but because it keeps jobs in our market as you do not buy from outside. I would therefore not be so sure whether it is the best interest to import cheaper canadian products. And last but no least: I have no idea how most product should become cheaper that way, as canadian supermarkets are mostly more expensive than european. You wont get a litre of milk in Vancouver for 47 cent, nor good bread or eggs for the prices offered around here. Bananas and other import products are cheaper, but that is not the market Canada targets, I assume. The prices would go up if it wasn't all that much subsedized, something that might actually happen under CETA.

muninn_ 10y ago

Exactly. There is absolutely 0 evidence that GMOs cause any health concerns when compared to organic food. Organic food is just for rich countries who can afford to produce food inefficiently in order to feel good about themselves. Now, I don't doubt their intentions, but it's not a solution to any problem, nor is it better for you.

gmac 10y ago
You may be right — but it seems to me you are blithely equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  Put it this way. If you see two apples, one organic and one not, but the one that is not is cheaper, you would only buy the organic one if you believe that it's healthier, or you feel like you're doing something "good". But if you do that, you're making that decision without evidence of the organic apple being better for you. The rational decision is to pay for the cheaper one, unless you're at least consciously choosing to buy an organic apple because you believe it's a value statement. If you buy the organic apple because you believe it's healthier than you're doing so without evidence and effectively asserting that such evidence exists. If we're to assume (and I think this is the proper assumption) that you don't have proper knowledge about the health effects, then the default choice where you're not positing that there is any evidence would to simply purchase the cheaper apple. In that case you're saying (I don't know) and taking that factor out of the equation, which leaves either price or lifestyle, which I mentioned above. I used to believe that GMOs were bad and organic was the way to go. I thought I had to stand up to big agriculture and buy local. I still mostly try to buy local for environmental reasons (and others), but I no longer factor "organic" into the decision. You can get "organic" just about anything these days whether or not it's actually "organic", and often times it's worse for the environment.
siidooloo 10y ago
The argument isn't GMO vs organic. Non GMO isn't necessarily organic. Someone could vey easily be against both.

DanBC 10y ago

> Do you think people living in arid conditions said no to GMO crops that increased their yield by whatever-hundred % it was? Actually, yes, they did. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560613/pdf/11100623.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560613/pdf/111... >> Dr Jorgen Schlundt, Coordinator for the Food Safety Programme at the World Health Organization, commented: ‘‘Before genetically modified rice can be widely introduced, scientific evidence will need to be provided to assure that the rice is safe and nutritionally adequate, does not pose unacceptable risks to the environment, and will provide the human health benefits suggested.’’ He added: ‘‘WHO, along with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the jointly sponsored FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission are developing the methods and criteria to be used for the international assessment and management of genetically modified foods, including requirements for the labelling of such foods and their products. WHO is studying possible human health hazards from the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment and, as a first step, the WHO Regional Office for Europe has organized a seminar on this topic for September 2000.’’ This pressure meant that some of the patent restrictions and licensing were reduced - the 30 companies holding over 70 patents on golden rice said they'd allow free licensing for farmers earning less than $10,000; and they'd allow farmers to keep seed for replanting.

realusername 10y ago

Hunger stopped because of industrialization of agriculture, not GMO, GMO is a recent invention and people were not starving in the West before it. Most places with hunger are currently facing some sort of war or other internal issues anyway, GMO isn't going to solve that. Let other countries do an industrialization of their agriculture first, then we will see.