3 ms·

The current global food supply from what I have heard is more than enough to support much more than the current population of the planet. The resistance to lab

The current global food supply from what I have heard is more than enough to support much more than the current population of the planet. The resistance to labeling gmo foods is essentially using the poor and working class as guinea pigs. GMO will be cheaper,this means they can overprice natural foods. Poor peoplle will consume GMO while the affluent consume natural and organic foods. A similar tend can be observed on how whole foods is mostly found in well-to-do neighborhoods and walmart is found in poor neighborhoods. Natural foods can be grown at a rate that sustains the planets population for a very long time to come. I firmly believe this is about profit margins. At leat let the people that will be affected by it the most have a say.

mcv 9y ago
Exactly. I find the article very misleading, and intentionally muddying the issue. A quote: > And livestock, a pillar of our food system for millenia, are major culprits in climate change, water shortages, biodiversity losses and massive degradation and destruction of forests and other ecosystems — compelling us to quickly move to a predominantly plant-based diet. > To meet these challenges, we must employ all of the technological tools at our disposal. Actually, if we were to move to a predominantly plant-based diet, that would solve a major part of our food problem. At the moment, we're choosing to feed cattle and even throw away food, rather than feed the hungry. World hunger is in a large part an economic choice stemming from economic inequality. But where the article really muddies the issue is here: > It is safe to say that, without systemic genetic modification of crops and livestock, civilization would not exist. and: > But the process of genetic modification, central to progress in agriculture throughout history, has become controversial. The article pretends that selective breeding and genetic engineering are the same thing, and claims that the thing that people have been doing for centuries is suddenly controversial. They are different things, and the one that's been going on for centuries and forms the basis for modern agriculture is not remotely controversial. But he wants his genetic engineering to piggy-back on the accomplishments of selective breeding. Whatever your opinion on the necessity or danger of genetic engineering is, the above is a dishonest argument that doesn't help the discussion at all.
dogma1138 9y ago
What are natural foods? There isn’t a single “natural” strain of wheat, rice, soy or maze on the planet in mass use today. Only a few decades ago we gave a geneticist, Normal Borlaug a noble peace prize for helping to reduce world hunger by creating semi-dwarf wheat which was resistant to disease and pesticide and it was the first mass application of genetic engineering driven cultivation in the world.
behindmyscreen 9y ago
It's not a supply issue. Disease is wiping out our foods. Land is becoming marginal as the climate changes and is making food production harder. People are dying of vitamin A deficiency. GMOs can fix this.
- badrabbit 9y ago
  When you fix symptoms you create more sickness. When you fix the disease, only then will you solve the problem.

mcv 9y ago

Exactly. I find the article very misleading, and intentionally muddying the issue. A quote: > And livestock, a pillar of our food system for millenia, are major culprits in climate change, water shortages, biodiversity losses and massive degradation and destruction of forests and other ecosystems — compelling us to quickly move to a predominantly plant-based diet. > To meet these challenges, we must employ all of the technological tools at our disposal. Actually, if we were to move to a predominantly plant-based diet, that would solve a major part of our food problem. At the moment, we're choosing to feed cattle and even throw away food, rather than feed the hungry. World hunger is in a large part an economic choice stemming from economic inequality. But where the article really muddies the issue is here: > It is safe to say that, without systemic genetic modification of crops and livestock, civilization would not exist. and: > But the process of genetic modification, central to progress in agriculture throughout history, has become controversial. The article pretends that selective breeding and genetic engineering are the same thing, and claims that the thing that people have been doing for centuries is suddenly controversial. They are different things, and the one that's been going on for centuries and forms the basis for modern agriculture is not remotely controversial. But he wants his genetic engineering to piggy-back on the accomplishments of selective breeding. Whatever your opinion on the necessity or danger of genetic engineering is, the above is a dishonest argument that doesn't help the discussion at all.

dogma1138 9y ago

What are natural foods? There isn’t a single “natural” strain of wheat, rice, soy or maze on the planet in mass use today. Only a few decades ago we gave a geneticist, Normal Borlaug a noble peace prize for helping to reduce world hunger by creating semi-dwarf wheat which was resistant to disease and pesticide and it was the first mass application of genetic engineering driven cultivation in the world.

behindmyscreen 9y ago

It's not a supply issue. Disease is wiping out our foods. Land is becoming marginal as the climate changes and is making food production harder. People are dying of vitamin A deficiency. GMOs can fix this.

badrabbit 9y ago
When you fix symptoms you create more sickness. When you fix the disease, only then will you solve the problem.