9 ms·

>I really doubt GMO has raised the standard of living for the average person. Then you are absolutely not paying attention at all whatsoever. In fact, the majo

>I really doubt GMO has raised the standard of living for the average person. Then you are absolutely not paying attention at all whatsoever. In fact, the majority of the impact of GMO crops has been felt in countries where there was literally not enough food to go around. You’re welcome to your organics in a country as food secure as in the west but starving poor and middle income countries is not okay. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4218791/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4218791/

runarberg 6y ago
Thank you for this correction. I guess there are in fact evidence for greater crop yield and more farmer profits with GMO crops. However this doesn’t really take away from my point that GMO didn’t fix world hunger. Farmers can save money by using less pesticide and have better crop yield all they want but that still doesn’t fix food not going to where it is needed. This—on its own—doesn’t even take away from my weaker claim that „I doubt GMO has raised the standard of living for the average person“. Sure it has raised the standard of living for the farmers that have the option of swapping to GMO crops that previously needed a lot of pesticide. But unless you believe in some trickle down economic theory that will not automatically raise the standard of living to anyone else. That all said I do find it a little handy that the quoted study only talks about maize, soy, and cotton. One of these is not even a food crop. And the two food crops here are notorious for giant industrial scale farms where much of the yield isn’t even for human consumption, but turned into feed for the meat industry. See it’s a problem of distribution. The profits of more maize and soy yield grown with less pesticide will most likely stay with the farmer, and even if they reduce the price of their price product, the profit from the cheaper crops will more likely go to the cattle farmer up stream with the cheaper feed. The standard of living for the average person will just remain the same, or—at best—marginally improve.
- DanBC 6y ago
  How do you feel about golden rice?
  - runarberg 6y ago
    They have been growing golden rice for over 15 years now. And they have yet to deliver on the promise of providing the lacking nutrients to the people who need them. I mean sure. If GMO can help people, sure go ahead and grow them. But the fact is that so far GMO crops are limited to large agriculture giants and is not used to help with the global food safety net. Particularly not for feeding the poorer parts of the world. In addition, dietary vitamin A deficiency can easily be fixed now (as well as 20 years ago; and even 120 years ago) with better food distribution. We have been shipping food for millennia. We don’t need golden rice or any other GMO to fix this problem. Just to clarify, I’m not against them researching and growing golden rice. I am against them lying about how this crop can save the world from a problem that can be already easily be fixed with existing methods.

runarberg 6y ago

Thank you for this correction. I guess there are in fact evidence for greater crop yield and more farmer profits with GMO crops. However this doesn’t really take away from my point that GMO didn’t fix world hunger. Farmers can save money by using less pesticide and have better crop yield all they want but that still doesn’t fix food not going to where it is needed. This—on its own—doesn’t even take away from my weaker claim that „I doubt GMO has raised the standard of living for the average person“. Sure it has raised the standard of living for the farmers that have the option of swapping to GMO crops that previously needed a lot of pesticide. But unless you believe in some trickle down economic theory that will not automatically raise the standard of living to anyone else. That all said I do find it a little handy that the quoted study only talks about maize, soy, and cotton. One of these is not even a food crop. And the two food crops here are notorious for giant industrial scale farms where much of the yield isn’t even for human consumption, but turned into feed for the meat industry. See it’s a problem of distribution. The profits of more maize and soy yield grown with less pesticide will most likely stay with the farmer, and even if they reduce the price of their price product, the profit from the cheaper crops will more likely go to the cattle farmer up stream with the cheaper feed. The standard of living for the average person will just remain the same, or—at best—marginally improve.

DanBC 6y ago
How do you feel about golden rice?
- runarberg 6y ago
  They have been growing golden rice for over 15 years now. And they have yet to deliver on the promise of providing the lacking nutrients to the people who need them. I mean sure. If GMO can help people, sure go ahead and grow them. But the fact is that so far GMO crops are limited to large agriculture giants and is not used to help with the global food safety net. Particularly not for feeding the poorer parts of the world. In addition, dietary vitamin A deficiency can easily be fixed now (as well as 20 years ago; and even 120 years ago) with better food distribution. We have been shipping food for millennia. We don’t need golden rice or any other GMO to fix this problem. Just to clarify, I’m not against them researching and growing golden rice. I am against them lying about how this crop can save the world from a problem that can be already easily be fixed with existing methods.