4 ms·

> ... and have an increased risk for all sorts of disease. See #1. What odds do you give that GMOs do not cause an increase in disease? In light of that number

by andylei 15y ago

> ... and have an increased risk for all sorts of disease. See #1. What odds do you give that GMOs do not cause an increase in disease? In light of that number being non-zero, would you like to take back this statement? GMOs, herbicides, and pesticides have saved hundreds of millions of lives from death by famine. Current levels of food production are not possible with GMOs. > GMO race, as the potential benefit is something like $3/meal and the potential cost includes things like cancer. That's a lot of money. In America, where people make $7 / hour, its easy to say, we'd all be better off eating non GMOs, but in many parts of India, Africa, and China, when people make $7 / week, GMOs lower prices to sustainable levels. Note that when I say "sustainable", I mean "able to sustain currently levels of human population".

dlss 15y ago
Right. This is the argument popularized by Penn & Teller in their GMO Bullshit episode. 1. My $3/meal was for US eaters. Remember that locally grown crops in 3rd world countries cost much less, as the cost of human time and land is lower there. 2. Ignoring #1 (ie. if we're looking at the choice between dying and eating GMO food), then of course eating GMO is the lesser of all evils. 3. GMO isn't the only way to produce enough food for the world. Better storage and transport tech would go a long way. There is also the agri-skyscraper concepts, but I'm sure you've seen those. 4. Even using GMO food, and producing enough to feed the planet, we still have lots of hungry people for reasons other than production capacity. See http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20f...
cickpass_broken 15y ago
> GMOs, herbicides, and pesticides have saved hundreds of millions of lives from death by famine. Current levels of food production are not possible with GMOs. That's great. But, we need to look ahead. Monsanto's high-yield crops rely on herbicides/pesticides and monocultures. This negatively affects biodiversity[1], genetic diversity, pollinator populations[2] and increases risk of cancer[3] and land degradation[4]. High-yield crops are a quick fix. Patch work. What about in 25 or 50 years? What if we have severe colony collapse? What if we have severe soil contamination and degradation? How will we feed ourselves then? What if we have to increase our use of pesticides just to get the same yield? [1] http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/environment.asp?id=1834 http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/environment.asp?id=1834 [2] http://www.epa.gov/pesp/pesp/members/strategies/north http://www.epa.gov/pesp/pesp/members/strategies/north _america_pollinator_protection_campaign.pdf [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9498903 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9498903 [4] http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1214-unu.html http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1214-unu.html I don't understand why you chose India and Africa as examples? Their food situation is vastly different from China. India especially, has not (on a whole) benefited from Monsanto's GMOs (http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1087730/how_india_squared_up_to_monsantos_biopiracy.html http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1087730/how_i...)

by andylei 15y ago

dlss 15y ago

Right. This is the argument popularized by Penn & Teller in their GMO Bullshit episode. 1. My $3/meal was for US eaters. Remember that locally grown crops in 3rd world countries cost much less, as the cost of human time and land is lower there. 2. Ignoring #1 (ie. if we're looking at the choice between dying and eating GMO food), then of course eating GMO is the lesser of all evils. 3. GMO isn't the only way to produce enough food for the world. Better storage and transport tech would go a long way. There is also the agri-skyscraper concepts, but I'm sure you've seen those. 4. Even using GMO food, and producing enough to feed the planet, we still have lots of hungry people for reasons other than production capacity. See http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20f...

cickpass_broken 15y ago

> GMOs, herbicides, and pesticides have saved hundreds of millions of lives from death by famine. Current levels of food production are not possible with GMOs. That's great. But, we need to look ahead. Monsanto's high-yield crops rely on herbicides/pesticides and monocultures. This negatively affects biodiversity[1], genetic diversity, pollinator populations[2] and increases risk of cancer[3] and land degradation[4]. High-yield crops are a quick fix. Patch work. What about in 25 or 50 years? What if we have severe colony collapse? What if we have severe soil contamination and degradation? How will we feed ourselves then? What if we have to increase our use of pesticides just to get the same yield? [1] http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/environment.asp?id=1834 http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/environment.asp?id=1834 [2] http://www.epa.gov/pesp/pesp/members/strategies/north http://www.epa.gov/pesp/pesp/members/strategies/north _america_pollinator_protection_campaign.pdf [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9498903 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9498903 [4] http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1214-unu.html http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1214-unu.html I don't understand why you chose India and Africa as examples? Their food situation is vastly different from China. India especially, has not (on a whole) benefited from Monsanto's GMOs (http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1087730/how_india_squared_up_to_monsantos_biopiracy.html http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1087730/how_i...)