5 ms·

>to develop more efficient crops. Forgive me, I'm a bit out of my element here: I assume you're talking about "genetically modified foods"? How do you plan o

>to develop more efficient crops. Forgive me, I'm a bit out of my element here: I assume you're talking about "genetically modified foods"? How do you plan on dealing with the anti-GMO doomers? That perspective seems to be pervasive.

erikpukinskis 13y ago
I'm relatively pro-GMO for a liberal, but I hang out with a lot of alarmists so I have a sense of their position. There are some "naturalists" who are just fundamentally against it, but I think a lot of people just don't like that they're so untested. If we can do more long- term studies feeding animals these foods I think you could make inroads with those folks. Also, though there's nothing inherent about GMOs that encourages pesticide use, in practice many of the existing GMO crops are designed to facilitate heavy use of Roundup, which makes people uncomfortable. Again, because there is limited science about what the long-term effects of that are. So maybe when you're thinking about GMO research it's good to keep in mind that "research" includes not just development, but testing, which helps address the challenge you raise.
- jrkelly 13y ago
  GMOs undergo far more extensive testing than any other type of new crop introduced. The people who don't like GMOs do so b/c they don't like industrial agriculture. GMOs are just the weakest link in industrial Ag to attack.
  - tcdent 13y ago
    Is it really necessary to lab test wild (though bred over many years) varieties? It's natural; it worked before we touched it. The biggest risk GMO has is over-confidence in human science.
    - Blahah 13y ago
      It's not really necessary to test any food, but because people are scared of GMOs, we do. Being natural does not imply safety or health.
      - tcdent 13y ago
        > Being natural does not imply safety or health. Definitely agree with you there. I was speaking to the "tried and true" or "test of time" aspect of traditional crops.
    - Houshalter 13y ago
      There are small amounts of toxins in every plant. Not enough to cause any real problems, but I doubt you could get them approved if you were to artificially create the exact same thing.
- gcb0 13y ago
  the REAL problem with GMO is this: someone cross seeds, radiate them, etc... gets a seed that naturally produce a harmless parasite poison. He sacks that. Keep crossing, radiating, sprinkling magic dust, whatever those guys do... now he gets one that is healthy even after being bombarded with some common pesticide. But that common pesticide is public domain. So they keep doing their thing until they get a seed that survives whatever pesticide the company can patent and exclusively distribute. Is it better then the others? well, the pesticide to not have been patented have to use weird stuff that is probably carcinogen (good reason to not have been patented before) and the nutrients is probably worse than the others... but if they sack the research on the others nobody would have that option. anyway, i'm tired of typing. but you get the idea.

erikpukinskis 13y ago

I'm relatively pro-GMO for a liberal, but I hang out with a lot of alarmists so I have a sense of their position. There are some "naturalists" who are just fundamentally against it, but I think a lot of people just don't like that they're so untested. If we can do more long- term studies feeding animals these foods I think you could make inroads with those folks. Also, though there's nothing inherent about GMOs that encourages pesticide use, in practice many of the existing GMO crops are designed to facilitate heavy use of Roundup, which makes people uncomfortable. Again, because there is limited science about what the long-term effects of that are. So maybe when you're thinking about GMO research it's good to keep in mind that "research" includes not just development, but testing, which helps address the challenge you raise.

jrkelly 13y ago
GMOs undergo far more extensive testing than any other type of new crop introduced. The people who don't like GMOs do so b/c they don't like industrial agriculture. GMOs are just the weakest link in industrial Ag to attack.
- tcdent 13y ago
  Is it really necessary to lab test wild (though bred over many years) varieties? It's natural; it worked before we touched it. The biggest risk GMO has is over-confidence in human science.
  - Blahah 13y ago
    It's not really necessary to test any food, but because people are scared of GMOs, we do. Being natural does not imply safety or health.
    - tcdent 13y ago
      > Being natural does not imply safety or health. Definitely agree with you there. I was speaking to the "tried and true" or "test of time" aspect of traditional crops.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    There are small amounts of toxins in every plant. Not enough to cause any real problems, but I doubt you could get them approved if you were to artificially create the exact same thing.
gcb0 13y ago
the REAL problem with GMO is this: someone cross seeds, radiate them, etc... gets a seed that naturally produce a harmless parasite poison. He sacks that. Keep crossing, radiating, sprinkling magic dust, whatever those guys do... now he gets one that is healthy even after being bombarded with some common pesticide. But that common pesticide is public domain. So they keep doing their thing until they get a seed that survives whatever pesticide the company can patent and exclusively distribute. Is it better then the others? well, the pesticide to not have been patented have to use weird stuff that is probably carcinogen (good reason to not have been patented before) and the nutrients is probably worse than the others... but if they sack the research on the others nobody would have that option. anyway, i'm tired of typing. but you get the idea.