6 ms·

Borlaug had no problem with people buying organic (e.g., "Let them buy it. Let them pay a bit more. It's a free society."). His issue was that first-world peopl

Borlaug had no problem with people buying organic (e.g., "Let them buy it. Let them pay a bit more. It's a free society."). His issue was that first-world people shouldn't completely abandon the advancement of genetically-modified food as it doesn't agree with their views of how food should be grown. Most of us can buy organic food I would imagine, and it usually does taste better. But we shouldn't force our ideals of what others should and should not eat when organic is not a viable option, and any food is better than tastier food. That was Borlaug's message.

rjurney 17y ago
Amen. There's nothing wrong with buying organic. Not respecting the differences between the first and third worlds is what is irritating in the food debate. Maybe people don't want genetically modified food domestically - but these innovations are critical to continuing to feed the planet. When you vilify them, when you start labeling foods as modified to create two classes of food, you're screaming loud and clear, "I don't give a shit about people that aren't just like me, and I don't respect the differences between first and third world realities." Personally - I want to be eating the same wheat as the guy pushing rickshaws in Old Dheli. I want genetic modifications rigorously tested so as to be safe for us all. Acting like first-world boutique farming represents a viable model for the entire world - despite all the evidence - just because new age idealism says it should be, is the height of western arrogance.
- antonovka 17y ago
  Acting like first-world boutique farming represents a viable model for the entire world - despite all the evidence - just because new age idealism says it should be, is the height of western arrogance. I find the belief that mega-agricultural conglomerates are at all interested in our long term well-being to be the height of technological arrogance. The market incentives are just not aligned with our interests. It's not that genetic engineering can't be safely and responsibly leveled, but simply that given the track record of the foods provided by these organizations, I don't see why they will behave particularly responsibility towards our interests in the future. It's also disturbing that you're attempting to turn the debate into one of classism or racism: When you start labeling foods as modified to create two classes of food, you're screaming loud and clear, "I don't give a shit about people that aren't just like me, and I don't respect the differences between first and third world realities". Why is my desire to know exactly what I'm purchasing in any way remotely related to how I feel about people who "aren't just like me" or living in a third world economy?
  - rjurney 17y ago
    You don't have to believe that GMO companies are do-gooders. Just take a look at the agricultural efficiency charts over the last century, global population, and rates of starvation. Seriously, the data is on wikipedia. Check it out. As a planet, we need GMO food. Its not up for debate, if the data means anything whatsoever. As to your last comment: Why would labeling GMO foods as such create a food class system, and why is this wrong? (not something you claimed btw, just part of my rant :) Because only people rich like you will be able to choose the non-GMO variety, because you are undermining the development of safe GMO foods with that label, and because without GMO foods large numbers of poor people will starve. To me, thats a pretty clear connection. As to why class matters? Because North America has more food wealth than the rest of the world, maybe combined? As to racism: you put that in there, I said nothing about race.
    - antonovka 17y ago
      You don't have to believe that GMO companies are do-gooders ... They're not. They're corporations. As a corporation, their primary incentive is, correctly and necessarily, profit -- not people. If that coincides with "do-good", then they do good. If it doesn't, then they don't. There's plenty of historical precedent here -- take, for instance, the research into genetic use restriction technology as to require re-purchase of seed stock or a chemical activator every year. The work was shelved due to widespread outcry from farmers and consumers, which directly leads to my next point. ... Because only people rich like you will be able to choose the non-GMO variety, because you are undermining the development of safe GMO foods with that label, and because without GMO foods large numbers of poor people will starve. So if I want to know what's in my food and how it was produced, I'm a rich American undermining the good of the mankind and causing the starvation of poor people everywhere? That's certainly a bold argument. Instead, why doesn't the blame lie with GMO organizations that engaged (and continue to engage) in behavior that does not appear to be in our direct interests?
      - rjurney 17y ago
        'Instead, why doesn't the blame lie with GMO organizations that engaged (and continue to engage) in behavior that does not appear to be in our direct interests?' Because GMO research is absolutely vital to continuing to feed our species. Monsanto may be a terrible company - but this is mostly related to patents. Patents bad. Feeding people good. GMO for the people.
netsp 17y ago
I get pretty depressed when I hear about agricultural NGO programs in the developing world. They invariably sell themselves as dealing in "sustainable agricultural methods that don't degrade the land" or something similar. There is nothing wrong with that of course, but the number one reason for these initiatives should be growing more produce, not appeasing some armchair agriculturalist with a firm beliefe that organic is the right way to go.

rjurney 17y ago

Amen. There's nothing wrong with buying organic. Not respecting the differences between the first and third worlds is what is irritating in the food debate. Maybe people don't want genetically modified food domestically - but these innovations are critical to continuing to feed the planet. When you vilify them, when you start labeling foods as modified to create two classes of food, you're screaming loud and clear, "I don't give a shit about people that aren't just like me, and I don't respect the differences between first and third world realities." Personally - I want to be eating the same wheat as the guy pushing rickshaws in Old Dheli. I want genetic modifications rigorously tested so as to be safe for us all. Acting like first-world boutique farming represents a viable model for the entire world - despite all the evidence - just because new age idealism says it should be, is the height of western arrogance.

antonovka 17y ago
Acting like first-world boutique farming represents a viable model for the entire world - despite all the evidence - just because new age idealism says it should be, is the height of western arrogance. I find the belief that mega-agricultural conglomerates are at all interested in our long term well-being to be the height of technological arrogance. The market incentives are just not aligned with our interests. It's not that genetic engineering can't be safely and responsibly leveled, but simply that given the track record of the foods provided by these organizations, I don't see why they will behave particularly responsibility towards our interests in the future. It's also disturbing that you're attempting to turn the debate into one of classism or racism: When you start labeling foods as modified to create two classes of food, you're screaming loud and clear, "I don't give a shit about people that aren't just like me, and I don't respect the differences between first and third world realities". Why is my desire to know exactly what I'm purchasing in any way remotely related to how I feel about people who "aren't just like me" or living in a third world economy?
- rjurney 17y ago
  You don't have to believe that GMO companies are do-gooders. Just take a look at the agricultural efficiency charts over the last century, global population, and rates of starvation. Seriously, the data is on wikipedia. Check it out. As a planet, we need GMO food. Its not up for debate, if the data means anything whatsoever. As to your last comment: Why would labeling GMO foods as such create a food class system, and why is this wrong? (not something you claimed btw, just part of my rant :) Because only people rich like you will be able to choose the non-GMO variety, because you are undermining the development of safe GMO foods with that label, and because without GMO foods large numbers of poor people will starve. To me, thats a pretty clear connection. As to why class matters? Because North America has more food wealth than the rest of the world, maybe combined? As to racism: you put that in there, I said nothing about race.
  - antonovka 17y ago
    You don't have to believe that GMO companies are do-gooders ... They're not. They're corporations. As a corporation, their primary incentive is, correctly and necessarily, profit -- not people. If that coincides with "do-good", then they do good. If it doesn't, then they don't. There's plenty of historical precedent here -- take, for instance, the research into genetic use restriction technology as to require re-purchase of seed stock or a chemical activator every year. The work was shelved due to widespread outcry from farmers and consumers, which directly leads to my next point. ... Because only people rich like you will be able to choose the non-GMO variety, because you are undermining the development of safe GMO foods with that label, and because without GMO foods large numbers of poor people will starve. So if I want to know what's in my food and how it was produced, I'm a rich American undermining the good of the mankind and causing the starvation of poor people everywhere? That's certainly a bold argument. Instead, why doesn't the blame lie with GMO organizations that engaged (and continue to engage) in behavior that does not appear to be in our direct interests?
    - rjurney 17y ago
      'Instead, why doesn't the blame lie with GMO organizations that engaged (and continue to engage) in behavior that does not appear to be in our direct interests?' Because GMO research is absolutely vital to continuing to feed our species. Monsanto may be a terrible company - but this is mostly related to patents. Patents bad. Feeding people good. GMO for the people.

netsp 17y ago

I get pretty depressed when I hear about agricultural NGO programs in the developing world. They invariably sell themselves as dealing in "sustainable agricultural methods that don't degrade the land" or something similar. There is nothing wrong with that of course, but the number one reason for these initiatives should be growing more produce, not appeasing some armchair agriculturalist with a firm beliefe that organic is the right way to go.