3 ms·

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 shoul

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.
    - antonovka 17y ago
      If you want GMO to succeed in the marketplace, then try convincing them to start serving the market, rather than trying to apply regulation to prevent the market from making informed decisions. "GMO for the people" is just sloganeering.
      - rjurney 17y ago
        People aren't interested in making informed decisions about this, they're interested in making a religious decision, which is why the labels must stay off. Its for the good of the planet, not first-world consumers. We need their food dollars driving research to feed the rest of the planet.
        easp 17y ago
        Yes, informed consent and other nonsense underpininning freedom and democracy be damnned. And please, let's ignore how industrial-scale farming makes it difficult for agricultural societies to escape poverty. It doesn't apply to everyone, but there are large numbers of people who can grow a surplus of food without requiring large amounts of capital. Unfortunately that food is all but worthless becuase they have to compete with the substantal direct and indirect subsidies industrial agriculture enjoys. The result is that they can't generate extra money that could help them through lean years, or that they could invest in education or equipment that would help them move up.

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.
  - antonovka 17y ago
    If you want GMO to succeed in the marketplace, then try convincing them to start serving the market, rather than trying to apply regulation to prevent the market from making informed decisions. "GMO for the people" is just sloganeering.
    - rjurney 17y ago
      People aren't interested in making informed decisions about this, they're interested in making a religious decision, which is why the labels must stay off. Its for the good of the planet, not first-world consumers. We need their food dollars driving research to feed the rest of the planet.
      - easp 17y ago
        Yes, informed consent and other nonsense underpininning freedom and democracy be damnned. And please, let's ignore how industrial-scale farming makes it difficult for agricultural societies to escape poverty. It doesn't apply to everyone, but there are large numbers of people who can grow a surplus of food without requiring large amounts of capital. Unfortunately that food is all but worthless becuase they have to compete with the substantal direct and indirect subsidies industrial agriculture enjoys. The result is that they can't generate extra money that could help them through lean years, or that they could invest in education or equipment that would help them move up.