Thread: Why Is it Wrong ?

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Over my head Harry? 10% of the Worlds arable land is already growing GM food, it was first grown in China years ago ,

Wrong. First commercial GM food stuff was soyabean, first planted in USA in 1996.

Originally Posted by Necron99

And you can't patent the end product as regardless of the end result, all the genes are natural.

and wrong. The "Harvard mouse" or "Oncomouse" was granted a patent in US (not in canda though). I think there is a patent on a pet fish, and one pending on GM salmon.

So, both sides factually in error.

/THREAD CLOSED.

Originally Posted by Necron99

Originally Posted by piwanoi

and accounting for 10% of the arable land to grow GM food

So the stewards of a whopping 90% of the arable land refuse to use it.
That is quite a telling stat.

A telling Stat, really? Were does it say the Farmers of 90% of the land have refused to use GM food production? , GM food is still in its infancy yet, give it time ,what % of people World wide owned a car 80 years ago in comparison to today , is that cos they refused to own one?

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Originally Posted by Necron99

And you can't patent the end product as regardless of the end result, all the genes are natural.

and wrong. The "Harvard mouse" or "Oncomouse" was granted a patent in US (not in canda though). I think there is a patent on a pet fish, and one pending on GM salmon.

So, both sides factually in error.

/THREAD CLOSED.

Those are transgenic. I was referring to breeding via natural selection.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Over my head Harry? 10% of the Worlds arable land is already growing GM food, it was first grown in China years ago ,

Wrong. First commercial GM food stuff was soyabean, first planted in USA in 1996.

Originally Posted by Necron99

And you can't patent the end product as regardless of the end result, all the genes are natural.

and wrong. The "Harvard mouse" or "Oncomouse" was granted a patent in US (not in canda though). I think there is a patent on a pet fish, and one pending on GM salmon.

So, both sides factually in error.

/THREAD CLOSED.

According to this article China was the first Country to adopt GM agriculture and there are others which suggest the same The Economic and Social Impact of GMOs in China

You're talking about a world where he who controls the seeds controls world food production.

Monsanto's genetically engineered crops leach into the mainstream, and they then sue people for patent infringement, usually successfully as they have a massive legal team and budget which eclipses the capabilities of most small farmers.

Ultimately their genetic material will be pervasive, and they will be able to sue anyone for growing "their" crops.

GM foods are not about "feeding the world" they are about one thing: Increasing profits.

You asked the question: "is this some how a crime?"

The answer is yes. This is a company that wants to hinder unfettered food production, not encourage it.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

You're talking about a world where he who controls the seeds controls world food production.

Monsanto's genetically engineered crops leach into the mainstream, and they then sue people for patent infringement, usually successfully as they have a massive legal team and budget which eclipses the capabilities of most small farmers.

Ultimately their genetic material will be pervasive, and they will be able to sue anyone for growing "their" crops.

GM foods are not about "feeding the world" they are about one thing: Increasing profits.

You asked the question: "is this some how a crime?"

The answer is yes. This is a company that wants to hinder unfettered food production, not encourage it.

Harry I was not aware that Monsanto and their Ilk controlled the Chinese Communist Party ,I would suggest you and others read the article in my post #29 , and being that IMHO GM food production is the only way to produce enough food to feed the ever increasing World population , perhaps you have an alternative to mine ,if you have I would very much like to read it

Originally Posted by Necron99

Additionally, the frankenplants are patented, once the franken plants have displaced current crops the corporations will "own" the food sources.

This is a good point.

There has already been a well-known case in Canada about this. Monsanto sued a guy for growing their genetically-modified crop, when in fact his "normal" crop was contaminated with pollen from a genetically-modified nearby.
The farmer won his case, but lost on appeal....I think because Monsanto had such huge legal resources.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

There has already been a well-known case in Canada about this. Monsanto sued a guy for growing their genetically-modified crop, when in fact his "normal" crop was contaminated with pollen from a genetically-modified nearby.
The farmer won his case, but lost on appeal....I think because Monsanto had such huge legal resources.

Well known case ?, any chance of a link? They (Monsanto) have huge legal resources in China? who are now spending hundreds of Millions of Dollars in GM research and producing GM crops ,tell me more, the way I view it is that some members just cannot bear the thoughts of a a huge multinational Company(whilst employing tens of thousands) making hundreds of millions of dollars which in the end could well free the world from Starvation ,but I say again if you lot have a viable alternative to feed the hundreds of millions of people World wide who are going to bed tonight with empty Stomach's by all means just fucking say so instead of constantly criticizing the views I have put forward , I suppose if a leading Pharmaceutical Company brought out a drug after a decade of research to eradicate the scourge to mankind Cancer forever some of you would complain, yeah but the Kunts are making billions, FFS get a grip.

Research Shows that Monsanto's Big Claims for GMO Food Are Probably Wrong | Alternet

...

Heinemann’s group found that between 1985 and 2010, Western Europe has experienced yield gains at a faster rate than North America for all three crops measured. That means that the U.S., which grows mostly GE corn, and Canada, which grows mostly GE canola, are not doing as well as Europe, which grows non-GE corn and canola. The increases in corn yields in the U.S. have remained relatively consistent both before and after the introduction of GE corn. Furthermore, Western Europe is experiencing faster yield gains than America for non-GE wheat.

...

“Western Europe has gone for a different kind of innovation strategy,” he continues. “Because Europe has had to innovate without using genetic engineering,” due to its laws that do not allow GE crops, “it does so in a way that rewards the plants. They're getting greater yield and using less pesticide to do it. But the way the US is innovating, it's penalizing all plants whether they are genetically engineered or not.”

Yep, that’s right. In addition to increasing crop yields faster, European nations have also reduced pesticides more than we have.

“The US and US industry have been crowing about the reduction in chemical insecticide use with the introduction of Bt crops [GE crops that produce their own pesticide],” says Heinemann. “And at face value, that's true. They've gone to about 85 percent of the levels that they used in the pre-GE era. But what they don't tell you is that France went down to 12 percent of its previous levels. France is the fourth biggest exporter of corn in the world, one of the biggest exporters of wheat, and it's only 11 percent of the size of the U.S.

...

Companies that make GE crops benefit from a relatively new law, passed in 1994, allowing for much stricter intellectual property rights on seeds. Previously, a company had the rights to sell its seed. A farmer could buy that seed and cross it with other seeds to produce locally adapted varieties. He or she could then save and replant those varieties. Now, the company can patent the genes inside the plant. It doesn’t matter if a farmer breeds Monsanto’s corn with a local variety and produces a brand new type of corn. If the resulting seeds have Monsanto’s patented gene in them, then Monsanto owns them. The farmer cannot save his own seeds.

This means that seed companies now control the amount of biodiversity available to farmers. And the number of varieties they sell has been going down. For example, the study found that in 2005, farmers could choose from nearly 9,000 different varieties of corn. The majority (57 percent) were GE, but farmers still had over 3,000 non-GE varieties to pick from. By 2010, GE options had slightly expanded, but non-GE options plummeted by two thirds. Similar reductions in varieties sold were seen in soybeans and cotton, too. By 2010, only 17 percent of corn varieties, 10 percent of soybean varieties, and 15 percent of cotton varieties available in seed catalogues were non-GE.

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Research Shows that Monsanto's Big Claims for GMO Food Are Probably Wrong | Alternet

...

Heinemann’s group found that between 1985 and 2010, Western Europe has experienced yield gains at a faster rate than North America for all three crops measured. That means that the U.S., which grows mostly GE corn, and Canada, which grows mostly GE canola, are not doing as well as Europe, which grows non-GE corn and canola. The increases in corn yields in the U.S. have remained relatively consistent both before and after the introduction of GE corn. Furthermore, Western Europe is experiencing faster yield gains than America for non-GE wheat.

...

“Western Europe has gone for a different kind of innovation strategy,” he continues. “Because Europe has had to innovate without using genetic engineering,” due to its laws that do not allow GE crops, “it does so in a way that rewards the plants. They're getting greater yield and using less pesticide to do it. But the way the US is innovating, it's penalizing all plants whether they are genetically engineered or not.”

Yep, that’s right. In addition to increasing crop yields faster, European nations have also reduced pesticides more than we have.

“The US and US industry have been crowing about the reduction in chemical insecticide use with the introduction of Bt crops [GE crops that produce their own pesticide],” says Heinemann. “And at face value, that's true. They've gone to about 85 percent of the levels that they used in the pre-GE era. But what they don't tell you is that France went down to 12 percent of its previous levels. France is the fourth biggest exporter of corn in the world, one of the biggest exporters of wheat, and it's only 11 percent of the size of the U.S.

...

Companies that make GE crops benefit from a relatively new law, passed in 1994, allowing for much stricter intellectual property rights on seeds. Previously, a company had the rights to sell its seed. A farmer could buy that seed and cross it with other seeds to produce locally adapted varieties. He or she could then save and replant those varieties. Now, the company can patent the genes inside the plant. It doesn’t matter if a farmer breeds Monsanto’s corn with a local variety and produces a brand new type of corn. If the resulting seeds have Monsanto’s patented gene in them, then Monsanto owns them. The farmer cannot save his own seeds.

This means that seed companies now control the amount of biodiversity available to farmers. And the number of varieties they sell has been going down. For example, the study found that in 2005, farmers could choose from nearly 9,000 different varieties of corn. The majority (57 percent) were GE, but farmers still had over 3,000 non-GE varieties to pick from. By 2010, GE options had slightly expanded, but non-GE options plummeted by two thirds. Similar reductions in varieties sold were seen in soybeans and cotton, too. By 2010, only 17 percent of corn varieties, 10 percent of soybean varieties, and 15 percent of cotton varieties available in seed catalogues were non-GE.

So The Communist Chinese Govt who are investing 100s of millions of Dollars in research in growing GM food to feed the ever growing population is "probably" wasting its time and money then?

The Scientists say that GM food production is the only answer to feed the Worlds ever increasing population ,whilst the TD "experts" argue against this (interfering with nature) or some companys are making mega bucks but cannot produce a viable alternative to it ,I would suggest you left wing luddites read this ,then of course completely disregard it , as its far better to have tens of millions starve to death than have some company making mega bucks to alleviate the problem Chinese state media kick into high gear to ease GMO food fears | Reuters

There's plenty of food in the world, Piwi.

There is enough food in the world today for everyone to have the nourishment necessary for a healthy and productive life.

FAQs | WFP | United Nations World Food Programme - Fighting Hunger Worldwide

but a lot of food is wasted. Between a third and a half of all food produced worldwide is wasted. And, as has been mentioned before by other posters, other problems such as war and displacement, prevent food from getting to people who need it.

The world produces enough to feed the entire global population of 7 billion people. And yet, one person in eight on the planet goes to bed hungry each night. In some countries, one child in three is underweight. Why does hunger exist? There are many reasons for the presence of hunger in the world and they are often interconnected. Here are six that we think are important. ...

What causes hunger? | WFP | United Nations World Food Programme - Fighting Hunger Worldwide



Note to Piwanoi: The two quotes and links above come from the World Food Programme (WFP), the same source as your Hunger Map in post #15.

^Yeah Nervana that may be so but what about 40 years from now ?the World population is increasing at an inexorable rate , the question is quite simple how are we going to feed them ?

I'm about as interested in serious 'debate' with piwi as with an amoeba. Nevertheless, some points to consider.

- What was wrong with dusting children head to toe with DDT, to get rid of their fleas and lice?
- What was wrong with thalidomide, it was very effective at curing morning sickness (permanently)
- What was wrong with lead water pipes, so you could enjoy running water? Or lead additives to fuel, to make it burn more smoothly?
- What was wrong with using strychnine as an aphrodisiac back in the Victorian/ Edwardian era?
- What was wrong with asbestos, damn good insulation that.

Nothing at all- until we found out some time later. It is quite understandable that people are leery of making those sort of mistakes again.

^^ Why wait 40 years from now? There are hungry people right now. Sort out the current problems preventing people from eating, and work on how to prevent or mitigate those issues from being problems in the future. GM crops could be one way to do that but reducing food wastage and increasing investment in Africa and Asia in agricultural infrastructure, such as roads, warehouses and irrigation, will make better use of the resources we have now and will keep agriculture more in the hands of the local farmers and not a big foreign business.

Originally Posted by sabang

I'm about as interested in serious 'debate' with piwi as with an amoeba. Nevertheless, some points to consider.

- What was wrong with dusting children head to toe with DDT, to get rid of their fleas and lice?
- What was wrong with thalidomide, it was very effective at curing morning sickness (permanently)
- What was wrong with lead water pipes, so you could enjoy running water? Or lead additives to fuel, to make it burn more smoothly?
- What was wrong with using strychnine as an aphrodisiac back in the Victorian/ Edwardian era?
- What was wrong with asbestos, damn good insulation that.

Nothing at all- until we found out some time later. It is quite understandable that people are leery of making those sort of mistakes again.

So just what exactly are you saying? ,Abandon all production and research into GM food production?, stop the World going against Nature and cease with the one family one child like in China and allow them to breed like rabbits in Africa and certain Asian Countrys only to starve to death , now a hectare of arable land can only produce enough food to feed two people by the year 2040 that same hectare will have to feed 5 ,what is the answer to this impending disaster ? I say GM food production , what do you yourself think is the answer?

ffs , fwiw the answer has been revealed in post #38.

as has the reality that Monsando is no white knight been throughtly explained earlier .

keep flogging a dead horse , you sound like a shrill for Monsando .

Originally Posted by Mid

ffs , fwiw the answer has been revealed in post #38.

as has the reality that Monsando is no white knight been throughtly explained earlier .

keep flogging a dead horse , you sound like a shrill for Monsando .

I was not aware that Monsanto was running the Agricultural future and well being of feeding its people in China , tell me more!

Originally Posted by Neverna

^^ Why wait 40 years from now? There are hungry people right now. Sort out the current problems preventing people from eating, and work on how to prevent or mitigate those issues from being problems in the future. GM crops could be one way to do that but reducing food wastage and increasing investment in Africa and Asia in agricultural infrastructure, such as roads, warehouses and irrigation, will make better use of the resources we have now and will keep agriculture more in the hands of the local farmers and not a big foreign business.

I confess I do not have a clue how to sort out today,s problems with the starving millions but for sure its only going to get worse , far worse ,GM food production could well be the answer ,but it appears that most are only concerned as to how much money Multinationals like Monsanto stand to make even though they could well save the planet from starvation in decades to come , perhaps you have all the answers to today's problems , so why not spell them out in detail ?

so what you really want to argue is that GMO foods are China's salvation ,

well why didn't you say so earlier ?

Originally Posted by Mid

so what you really want to argue is that GMO foods are China's salvation ,

well why didn't you say so earlier ?

Not just China but the Worlds ,I brought China into the equation cos everyone appears to be so fixated into how much money Monsanto and Multinational Companys stand to make instead of thinking how are we going to produce enough food 40 years hence , maybe if you read the link in post 37 on what China is doing by way of research and Production in GM in feeding the Worlds most populous Country it may help , of course if you think that GM food production and further research is a waste of time and money ,and you have a simple alternative to feed the World 40 years from now with its massive increase in population by all means spell it out

there's a hole in the bucket Dear Lisa , a hole ..........................

Originally Posted by piwanoi

So just what exactly are you saying?

Verify. Look before you leap.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by piwanoi

So just what exactly are you saying?

Verify. Look before you leap.

Do you not comprehend the Word RESEARCH ???