Thread: Why Is it Wrong ?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by piwanoi

in another 3 decades the World will have to produce 40% more food to feed itself .any idea's how you are going to do it ?

Well you could start by farming the 900 million hectares of arable land in Africa, but that would require political stability.

You could also return the land taken for biodiesel and return it to food crops. Seaweed farming can replace it for the production of carbon neutral biofuels.

So what do you suggest? just take over whole Countrys ,how are you going to do that? , suppose they tell any one who try,s to fuck off and mind their own business? ,What then? , I would suggest you and other dreamers study this well written article cos it shows quite graphically the severity of the problems which will surely come United Nations News Centre - Growing demand for cropland threatens environment, UN agency reports

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by piwanoi

in another 3 decades the World will have to produce 40% more food to feed itself .any idea's how you are going to do it ?

Well you could start by farming the 900 million hectares of arable land in Africa, but that would require political stability.

You could also return the land taken for biodiesel and return it to food crops. Seaweed farming can replace it for the production of carbon neutral biofuels.

So what do you suggest? just take over whole Countrys ,how are you going to do that? , suppose they tell any one who try,s to fuck off and mind their own business? ,What then? , I would suggest you and other dreamers study this well written article cos it shows quite graphically the severity of the problems which will surely come United Nations News Centre - Growing demand for cropland threatens environment, UN agency reports

I would suggest you shut the fuck up talking shite, you babbling lunatic.

It's obvious that you haven't got any original thought on the subject, and I can't be arsed debating a topic with a fucking web browser.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by piwanoi

in another 3 decades the World will have to produce 40% more food to feed itself .any idea's how you are going to do it ?

Well you could start by farming the 900 million hectares of arable land in Africa, but that would require political stability.

You could also return the land taken for biodiesel and return it to food crops. Seaweed farming can replace it for the production of carbon neutral biofuels.

So what do you suggest? just take over whole Countrys ,how are you going to do that? , suppose they tell any one who try,s to fuck off and mind their own business? ,What then? , I would suggest you and other dreamers study this well written article cos it shows quite graphically the severity of the problems which will surely come United Nations News Centre - Growing demand for cropland threatens environment, UN agency reports

I would suggest you shut the fuck up talking shite, you babbling lunatic.

It's obvious that you haven't got any original thought on the subject, and I can't be arsed debating a topic with a fucking web browser.

So the article I posted which is compiled by many leading experts from the UN in the field OF FEEDING THE FUTURE WORLD, which obviously you have simply refused to read is a load of complete bollox then?, and of course you know better and spat the dummy out and replied with your usual personal insults ,just what do you suggest ?, bomb the shit out of Harare and get rid of Mugabe's niggers who fucked the Country up and replace it with a White Government like Ian Smiths then just for openers ?

Oh and I forgot to add if any of the TD "experts" are of the opinion that what the 27 learned Scientists in the article are plainly saying is a total crock of shit by all means sing out ,but then again the "know alls will refuse to read it )Me ? I prefer to listen to the warnings of people far and and away more in tune with the future of feeding the World and its ever increasing population ,sorry if I have to throw another laugh in but you lot really are a fucking joke

"Blah Blah Fucking Blah".

And so ends another Piwanoi exclusive.

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Interesting article ,on the other hand there is this one too, John Robbins: Can GMOs Help End World Hunger?

Did you actually read this article or did the title give you enough reason to post it?

Within a few months, the biotech industry had spent far more on these ads than it had on developing golden rice. Their purpose? "Unless I'm missing something," wrote Michael Pollan in The New York Times Magazine, "the aim of this audacious new advertising campaign is to impale people like me -- well-off first-worlders dubious about genetically engineered food -- on the horns of a moral dilemma ... If we don't get over our queasiness about eating genetically modified food, kids in the third world will go blind."

In the years since Time proclaimed the promises of golden rice, however, we've learned a few things.
For one thing, we've learned that golden rice will not grow in the kinds of soil that it must to be of value to the world's hungry. To grow properly, it requires heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides -- expensive inputs unaffordable to the very people that the variety is supposed to help. And we've also learned that golden rice requires large amounts of water -- water that might not be available in precisely those areas where Vitamin A deficiency is a problem, and where farmers cannot afford costly irrigation projects.
And one more thing -- it turns out that golden rice doesn't work, even in theory. Malnourished people are not able to absorb Vitamin A in this form. And even if they could, they'd have to eat an awful lot of the stuff. An 11-year-old boy would have to eat 27 bowls of golden rice a day in order to satisfy his minimum requirement for the vitamin.

Not a very compelling argument for GM foods is it.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

"Blah Blah Fucking Blah".

And so ends another Piwanoi exclusive.

Actually brain dead its not me that is doing the blah blah as you put it all, I am doing is agreeing with the article in my post 101 written by experts in the field ,of course you have still steadfastly refused to read it as quite cos obviously you think you know better

Originally Posted by Troy

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Interesting article ,on the other hand there is this one too, John Robbins: Can GMOs Help End World Hunger?

Did you actually read this article or did the title give you enough reason to post it?

Within a few months, the biotech industry had spent far more on these ads than it had on developing golden rice. Their purpose? "Unless I'm missing something," wrote Michael Pollan in The New York Times Magazine, "the aim of this audacious new advertising campaign is to impale people like me -- well-off first-worlders dubious about genetically engineered food -- on the horns of a moral dilemma ... If we don't get over our queasiness about eating genetically modified food, kids in the third world will go blind."

In the years since Time proclaimed the promises of golden rice, however, we've learned a few things.
For one thing, we've learned that golden rice will not grow in the kinds of soil that it must to be of value to the world's hungry. To grow properly, it requires heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides -- expensive inputs unaffordable to the very people that the variety is supposed to help. And we've also learned that golden rice requires large amounts of water -- water that might not be available in precisely those areas where Vitamin A deficiency is a problem, and where farmers cannot afford costly irrigation projects.
And one more thing -- it turns out that golden rice doesn't work, even in theory. Malnourished people are not able to absorb Vitamin A in this form. And even if they could, they'd have to eat an awful lot of the stuff. An 11-year-old boy would have to eat 27 bowls of golden rice a day in order to satisfy his minimum requirement for the vitamin.

Not a very compelling argument for GM foods is it.

Whats your alternative to the article in my post 101?

Originally Posted by Troy

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Interesting article ,on the other hand there is this one too, John Robbins: Can GMOs Help End World Hunger?

Did you actually read this article or did the title give you enough reason to post it?

Within a few months, the biotech industry had spent far more on these ads than it had on developing golden rice. Their purpose? "Unless I'm missing something," wrote Michael Pollan in The New York Times Magazine, "the aim of this audacious new advertising campaign is to impale people like me -- well-off first-worlders dubious about genetically engineered food -- on the horns of a moral dilemma ... If we don't get over our queasiness about eating genetically modified food, kids in the third world will go blind."

In the years since Time proclaimed the promises of golden rice, however, we've learned a few things.
For one thing, we've learned that golden rice will not grow in the kinds of soil that it must to be of value to the world's hungry. To grow properly, it requires heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides -- expensive inputs unaffordable to the very people that the variety is supposed to help. And we've also learned that golden rice requires large amounts of water -- water that might not be available in precisely those areas where Vitamin A deficiency is a problem, and where farmers cannot afford costly irrigation projects.
And one more thing -- it turns out that golden rice doesn't work, even in theory. Malnourished people are not able to absorb Vitamin A in this form. And even if they could, they'd have to eat an awful lot of the stuff. An 11-year-old boy would have to eat 27 bowls of golden rice a day in order to satisfy his minimum requirement for the vitamin.

Not a very compelling argument for GM foods is it.

I tend not listen to John Robbins when I found out he lost 95% of his considerable assets to the Con Man supreme Bernie Maidoff , hardly a glowing indictment to his intellectual capability is it

Originally Posted by piwanoi

article in my post 101

A felicitous post number.

Originally Posted by piwanoi

I tend not listen to John Robbins

My response was to your original post referring to his article or had you forgotten?

Originally Posted by Mid

Monsanto is simply evil as documented here

Indeed it is..

Even wheat is not the wheat that we used to get. It has been altered and Genetically modified. Read the 'Wheat Belly' to learn about why wheat isn't good for us.

I'm totally against GMO food and very pro in buying local produce and organic grass fed meat.

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Your fault, why do you feed the troll?

Absolutely, som num na.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Your fault, why do you feed the troll?

Absolutely, som num na.

Yeah Harry lets have it right , you could not do any better than follow the advice of a former East German Stazi Officer , who BTW still believes in his "system"

GM foods have neither been proven safe or unsafe as far as I can see. Pending long term studies, will be years before can be proven one way or the other. Short term studies have shown GM food can cause allergies but so can plenty of non GM foods.

So until found safe or unsafe anyone eating GM food is taking a risk. Of course we are barraged with foods deemed unsafe or unhealthy everyday. Yet we still consume them.

EU and other countries banning GM food may be less worried about harm to it's citizens than it is about financial harm to it's farmers.

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Your fault, why do you feed the troll?

Absolutely, som num na.

Yeah Harry lets have it right , you could not do any better than follow the advice of a former East German Stazi Officer , who BTW still believes in his "system"

Originally Posted by Norton

GM foods have neither been proven safe or unsafe as far as I can see. Pending long term studies, will be years before can be proven one way or the other. Short term studies have shown GM food can cause allergies but so can plenty of non GM foods.

So until found safe or unsafe anyone eating GM food is taking a risk. Of course we are barraged with foods deemed unsafe or unhealthy everyday. Yet we still consume them.

EU and other countries banning GM food may be less worried about harm to it's citizens than it is about financial harm to it's farmers.

Good post Norton , if you have noticed I have never written GM food is 100% safe simply because I do not know , but to just dismiss it out of hand like some have done on these boards when a land mass as big as Brazil in 29 different Countrys is already growing GM is some what jumping the Gun , there is a good article in my post 101 which in my view gives a fair assessment of the problem facing the World who's population is increasing by 80 million a year , what I have written is that huge amounts of money is being spent on research with Country's like China being a big player ,the name of the thread is quite simple "Why is it wrong", so far apart from slagging multinationals like Monsanto making wads of cash , I haven't read a reason which IMHO holds water . I suppose this subject is some thing like the "Global warming" debate .

This article just adds credence to what I have already written ,and that is GM food production is rising dramatically in 30 different Country's and being taken up by millions of farmers ,and whatever the prophets of doom think on these boards who have no Irrefutable evidence that its harmful to mankind it will increase even more in years to come cos its unstoppable Executive Summary: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012 - ISAAA Brief 44-2012 | ISAAA.org

Just back from the Early morning fresh produce Market in Prakonchai which starts at about 3 am , were I bumped into the "2 Gary,s" at the local Coffee shop , over a cup of ultra strong Thai Coffee ,they read Teak door on a regular basis but refuse to join cos in their opinions far too many wooly headed left wing liberals make insane posts , they said they pissed their pants at reading that GM foods being described as some how "Evil" when no deaths are attributed to the consuming of it ,pushing them a little further I asked them to explain what they meant , they said well take tobacco for instance who ever said the growing of it is some how "evil" even if if 5 million a year die of a direct result of smoking it ,and non smokers live on average 10 years more than one who smokes ,and taking it further how many die a year from consuming alcohol what are we to trash all the vineyards and Tobacco plantations to "save the World"? man kind can live quite well without smoking or drinking but he cannot live without eating , on arriving back here decided to do a little research on the results of just Smoking tobacco ,the results are truly horrendous CDC - Fact Sheet - Fast Facts - Smoking & Tobacco Use maybe some "wooly headed liberal" out there would like to post some statistics on just how many people have died as a results of consuming GM food or consuming the flesh of animals that eat it.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Piwi, it's personal choice. A bit like religion. Up to you. Up to me. Up to them. Some think it's good. Some think it's bad. Some countries embrace it. Some don't. Some feel it neessary. Some don't. You say "the prophets of doom" on this forum "have no Irrefutable evidence that its[sic] harmful to mankind" but you have no Irrefutable evidence that it is not harmful to mankind. You have already said in post #117 that you do not know if GM food is 100% safe and as you are a lover of the environment I would have thought the potential risk of catastrophic destruction of wildlife world wide simply for profit would fill you with revulsion. And imagine if fish ate some genetically modified plants and deforemd them and killed of whole species. What a disaster that would be, not only for the fish but also for fishermen and those who eat fish.

Isn't it tme you went fishing?

Yeah Nervana I will go along with most of what you write ,however I am as much concerned with the environment as any one ,maybe more than most when I see the whole "slaughter" of the worlds rainforests and the disappearance of rare and endangered animals through habitat loss , Conservation of the Worlds dwindling resources is and always has been uppermost in my thoughts ,if the scientist's could bring out a food crop like rice or corn that could thrive in the thousands of miles of salt water estuary's that up- to now can only grow mangroves ,is this some how "evil" ,as stated before the Worlds population is increasing at an inexorable pace ,the thoughts of how are we going to feed them without destroying ever more of our planet for food production when it could well be avoided should be uppermost in any right thinking persons mind and not regarded as some how "evil" ,may I draw your attention to the article in my post 101

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Your fault, why do you feed the troll?

Absolutely, som num na.

Yeah Harry lets have it right , you could not do any better than follow the advice of a former East German Stazi Officer , who BTW still believes in his "system"

Yeah sure Harry Christian me as a troll, I don't mind, but to listen to a complete fucking idiot like Ex Stazi officer Rain fall who still believes in the Communist system when the whole world has abandoned it in name takes a little bit of understanding ,bearing in mind that a forum like this were we exchange idea's and freedom of speech would have meant imprisonment or even worse under the Stalinist regime of East Germany , mind you with so many members in jail or suspended from certain area's of this forum for non other than writing posts which the mods (or Mod ) does not agree with gives the word "Democracy" a huge fucking joke listen to some nice Music which spells it out to a T

May I add that People like Rainfall is totally unable into believing in "the wind of Change"but constantly pump out of the joys of Communism ,were many thousands risked and lost their lives to escaping from the joys of "Socialist Utopia " and may I respectfully add that any one who agree's with him . then their gray matter must be brought into question ..........................

Originally Posted by MissTraveller

Originally Posted by Mid

Monsanto is simply evil as documented here

Indeed it is..

Even wheat is not the wheat that we used to get. It has been altered and Genetically modified. Read the 'Wheat Belly' to learn about why wheat isn't good for us.

I'm totally against GMO food and very pro in buying local produce and organic grass fed meat.

Pray please inform me how do you know 100%v sure that the meat you buy from the local market conforms to your rigid standards?, be it pork, beef or Chicken,and obviously you do not "eat out" as you have no way of knowing, other that word of the of the Cafe's owners as to just how or were meat comes from, your asinine words are almost on par with that believer in free speech Mids

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Pray please inform me how do you know 100%v sure that the meat you buy from the local market conforms to your rigid standards?, be it pork, beef or Chicken,and obviously you do not "eat out" as you have no way of knowing, other that word of the of the Cafe's owners as to just how or were meat comes from, your asinine words are almost on par with that believer in free speech Mids

OMG! Don't even get me started on Monsanto and GMO food.
The US and Canada doesn't even have to label GMO foods, but the good news is Whole Foods Market announced that its suppliers must label foods as containing GM ingredients within five years in the U.S. and Canada.

Great article here on the subject.. the bottom line is Monsanto is using Genetically modified corn/wheat as a big business and that shit isn't good for us..especially High fructose corn syrup which is in a lot of products that people aren't even aware of.
Monsanto: A food stock with a bad aftertaste - The Globe and Mail