GM wheat crops in Australia, Greenpeace takes action

[Advent]

Soon, I bet they'll be making genetically modified plants just to produce oxygen..

[iron_jones]

Originally Posted by Advent

Soon, I bet they'll be making genetically modified plants just to produce oxygen..

I hear Oxygen is good!

[Empty Glass]

Originally Posted by iron_jones

BUT, Organic foods have a shorter shelf life, hombre. So ya gotta eat your broccoli quick.

No problem with me, I always make it a point to never let my food go to waste. And I do quite like broccoli.

...but cauliflower is indeed just as good with me too.

[Tsyal Makto]

www.stopgm.org.uk

Here's a good website I sourced in that AF thread. Still wish I could link the original thread, but using AF in mobile format is a bit difficult...if not impossible (lots of features are deactivated).

[Pa'li Makto]

That's a very good site Tsyal. One of the most worrying things about GM crops is the cross fertilisation and the lack of studies into human consumption and possible side affects of consuming GM products.

[Human No More]

GM food is brilliant. It helps support a larger population without destroying as much land. I support population control, but efforts to reduce the amount of environmental damage caused by a large population are great efforts too.

All this fear is born out of ignorance by unintelligent people.

As for the link - they committed a crime, and I hope they get arrested and sentenced.

Tsyal Makto, that site is so full of misinformation and outright ignorance that I don't even know where to start. There are multiple blatant lies on the front page alone.

It comes down to this:
1. Reduce human population by ~3 billion
2. Increase food production on existing land
3. Destroy large areas of ecologically sensitive land for food production.


Which would you choose?

[Pa'li Makto]

Well, who knows what will happen to the activists..
You certainly show your strong opinion on this matter, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
No opinion is right or wrong though, if people don't support GM food production then that's up to them. Don't label them as being ignorant.
Anyway..
How would you plan to reduce human population exactly?

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Tsyal Makto, that site is so full of misinformation and outright ignorance that I don't even know where to start. There are multiple blatant lies on the front page alone.

It comes down to this:
1. Reduce human population by ~3 billion
2. Increase food production on existing land
3. Destroy large areas of ecologically sensitive land for food production.


Which would you choose?

And you can do that with organics...

If that sites not enough...

Maybe something from the Guardian (the Ecologist)?
Report shows organic better than GM - The Ecologist

Reuters?
Organic farming yields as good or better: study | Reuters

Sci Daily?
Organic Farming Can Feed The World, Study Suggests

Or the smoking gun...

...the farmers themselves?
Iowa organic farmer says non-GMO corn outperforms GMO

On a different note, though didn't you also think the world was overpopulated?

[Human No More]

...did you even read my post? I specifically said the world IS overpopulated, but there is no effective way to reduce that population in time to have a positive effect.

Also, nice cherry-picking of words there.

Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming in developing countries, and holds its own against standard methods in rich countries

Did you really think I would only read the page titles?
Also - your first link does not mention yield at all, it said that it is more profitable, which is obvious, primarily with the massive price inflation of organic food to compensate for lower yield - that is why it is produced in many cases, because they can get more money for the same yield.

All of your comparisons are to conventional methods, not GM crops, and the study was based on undeveloped countries and methods. I am starting to get the impression you didn't read your own links.

I can't comment on a single anecdote - but it is something worth investigating to see if it holds. On the other hand, by your logic, you would believe 'this door was locked so all doors in the world are locked' (fallacy of division).

A more comprehensive study compared efficiency of agriculture for products such as grain, roughage crops, and animal husbandry. While the study did not investigate specific additional requirements of arable land or numbers of farm laborers to produce total yields for organic farming vs. conventional farming, leaving open the question of overall capacity of organic farming to meet current and future agricultural needs, it concluded that organic farming had a higher yield per unit of energy over multiple crops and for livestock. However, conventional farming had higher total yield.
-Dalgaard et al. (2001). "A model for fossil energy use in Danish agriculture used to compare organic and conventional farming". Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 87: 51=65.

[Tsyal Makto]

Well, most GM is being primarily marketed to developing countries (or at least, uses them as poster children), so most studies would focus on them.*

And no, the price is not artificially inflated to compensate for lower yields, it is still a matter of supply and demand, and the scarcity of organic crops in the market. Even though organic yields are higher than conventional and GM (in many cases which are lower than conventional, and if not lower, than at the very least inconsistent in yields), they are still vastly outnumbered in the marketplace. With demand for organics rising, and with few organic farms available to supply for this demand (because many farms are not willing to convert over, because many lies about organics are still so pervasive), the price will be driven up. As more farms see the light, prices will go down.

And of course I read the links I post, how dare you insult me like that. I already gave you a site that focused on GM with my initial link which you batted away as lies, so maybe I thought I'd give you some that also focus on organic vs conventional farming as well. (Which the first link already focuses on, too, but since you said it was a lie, no use there...). It's also a closer comparison, because, as I already stated, GM yields can be even lower or more erratic than conventional farming (see bottom of this post, as well).

Now, if you want one that specifically tackles GM, read this study from the UN FAO.

GM crops not needed to feed the world

And where did you get that last quote from? Because according to this study:

In trials conducted by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries, researchers found that organically grown wheat had a yield of 3.23 tonnes per hectare while conventional wheat had only 2.22 tonnes.

Genetically modified crops - Organic Yields Are Better Than Conventional, Including GM Crops

Now, tons/hectare seems like the definitive measurement, and organic farming wins out in all cases. It is even more resilient in droughts, too, against "drought resistant" GM crops.

Organic Practices Beat Out Genetic Engineering in Drought Tolerance | Change.org News

[Raiden]

Originally Posted by iron_jones

I'm all for it if it's safe to eat.

Crazy extremists. Don't they know whipper-snappers run on gasoline and emit CO2 into the air?

No.

Emitting a little bit of CO2 is fine, and most weedeaters today run on electricity anyways.

GMOs are very bad for the environment, and Australia has enough issues as it is with things like Cane Toads running around and eating everything in sight.

Genetically Modified Organisms are extremely hazardous, as they can pass along the genes that they have that infer pesticide/herbicide resistance, self-synthesized insecticides, and much more that we are only finding out about in recent times.

Monsanto, the company responsible for most of these agricultural nightmares, makes these plants without any regard to their effects on the people who grow natural produce or the environment.

GMOs are a good way to produce more food with lower losses, but the risks are really too much to consider the benefits; some more recent research has even shown that the proteins and other products that are produced by the artificially introduced genes can cause disorders in people and animals.

[Banefull]

Not to long ago, I had to write a big research report on GMOs. I wasn't sure of what to think about the topic at first but after a lot of research, I have to say that most of the negative claims about GMOs themselves are unfounded and completely baseless.

Some things to address:

I often hear people expressing worries over a lack of testing on the effects on consuming genetically modified plants. The thing is, very little testing is needed. Scientists do not create the genes, they use genes from existing organisms. If researchers take a gene that codes for a protein already known to be non-poisonous and transfer it into another plant, why do they need to test the same exact protein in the new plant again to determine whether its somehow spontaneously poisonous? Its a bit ridiculous as the proteins are the exact same even though they are in different plants.

Regardless though, they are some of the most heavily regulated products on the market. The way GMOs are treated compared to other methods is extremely inconsistent. Artificial selection by farmers replanting their best crops does the exact same thing but using a slightly different method yet absolutely zero regulation goes into that. What makes insect resistance by those means any safer, better, or different than laboratory methods?

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Well, most GM is being primarily marketed to developing countries (or at least, uses them as poster children)

Not necessarily true. Most are grown in industrialized countries.

Originally Posted by Raiden

some more recent research has even shown that the proteins and other products that are produced by the artificially introduced genes can cause disorders in people and animals.

I demand then that you link said research. To my knowledge, there have been no deaths, illnesses, or disorders ever attributed to GMOs.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Raiden

Emitting a little bit of CO2 is fine, and most weedeaters today run on electricity anyways.

Because electricity comes from magic fairies in the wall...

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Banefull

I often hear people expressing worries over a lack of testing on the effects on consuming genetically modified plants. The thing is, very little testing is needed. Scientists do not create the genes, they use genes from existing organisms. If researchers take a gene that codes for a protein already known to be non-poisonous and transfer it into another plant, why do they need to test the same exact protein in the new plant again to determine whether its somehow spontaneously poisonous? Its a bit ridiculous as the proteins are the exact same even though they are in different plants.

But when that gene works in conjunction with the other genes in the plant, they can lead to adverse effects, especially when they cross-polinate with wild plants. Superweeds, anyone?

GM crops created superweed, say scientists | Environment | The Guardian
‘Superweed’ explosion threatens Monsanto heartlands - FRANCE 24

Regardless though, they are some of the most heavily regulated products on the market. The way GMOs are treated compared to other methods is extremely inconsistent. Artificial selection by farmers replanting their best crops does the exact same thing but using a slightly different method yet absolutely zero regulation goes into that. What makes insect resistance by those means any safer, better, or different than laboratory methods?

The old "substantial equivalence" argument...

No, they are not the same. TBH I don't know why people do not see that. When the best of an organic crop is selected to be replanted, it is using genes that are native to the plant, not adding genes that are foreign to the plant. Selective plantation is simply accelerated evolution, GMO crops create whole new branches of evolution by introducing new traits into the plant strain. How are they in any way the same?

Not necessarily true. Most are grown in industrialized countries.

Of total yields, yes, but of countries using them at all, it is mostly in the developing world. The US is really the only 1st world industrialized country to really embrace GMO crops with open arms, which is why I think Monsanto and co are targeting developing countries. IIRC they are banned in Europe. And TBH it hasn't really worked out well for us, either. Monsanto pretty much monopolized GMO crop production here in the US, and...well, for lack of a better term, they are thugs. They lobbied for the banning of GMO labelling, they falsify scientific studies, and they strong-arm farmers into following their strict rules. Europe made the right move, IMO.

‪FOOD, INC. - (Full)‬‏ - YouTube

This is FOOD, INC. Monsanto and GM are addressed about an hour in.

[Raiden]

Originally Posted by Isard

Because electricity comes from magic fairies in the wall...

How creative. Still though, I'm disappointed. I expected magic ponies, considering your...eccentric tastes.

No, electricty has to come from somewhere too.

However, I was not arguing that electricty was much better. Even if it is being generated by a source that makes more CO2, it's servicing more people, and can be stored in batteries, making it a slightly better choice than gas, for a weedeater.