08-06-2014, 06:43 PM
Pelelani
I have to agree with Ted. Unless you can provide a link, to a legitimate source, I call shenanigans on your statistics. You wrote; "The industry world wide in 2012 was $400 BILLION and next year, in 2015 is expected to be double, $800 Billion. ".
The most generous published estimated value I could find is below, most were much less, even half. It's 1-2% of total value of food and beverages, more than a rounding error but not by much.
"A new report, "Global Organic Foods & Beverages Market Analysis by Products, Geography, Regulations, Pricing Trends, & Forecasts (2010 – 2015)” forecasts an estimated compound annual growth of 12.8 percent for the global organic food and beverages market. This will result in a significant expansion of the market, which was estimated at $57.2 billion in 2010. By 2015, the global organic food and beverages market is expected to reach $104.50 billion. "
The reality is that organics remain a niche, favored by those who can afford it or who choose to make it a priority. Supporting any element of the economy, as you suggest Ms Pueo will, over any other is a recipe for waste and an avenue for abuse. 5 year plans don't work. FP is either naive or a true believer, neither quality of which we should wish upon ourselves in an elected official.
BTW, you write;
"The issue with many GMO food crops is the DNA actually used to modify the organism. Some of the DNA makes the food crop resistant to pests by creating its own toxin. And some are also modified to tolerate toxins used to kill the pests. What has been occurring is that mother nature has then mutated pests to be pesticide resistant necessitating the need for more or different pesticides. For food crops this is dangerous."
This paragraph is an amalgamation of a simplistic statement, inaccuracy, conflation, and illogic.
"The issue ...is the DNA actually used...". Why yes, that's what a GMO IS.
"...creating it's own toxin...". Um, no, the bT gene inserted is not a toxin to humans or animals, it's a bacteria that produces proteins when its in the gut of certain stages of insects that lead to a crystal that destroys the gut and kills the host. bT is certified for organic crops, as you probably well know. Roundup Ready crops have no toxin inserted either.
"...Mother nature has then mutated...". Um, mutations have been, and will continue, till the end of life for all living things. It's what life does.
"for food crops this is dangerous". Here's the conflict at it's essence, at the root. Economics. GMO are only cost effective if they allow the reduction of other inputs, be it labor, tillage, pesticides, fertilizer, whatever. Otherwise , no sense.
I find most anti-progress arguments to be thematically similar to the above; founded on feelings, developed in fear, expressed with fervor.
I have to agree with Ted. Unless you can provide a link, to a legitimate source, I call shenanigans on your statistics. You wrote; "The industry world wide in 2012 was $400 BILLION and next year, in 2015 is expected to be double, $800 Billion. ".
The most generous published estimated value I could find is below, most were much less, even half. It's 1-2% of total value of food and beverages, more than a rounding error but not by much.
"A new report, "Global Organic Foods & Beverages Market Analysis by Products, Geography, Regulations, Pricing Trends, & Forecasts (2010 – 2015)” forecasts an estimated compound annual growth of 12.8 percent for the global organic food and beverages market. This will result in a significant expansion of the market, which was estimated at $57.2 billion in 2010. By 2015, the global organic food and beverages market is expected to reach $104.50 billion. "
The reality is that organics remain a niche, favored by those who can afford it or who choose to make it a priority. Supporting any element of the economy, as you suggest Ms Pueo will, over any other is a recipe for waste and an avenue for abuse. 5 year plans don't work. FP is either naive or a true believer, neither quality of which we should wish upon ourselves in an elected official.
BTW, you write;
"The issue with many GMO food crops is the DNA actually used to modify the organism. Some of the DNA makes the food crop resistant to pests by creating its own toxin. And some are also modified to tolerate toxins used to kill the pests. What has been occurring is that mother nature has then mutated pests to be pesticide resistant necessitating the need for more or different pesticides. For food crops this is dangerous."
This paragraph is an amalgamation of a simplistic statement, inaccuracy, conflation, and illogic.
"The issue ...is the DNA actually used...". Why yes, that's what a GMO IS.
"...creating it's own toxin...". Um, no, the bT gene inserted is not a toxin to humans or animals, it's a bacteria that produces proteins when its in the gut of certain stages of insects that lead to a crystal that destroys the gut and kills the host. bT is certified for organic crops, as you probably well know. Roundup Ready crops have no toxin inserted either.
"...Mother nature has then mutated...". Um, mutations have been, and will continue, till the end of life for all living things. It's what life does.
"for food crops this is dangerous". Here's the conflict at it's essence, at the root. Economics. GMO are only cost effective if they allow the reduction of other inputs, be it labor, tillage, pesticides, fertilizer, whatever. Otherwise , no sense.
I find most anti-progress arguments to be thematically similar to the above; founded on feelings, developed in fear, expressed with fervor.