Posts: 2,481
Threads: 10
Joined: Feb 2008
Bullwinkle:
I agree with you on the mono-crop issue. Trading a less productive but highly diverse stock of food crops for a single crop, almost no matter how productive, has a huge downside that we won't see until it comes crashing down on us. On a related note it has been decades since I really benefited from either seat-belts or insurance. Could it be I wasted that money?
I consider that "solving" the worlds hunger problems through creation of ever more productive crops to be a double edged sword. It is what mankind has done for millenia although I don't think that it ever really kept pace with natural population growth until today. I am skeptical that science can continue to pull rabbits out of a hat indefinitely and on cue as they are needed. When that time comes we won't have the needed magic bullet AND we won't have the wide selection of old strains being widely cultivated, some of which have always been there in the past to save at least some of us.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
Wow Mark. Incredibly well thought out and impeccably written. Very impressed.
I agree with you.
I feel also that learning more about genetic modification is important. I support research and am not "anti GMO" I am "anti industrial mono-cropping" however.
Funny how quick you are labeled anti this or pro that. By people you've often times never met!
Posts: 307
Threads: 7
Joined: Feb 2011
quote:
Originally posted by rainyjim
As I prophesier the GMO Papaya patent will have ownership transferred to Monsanto in the near future.
Never going to happen. First, the papaya industry in Hawai'i is only worth $11 million a year. That's a speck in Monsanto's eye, not even worth a sneeze, but it's all the money in the world to the family farms which raise the fruit. Second, it was a tiny project, involving one Hawaiian born researcher at Cornell University and a part-time research assistant, working on a very small grant from the University of Hawai'i. And the seeds were initially distributed free by UH, so there's no big profit to glom onto. Third, it is managed by a non-profit industry council who are tasked with managing the viability of the program. Fourth, although this has nothing to do with pesticides or herbicides, a patented technology was used to create the PRV resistant UH SunUp, so small license fees were paid to Monsanto. However... Five... those patents are expiring soon, as patents do. And current UHSunUp growers can save seeds and legally grow them already. Around the world some farmers are already growing GMO soybeans without payments to Monsanto, because the patents have expired.
quote:
Call it paranoia if you will. It doesn't take too deep an understanding of business to realize a major corporation focused on patenting our food supply will eventually target our cherished U.H. Hilo developed and patented Papaya.
That's my point. It is just paranoia. It's not a real issue, although anti-GMO activists have whipped up a frenzy around it.
Keep this in mind... GMO does not equal Monsanto. There are literally thousands of transgenic research projects going on around the world which have nothing at all to do with Monsanto.
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
"As I prophesier the GMO Papaya patent will have ownership transferred to Monsanto in the near future."
A prediction without a timeline is not a prediction, because it can never be proved wrong.
Give a number. 1 month? 1 year? I can't wait.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
Hello. The information you are stating is public knowledge. Not only are most posting on this thread already aware of what you've posted, but also the same information is literally already present on this forum in multiple topics. I am well aware of the history of the rainbow papaya. I am also well aware there are other companies investing in transgenic research besides Monsanto. I am not and have in no way ever before asserted that GMO equals Monsanto. I consider myself pro-GMO regardless what others may label me. I, unlike (assumption) many others on this forum, actually have formal education in microbiology and gene modification. I have in fact created GMO protists myself (a type of bacteria). Nevertheless I am confused at why you aim your comments at me or associate my quotes with your following 'passages'.
Anyways, corporations are out to make a profit. Monsanto and no-doubt every corporation would monopolize all business if it could in fact do so. This is reality. This is capitalism. Labeling it paranoia or belittling the cause of activists voicing their opinions vs. those of a major corporation is something I find deeply disturbing.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
Paul do you really expect me to play with you anymore? You've been far too rude and condescending too many times. I'm sorry but we're through!
*changes the locks*
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
Now THAT was predictable.
Posts: 798
Threads: 38
Joined: May 2005
I was pretty much anti-GMO until I started taking the time to read about the actual science and get information from unbiased sources. This article is a good starting point. http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...fied-crops
My take now is that the issue of a few companies controlling so much of our food supply is a much bigger issue than that of GMOs and is not addressed by anti-GMO legislation. I think there are far more concerning food production issues in the world in terms of the impacts on health, the environment, and long term sustainability. I'm frustrated by the anti-science views of many of those against GMOs and their seeming inability to actually learn about the issues. GM is a technology, and like any new technology has the potential for good and bad outcomes. Because of that, banning the technology and criminalizing farmers seems like an uninformed and extreme measure. I'm also struck by the hypocrisy of those in the anti-GMO movement. 70% of GMO crops are soy and corn used for animal feed. Elimination of animal products from your diet essentially eliminates your contribution to the big GMO seed companies and eliminates potential (and so far unproven) threats to your health. Anyone who is anti-GMO and not vegan is essentially demanding something they choose to actively support to be banned, and very few are taking the personal responsibility to eliminate their personal contribution to these companies through their diet. As I have pointed out to an anti-GMO friend of mine, I could eat nothing but GMO corn and soy while he could maintain his current diet which includes GMO fed animal products while never consuming GMO food directly, and he would still be consuming and supporting GMO crops far more than I would be. He still eats his GMO fed meat, eggs, and dairy and claims to be anti-GMO.
I also find it pretty ridiculous all those claiming ill health effects from GMOs despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that there aren't any. Let's say new evidence revealed that GMO foods were all strong carcinogens. Well we know that about alcohol already and virtually everyone I know who is anti-GMO happily consumes this known carcinogen. Certainly from the health angle, the anti-GMO arguments really fall apart when you investigate them. There seems to be a huge amount of fear about GMOs and health while there is almost no concern about all the well understood damaging effects of many other foods and patterns of eating. I don't know why these folks don't personally address any of these things, as they have far more impact on health than eating GM foods. Another example is the issue of charred foods being carcinogenic. This is a much clearer issue than the unproven health risks of GMO foods. http://chemistry.about.com/b/2013/05/05/...nogens.htm If the concern is really about health, why aren't these people protesting in front of Burger King and demanding a ban on roasting marshmallows?
Posts: 116
Threads: 35
Joined: Oct 2008
i am against GMO's. but, i feel the issue, is information. whats the big deal with just labeling. people should be able to choose what they consume. if you are all good with GMO's, then fine, consume. If you are not, fine don't. But just an honest labeling on ingredients, fresh fruit, and products. WE are the consumers, yet we get so caught up on political and monetary games. honesty is the key. label what you sell.
let the consumers make their choice. stand by what you believe and follow through. I don't buy anything with red dye, blue dye, or any dye.
(i feel food should not be colored to enhance its appeal) but that is just me. So i read the labels. why shouldn't pro and anti or on the fence Gmo people get the same choice. what difference does it make to people unless its monetary to not label?
"Do what you wanna
Do what you will
Just don't mess up
Your neighbor's thrill
'N when you pay the bill
Kindly leave a little tip
And help the next poor sucker
On his one way trip... "
-Frank Zappa
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
We've been through this before. GM food is not harmful so why label for something that isn't harmful? Labels should be based on fact, not fear.
If a group decided that anything harvested on a Monday is the work of Satan then should that be put on the label too? There's not enough room!
This matter was put to the vote in California and the people wisely rejected labeling GM food.
I am yet to find anyone who both understands GM and is at the same time against it.
|
