The world according to Monsanto

[jverne]

extremely interesting documentary. worth watching!
i haven't gone trough the whole thing because it's very long (100 min), but from what i've seen it seems to me to be very informative and not alarmist at all. a lot of very influential people were interviewed, the result is surprising.

http://www.twilightearth.com/2009/05/the-world-according-to-monsanto-full-documentary/


part 3 to 5 are the most juicy ones...they basically nail all those people who thought there were strict regulations for GM foods. in reality there was a insane amount of lobbying, bribery, lawsuits and evidence hiding. the usual stuff corporations do with their vast amount of money and power.
that lead me to believe that the FDA is a joke.

before you get your panties in a knot...i'm not against GM food from a scientific POV, even tough i believe our current agricultural technology produces enough food for our needs. so much in fact that we throw a lot of it away (but that's for another thread if you don't mind). this docu is more of a testament of the bad influence big monopolies, cartels and so forth have on the world.



edit: -interesting fact...one of the leading independent researchers of GM foods was fired and his research discontinued after publishing that GM potato had adverse effect on mice.
-the roundup soybean was approved safe, based on the data that Monsanto gave the FDA. later the narrator reveals that Monsanto has falsified scientific data of other chemicals it "produces" (dioxin).
-and many more...i'm telling you, really interesting information.

 

[dfc05]

I didn't get a chance to watch that, but it sounds interesting.

But I think the worst company I can think of is Exxon, for...
(1) never fully paying back the amount they were supposed to for the Exxon Valdez incident (it was like a fraction of their yearly profits, but they're still fighting over it while also making interest on what they owed

(2) funding "scientists" to create doubt about the existence of global warming, even when their own internal research led them to conclude that climate change does exist (in essence, spreading lies, not due to ignorance). There's one particularly bad advertisement they used to air where they would show shots of a bunch of green plants and the voiceover said something like "Carbon dioxide... it helps plants grow... carbon dioxide is good for our planet."

I can think of lots of unethical companies... like places that continue recruiting students during hiring freezes. Very few companies actually care about employee safety beyond the financial liability incurred if someone gets hurt.

 

[jverne]

I didn't get a chance to watch that, but it sounds interesting.

But I think the worst company I can think of is Exxon, for...
(1) never fully paying back the amount they were supposed to for the Exxon Valdez incident (it was like a fraction of their yearly profits, but they're still fighting over it while also making interest on what they owed

(2) funding "scientists" to create doubt about the existence of global warming, even when their own internal research led them to conclude that climate change does exist (in essence, spreading lies, not due to ignorance). There's one particularly bad advertisement they used to air where they would show shots of a bunch of green plants and the voiceover said something like "Carbon dioxide... it helps plants grow... carbon dioxide is good for our planet."

I can think of lots of unethical companies... like places that continue recruiting students during hiring freezes. Very few companies actually care about employee safety beyond the financial liability incurred if someone gets hurt.

you might be interested in this

http://chevrontoxico.com/




the moral of the story is...the richer and stronger a company is the less trust it deserves.
many will say that corporations are not evil...and i can't stress enough how correct that is. they are not one bit evil, they just don't give a **** about anyone until it affects revenue.


edit: according to sources form the docu, Monsanto controls the vast majority of cotton seeds in India, therefore non BT cotton is hard to come by. if this is true (which IMO is...since Monsanto owns the largest Indian seed company), then they are pretty screwed.

 

[CptStern]

look up Ready Roundup and terminator seeds, I'm sure it's mentioned in the video (cant watch)

Terminator technology ... is designed to genetically switch off a plant's ability to germinate a second time.

...forcing farmers to buy a fresh supply of seeds each year -- many of whom are in the developing world and cannot afford to do this.

The traditional practice (tried and tested for thousands of years) of saving seeds for the next harvest comes under threat due to a US patent on this technology to prevent "unauthorized seed-saving" by farmers.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/194/terminator-technology

 

[Warped]

Saw this about a year ago and it was really compelling. I wonder if the whole GM thing is a regional thing so they can find out what effects people in certain areas of the world. Lets say, Group A is the West Coast of USA, and they see a 5% increase in hair loss, while Group B or Eastern Coast of the USA sees a 7% increase in the development of Cancer.


http://survivalistseeds.com/
check out this website too if you want learn how to get the best seeds before they go away

 

[Viperidae]

Saw some of it. Seemed decent. My only complaint is that the host/interviewer is constantly googling everything on a Mac, which really distracted me from everything else. I started checking her computer habits. She peck types. Noob.

 

[dfc05]

look up Ready Roundup and terminator seeds, I'm sure it's mentioned in the video (cant watch)






http://www.globalissues.org/article/194/terminator-technology

Whoa, that's pretty bad. I heard of them doing that for U.S. produce which is why planting seeds out of veggies you buy at the grocery store don't work... but had no idea they were selling that in developing countries.

The Chevron thing is really awful too. Just happened to see that both here and on one of my friend's facebook posts. I actually applied for an internship once in their "environmental" department (mostly air permitting stuff) but am now glad I didn't get it. One of their interview questions was literally, "Why are you applying for an environmental job at an oil company?" I also had an interview with an enviro consulting company where one of their questions implied that if you were too environmentally-minded, they wouldn't hire you since they have to play friends with the chemical companies they consult for. Shady ethics.

 

[Warped]

we need to plant some spies into those companies and just disrupt production. they're just doing it all wrong. what if they put a seed out there that destroys our ability to produce food for the world

 

[jverne]

i know of terminator crops. if that isn't bad enough. the docu mentions corn contamination in mexico and spread of new plant diseases.

allowing such a dodgy company to run amok with one of the most revolutionizing technologies ever invented is unsafe at best and deadly at worst.

 

[CptStern]

here's a good example of cross contimination:

In 1997, Monsanto's genetically modified â??Roundup Ready Canolaâ? plants were found in Percy Schmeiser's field. In spring 1998, before Schmeiser planted his 1998 crop, he was informed that Monsanto believed that he had grown Roundup Ready canola in 1997. In the summer of 1998 the canola in Schmeiser's fields was found to be Roundup Ready canola. After this, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement.

basically the farmer's field was next to a Mosanto farm that grew RoundUp ready ..plants from the mosanto field cross contiminated the farmer's field. Mosanto sued the farmer for patent infringement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser

 

[jverne]

here's a good example of cross contimination:




basically the farmer's field was next to a Mosanto farm that grew RoundUp ready ..plants from the mosanto field cross contiminated the farmer's field. Mosanto sued the farmer for patent infringement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser

yup...i saw that in another docu i posted some time ago. but for that case monsanto i believe accused the farmer of knowingly allowing patented soybeans (i think it was soy) to grow...which begs the question, how the hell do you even get rid of the contaminated crop without destroying the whole harvest.



why so reserved today, stern...posting only cold facts, not in a mood for any comments? bad day at work?

 

[CptStern]

I'm cold fact posting guy ..also I havent seen the video so cant comment on it

 

[VirusType2]

This is one of the most horrifying things I've ever heard: Terminator seeds.

GTFO my Earth


I am ready to take action to disrupt or end this kind of thing, please instruct me.

 

[CptStern]

it's been around for 20 odd years. where've you been?


also:

In Iraq, Paul Bremer's Order 81 covers patents, their duration, and stated: "Farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of protected varieties or any (designated) variety." It gave Ag giants absolute control over farmers' seed usage for 20 years. They're now GMO, owned by the transnationals, and Iraqi farmers had to sign an agreement to pay a "technology fee" as well as an annual license fee. Plant Variety Protection (PVP) made seed saving and reuse illegal, and even "similar" seed plantings can result in severe fines and imprisonment. Agribusiness wants the same rights everywhere, including in America. If they get it, the future of organic and independent farming will be threatened.

weapons of mass destruction are not the only weapons in the US' arsenal. those put into law are usually far longer lasting than bomb craters

this was instated by your government and is part of this recent bill:

HR 814: "Trace Act of 2009." Introduced on February 3 and referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It's: "To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act to improve the safety of food, meat, and poultry products through enhanced traceability, and for other purposes."

more:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13025

 

[jverne]

it's been around for 20 odd years. where've you been?


also:



weapons of mass destruction are not the only weapons in the US' arsenal. those put into law are usually far longer lasting than bomb craters

this was instated by your government and is part of this recent bill:



more:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13025

wow, that i didn't know...what they are doing is despicable.

and you're right...throwing bombs at somebody has become old fashion, now companies can just buy off some country's resources and the people are screwed. (loosely speaking)

 

[Eejit]

Another 100% biased alarmist documentary, mixing lies, deception, half truths and aggressive editing of the few neutrals they interview with a few real facts for the biggest possible scare.

 

[jverne]

Another 100% biased alarmist documentary, mixing lies, deception, half truths and aggressive editing of the few neutrals they interview with a few real facts for the biggest possible scare.

how about you go **** yourself for once? every time facts are not one your side you just dismiss it with no counter evidence. seriously man...that's very low of you. the video had many "respectable" people and other sources of information, sure it might not be perfect, but it's way better that what you have to offer.

seriously man if there's one thing that pisses me off about you is this. until you present some proper rebuttal just GTFO.




from the link stern posted:

From 1996 - 2004, worldwide GMO plantings expanded to 167 million acres, a 40-fold increase on 25% of global arable land. Over two-thirds of US farmland grows GMOs, more than 106 million acres. Argentina has 34 million acres, and production is expanding in Brazil, China, Canada, South Africa, Indonesia, Spain, Eastern Europe, and wherever else Ag giants have clout. They want it all, everywhere, and have complicit government allies to help them, here and abroad.

Worldwatch Institute released figures for 2007 GMO crop production worldwide. The total worldwide acreage of GMO planted crops increased by 12 percent to a total of 282 million acres or nine percent of the total worldwide land used to grow crops.
The United States was on top of all countries with half of the total or 142.5 million acres in GMO production which was a six percent increase from the previous year.
In the United States, GMO crop production actually increased pesticide use by more than 4 percent between 1996 and 2004, despite early signs that GM use might be tied to an overall decline. Reports of glyphosate-resistant weeds, or “super weeds,” have been on the rise since GMO crops started gaining momentum, and these weeds now total 15 species—up from 2 species in the 1990s.

http://www.growingedge.com/worldwide-gmo-summary-or-round-up-no-pun-intended

Monsanto exemplifies the growing influence of GM agribusinesses and seed companies: its GM crop traits are found in more than 85 percent of global GM crop hectares, and the company controls 23 percent of the global proprietary seed market.34 Monsanto has been a leading proponent of prohibiting farmers from saving seeds to plant as future crops, increasing the dependence of farmers on seed companies.35 The company has collected tens of millions of dollars from farmers charged with illegally saving GM seed, even in cases where accidental contamination was the likely culprit.36

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5950

 

[Eejit]

What I have to give evidence of such blatent bias?

When did they interview anyone pro-GM other than one farmer, whom they asked no questions of significance? Where were the interviews with the pro-biotech scientists (the majority)? Where was the coverage of the studies demonstrating the safety of GM. Oh yes, they chose one flawed example from the multitude. golfclap.

 

[jverne]

What I have to give evidence of such blatent bias?

When did they interview anyone pro-GM other than one farmer, whom they asked no questions of significance? Where were the interviews with the pro-biotech scientists (the majority)? Where was the coverage of the studies demonstrating the safety of GM. Oh yes, they chose one flawed example from the multitude. golfclap.

using your standards...obviously that farmer was biased.

maybe because alot of scientists are on monsantos payroll? so if a peer reviewed article is published that shows correlation (possibly even causation) between mice and GM potato, but he is then fired and research nullified, means nothing?
what about classified Monsanto research going public showing their dirty practices?
what about Monsanto employees getting key places in the FDA and vice versa?
what about personal testimony of bribery from Monsanto?
as for studies of GM safety...yeah the docu shows how the FDA handled that.
and what about the substantial equivalence charade?

that all means nothing right?



edit: actually, i never said the docu talks specifically about bad effects of GMOs but more about monsanto. and it raises important issues and gives compelling info. so you're partially wrong about it being anti-GMO biased.

 

[Eejit]

using your standards...obviously that farmer was biased.

Er, by my standards you need people with a bias towards each side of the controversy for a balanced documentary.

maybe because alot of scientists are on monsantos payroll? so if a peer reviewed article is published that shows correlation (possibly even causation) between mice and GM potato, but he is then fired and research nullified, means nothing?

Uh outside of the US systems academics are nowhere near as influenced by corporations. No other studies trying to replicated the GM potato study have found those results. Possibly something was wrong with the transgene insertion they used, causing the potatoes to react as it would to virus infection which includes a lot of the same chemicals used in mammals' immune systems etc - such as Salicilic acid - aspirin.

what about classified Monsanto research going public showing their dirty practices?

About Agent Orange? No shit, a chemical used exlusively in warfare had harmful side-effects.

what about Monsanto employees getting key places in the FDA and vice versa?

Happens with corporations in every industry in the US, doesn't affect the scientific consensus on the safety of biotechnology.

what about personal testimony of bribery from Monsanto?
as for studies of GM safety...yeah the docu shows how the FDA handled that.

lol it said that "the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding and lead to different risks" - they both lead to risks. Are you going to do away with conventional plant breeding? Genetic engineering is far more controlled, conventional breeding relies on entirely random processes.

and what about the substantial equivalence charade?

Substantial equivalence is not a charade. Good job being taken in, try learning from unbiased sources for a change.


I'm not defending Monsanto from everything, like all big, old companies they have some dirty laundry. It's the useage of irrelevant material, smoke and mirrors to turn people against GM that I object to in this pathetic excuse for a documentary.
Half the program is the equivalent of saying, "Hey, Hugo Boss used to make uniforms for the SS, I guess we should avoid anything they make now, right? And also any materials they use."

And it is very, very anti-GMO. They're attacking the technology by attacking the main adopter of it. How can you not see this?
I guess you're not as perceptive as I assumed.

 

[VirusType2]

Can you guys dumb this down for me, I don't have time to research dozens of documents right now.

Break it down, are they essentially:


-Tampering with plant DNA to make them a one harvest only?

-Making these custom seeds the only legal seeds to use?

-Creating new or stronger weeds to ...destroy crops/competitors?

-Trying to remove the existence of crops that normally germinate annually?

-Fining and imprisoning anyone who saves and re-uses seeds?


HUGE WTF


This is something out of a bad science fiction novel. Tell me it isn't so. Please correct any mistake I made.

 

[Eejit]

Can you guys dumb this down for me, I don't have time to research dozens of documents right now.

Break it down, are they essentially:


-Tampering with plant DNA to make them an annual harvest only?

The 'Green' lobbyists want GM crops not to 'contaminate' """"natural"""" crops laugh. Of course, you can't please them, if you make it so GM crops dont reproduce then they get angry about that too.
Also the terminator technology is only being researched still, it hasn't been used in any commercial GM crop yet, and may never be.

-Making these custom seeds the only legal seeds to use?

Nope, not at all. The anti-GM lobbyists will imply this though. I see they managed to get you to assume what they wanted.

-Creating new or stronger weeds to ...destroy crops/competitors?

No. When they use terms like "superweeds" the anti-GM guys try to create that impression but it simply means weeds eventually develop resistance to Roundup, same as they do to any other herbicide. This is solved by spraying with a different herbicide very rarely, like once or twice a year, in addition to regular Roundup sprays in this case.

-Trying to remove the existence of crops that normally germinate annually?

Nope, nothing like that. It's simply theft-protection for their designer crops. Other crops will be unaffected if the technology is developed carefully.

-Fining and imprisoning anyone who saves and re-uses seeds?

Fining, sure. If someone reuses the seeds they get from GM crops they're basically stealing the work of the developing company. It's like if you rented a DVD then ripped and burned copies for yourself to use from then on, except potentially far more economically damaging.

 

[jverne]

Er, by my standards you need people with a bias towards each side of the controversy for a balanced documentary.

Uh outside of the US systems academics are nowhere near as influenced by corporations. No other studies trying to replicated the GM potato study have found those results. Possibly something was wrong with the transgene insertion they used, causing the potatoes to react as it would to virus infection which includes a lot of the same chemicals used in mammals' immune systems etc - such as Salicilic acid - aspirin.

so the current technology is flawed? i'm not really arguing about the technology...but application of this technology. either way...something is wrong and has to be fixed, not cover it up and silence everybody.

About Agent Orange? No shit, a chemical used exlusively in warfare had harmful side-effects.

yeah, but they didn't have to lie about it.

Happens with corporations in every industry in the US, doesn't affect the scientific consensus on the safety of biotechnology.

that's what's really wrong and it does present a safety risk if a (improper) product is rushed in the market trough shoddy regulation due to lobbying.

lol it said that "the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding and lead to different risks" - they both lead to risks. Are you going to do away with conventional plant breeding? Genetic engineering is far more controlled, conventional breeding relies on entirely random processes.

yeah...but you forgot about the two million offer from Monsanto.

Substantial equivalence is not a charade. Good job being taken in, try learning from unbiased sources for a change.

depends on how do you interpret, it can support both sides.

I'm not defending Monsanto from everything, like all big, old companies they have some dirty laundry. It's the useage of irrelevant material, smoke and mirrors to turn people against GM that I object to in this pathetic excuse for a documentary.
Half the program is the equivalent of saying, "Hey, Hugo Boss used to make uniforms for the SS, I guess we should avoid anything they make now, right? And also any materials they use."

And it is very, very anti-GMO. They're attacking the technology by attacking the main adopter of it. How can you not see this?
I guess you're not as perceptive as I assumed.

what if they still haven't cleaned up their act? doesn't seem so to me.

i said at the very beginning that i'm not against GMOs, but monsanto (aka. corporations). actually there's not that many critics on GMOs in this docu, but mainly about the company. i mostly focused on their business practices and related info.
but if attacking Monsanto is the same as attacking GMOs to you...well, i can't help you with that.

 

[Eejit]

so the current technology is flawed? i'm not really arguing about the technology...but application of this technology. either way...something is wrong and has to be fixed, not cover it up and silence everybody.

No, I didn't say that. I said how they did their experiment may have been flawed, considering that nobody has been able to replicate the results.

yeah, but they didn't have to lie about it.

Heh, it was the US department of defense who'd have to pay up, maybe they did [/kathaksung]

that's what's really wrong and it does present a safety risk if a (improper) product is rushed in the market trough shoddy regulation due to lobbying.

See the most misleading thing in the video is them implying that because it doesn't undergo additional testing over new conventionally bred varieties that it doesn't undergo safety testing at all. New varieties of conventionally bred crops have to pass quite a bit of safety testing too, it's fairly stringent in most countries.

yeah...but you forgot about the two million offer from Monsanto

what if they still haven't cleaned up their act? doesn't seem so to me.

So you're eating up the makers' implication that because they have done bad in the past then everything they're doing now is evil.

depends on how do you interpret, it can support both sides.

Only one side of which was touched upon in the video. See what I mean about it being biased to the core?

i said at the very beginning that i'm not against GMOs, but monsanto (aka. corporations). actually there's not that many critics on GMOs in this docu, but mainly about the company. i mostly focused on their business practices and related info.
but if attacking Monsanto is the same as attacking GMOs to you...well, i can't help you with that.

You may not be anti-GM, the makers of the video and the majority of the people they interviewed clearly are. They would go 5-10 minutes at a time without even mentioning Monsanto in places and in other places were clearly using it as substitute for saying "GM".
They're attacking Monsanto in order to attack GMOs, because it's a big fat easy 'evil corporation' target.

 

[jverne]

No, I didn't say that. I said how they did their experiment may have been flawed, considering that nobody has been able to replicate the results.

considering that the guys research was dismantled...hmm...it's open to debate, but i have a bad feeling.

See the most misleading thing in the video is them implying that because it doesn't undergo additional testing over new conventionally bred varieties that it doesn't undergo safety testing at all. New varieties of conventionally bred crops have to pass quite a bit of safety testing too, it's fairly stringent in most countries.

maybe because GM foods have more drastic changes that would probably never happen without this technology.
hmm...GMOs in Europe are still banned...hmm

So you're eating up the makers' implication that because they have done bad in the past then everything they're doing now is evil.

well that's subjective...i personally wouldn't like to deal with them knowing how they handled things. and why would they do anything different now if nobody is there to regulate them...i strongly believe that if we give them free reign they'd be back doing the same thing all over again. IMO where money rules, ethics have very little space.

Only one side of which was touched upon in the video. See what I mean about it being biased to the core?

yeah...if that would be your only source...but i checked wiki after hearing about it.

You may not be anti-GM, the makers of the video and the majority of the people they interviewed clearly are. They would go 5-10 minutes at a time without even mentioning Monsanto in places and in other places were clearly using it as substitute for saying "GM".

it doesn't change the fact that a substantial number (as far as i'm concerned) of issues presented have real weight.

 

[Eejit]

maybe because GM foods have more drastic changes that would probably never happen without this technology.
hmm...GMOs in Europe are still banned...hmm

Changes that would never happen without this technology? Sometimes. More drastic? Not necessarily... Do you have any what our crops used to be like before we began cultivation?

Banned for now, it can't last much longer. India and China are adopting GMO, the US already has. The EU is voting on proposals this summer to ban a whole bunch more agrochemicals, the only alternative to keep current yields will be GM.

 

[Warped]

Capitalism can be a bitch, greed is rampant, people are evil

 

[jverne]

Changes that would never happen without this technology? Sometimes. More drastic? Not necessarily... Do you have any what our crops used to be like before we began cultivation?

yeah i know, but that type of breeding was "perfected" over a longer period (more simmilar to nature) and it didn't combine such "alien" DNA together. i'm not a geneticist but my informed guess is that there is very little or no chance of such a complex mix up to happen without our help. but you're free to prove me wrong.

Banned for now, it can't last much longer. India and China are adopting GMO, the US already has. The EU is voting on proposals this summer to ban a whole bunch more agrochemicals, the only alternative to keep current yields will be GM.

hmm...maybe so.


off the record: IMO our current yields are more than enough for our needs. gaining higher yields just for the sake of gaining more and throw that away is silly.
farmers won't grow less if they are given a more yielding crop....which will lead into the never ending consumerist spiral.
population of western societies is more or less stable. but overpopulation is still an issue.
i think famine is consequence of our irresponsible management policies rather than poor technology. GMOs will just add fuel to the fire (i'm speaking in very broad terms, do no take it too literally)

 

[VirusType2]

Nope, nothing like that. It's simply theft-protection for their designer crops. Other crops will be unaffected if the technology is developed carefully.

I see. Thanks.

So if I understand correctly, they are creating crops that will give better yields. However, it cost them a fortune for all the testing and research, so they plan to make a fortune by offering these higher yield crops with seeds that need to be replenished every harvest.

I was very alarmed by some of the stuff posted in this thread, but this finally makes sense to me, and puts me at ease for the moment.

 

[jverne]

I see. Thanks.

So if I understand correctly, they are creating crops that will give better yields. However, it cost them a fortune for all the testing and research, so they plan to make a fortune by offering these higher yield crops with seeds that need to be replenished every harvest.

I was very alarmed by some of the stuff posted in this thread, but this finally makes sense to me, and puts me at ease for the moment.

lol, you silly boy :|

 

[VirusType2]

http://wallpapers.free-review.net/wallpapers/42/Rapeseed_field.jpg

 

[Eejit]

yeah i know, but that type of breeding was "perfected" over a longer period (more simmilar to nature) and it didn't combine such "alien" DNA together. i'm not a geneticist but my informed guess is that there is very little or no chance of such a complex mix up to happen without our help. but you're free to prove me wrong.

Even ignoring the accidental cross-breeding of different diploid grass species over the centuries to for the hexaploid wheat we use today there is still a good bit of horizontal gene transfer, particularly in Maize, due to the abundance of transposons.
These are the 'natural' versions of the techniques biotechnology uses, and by natural I mean completely random and uncontrolled.

off the record: IMO our current yields are more than enough for our needs. gaining higher yields just for the sake of gaining more and throw that away is silly.
farmers won't grow less if they are given a more yielding crop....which will lead into the never ending consumerist spiral.
population of western societies is more or less stable. but overpopulation is still an issue.
i think famine is consequence of our irresponsible management policies rather than poor technology. GMOs will just add fuel to the fire (i'm speaking in very broad terms, do no take it too literally)

When you say "our" you mean the West, right?
There isn't enough food produced to feed the entire world in any real sense. Possibly, just about, in terms of pure calories, but you need more than that to keep you alive.
Marasmus and kwashiorkor have nothing to do with lack of calories....
That's just protein deficiency, over a quarter of a million children go blind each year in third world countries due to vitamin A deficiency, and millions more die from increased susceptibility to disease.

Also current intensive farming practices used in the West cannot be scaled up to be used across the entire world, about 70% of the planet's fresh water supply already being used for irrigation.
We need higher yielding crops, crops with higher nutritional content like Golden Rice, we need crops resistant to drought, salt and frost so we can make use of marginal land, we need (more) crops with built-in resistance to pathogens and pests. Nature could in fact give us these... eventually. I don't think we should wait tens of thousands of years to solve these problems though.

Food supply will never be a sufficient control of population by itself. Subsistence families will continue to have more children than they can feed in order to beat the odds of infant mortality.
Personally I'd rather population was controlled by legislation rather than relying on millions of children dying each year.

I see. Thanks.

So if I understand correctly, they are creating crops that will give better yields. However, it cost them a fortune for all the testing and research, so they plan to make a fortune by offering these higher yield crops with seeds that need to be replenished every harvest.

I was very alarmed by some of the stuff posted in this thread, but this finally makes sense to me, and puts me at ease for the moment.

The main problem is that the current generation of GM crops aren't massive improvements. For example the insect-resistance crops like BT were rushed to the market. It would have been far better to continue development in order to 'pyramid' a series of different insecticidal proteins in the plant, thereby making the development of resistance almost impossible. There are already some BT-resistance strains of Cotton Bollworm appearing in the US. Very wasteful.

 

[nurizeko]

Man this copyright/IP/patent bullshit needs to be reigned in. What's next, someone going to patent ****ing oxygen and charge you for breathing it?.

 

[Eejit]

Yeah that's right, definitely not reductio ad absurdum.

If you don't want companies producing and patenting GM technologies encourage governments and NGOs to increase public funding for such projects. Good luck changing public opinion to support that in the face of the Organic lobby's scare tactics.

 

[jverne]

Even ignoring the accidental cross-breeding of different diploid grass species over the centuries to for the hexaploid wheat we use today there is still a good bit of horizontal gene transfer, particularly in Maize, due to the abundance of transposons.
These are the 'natural' versions of the techniques biotechnology uses, and by natural I mean completely random and uncontrolled.

fair enough...but some manipulations are still "unnatural"

Researchers at the University of Victoria inserted a modified frog gene into potato plants to make them produce the chemical

http://www.scidev.net/en/news/gm-potato-uses-frog-gene-to-resist-pathogens.html

When you say "our" you mean the West, right?
There isn't enough food produced to feed the entire world in any real sense. Possibly, just about, in terms of pure calories, but you need more than that to keep you alive.
Marasmus and kwashiorkor have nothing to do with lack of calories....
That's just protein deficiency, over a quarter of a million children go blind each year in third world countries due to vitamin A deficiency, and millions more die from increased susceptibility to disease.


Also current intensive farming practices used in the West cannot be scaled up to be used across the entire world, about 70% of the planet's fresh water supply already being used for irrigation.
We need higher yielding crops, crops with higher nutritional content like Golden Rice, we need crops resistant to drought, salt and frost so we can make use of marginal land, we need (more) crops with built-in resistance to pathogens and pests. Nature could in fact give us these... eventually. I don't think we should wait tens of thousands of years to solve these problems though.

Food supply will never be a sufficient control of population by itself. Subsistence families will continue to have more children than they can feed in order to beat the odds of infant mortality.
Personally I'd rather population was controlled by legislation rather than relying on millions of children dying each year.

yes..western world. i'm gonna play the devils advocate, but some regions shouldn't be populated at all (and for a good reason...where's the point of having a huge population in the middle of the desert?). deficit of vitamins and lack of calories go hand in had. most African countries have little or no agricultural policy or are being exploited by us or their own leaders...preventing the establishment of a stable society. IMO that is what's causing most of their (nutritional) problems.

our current intensive practices produce way more than we need (thus water is literally wasted in excess).
but from a scientific point of view it would be awesome to have a superfood. IMO there's a chance that these superfoods would only further perpetrate our current unhealthy practices.
population control one way or another...i really see no point in having 9 billion people by 2050.

here's a funny story...our professor for ground engineering (word??) said that one of his colleges had a contract in China to build a dam. His firm calculated that it would be cheaper to hire a million local workers than to bring in heavy machinery to do excavations and other types of heavy labor.
am i the only one noticing something very wrong with this?

 

[nurizeko]

Yeah that's right, definitely not reductio ad absurdum.

If you don't want companies producing and patenting GM technologies encourage governments and NGOs to increase public funding for such projects. Good luck changing public opinion to support that in the face of the Organic lobby's scare tactics.

Got no problem with GM (poor Eejit, by name and nature, so ready for an E-argument).

I got a problem with patents strangling farming practices that have fed the human race since the first weeds were domesticated.

 

[Eejit]

fair enough...but some manipulations are still "unnatural"
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/gm-potato-uses-frog-gene-to-resist-pathogens.html

Please, explain what is so good about "natural"? Why should random chance be held sacred while the products of human ingenuity are viewed with mistrust and suspicion?

yes..western world. i'm gonna play the devils advocate, but some regions shouldn't be populated at all (and for a good reason...where's the point of having a huge population in the middle of the desert?). deficit of vitamins and lack of calories go hand in had. most African countries have little or no agricultural policy or are being exploited by us or their own leaders...preventing the establishment of a stable society. IMO that is what's causing most of their (nutritional) problems.

So because the world as a whole produces more than enough food for the Western world while others die of malnutrition it doesn't matter because those who starve shouldn't be alive in the first place? They should just move to a first world country or die, right?

our current intensive practices produce way more than we need (thus water is literally wasted in excess).
but from a scientific point of view it would be awesome to have a superfood. IMO there's a chance that these superfoods would only further perpetrate our current unhealthy practices.
population control one way or another...i really see no point in having 9 billion people by 2050.

It's not just about feeding more people, it's about having higher yields per area, thereby reducing the amount of land needed for agriculture to feed any particular population.

here's a funny story...our professor for ground engineering (word??) said that one of his colleges had a contract in China to build a dam. His firm calculated that it would be cheaper to hire a million local workers than to bring in heavy machinery to do excavations and other types of heavy labor.
am i the only one noticing something very wrong with this?

Yeah, laborers in China must get paid absolutely shit wages.

Got no problem with GM (poor Eejit, by name and nature, so ready for an E-argument).

I got a problem with patents strangling farming practices that have fed the human race since the first weeds were domesticated.

I never even implied you had a problem with GM, and patents on GM crops actually have no effect on farming of non-GM crops.

Also not every debate is an argument.

Oh and that post is funny I thought I was ignored.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Nope, not at all. The anti-GM lobbyists will imply this though. I see they managed to get you to assume what they wanted.

Didn't Stern post on first page that this was happening specifically in Paul Bremer's direct-rule Iraq? Such a thing wouldn't surprise me, considering the way that administration was conducted.

As with so many things the issue is not perhaps that GM crops are fundamentally bad but is a question of what model of production and distribution we accept for them. In this case there is the danger of a market model that allows large corporations to be in control of the basics of the food chain. If transferred genes are patented, then buying up seed merchants would produce a very unpleasant monopoly with dire implications for food security in the developing world. Aren't a huge amount of the GM crops grown being grown for livestock?

A lot of decisions have already been made: back in 1999, way before the 'great GM debate' they attempted to stimulate in 2003, the UK's government allocated £13 million just to advertise biotechnology ("improve the profile of the biotech industry"). just how far they seem prepared to go. Meanwhile, Zambia and Malawi were told the year before that USAID would only be able to provide them with patented GM crops - despite plenty of available surplus. Of course, USAID is one of the few agencies that sends its own food rather than sending money to the world food programme (which buys locally). But according to the agency itself, “the principal beneficiary of America’s foreign assistance programs has always been the United States..." "Close to 80% of the USAID contracts and grants go directly to American firms." Monsato is a key benifactor/benificiary, and in 1999 they had already gone on a spree of buying out crop breeding and seed producing companies: Holden's Foundation, Calgene, Agracetus. I worry about the monopolisation of food itself by such interests. The company continually suggests that Africa's freedom from famine depends on its technology. Hrmmm.

I don't know if this is true, but I've heard it said that the world produces 50% more food than it needs. In the same way that the Irish famine was worsened by political and infrastructural problems, people don't just go hungry because there isn't enough food but because the machinery for the distribution and allocation of resources doesn't work in the interest of the hungry (or poor). Blah blah blah blah blah etc. To a large extent the benefits or drawbacks of GM technologies should be seen in terms of its application to that machinery. Isn't the biggest threat to future supplies the environmental destruction caused by large-scale agro-industry? And isn't that exactly the kind of farming facilitated by genetic engineering?

EDIT: The reason so much of this post is phrased as question is because I'm not very sure about things. Here's another question: are pesticide-resistant weeds really so little of a problem?

 

[Eejit]

The days where farmers can breed their own crop cultivars and have them be effective are gone. They can still do it, they just won't be anywhere near as good.

Plant breeding has been a business and a science for decades, it has been like this since before GMO crops began development, though arguably the additional cost of making these even-more improved varieties narrows the field of competition some more. The companies need to make a return on their investments. These are big investments we're talking about, it costs millions just to put forward a new cultivar for testing and certification, with no guarantees it will pass, and this in each country you want to sell it in. It's easy to see how this bureaucracy does discourage competition.

The West could do with adopting a model more like China's. They Chinese government has been investing heavily in crop development, resulting in government sponsored advances and actual competition compared to the near-monopolies of a few giant corporations we have here.
There should be greater government funding here and a lowering of costs associated with bringing a developed crop to market. It's not at all easy for a startup biotech company to even get a GM crop to the point of it being sellable, let alone competing with multinationals like Monsanto and others.

I believe several other asian countries are also investing heavily in crop biotech, such as Japan and India.

Stern's post quoted an article which was exaggerating a law which added protection for patented varieties. I didn't find anything in that Article 81 which prevented farmers from using seeds not patented. If worst comes to worst farmers can import Chinese seeds of non-GM varieties.


As I pointed out earlier, the world only produces more food from a calorific standpoint. Full nutrition for everyone is a long way off.

Pesticide-resistant weeds aren't necessarily big problem in general. If they grow resistance to one pesticide a farmer prefers to use he just has to spray with two other unrelated pesticides and the resistant weeds will be gone. They can become a problem if they aren't dealt with sensibly though.