• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corporate Scientists Attack Greenpeace over GMO opposition

RetiredUSN said:
Some of the Farmers have lost serious money on GMO crops, and some actually went under.
Click to expand...

Farmers have lost money on regular crops, and some have gone under.

Again, not a 'disaster'.

Farming is hard and inherently risky. GMOs help cut that risk by minimizing crop loss due to pests, and making it easy to control weeds and better manage soil with good conservation practices.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
countryboy said:
Why would farmers spend money to saturate crops with pesticides and herbicides two days before harvest?
Click to expand...

To keep pests and weeds from being incorporated into the harvest

Surprisingly, people pay more for food that doesn't include bugs and weeds
 
sangha said:
Wrong again

Your "reference" said that the us of GE crops has increased (a point I never contested) - not that they produce better yields
Click to expand...

Well...no. That was the title though, but just looking at the bullet points in the summary reveals:

"Findings suggest that Bt seeds have increased yields and reduced insecticide use, and herbicide tolerant seeds have enabled farmers to substitute less toxic herbicides in place of more toxic alternatives and facilitated the adoption of conservation tillage."

Here it is again.

USDA ERS - Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops by U.S. Farmers Has Increased Steadily for Over 15 Years
 
sangha said:
To keep pests and weeds from being incorporated into the harvest

Surprisingly, people pay more for food that doesn't include bugs and weeds
Click to expand...

Weeds and pests are going to take over a field in two days? On crops which have presumably been treated previously? The gullibility of some people is astonishing.
 
sangha said:
GE crops do not produce more food. None of the traits that have been engineered into these crops do anything to increase the amount of food (known as "inherent yield") they can produce

The argument that GE crops are needed to produce more food (particularly for starving populations) is nothing more than unscientific propoganda
Click to expand...

Genetically improved crops have been engineered to do all sorts of things. Some do better in arid regions others need less phosphates and others again have additional nutrients. And further improvements are under way.

But the reason I mentioned starvation in this context was the instance, where American donations sitting in vessels in the harbour to feed a starving population in Africa could not be given the starving, because the were genetically modified and the EU said they the country would in future no longer be allowed to export to the EU, if they were unloaded. I don't remember the exact details and numbers, but it doesn't really matter at this point.
 
Threegoofs said:
Farmers have lost money on regular crops, and some have gone under.

Again, not a 'disaster'.

Farming is hard and inherently risky. GMOs help cut that risk by minimizing crop loss due to pests, and making it easy to control weeds and better manage soil with good conservation practices.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Farmers lost money on GMO seed that didn't take by a few producers.............hence the loss. Insurance didn't cover it. Nothing to do with being inherently risky, but everything to do with bad seed.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Farmers lost money on GMO seed that didn't take by a few producers.............hence the loss. Insurance didn't cover it. Nothing to do with being inherently risky, but everything to do with bad seed.
Click to expand...

(Citation needed)
Seems like that would be remedied by the seller of defective seed.
 
sangha said:
None of those articles show any benefit for GE crops nor do they identify any plant that has genetically engineered itself
Click to expand...

The question wasn't about benefit entirely......was it?

And plants have altered DNA over time and I am not going to argue with you about it either. Do your own research.
 
FYI, my position on GMO is simply I want labeling. I want to know what products use it, and not force the non-GMO, organic, and other farmers to have to spend so much certifying their products.

I have no opinion that they are harmful, but I wish to err on the side of caution, and buy non-GMO. If they do have any negative health effects, we could be doing harm to our bodies that could possible not be reversed.

I find it silly that someone can argue that "they are perfectly safe."
 
Lord of Planar said:
FYI, my position on GMO is simply I want labeling. I want to know what products use it, and not force the non-GMO, organic, and other farmers to have to spend so much certifying their products.

I have no opinion that they are harmful, but I wish to err on the side of caution, and buy non-GMO. If they do have any negative health effects, we could be doing harm to our bodies that could possible not be reversed.

I find it silly that someone can argue that "they are perfectly safe."
Click to expand...

If it's made from corn or soy, it's GMO.

If it's labeled 'GMO free', it's probably not GMO.

Solved your problem.
 
Threegoofs said:
If it's made from corn or soy, it's GMO.

If it's labeled 'GMO free', it's probably not GMO.

Solved your problem.
Click to expand...

LOL...

You think you know everything.

LOL...

I can get non GMO corn here in Oregon. My point is that it shouldn't cost more for the farmers to certify it.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/

It is depressing to see how corporate money has infiltrated science so that even a bunch of Nobel Prize winners have even been corrupted.

Do we really need to feed the exploding populations of the third world? I'm sorry a lot of those kids are going blind and have Vitamin A deficiency, but there's millions of starving kids and only 1 planet. Let's focus on getting adequate contraception and female empowerment to these populations instead of risking everyone's health with mutant plants.
Click to expand...

Time for the Greenpeace Luddites to get on board for the future.




More than 100 Nobel laureates have signed a letter urging Greenpeace to end its opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The letter asks Greenpeace to cease its efforts to block introduction of a genetically engineered strain of rice that supporters say could reduce Vitamin-A deficiencies causing blindness and death in children in the developing world.
"We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against 'GMOs' in general and Golden Rice in particular," the letter states.
The letter campaign was organized by Richard Roberts, chief scientific officer of New England Biolabs and, with Phillip Sharp, the winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for the discovery of genetic sequences known as introns. The campaign has a website,supportprecisionagriculture.org, that includes a running list of the signatories, and the group plans to hold a news conference Thursday morning at the National Press Club in Washington.
“We’re scientists. We understand the logic of science. It's easy to see what Greenpeace is doing is damaging and is anti-science," Roberts told The Washington Post. “Greenpeace initially, and then some of their allies, deliberately went out of their way to scare people. It was a way for them to raise money for their cause.". . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom