- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 63,589
- Reaction score
- 28,955
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
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."
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.
I think you've misunderstood. Liberals and progressives are about giving people choices about things like abortion and contraception and child birth.
But apparently, not about giving them choices about food. Because YOU have an irrational fear, OTHERS must suffer? That's not liberalism. That's just plain crazy.
You're wrong about that.
Again, you're wrong.
And again, you're wrong
Is making unscientific claims and insisting they're true the best you can do?
Originally Posted by RetiredUSN View Post
I don't have to be your info gatherer, do your own research before you try to debunk and get back to me.
Classic excuse of someone who can't support his own arguments.
Anything like your irrational fear of AGW?
That's not irrational at all. The current climate change, the one that we're causing, is proceeding ten times faster than the fastest climate change in the geological record. And that's a recipe for ecological disaster. It has already cost the world millions, and costs will only increase from here.
That's not irrational at all. The current climate change, the one that we're causing, is proceeding ten times faster than the fastest climate change in the geological record. And that's a recipe for ecological disaster. It has already cost the world millions, and costs will only increase from here.
I guess the thing that makes a sea level rise prediction of 6.6 feet by 2100 a bit difficult to swallow, is the data.That's not irrational at all. The current climate change, the one that we're causing, is proceeding ten times faster than the fastest climate change in the geological record. And that's a recipe for ecological disaster. It has already cost the world millions, and costs will only increase from here.
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
GMO crops in general have much better yields per acre, especially when considering the cost and amount of herbicide/pesticide that is used- tremendous drops in use of the most toxic pesticides are due to GMO.
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.
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.
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.
You mentioned benefits but if you want to run away from your claim, I don't blame you
And if you want to run away from your claim that plants have genetically engineered themselves, I won't blame you for that cowardly position either
Umm, weeds and pests are already there. You obviously don't know much about agriculture if you think a prior application of herbicides and insecticides is going to eliminate all weeds and insects.
The ignorance of some people is astonishing
Here is what you actually claimed
When asked to back it up, instead of posting proof, you post "findings *suggest*"
GE's have been in production for decades, and the best support you can dig up for these miracle crops is "findings suggest"
An article in this month's Scientific American talking about salt tolerant plants had an interesting perspective.
They were discussing the two lines of GMO, one was selective breeding, and the other was gene modification.
Both were yielding results, just that the selective breeding was taking longer.
The ability to have salt tolerant rice and wheat, would have a large impact on world food production.
OK...... here you you go on the natural occuring plant gene mutation thingy.............. wise azz.
Plant Life: Genetics: Mutations
Good mutations: Stalking evolution through genetic mutation in plants - Scientific American Blog Network
What are the different types of mutations in plants ?
Or....................... you could go ask any horticulturist?
Gimme a break, farmers aren't treating their crops two days before harvest.
Well... no.
I should have qualified my statement as 'all other things being equal, GMO crops have much better yields...'
First of all, you are pretending that yield is the only reason to use GMOs.
These crops are not genetically modified to increase yeild - they are modified to ether become pest resistant or herbicide resistant - or both.
This means the production will be similar but much less pesticide and herbicide will be needed to ensure good yields.
Generally, pest resistant GMO crops are used to limit disastrous loss from infestations as well as allowing farmers to save money (and the environment!) by allowing them to use much less toxic pesticides on crops than they would have used.
The increase in yields here for farms that would have been wiped out or had massive pesticide application is very clear.
But I do love the pivot to semantics
SA is a good stage for the latest Scientific ideas, they are not always right, with all of them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?