• 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!

President signs GMO labeling bill

Oh. cereal is not the same thing here as Cheerios.
Actually, corn is a cereal and I posted this graph instead of corn, because it was in this data bank. I realize that was not exactly the same thing. But it is probably a good enough substitute.

No, it's not a good substitute. This may surprise you but if you want to show that corn yields went down,, you have to show that corn yields went down. Not show that something else went down

But feel free to show us that you have different data.

I already posted proof that corn yields in France went up
 
No, it's not a good substitute. This may surprise you but if you want to show that corn yields went down,, you have to show that corn yields went down. Not show that something else went down



I already posted proof that corn yields in France went up

1) at this level of discussion it usually would be a close enough surrogate to make looking for exact number a waste of time. The World Bank didn't have the numbers ready and I thought you might accept that they were okay. But you act as though you believe it were not, so here is a relatively reputable source France Maize (corn) production - data, chart | TheGlobalEconomy.com (production)
Projections of maize yields in France | Climate Lab Book (yield)
note that Maize is not a surrogate but is only an other word for corn.
As you can now see, the increases petered out in the 1990s and have stayed more or less stagnant since about 2000.

2) I am sorry to say that your link would not work on any of the three machines I used to try.
 
1) at this level of discussion it usually would be a close enough surrogate to make looking for exact number a waste of time. The World Bank didn't have the numbers ready and I thought you might accept that they were okay. But you act as though you believe it were not, so here is a relatively reputable source France Maize (corn) production - data, chart | TheGlobalEconomy.com (production)
Projections of maize yields in France | Climate Lab Book (yield)
note that Maize is not a surrogate but is only an other word for corn.
As you can now see, the increases petered out in the 1990s and have stayed more or less stagnant since about 2000.

2) I am sorry to say that your link would not work on any of the three machines I used to try.

1) Your first link shows stats on production, not yield. Your 2nd is projections but when it talks about yields not increasing, it is because of climate.

2) Works fine for me
 
1) Your first link shows stats on production, not yield. Your 2nd is projections but when it talks about yields not increasing, it is because of climate.

2) Works fine for me

1) As you might have noticed, I marked the first link with "(production)". That is because it is production numbers. They are interesting for those that might be actually interested in agriculture. So, please stop being an annoyance.
As you probably missed, the second link's graphs are partitioned into two segments. For the right hand one, your observation is correct. It is a projection.

What you seem to have missed is the much larger graph showing French historical yields between 1960 and 2010. As it is quite consistent with the cereal yields graph I had used as a surrogate and you did not like, I suspect the numbers for the time elapsed will be, what I suspect and show stagnation. But should you have newer data, that would be interesting.

2) I have come to realize that you are somewhat difficult to communicate with. But as I said, I would be interested, should you have accessible data.
 
1) As you might have noticed, I marked the first link with "(production)". That is because it is production numbers. They are interesting for those that might be actually interested in agriculture. So, please stop being an annoyance.

You posted production #'s in direct response to my point about yield so your claim that you posted it because it might be interesting for others lacks credibility

As you probably missed, the second link's graphs are partitioned into two segments. For the right hand one, your observation is correct. It is a projection.

The left hand one shows increased yields, which is the opposite of the no increase in yields you claim occurred

What you seem to have missed is the much larger graph showing French historical yields between 1960 and 2010. As it is quite consistent with the cereal yields graph I had used as a surrogate and you did not like

The graph shows increased yields.

And since you seem to have forgotten what you said, I'll requote you
If I recall the numbers correctly, you will find French yield increases stopped a few years ago, when they failed to innovate GMO technologies.

PS - France stopped using GE crops more than a few years ago. You're wrong about that too
 
Last edited:
You posted production #'s in direct response to my point about yield so your claim that you posted it because it might be interesting for others lacks credibility



The left hand one shows increased yields, which is the opposite of the no increase in yields you claim occurred



The graph shows increased yields.

And since you seem to have forgotten what you said, I'll requote you


PS - France stopped using GE crops more than a few years ago. You're wrong about that too

If you cannot see that the yield numbers stagnated after 2000, I do not think one can help you. As I had said in a much earlier post the yields had increased earlier, because the earlier innovations were still able to do so. That is, what you see in the numbers between ca 1960 and 2000. It was not until their effect was in the numbers, that stagnation set in. This corresponds very closely with the numbers for cereals and gross production of maize that I had wanted to use as surrogates. It turns out they were fine for that purpose.

Also: I never said that France stopped using GMO corn a few years ago. You might want to reread the sentence. That is important, because it puts you off in a wrong direction. What was interesting was that the production and yield increases petered out. This happens as a technology becomes mature. The only way to improve is then by new innovation, which in this case would be/have been in the form of introduction of genetically improved corn. France did not do this in the 1990s and is now paying the price.
 
If you cannot see that the yield numbers stagnated after 2000, I do not think one can help you.

In 2000, yield was about 0.9. In 2010 it was almost 1.0

And the report says climate is responsible
 
In 2000, yield was about 0.9. In 2010 it was almost 1.0

And the report says climate is responsible

You will need a lot better argument than that to open your case again. Look at the variability of yield numbers and you will see that 0.1 is not significant. But, as I said, you might find help in the numbers for 2010 to 2015. I am just not enough interested in the dead horse you are kicking to check its pulse. As far as I am concerned, you are not very well informed and do not want to admit it. I will look at any new evidence from your side, but until such turns up, I am out of this debate.
 
You will need a lot better argument than that to open your case again. Look at the variability of yield numbers and you will see that 0.1 is not significant.

0.9 to 1.0 is a 0.1 increase or about 10%. Not only significant, but not even close to the "stopped increases" you claimed
 
0.9 to 1.0 is a 0.1 increase or about 10%. Not only significant, but not even close to the "stopped increases" you claimed

Except it is not .1. I just did not want to argue anymore. So a last time. Bring something new to the table or waste someone other's time.
 
No. Someone can be against labeling things for the sole purpose of fear mongering.

But as long as the label can be on the back of the product and normal sized I don't care. I just don't want a huge "GMO" stamp on the front, as it would scare stupid people into making silly decisions.

i support labeling stuff that claims to contain no GMOs (which is probably a **** claim, though.) as for putting prominent GMO labels on foods, though, i'm against that. most people will just automatically assume that means "bad" and avoid it.
 
i support labeling stuff that claims to contain no GMOs (which is probably a **** claim, though.) as for putting prominent GMO labels on foods, though, i'm against that. most people will just automatically assume that means "bad" and avoid it.

Exactly. If you are going to mandate gmo labeling it should be a legible but small label on the back of the product.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom