|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 03 2016 23:20 Yurie wrote:
I honestly don't see how GMO is different from selective breeding. Corn used to have protection around each seed. Now you have several hundred seeds to eat within the same protective sheet. It can hardly function in nature without human intervention in the re-production cycle due to that. GMO is taking that 9000 year process and cramming it into 5 years using modern technology. This of course has risks since the 9000 year process had countless trials to make sure it was safe to eat, something we also need to have before judging it safe enough to eat.
How many generations of selective breeding does it take to make a rat glow in the dark? Genetic modification in a lab is not just fast selective breeding, you can get results one way which are impossible the other way. It's a complex issue and deserves to be treated as one.
Take the fact that many GMOs require a pesticide bath and don't produce fertile seeds. On the one hand this is a great way to stop GMOs getting out into the wild and screwing with eco-systems in unpredictable ways, on the other it's a way for owners of genetic patents to extract rent from farmers.
Honestly it's not GMOs that are the problem, it's the debate around GMOs that's the problem. When advocates assume every question or qualm that could possibly be raised as necessarily ignorant -a position ably demonstrated more than once in this thread- they are displaying exactly the same sort of high handed stupidity that their opposite numbers do when they claim that all GMOs are poison.
On May 04 2016 16:36 Belisarius wrote:
Nobody (serious) says that all the possible products of GM are 100% safe. The real issue is whether you can determine via trials and testing etc which ones are safe, and then go ahead and market those. The answer to that has so far been yes.
We have similar controls on medication that work quite well, and, importantly, we do not have similar controls on a huge variety of significantly more dangerous chemical products. Among their "peers", GMOs are hugely over-scrutinized.
The ethical questions around Mosanto etc. are a different issue. An important one, but an entirely different one. Plus, the average person on the street isn't opposed to GM because of those questions, they're opposed out of a vague fear that the technology will harm them. That is not true.
That's a very bold claim to make. You're claiming that you know why there is some public resistance to GMOs and that that reason is technophobia. Where is your data? What's to stop me claiming with exactly as much force that there is public resistance to GMOs because people don't trust corporations?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On May 04 2016 06:21 zatic wrote:
The real issue with GMO is that they taste like bland nothing compared to real food (completely anecdotal evidence from living in the US)
only like 15 cultivars are actually genetically engineered. the vast majority of stuff you are eating are not gm.
|
The European commission faces an uphill battle to grant Turkish citizens visa-free travel through most of Europe by the end of June, a crucial element of the EU’s deal with Ankara to curb refugee arrivals.
A related plan to overhaul asylum rules was also running into trouble just hours after it was unveiled on Wednesday, as central European countries denounced the measures as ridiculous and tantamount to blackmail.
The EU executive on Wednesday gave its provisional blessing to visa-free travel for Turkish tourists and short-stay travellers to the Schengen Area, which excludes the UK and Ireland. It backed the scheme on the condition that Ankara upgrades laws on anti-corruption, terrorism and data protection in the next few weeks.
In another important caveat, visa-free travel would only be available to those Turks with biometric passports that include fingerprint recognition chips. Such passports do not exist in Turkey, although the government plans to introduce them from 1 June.
The promise of visa-free travel through Europe was a key part of the bargain EU leaders struck with Turkey to stop the flow of migrants and refugees onto the Greek islands.
Source
|
On May 04 2016 13:14 hfglgg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 07:43 lord_nibbler wrote:On May 03 2016 17:15 hfglgg wrote:
~90% of scientists think that gmo are completely fine while only ~1/3 of the general population think the same. I really would like a quote on this. I have a very hard time to believe, that there is even a single scientist out there, who would claim that any possible modification is always going to be harmless. Especially when you think about the lack of long term research in the field. I would wager that your 90% count is very dependent on the question asked. If you ask a scientist, if any research on GMO should be categorically prohibited, of course you get your 90%. (They became scientist for a reason.) But if you ask them whether GMOs ' are completely fine', I suspect a very different answer... http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/here you go. the question was "is genetically modified food generally safe to eat?" Here I go where?
You realize, you grossly rephrased the statement, do you not?
How is the question, whether it is generally safe to eat GMO food the same as GMO are completely fine?
Of course US markets do not sell poisonous food, shocking revelation. That fact is almost irrelevant to the discussion of GMO production.
Look at fats for another example. 100% of scientists will tell you that eating fat is 'generally safe'. But almost all of them will also tell you that eating a whole lot of fat everyday is everything but 'completely fine'.
I seriously question your reading comprehension skills if you think both statements are equivalent.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i mean it's not any more risky than other food. what's your problem
|
On May 06 2016 11:51 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 13:14 hfglgg wrote:On May 04 2016 07:43 lord_nibbler wrote:On May 03 2016 17:15 hfglgg wrote:
~90% of scientists think that gmo are completely fine while only ~1/3 of the general population think the same. I really would like a quote on this. I have a very hard time to believe, that there is even a single scientist out there, who would claim that any possible modification is always going to be harmless. Especially when you think about the lack of long term research in the field. I would wager that your 90% count is very dependent on the question asked. If you ask a scientist, if any research on GMO should be categorically prohibited, of course you get your 90%. (They became scientist for a reason.) But if you ask them whether GMOs ' are completely fine', I suspect a very different answer... http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/here you go. the question was "is genetically modified food generally safe to eat?" Here I go where? You realize, you grossly rephrased the statement, do you not? How is the question, whether it is generally safe to eat GMO food the same as GMO are completely fine? Of course US markets do not sell poisonous food, shocking revelation. That fact is almost irrelevant to the discussion of GMO production. Look at fats for another example. 100% of scientists will tell you that eating fat is 'generally safe'. But almost all of them will also tell you that eating a whole lot of fat everyday is everything but 'completely fine'. I seriously question your reading comprehension skills if you think both statements are equivalent.
you die when you drink too much water, water not completely fine?
|
Wait, it really is a comprehension issue? Oh boy...
|
only because something can be abused doesnt mean it should be outlawed, everything can be abused and thats your problem here.
GMOs are completely fine (here, did it again!). that doesnt mean that you cant do shady things with it, but you can do shady things by normal breeding as well if you want to.
the whole argument that something can be abused and thus should be illegal is hilariously stupid, i dont even know why people make those. you really have to hate logic.
|
On May 07 2016 14:19 hfglgg wrote:
only because something can be abused doesnt mean it should be outlawed, everything can be abused and thats your problem here.
GMOs are completely fine (here, did it again!). that doesnt mean that you cant do shady things with it, but you can do shady things by normal breeding as well if you want to.
the whole argument that something can be abused and thus should be illegal is hilariously stupid, i dont even know why people make those. you really have to hate logic.
I give you an argument why they are not fine:
The use of GMO allows for a higher dose of pesticide which makes it easier to do mono-cultures on really big farms. The U.S. has compared to Europe a lot of free space for their farms. Big machines make their produce cheaper than ours. They out-compete.
In my opinion the point about GMO is not about health aspects. I mean for some people it is, but I actually think this discussion is there to protect small farms in Europe. And like I said compared to U.S. farms our farms are small.
|
On May 07 2016 14:43 Banaora wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 14:19 hfglgg wrote:
only because something can be abused doesnt mean it should be outlawed, everything can be abused and thats your problem here.
GMOs are completely fine (here, did it again!). that doesnt mean that you cant do shady things with it, but you can do shady things by normal breeding as well if you want to.
the whole argument that something can be abused and thus should be illegal is hilariously stupid, i dont even know why people make those. you really have to hate logic. I give you an argument why they are not fine: The use of GMO allows for a higher dose of pesticide which makes it easier to do mono-cultures on really big farms. The U.S. has compared to Europe a lot of free space for their farms. Big machines make their produce cheaper than ours. They out-compete. In my opinion the point about GMO is not about health aspects. I mean for some people it is, but I actually think this discussion is there to protect small farms in Europe. And like I said compared to U.S. farms our farms are small.
thats not connected to gmo, but to trade in general and a different field.
|
On May 07 2016 15:18 hfglgg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 14:43 Banaora wrote:On May 07 2016 14:19 hfglgg wrote:
only because something can be abused doesnt mean it should be outlawed, everything can be abused and thats your problem here.
GMOs are completely fine (here, did it again!). that doesnt mean that you cant do shady things with it, but you can do shady things by normal breeding as well if you want to.
the whole argument that something can be abused and thus should be illegal is hilariously stupid, i dont even know why people make those. you really have to hate logic. I give you an argument why they are not fine: The use of GMO allows for a higher dose of pesticide which makes it easier to do mono-cultures on really big farms. The U.S. has compared to Europe a lot of free space for their farms. Big machines make their produce cheaper than ours. They out-compete. In my opinion the point about GMO is not about health aspects. I mean for some people it is, but I actually think this discussion is there to protect small farms in Europe. And like I said compared to U.S. farms our farms are small. thats not connected to gmo, but to trade in general and a different field.
Yes that's GMO ... How can you disconnect a technology from its actual use in the production I wonder ? The core point about GMO is that they are used to increase pesticide use and are created and owned by huge monopoly like firms. A technology taken outside of its actual use is actually neutral, look at the nuclear technology, used to cure cancer, produce energy, and kill.
|
On May 08 2016 00:59 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 15:18 hfglgg wrote:On May 07 2016 14:43 Banaora wrote:On May 07 2016 14:19 hfglgg wrote:
only because something can be abused doesnt mean it should be outlawed, everything can be abused and thats your problem here.
GMOs are completely fine (here, did it again!). that doesnt mean that you cant do shady things with it, but you can do shady things by normal breeding as well if you want to.
the whole argument that something can be abused and thus should be illegal is hilariously stupid, i dont even know why people make those. you really have to hate logic. I give you an argument why they are not fine: The use of GMO allows for a higher dose of pesticide which makes it easier to do mono-cultures on really big farms. The U.S. has compared to Europe a lot of free space for their farms. Big machines make their produce cheaper than ours. They out-compete. In my opinion the point about GMO is not about health aspects. I mean for some people it is, but I actually think this discussion is there to protect small farms in Europe. And like I said compared to U.S. farms our farms are small. thats not connected to gmo, but to trade in general and a different field. Yes that's GMO ... How can you disconnect a technology from its actual use in the production I wonder ? The core point about GMO is that they are used to increase pesticide use and are created and owned by huge monopoly like firms. A technology taken outside of its actual use is actually neutral, look at the nuclear technology, used to cure cancer, produce energy, and kill.
because it is just using GMO as a proxy when in reality it is about trade protection. you dont ban the technology that makes a foreign market more efficient, as that would prevent yourself from using the technology for yourself. when you want to protect your market, you just do that, protect it. no need to ban or restrict anything other than the import of goods you think have a negative impact. for this it doesnt matter what the reason for the difference in efficiency is.
your other two points again have nothing to do with GMOs. when you have a problem with pesticides, you discuss pesticides and when you have a problem with large corporations, you discuss large corporations.
|
On May 08 2016 09:52 hfglgg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2016 00:59 WhiteDog wrote:On May 07 2016 15:18 hfglgg wrote:On May 07 2016 14:43 Banaora wrote:On May 07 2016 14:19 hfglgg wrote:
only because something can be abused doesnt mean it should be outlawed, everything can be abused and thats your problem here.
GMOs are completely fine (here, did it again!). that doesnt mean that you cant do shady things with it, but you can do shady things by normal breeding as well if you want to.
the whole argument that something can be abused and thus should be illegal is hilariously stupid, i dont even know why people make those. you really have to hate logic. I give you an argument why they are not fine: The use of GMO allows for a higher dose of pesticide which makes it easier to do mono-cultures on really big farms. The U.S. has compared to Europe a lot of free space for their farms. Big machines make their produce cheaper than ours. They out-compete. In my opinion the point about GMO is not about health aspects. I mean for some people it is, but I actually think this discussion is there to protect small farms in Europe. And like I said compared to U.S. farms our farms are small. thats not connected to gmo, but to trade in general and a different field. Yes that's GMO ... How can you disconnect a technology from its actual use in the production I wonder ? The core point about GMO is that they are used to increase pesticide use and are created and owned by huge monopoly like firms. A technology taken outside of its actual use is actually neutral, look at the nuclear technology, used to cure cancer, produce energy, and kill. because it is just using GMO as a proxy when in reality it is about trade protection. you dont ban the technology that makes a foreign market more efficient, as that would prevent yourself from using the technology for yourself. when you want to protect your market, you just do that, protect it. no need to ban or restrict anything other than the import of goods you think have a negative impact. for this it doesnt matter what the reason for the difference in efficiency is. your other two points again have nothing to do with GMOs. when you have a problem with pesticides, you discuss pesticides and when you have a problem with large corporations, you discuss large corporations.
GMO are not more efficient, they are more productive.
|
And what exactly is the difference between the two according to you?
|
On May 08 2016 21:34 RvB wrote:
And what exactly is the difference between the two according to you?
Efficiency is up to interpretation ; it is effectiveness in regards to an objective. For exemple, in economy efficiency oftentime defined as a certain situation where the satisfaction/happiness/utility of an agent cannot be improved without another agent losing happiness, satisfaction or utility (it's the idea of a pareto optimal situation). In the model of the market, this efficiency is not realized by maximizing production, but by atteigning a situation where offer and demand (production and and potential consumption) are equal.
If your objective is to produce more and nothing else, GMO are best, if your objective is to find an equilibrium between producing / defend local production / protect the environment / defending small farm and the independancy of farmers (both financial and in terms of choices) / whatever else, then GMO are just bad (right now). It depend on the kind of agriculture you want to have.
|
On May 08 2016 19:46 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2016 09:52 hfglgg wrote:On May 08 2016 00:59 WhiteDog wrote:On May 07 2016 15:18 hfglgg wrote:On May 07 2016 14:43 Banaora wrote:On May 07 2016 14:19 hfglgg wrote:
only because something can be abused doesnt mean it should be outlawed, everything can be abused and thats your problem here.
GMOs are completely fine (here, did it again!). that doesnt mean that you cant do shady things with it, but you can do shady things by normal breeding as well if you want to.
the whole argument that something can be abused and thus should be illegal is hilariously stupid, i dont even know why people make those. you really have to hate logic. I give you an argument why they are not fine: The use of GMO allows for a higher dose of pesticide which makes it easier to do mono-cultures on really big farms. The U.S. has compared to Europe a lot of free space for their farms. Big machines make their produce cheaper than ours. They out-compete. In my opinion the point about GMO is not about health aspects. I mean for some people it is, but I actually think this discussion is there to protect small farms in Europe. And like I said compared to U.S. farms our farms are small. thats not connected to gmo, but to trade in general and a different field. Yes that's GMO ... How can you disconnect a technology from its actual use in the production I wonder ? The core point about GMO is that they are used to increase pesticide use and are created and owned by huge monopoly like firms. A technology taken outside of its actual use is actually neutral, look at the nuclear technology, used to cure cancer, produce energy, and kill. because it is just using GMO as a proxy when in reality it is about trade protection. you dont ban the technology that makes a foreign market more efficient, as that would prevent yourself from using the technology for yourself. when you want to protect your market, you just do that, protect it. no need to ban or restrict anything other than the import of goods you think have a negative impact. for this it doesnt matter what the reason for the difference in efficiency is. your other two points again have nothing to do with GMOs. when you have a problem with pesticides, you discuss pesticides and when you have a problem with large corporations, you discuss large corporations. GMO are not more efficient, they are more productive.
both are just the two sides of the coin really and it doesnt matter here.
again, you want to protect domestic companies from increased competition and find an optimum between protection and trade, thats what trade negotiations are usually about. however, you want to do that at all times and at everything you can think of anyway. this has nothing to do with GMOs, because GMOs just happen to be the technology why there is so much pressure in this randomly chosen field. its like saying we ban all cars produced with technology X, not because technology X produces dangerous cars (it doesnt), but because it enables our trading partners to dumpster our car manufacturing.
why should i ban it in this case? i can either use the technology to make my own industry more competitive or if i can not or dont want to do it i can put a shitload of tariffs on cars from countries who threaten my domestic market and benefit from them this way.
its just not an issue with GMO. you can replace it with anything else and the key problem still stands - that you need to protect yourself from strong outside competition. once you can replace something, its no longer important.
it really is using GMO as a proxy and has no substantial claim to it.
|
There's also not much social benefit to small scale farming. In many cases they have less money because they naturally scale badly so they'll usually treat animals badly as well, the costs for food go up, they're hard to control because they're decentralized and so on. It's a purely romantic idea. We can't feed the world that way
|
On May 09 2016 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:
There's also not much social benefit to small scale farming. In many cases they have less money because they naturally scale badly so they'll usually treat animals badly as well, the costs for food go up, they're hard to control because they're decentralized and so on. It's a purely romantic idea. We can't feed the world that way
What a load of crap, small farm treat animals badly ? Do you know anything about big farms ? You think they treat animals better than small farm ? That's such an ignorant comment. In big modern farms, animals don't even see the sunlight and are chained to the ground.
The last sentence is also crap, we're, at the moment, producing more than needed (europe is exporting food ...), which is one of the reason why arguing for an increase in production through GMO is kinda ridiculous.
On May 09 2016 02:12 hfglgg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2016 19:46 WhiteDog wrote:On May 08 2016 09:52 hfglgg wrote:On May 08 2016 00:59 WhiteDog wrote:On May 07 2016 15:18 hfglgg wrote:On May 07 2016 14:43 Banaora wrote:On May 07 2016 14:19 hfglgg wrote:
only because something can be abused doesnt mean it should be outlawed, everything can be abused and thats your problem here.
GMOs are completely fine (here, did it again!). that doesnt mean that you cant do shady things with it, but you can do shady things by normal breeding as well if you want to.
the whole argument that something can be abused and thus should be illegal is hilariously stupid, i dont even know why people make those. you really have to hate logic. I give you an argument why they are not fine: The use of GMO allows for a higher dose of pesticide which makes it easier to do mono-cultures on really big farms. The U.S. has compared to Europe a lot of free space for their farms. Big machines make their produce cheaper than ours. They out-compete. In my opinion the point about GMO is not about health aspects. I mean for some people it is, but I actually think this discussion is there to protect small farms in Europe. And like I said compared to U.S. farms our farms are small. thats not connected to gmo, but to trade in general and a different field. Yes that's GMO ... How can you disconnect a technology from its actual use in the production I wonder ? The core point about GMO is that they are used to increase pesticide use and are created and owned by huge monopoly like firms. A technology taken outside of its actual use is actually neutral, look at the nuclear technology, used to cure cancer, produce energy, and kill. because it is just using GMO as a proxy when in reality it is about trade protection. you dont ban the technology that makes a foreign market more efficient, as that would prevent yourself from using the technology for yourself. when you want to protect your market, you just do that, protect it. no need to ban or restrict anything other than the import of goods you think have a negative impact. for this it doesnt matter what the reason for the difference in efficiency is. your other two points again have nothing to do with GMOs. when you have a problem with pesticides, you discuss pesticides and when you have a problem with large corporations, you discuss large corporations. GMO are not more efficient, they are more productive. both are just the two sides of the coin really and it doesnt matter here. again, you want to protect domestic companies from increased competition and find an optimum between protection and trade, thats what trade negotiations are usually about. however, you want to do that at all times and at everything you can think of anyway. this has nothing to do with GMOs, because GMOs just happen to be the technology why there is so much pressure in this randomly chosen field. its like saying we ban all cars produced with technology X, not because technology X produces dangerous cars (it doesnt), but because it enables our trading partners to dumpster our car manufacturing. why should i ban it in this case? i can either use the technology to make my own industry more competitive or if i can not or dont want to do it i can put a shitload of tariffs on cars from countries who threaten my domestic market and benefit from them this way. its just not an issue with GMO. you can replace it with anything else and the key problem still stands - that you need to protect yourself from strong outside competition. once you can replace something, its no longer important. it really is using GMO as a proxy and has no substantial claim to it.
You have zero argument aside from basically saying that our arguments are invalid and not related to GMO. Sure, sure, sure. How do you think productivity increase with GMO exactly ? Because they are tailored to accept heavier use of pesticides ... Blah ... You're basically misunderstanding the overall effect of GMO on the agriculture and take the "innovation" at face value without any kind of definition and outside of its application in the production, which is kinda useless and irrelevant.
you want to protect domestic companies from increased competition and find an optimum between protection and trade, thats what trade negotiations are usually about
Why should we negociate in relation to GMO exactly ? What's the benefit ? The end of thousands of jobs in the agriculture ? The domination of the entire market by a few ? For what ? Lower prices (until the market power kicks in) ? Like food is actually a problem for the purchasing power of europeans ...
This is kinda dumb. Can someone prove me that europe need an increase in agricultural production ? Or are you all forecasting the overall increase of our weight, mimicking the US, until a third of our citizens are fat enough that we can absorb that increase in production ?
|
meh, talking to a brick wall here.
you dont want companies to produce less, you want domestic companies to survive, big difference. one would be connected to GMO, the other not so much.
oh and just because its so fucking funny: use of pesticide is another topic where scientist, generally the smartest and best educated people of any society, have a much more positive view on than the average population. maybe pesticides arent even as bad as you try to make them to be.
to make it perfectly clear:
there is no negative effect to GMOs that is strictly linked to the technology. you merely argue against the use of it (more pesticides) and secondary effects (pressure on domestic companies), but both are independent issues. even without GMOs you should, if you are a normal thinking logical person, be against more pesticides if you are against it with GMOs and you should also be for protection if you are for Protections with GMOs.
|
On May 09 2016 03:32 WhiteDog wrote:
What a load of crap, small farm treat animals badly ? Do you know anything about big farms ? You think they treat animals better than small farm ? That's such an ignorant comment. In big modern farms, animals don't even see the sunlight and are chained to the ground.
The last sentence is also crap, we're, at the moment, producing more than needed (europe is exporting food ...), which is one of the reason why arguing for an increase in production through GMO is kinda ridiculous.
Just because your farm is small doesn't mean that anybody is treating the animals better, it just means that your business is smaller. Investigations into a lot of "organic" and fair farms have shown that animals are just being treated as shitty as anywhere else, with the exception that you can't even hold them accountable like you can large scale industry. Same for organic vegetables, there's not even any health benefit to it. They're not more nutricious and the pesticide level etc is pretty much below dangerous levels anyways.
And obviously we have a lot of food because we produce food on a large scale. If we'd change the mode of food production prices would rise rapidly and supply would go down. This isn't good or desirable. Not to mention that we have better places for our labourers to spend their time in than in farms. Small scale farming is a lot more labour intensive than large scale farming. Why would we want to regress in this area? We need to mitigate the negative effects of large scale farming, not abolish it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
