So you would rather have GM plants that are capable of seeding themselves into the wild?
GM plants could reduce our reliance on pesticides, increase biodiversity, improve yields, allow good crops to be grown in presently sterile soils...
Do you realise that Southern Africa's maize production is estimated to drop by 30% in the next 20 years? If we have crops, GM or otherwise, that can cope with the changing climate, then we need to use them.
(
TheAlmightyBeev, Tue 10 Mar 2009, 13:28,
Share,
Reply)
blimey where do I start
1.study shows GM crops 'no better'
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/1999/jul/08/food.gm
2. Loss of farmers access to plant material and it encourages dependancy of small farnmers on large Agri Corps (who put profit before health and couldn't give a toss about feeding the hungry unless there was a buck to be made) - witness the Inian farmers committing suicide as a result
3. no long term studies on effects of human health
4, Genes can mutate with harmful effect
5. the problem of food production like alot of things in africa is down to miss management, under funding and corruption - you do not need GM food to solve this
and 6. a BIG point
run for profit organisations holding Intellectual property rights on food production!!
(, Tue 10 Mar 2009, 13:41, Share, Reply)
Very quick point...
... A couple of months ago, weren't you decrying a law in America that you alleged undermined IP protection? That being the case, you seem to have changed your tune quite a bit...
The point is that, if we overhaul IP law internationally - and very few IP lawyers think that the system works, by the way - then that'd solve the problems with points 2 and 5.
As for 3, well - OK. Ignorance is no reason not to proceed though. There is also no reason to suspect that there would be harmful consequence.
4 - well, yes. That applies in nature, too. I don't see how taking control of genes makes that danger worse.
I can't be arsed with going into more detail. Work to do.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 10 Mar 2009, 13:53,
Share,
Reply)
I would rather have no GM products at all
The answer for S.A. is to stop their population explosion by birth controll
(
CanonCaliber A big bore, Tue 10 Mar 2009, 13:44,
Share,
Reply)
that's all jolly good and all
but if we stop using GM crops tomorrow we'll have real problems within a year or two, while your little birth controll idea won't give results within the next 80 years when a large enough chunk of the population has died off.
what are we going to do during that time?
any ideas?
not a single fucking one of the plants that we grow and eat now looked like that when people found them and started growing them.
We've been messing with our crop plants for a good few thousand years now. GM is just a faster way of doing it.
(
The little pink animal is mostly harmless, except on, Tue 10 Mar 2009, 15:41,
Share,
Reply)
what bollocks is this?
its not like you have a vested interst in it - like your a micro biologist..oh wait
also:www.guardian.co.uk/environment/1999/jul/08/food.gm
food shortages and production is a more complex issue having roots in mismanagement and politics that 'overpopulation'
for exanmple the north west african famine has more to do with the civil war and inability for the population to plant its harvest - (which is making it harder for them to deal with the drough) - trhe politics and corruption and poverty (selling off of national assets to foreign multi nationals as a prerequisite of deals with IMF loans) ar e all more serious factors than numbers of people
introducting more dependancy on the western multi-nationals is most certainly not the way to go for these people and neither is run for profit organisations holding Intellectual property rights on their food production
(, Tue 10 Mar 2009, 16:36, Share, Reply)