Who's for it and who's against it? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25885756 Genetically modify the **** out of it is what I say. It's the answer to solving world hunger and also the world obesity crisis, in one fell swoop.
GM in what way. In the case of "suicide seeds", for example, it's just a method for firms supplying these seeds to increase their profits exponentially and the expense of the common farmer which will then be passed on to us, the consumer. No benefit to solving hunger or obesity. That could still have been sorted long ago if the will was there. It isn't, GM ain't going to fix that
Whoever develops the product owns the patents I imagine. If it was cheaper to use normal seeds why would farmers use the 'suicide GM' ones? Not everything is a zero-sum conspiracy against the public - when Edison patented his light bulb he won, and so did everyone else.
If people were to eat little obesity would not be a problem. I can quite happily eat nothing for two days. Might sound radical but that's me.
Well different crops are genetically modified for different reasons, there are a host of different crops now genetically modified in different ways now for different motivations. To that effect the initial question is all but a nonsense, kind of like asking if I agree with the lyrics in music? You have modifications with obvious benefits e.g. higher yields ,higher disease resistance etc. however its hard to find a genuine reason for the development of suicide seeds that doesn't in some way appear as a cynical way to break a farmers ability to reutilise seeds from year to year yields in order to force them into yearly large scale purchases of seeds from the patent holder (*cough, Monsanto, cough*) in order to get a harvest for that year. End result, huge sales. There is a reason there has been an almost global moratorium on their use. Farmers, not to mention paying consumers, in developing countries are most at risk as they are particularly vulnerable to the financial pressures such a situation will create, as well as the regulatory systems in these countries not being developed enough to effectively enforce such a moratorium e.g. India, where it is having a big impact. The situation you describe is a utopian situation where a perfect balance between yield and marketable harvest is maintained from year to year ad infinitum. Of course the real world is full of weather systems ready to lay waste to farmer's yield, animals that find these seeds a nice meal, and economic pressures that force a farmer to market more of his yearly harvest in order to address short term economic pressures they may be facing and so forcing him to buy in seeds to make up the difference for next years harvest. Natural wastage will occur in the fertile seeds and the rate to which a farmer has to buy in sterile seeds will increase exponentially from year to year. Of course with the moratorium still in place this has yet to develop into a significant problem, however there is a growing corporate lobby seeking to have it lifted. I dont disagree with some aspects of bio-engineering of crops per se, however there are many aspects that leave me very uncomfortable. Not least is the fact you are going to find it very hard to convince me that organisations like Monsanto have the welfare and needs of the every farmer and consumer at the heart of their operations.
Not that I know a huge amount about this - but the government of Europe has been quite good at restricting intellectual property rights when market forces come up against humanitarian causes. For instance they have a 10 year expiry for patents on new drugs (Ireland's exports just dropped like 2% when the 10 year Viagra patent expired) - isn't it possible and indeed likely that will do the same with GM seeds, if the companies were actually allowed to develop them?
If you want to be attacked by tomatoes with beaks that's up to you. please log in to view this image "Personally, I'm all for it," he said, in an ER style turnaround.
But the end result would still be the same. They would just be buying their seeds from a range of suppliers. Simple economics in a free market, i suppose, would dictate that the pricing of such seeds would be more agreeable to the farmers. But still, this would merely be a slight alleviation of one of the symptoms of the real problem. Oh and they have developed them, and have been sitting on them for the past 20 years or so. I used India as an example as it is an example of a country where the use of these seeds have actually permeated into.
Correct, except with GM foods the process is shrouded in in the mysteries of Science in a fashion the layperson cannot fathom, therefore it's easy to create a panic about crackpot Science running amock with the food we put in our mouths. However, even though we may not like the look of square shaped melons in our supermarkets, there is little to no evidence to suggest we will produce babies with giant heads or lizard-like feet, or indeed that GM foods are harmful or detrimental in any way. High Yielding Varieties of rice such as IR8 (termed 'Miracle Rice' in the 1970's) have been around for decades, as have genetically modified high yielding maize, wheat and a whole raft of other foods. What has changed is our ability to target genetically modified and improved seeds to suit certain locales such as areas where a certain pest is found, a disease occurs, areas where drought may occur or waterlogging etc. In doing so, we create more robust crops less likely to be depleted by some of nature's natural checks and therefore improve our food output. In terms of simple Maths, world populations will (as forecast) increase by a further 2 billion in the next 40 years, by then we will need to produce 30% more food. This doesn't mean we solve poverty and hunger problems with GM crops, as this is a problem of distribution and in poorer LEDC nations, affordability, in other places education systems to support better agricultural practices and for some parts of the world where there is unreliable rainfall, so food security may always be an issue in LEDC states. Nevertheless, we must grow more food on a planet where land for expansion for agriculture is increasingly limited. GM practices enable us to do just that by farming more intensively.
