Genetically Modified Food

I understand wanting to regulate these foods so that the Organic farmers aren't killed in the market, and wanting to get them tested before they show up in the super market, I even understand if you want to know what they did to it and have it announced publically and I especially understand people getting mad when they get sued for having crops that got mixed with genetically engineered plant pollen...

But there is NO REASON to hate on Genetically Modified food in general. There are 6 BILLION people in the world, and the research that they are doing with crops is making it where we can feed 6 billion people, because in our current state our planet only has enough resources to feed 4 billion.

Can someone give me a REAL reason to ignore world hunger? Because I don't see a problem with the genetically engineered food, outside of its effect on the American market (making food extremely cheap, taking jobs from lots of solo farmers).

 

I haven't seen any proof that genetically modified food has helped world hunger. Do they give it away free to poor or starving people or something?

If someone can show me proof that genetically modified food has significantly helped world hunger, I'll jump on the bandwagon.

 

Then read about this man:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

 

He won a nobel peace prize, and was estimated to have been responsible for the lives of at least ONE BILLION human beings.

From his 1970 Nobel Lecture

• "I now say that the world has the technology – either available or well advanced in the research pipeline – to feed on a sustainable basis a population of 10 billion people. The more pertinent question today is whether farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use this new technology? While the affluent nations can certainly afford to adopt ultra low-risk positions, and pay more for food produced by the so-called “organic” methods, the one billion chronically undernourished people of the low income, food-deficit nations cannot."

 

I'll have to read about him later, I just worked a long, late shift so my brain isn't up for it now but I'll do some reading and get back to you.

My problem with the argument that genetically modified food can save millions of lives is this : Monsanto and other biotechnological companies aren't creating GMOs for charity. They design this food with profit in mind. GM foods can tolerate environmental factors that can lead to losing crops of organic food. They can withstand the time involved in being shipped around the world to impoverished countries, but if no one is paying for this to happen then it isn't going to happen.

My biggest concern with GM foods is the pesticides and herbicides involved. The majority of GM foods are designed specifically to tolerate the use of harmful chemicals. Even if these foods can solve our hunger problem, what about the long term health ramifications of eating the chemicals from round up and other products? Not to mention the environmental impact of using these chemicals.

 

Just how are we going to ship all those Mexicans to third world impoverished countries to farm the GMO? ... I mean its not like anyone else is going to do it for them..

 

The only reason GMOs aren't distributed in poor countries is because rich 1st world yuppies have convinced those governments that the food is literally poisonous.

 

GMOs allow the people that are ALREADY growing food, to grow crops that have bigger yield. Meaning they plant the same amount of seeds, on the same amount of land and get more food.

 

well, GM food hasn't been proven to be harmful (yet) in and of itself, but like I already mentioned, the pesticides and herbicides used on these crops ARE harmful.

this hasn't really proven to be true.

What is happening is industrialized farms have to use an increasingly large amount of herbicides because weeds are adapting and becoming resistant to current herbicides designed to work with GM food, thus making the environmental impact of GM food exponentially larger.

 

It would still have a price tag attached to it. Monsanto isn't going to give its food away for free.

It would probably come in the form of government subsidies, so I'll give you that one.

 

YES IT HAS. Read about that dude, he made wheat that is HUGE and same with corn. He is accredited with the lives of ONE BILLION PEOPLE on this planet (which contains only 6 Billion)

All thanks to his GMOs.

 

Nope, look into it. We have gotten the governments of Africa to reject TONS of free shit, just because we think it's poison. And we convinced them it was true.

I'm not sure if he worked for Monsato, but he was THE biggest name in GMOs. And should be considered a saint, but we fought him tooth and nail until he was beaten.

 

okay, can you post a link that isn't just a page full of quotes?

Just as a side note, corn sucks. It isn't actually that nutritious because the body doesn't digest it very well. Also, it is in literally everything in America. Everything.

 

Just because it's not super nutritious does not mean it is poisonous or even worthless. I'll find another link.

 

Watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEBtO25xW-o"]Greatest Man to Ever Live: Norman Borlaug - YouTube

 

so I didn't watch the video - I don't have the attention span for it, to be honest .I would almost always rather read about something than watch it on youtube. But I did skim over his wikipedia page. His career peaked before GM food as we know it now was ever created. GMOs came about it in the 1990s. It seems like his research involved selective breeding, which is something that has been practiced by farmers for thousands of years.

there is a very broad definition for GM food, so this could certainly fall under the blanket definition - but when most people talk of GM food they are referring to manipulating (not selectively breeding) genes in a lab setting or inserting genes or bacteria from a completely different species into a certain food....Like, for example, the bt toxin is inserted into the genetic make up of certain crops because it acts as a biological pesticide.

the end result CAN be essentially the same. I know a lot of people don't really see a difference in selectively breeding or inserting the gene in a lab.

 

Nope, he was definitely doing GMOs. Please just watch the video, why would they say selectively bred corn was poison???

 

the first genetically modified plant was a tobacco plant produced in 1983, according to wikipedia...which isn't always 100% accurate but we can assume it was sometime in the 80s. The first GM crop that was widely produced was the Flavr Savr tomato (the reason why tomatoes have no taste anymore) in 1994.

but I'll watch the video later when I get a chance.

 

My god, I'll find you something to read.

 

This is from his Wikipedia page:

Borlaug believed that genetic manipulation of organisms (GMO) was the only way to increase food production as the world runs out of unused arable land. GMOs were not inherently dangerous "because we've been genetically modifying plants and animals for a long time. Long before we called it science, people were selecting the best breeds."[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug