GMO not a threat:

[Further]

What needs to be rectified is current law that allows Monsanto and similar companies to employ some of their tactics. Not GMO production. Look at what the problem is, and attack the problem, not a side issue. GMO is the side issue, the business practices, the patent law is the problem, the environmental law is the problem.

 

[magnifier661]

What needs to be rectified is current law that allows Monsanto and similar companies to employ some of their tactics. Not GMO production. Look at what the problem is, and attack the problem, not a side issue. GMO is the side issue, the business practices, the patent law is the problem, the environmental law is the problem.

That's it. Even though I'm not a big government fan; some cases, the federal government must step in. Take away certain patent laws that protect independent research on crop production. Give us the due diligence to truly test the pros and cons of gmo and not allow companies like Monsanto to strike any negative findings because it violates their proprietary patents; yet allows any positive tests to go through.

Also, what the fuck is the EPA thinking; allowing double application of a herbicide; when it is known to kill all living things in soil? Are they fucking stupid?

 

[Further]

That's it. Even though I'm not a big government fan; some cases, the federal government must step in. Take away certain patent laws that protect independent research on crop production. Give us the due diligence to truly test the pros and cons of gmo and not allow companies like Monsanto to strike any negative findings because it violates their proprietary patents; yet allows any positive tests to go through.

Also, what the fuck is the EPA thinking; allowing double application of a herbicide; when it is known to kill all living things in soil? Are they fucking stupid?

haha, I thought you were going to disagree with me, but I guess we are on the same page. I think you are spot on in this post. I usually hate repping you cause I don't like giving reps to Koreans, but in this case I'll make an exception.

 

[magnifier661]

haha, I thought you were going to disagree with me, but I guess we are on the same page. I think you are spot on in this post. I usually hate repping you cause I don't like giving reps to Koreans, but in this case I'll make an exception.

Lmao!

 

[Nikolokolus]

Maybe there is one thing we can all agree on here. Seed patents and maknig it illegal to store seed for the next planting if you buy from Monsanto (et. al.) is a shitty idea.

 

[magnifier661]

Maybe there is one thing we can all agree on here. Seed patents and maknig it illegal to store seed for the next planting if you buy from Monsanto (et. al.) is a shitty idea.

And patenting the pigs because they eat the gmo corn is a bad idea.

 

[Further]

And patenting genes that occur naturally is wrong too.

 

[magnifier661]

And patenting genes that occur naturally is wrong too.

Exactly. You allow this, eventually will own the rights for humanity to breed. We must have permission from Monsanto for having a child.

 

[Eastoff]

Exactly. You allow this, eventually will own the rights for humanity to breed. We must have permission from Monsanto for having a child.

But we can all agree some people should get permission before breeding. ;]

 

[magnifier661]

But we can all agree some people should get permission before breeding. ;]

Touché

 

[blue9]

I see children bigger, taller and better fed than ever before.

I'm guessing you meant to say "more fed", rather than "better fed". There is no way that, as a whole, we are better fed than previous generations. Diabetes and obesity are at all time highs, and are spreading to less industrialized countries. And this is due to the quality (or lack thereof) of food that's being ingested. I think it all boils down to corn subsidies - corn subsidies are costing our country billions of dollars, in order to keep prices down so food manufacturers can continue to feed us cheap junk food and turn record profits.

I'd like to see us go in the opposite direction with farming subsidies - stop paying out to monoculture super farms that grow nutrient deficient "food" (you can't even eat the corn they grow!), and instead put all of that money into subsidizing localized organic farms. What this would achieve is:
1 - nutritious food at affordable prices
2 - increase the cost of foods that are causing harmful health effects, which would...
3 - increase the health of our population by reducing the amount of junk food we eat, which would...
4 - decrease the cost of health care

Other effects would include:
1 - strengthening local economies by keeping food production/sales local
2 - reducing emissions caused by shipping food long distances
3 - creating localized, rather than centralized (or mechanized), jobs

 

[magnifier661]

I'm guessing you meant to say "more fed", rather than "better fed". There is no way that, as a whole, we are better fed than previous generations. Diabetes and obesity are at all time highs, and are spreading to less industrialized countries. And this is due to the quality (or lack thereof) of food that's being ingested. I think it all boils down to corn subsidies - corn subsidies are costing our country billions of dollars, in order to keep prices down so food manufacturers can continue to feed us cheap junk food and turn record profits.

I'd like to see us go in the opposite direction with farming subsidies - stop paying out to monoculture super farms that grow nutrient deficient "food" (you can't even eat the corn they grow!), and instead put all of that money into subsidizing localized organic farms. What this would achieve is:
1 - nutritious food at affordable prices
2 - increase the cost of foods that are causing harmful health effects, which would...
3 - increase the health of our population by reducing the amount of junk food we eat, which would...
4 - decrease the cost of health care

Other effects would include:
1 - strengthening local economies by keeping food production/sales local
2 - reducing emissions caused by shipping food long distances
3 - creating localized, rather than centralized (or mechanized), jobs

You make too much sense! How dare you!

 

[Further]

I'm guessing you meant to say "more fed", rather than "better fed". There is no way that, as a whole, we are better fed than previous generations. Diabetes and obesity are at all time highs, and are spreading to less industrialized countries. And this is due to the quality (or lack thereof) of food that's being ingested. I think it all boils down to corn subsidies - corn subsidies are costing our country billions of dollars, in order to keep prices down so food manufacturers can continue to feed us cheap junk food and turn record profits.

I'd like to see us go in the opposite direction with farming subsidies - stop paying out to monoculture super farms that grow nutrient deficient "food" (you can't even eat the corn they grow!), and instead put all of that money into subsidizing localized organic farms. What this would achieve is:
1 - nutritious food at affordable prices
2 - increase the cost of foods that are causing harmful health effects, which would...
3 - increase the health of our population by reducing the amount of junk food we eat, which would...
4 - decrease the cost of health care

Other effects would include:
1 - strengthening local economies by keeping food production/sales local
2 - reducing emissions caused by shipping food long distances
3 - creating localized, rather than centralized (or mechanized), jobs

we are basically on the same page, but a couple quick points. More fed versus better fed, I think this is a matter of perspective. When just being fed so much more, even if it does eventually result in diabetes or some other issue, also produces people with higher IQ, taller, stronger, faster..... So even though we might aim for even better nutrition along with readily available food, just simply having access to more sloppy joes is also better than have a restriction on intake. But yes, the food is not as nutritious as we would hope. But most of that lack of nutrition is not because it's GMO, it's because we choose to eat corn chips instead of corn. We could still get a very nutritious diet with only GMO food if we paid attention to eating low fat diet with lots of veggies.

Also, #2 under other effects.
I read, I just tried to google it and couldnt find it, but I remember reading an article about how this is actually not true. Because it takes a lot more emissions to grow and transport in smaller batches, that there is actually not an emissions reductions. It was actually calculated in the article I read, It was about a year or two old, I'll look a little more to try and find it but so far no luck.

 

[Denny Crane]

And patenting genes that occur naturally is wrong too.

I don't think you can get a patent on prior art.

 

[blue9]

I read, I just tried to google it and couldnt find it, but I remember reading an article about how this is actually not true. Because it takes a lot more emissions to grow and transport in smaller batches, that there is actually not an emissions reductions.

Hmmm, I'd be interested. I'm doubtful, but interested. Given the fact that we're shipping foods not just within the country, but also from continent to continent and across vast oceans, I find it hard to believe that emissions wouldn't decrease. Especially as low-emission vehicle technology advances, localized transportation should be far less harmful than ocean liners and freight trains. I suppose I should clarify that my model for localized organic farming would be to have each major metropolis surrounded by a multitude of farms within 50 miles of the metropolis (or even within city limits). There's no reason we should grow all our potatoes in Idaho and ship them to Maine. Or that we should be getting our mid-winter strawberries from Venezuela.

 

[Further]

I couldn't find the original article, but I found this freakonomics article on the subject.

 

[Denny Crane]

I couldn't find the original article, but I found this freakonomics article on the subject.

In 1900, 90% or more of the US population were farmers. Today, ADM can pretty much feed the country by itself; that's one company.

You might interpolate from 90% to near 0% to realize how efficient the big corporate farmers are. It also frees up our time to watch TV or post on message boards.

Though a lot of food is local. Milk, for example, has a short shelf life, so it's better to produce it locally rather than have it partially expire on a railroad car or truck.

 

[blue9]

I couldn't find the original article, but I found this freakonomics article on the subject.

Thanks. Not a lot that I hadn't heard before, but good to hear it again.
I think a major deficit with their article is that it's relying on the "economies of scale" and the higher yield that mega-farms produce over local farms. This is entirely true - Big Ag is concerned first and foremost with yield, and they do produce a MUCH higher yield than you'd ever get out of an organic farm. However, the article makes the argument that local/organic farming would have a detrimental carbon effect because it would need more acreage and fertilizers to replace, pound for pound, the yield currently produced by Big Ag. Sure - if you want to grow the same mass that's currently being grown, that's true. But, it's not necessary that we produce this food at the same rate it's currently being produced. We don't NEED 383 hundredweight of potatoes per acre - we're producing that so that we can get $2 large fries at McD's and $2 bags of potato chips. Likewise, we don't need to be growing the amount of corn that we're growing - it's not even usable as human food without major amounts of processing.

Given that a large portion of our food is thrown out, yield is not an important metric in feeding the population. It's only important for profits.

With regards to transportation the article said:

It’s not even clear local production reduces carbon emissions from transportation. The Harvard economist Ed Glaeser estimates that carbon emissions from transportation don’t decline in a locavore future because local farms reduce population density as potential homes are displaced by community gardens. Less-dense cities mean more driving and more carbon emissions.

Eh - another suspect argument. You can have population density AND local farming. You can have inner-city farming AND dense populations. It's not an either/or. Population density's biggest hurdle isn't farming, it's suburbanization. What was once farmland is now strip malls and McMansions. I'd like to see this land returned to the farmers and create an urbal/rural landscape that greatly minimizes suburban sprawl.

 

[Further]

Thanks. Not a lot that I hadn't heard before, but good to hear it again.
I think a major deficit with their article is that it's relying on the "economies of scale" and the higher yield that mega-farms produce over local farms. This is entirely true - Big Ag is concerned first and foremost with yield, and they do produce a MUCH higher yield than you'd ever get out of an organic farm. However, the article makes the argument that local/organic farming would have a detrimental carbon effect because it would need more acreage and fertilizers to replace, pound for pound, the yield currently produced by Big Ag. Sure - if you want to grow the same mass that's currently being grown, that's true. But, it's not necessary that we produce this food at the same rate it's currently being produced. We don't NEED 383 hundredweight of potatoes per acre - we're producing that so that we can get $2 large fries at McD's and $2 bags of potato chips. Likewise, we don't need to be growing the amount of corn that we're growing - it's not even usable as human food without major amounts of processing.

Given that a large portion of our food is thrown out, yield is not an important metric in feeding the population. It's only important for profits.

With regards to transportation the article said:

Eh - another suspect argument. You can have population density AND local farming. You can have inner-city farming AND dense populations. It's not an either/or. Population density's biggest hurdle isn't farming, it's suburbanization. What was once farmland is now strip malls and McMansions. I'd like to see this land returned to the farmers and create an urbal/rural landscape that greatly minimizes suburban sprawl.

So another couple points that were not brought up here but were in the article I can't find, were employees per amount of food produced goes down significantly with big Ag, so part of the increase in emissions would be from transportation to and from work. Also, I guess a lot of smaller farms use tools which are much less efficient, a truck that hauls 1 ton at a time in from the fields vs a truck that hauls 10 tons in at a time.

I think this is one of the areas, where if you looked into it closely, depending on the type of numbers you choose to say are important, you could argue for either side. The truth? That's something else all together.

But, I think this is one of the less important arguments on the subject. There are so many other, less fuzzy, arguments to be made.

 

[magnifier661]

FYI guys, the amount of greenhouse gas from tilling the fields after harvest is pretty significant. Keep in mind what the farmers are doing is working organic matter back into the soil. The breakdown of organic matter creates CO2 emissions. So when big ag over produces 2/3 of their farms on wasted food; that landscape is wasted emissions.

 

[magnifier661]

The solution for big cities is having the sq ft farming on top of commercial buildings. Supplement aquaponics in blocks and you will have a coop to supply the vegetables for the community. But none of that will happen. People would rather put up skyscrappers

 

[BrianFromWA]

They're not doing it right, but at least they tried.

 

[BrianFromWA]

and I'm worried less about carbon being released into the atmosphere than about the tons and tons of quality soil being petro-chemical and pesticide-saturated before being washed down the Mississippi. It's a bit harder to farm on bedrock.

 

[magnifier661]

and I'm worried less about carbon being released into the atmosphere than about the tons and tons of quality soil being petro-chemical and pesticide-saturated before being washed down the Mississippi. It's a bit harder to farm on bedrock.

100% agree with that!

 

[magnifier661]

They're not doing it right, but at least they tried.

Yeah it's the want to move in the right direction that's a good thing. Right now the general public has absolutely no idea on how poisoned most foods are. If people would just learn a little more about nutrition, basic ecology (really not that hard), and recycling; we'd be much healthier, happier and less stressed.

 

[blue9]

But, I think this is one of the less important arguments on the subject. There are so many other, less fuzzy, arguments to be made.

Precisely. I thought of it as an "added bonus", but even if it's carbon neutral that doesn't detract from the other positives.

 

[Further]

Precisely. I thought of it as an "added bonus", but even if it's carbon neutral that doesn't detract from the other positives.

bingo, and blue9 was his name-O.

One of the big problems is that no matter what what reasons we choose, it's going to be real hard to actually make a change, a national or global change. The vast majority of people are going to go with whatever is easier on their pocketbook. If I can make a dinner for 5 bucks using GMO that would be $10 using local farm, it's really hard to argue against that.

I don't know what the answer is, I want healthy, community conscious, environmentally friendly, cheap and plentiful food. But that's now really possible.

 

[MARIS61]

Nature gave us a lifespan of 30-40 years 300 years ago.

Even if GMO today isn't the answer, I'm sure one day science will definitively surpass all organic foods. If they're not somewhat there already. This weird experimenting thing will pay off.

Nature is perfection.

Man has never improved on nature, for that very reason.

 

[magnifier661]

Nature is perfection.

Man has never improved on nature, for that very reason.

I knew you were a closet christian!!!!