Nola_Lifer wrote:I don't understand why we need GM crops. We have been growing and cultivating food for thousands of years why do we need to f*ck with it? My friend has an organic farm that grows bigger and better veggies than any other conventional farming techniques(pesticides and chemical nutrients). Since when does more testing making a product better? If there isn't anything wrong with a crop then you don't have to waste the money on testing it.
Testing resolves safety concerns, thus making the product better. Testing can also reveal data which were previously unknown, thus allowing for more rational and productive decision-making. People 'test' all the time through scientific or not-so-scientific means, so it depends in this regard too.
GM crops are deemed necessary due to customer preferences.* GM crops are more efficient, thus less costly (and/or more productive, more profitable, etc.). These factors are a big deal for developing countries which don't have the luxury of using lesser efficient means of producing crops (e.g. organic industries in the OECD).
*Exception: government subsidies distort the price of GM crops (and conventional crops) which in turn distorts customer preferences and the 'need' (more accurately called 'demand') for a particular crop.
Nola_Lifer wrote:Another problem with GM crops is companies will be allowed to patent their product. Seeds shouldn't have a patent on them. One should be allow to grow crops from seeds and then use them again. Goes against the whole point of farming in general. GM crops may reduce on pesticides but if you never use pesticides then you'd reduce the problem already.
Not using pesticides requires the use of substitutes, which can be more costly. Substitutes can entail more roundabout yet more expensive ways of production, e.g. using ladybugs, planting crops a certain way, whatever; however, such means may be riskier, or more vulnerable to uncertain changes in climate, etc.; therefore, it's not a simple matter of "if you never use pesticides then you'd reduce the problem already." Instead, you can create or encounter other problems.
Nola_Lifer wrote:As Borlaug was saying, perhaps the most pernicious myth of all is that organic production is better, either for people or the environment. The idea that it is healthier has been repeatedly disproved in the scientific literature. We also know from many studies that organic is much less productive, with up to 40-50% lower yields in terms of land area. The Soil Association went to great lengths in a recent report on feeding the world with organic not to mention this productivity gap.
Nor did it mention that overall, if you take into account land displacement effects, organic is also likely worse for biodiversity
Calling bullshit on this one. Big fucking bullshit.
Two sides call bullshit on each other. One was firmly against GM crops until he conducted an extensive review of the literature, realized he was wrong, and calls bullshit on the anti-GM crowd. The other side simply calls bullshit.
Which one is more believable?
Nola_Lifer wrote:If you think about it, the organic movement is at its heart a rejectionist one. It doesnāt accept many modern technologies on principle. Like the Amish in Pennsylvania, who froze their technology with the horse and cart in 1850, the organic movement essentially freezes its technology in somewhere around 1950, and for no better reason.
There is a reason. Seems like horse and cart still works well for the Amish.
Edit: Just to add a point here, GM doesn't solve the root of the problem. There are many reason why some farms may or may not do as well as others. Usually do to poor technique or lack of information/ knowledge/ experience.
Keep your GM food.
If conventional agriculture was more inefficient than GM crops, then GM crops would not be profitable, so it wouldn't be produced--at least in such great quantities.
Of course, with government subsidies to agriculture who knows how much that reduces the costs of producing GM crops--as well as conventional crops, but I'd imagine that even without the government subsidies, GM agriculture would still be more efficient.
If we are concerned with producing more food and feeding more people, then GM agriculture can provide such opportunities. Organic agriculture would seem to offer as many possibilities as the horse and buggy, which is when compared to motorized transportation a poor choice.
