INTELLIGENCE SQUARED DEBATES: "Genetically Modify Foods" - the Winners & Losers

Discussion in 'Plants: In the News' started by anza, Dec 15, 2014.

  1. anza

    anza Active Member 10 Years

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Europe
    Anyone watch December 3rd debate between Team Monsanto and Team Organics ? I thought it was a terrible debate, especially for the Team Organics. It wasn't enough to criticize Monsanto and GMOs, but they should have really provided evidence for real world working alternatives and they didn't. Well, other than making vague references to we need to Farm Organically and pursue conventional breeding. I just didn't think they really made their case and of course they audience voted not so much for GMOs are okay as they voted who presented a more professional case. The problem is, Team Monsanto didn't exactly present anything new aside from the sual definition shell gaming, citation bluffing and "We have consensus on our side"

    INTELLIGENCE SQUARED DEBATES: "Genetically Modify Foods" - the Winners & Losers
     
  2. Sundrop

    Sundrop Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,057
    Likes Received:
    97
    Location:
    Kootenays, BC, Canada
    What Monsanto and others are doing is based on an early incomplete knowledge of the genome.

     
  3. anza

    anza Active Member 10 Years

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Europe
    What I find more scary is when they start to actually find viable function and purpose for non-coding DNA for which many of them have been insisting for a 3+ decades is nothing more is Junk DNA, which is based on religious ignorance coupled with their usual inability to admit they actually don't know something, those non-coding genes more than likely carry massive amounts of information for guidance, instructions, regulations, blueprints for how a protein will be used and how it will be used to construct some biological machine, etc. What happens if such genetic instructions get lose in another organisms genome ? They are already playing with possible epigenetic manipulation to see if they are able to turn on or off certain switches, etc. But they just don't know enough to be making these decisions and doing so for nothing other than profit from Patents.

    My upset with that debate however had nothing to do with the GMO Biotech side as I am tired of hearing broad sweeping use of the words Organics and breeding by the non-gmo side. Aside from championing safer natural alternatives, you need to show specifics and proven practice out in the field. There are many that are doing that. This forum for example has good stores of information on the studies and benefits of using mycorrhizal fungi and beneficial bacteria in the form of Biomimicry or Biomimetics. But industrial giants won't go down without a fight. Drought resistance can be obtained immediately without years or decades of waiting for either breeding or Genetic Manipulation through some horizontal transfer of a trait from one organism to another entirely different one. Plants don't need to be engineered to be self fertilizing, there are tools in Nature that are already in place for that. This only exposes the real motive behind much of this manipulation model, it's called Patents and obscene wealth creation for years to come with Chemicals. I can truthfully speak on this because I have not had to use their chemical cocktails for almost two decades now when I was landscape supervisor and in my habitat restoration projects. Most of my knowledge came from hands on application , not only from research and reading what others have done, but also personal observation in giving wild remote plantings as much advantage in success without human presence to help things along. Still, the main sticking point for me was that Team Organic not being well prepared enough to make their case and it was irresponsible.
     
  4. Michael F

    Michael F Paragon of Plants Forums Moderator 10 Years

    Messages:
    10,829
    Likes Received:
    199
    Location:
    Britain zone 8/9
    But why do you want drought resistance? It just means that desert and semi-desert biodiversity will be trashed like the rest of the world's biodiversity, and replaced with yet more Homo sapiens monocultures.
     
  5. anza

    anza Active Member 10 Years

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Europe
    Seriously, you're kidding right ? Maybe this has more to do with you coming from a UK perspective more than anything else. In numerous parts of the world the need for drought resistance is imperative and mycorrhizal fungi answers that goal. Remember, it's both the GMO & Organics people who brought up the subject of drought resistant crops for Africa and other warmer and then there is this thing called Climate Change ? Which most American GMO Farmers believe is a fraud and hoax as being cased by humans.

    Another thing that people in other countries won't recognize or understand is that American Farmers are Subsidized and that is why they won't leave the Industrial teat and go organics. Actually that just came out yesterday. It's an article about Wheat Farmers who practice various principles of organic farming of wheat have higher yields, are more profitable than their industrial counterparts who are not profitable, use chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides who don't make profit without government subsidies which Organic low cost Farms are not allowed to receive.

    Genetic Engineering: More ruthlessly & Ideologically driven than you can possibly fathom

    -
     
  6. Daniel Mosquin

    Daniel Mosquin Paragon of Plants UBC Botanical Garden Forums Administrator Forums Moderator 10 Years

    Messages:
    10,012
    Likes Received:
    351
    Location:
    Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
    While I may agree with you on some points, this site is not intended to be a soapbox. If you are going to make assertions like this one,

    ,

    you're going to have to start supplying studies and facts. These forums are open to everyone who respectfully participates. I may think that some practices that forum members want to do harmful to the environment, but it is opportunity to teach if people aren't denigrated because they belong to a particular group.

    Climate change beliefs, concerns, and attitudes toward adaptation and mitigation among farmers in the Midwestern United States

     
  7. anza

    anza Active Member 10 Years

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Europe
    Did you even read my article ? Michael & I were discussing some of the talking points I had made about drought and climate change inside that post. These same points were discussed in that debate. The information from your link which is from February 2012 was already cited in my post from the USDA's SustainableCorn.org and people have been discussing all of this since that time where far more recent updated articles have appeared in middle to late 2013 right down to the end of 2014 here as to why the majority of Farmers don't follow. So am I missing something ? My own family is from northeastern Iowa, are vocal GMO Supporters and card carrying members of the "Watts Up With That" fan club. They tell me global warming is a fraud and that if there is climate change it has nothing to do with human activity. That is untrue and aside from the pollution factories pump into the atmosphere, irresponsible Agriculture and deforestation has done more to accelerate this problem.

    There's no soapbox going on here, so why would you even bring such a purposefully derogatory statement like that into this discussion ? Of course this isn't exactly new now is it Daniel ? You've pulled this stunt previously when in another post I used the term "Native Plant Nazi" in describing more own former well meaning but misplaced intolerance for restoring habitats anything other than Native Plants and there was no good reason for doing so then. Now the main import of this thread's subject here has been lost, thanks.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2014
  8. Sundrop

    Sundrop Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,057
    Likes Received:
    97
    Location:
    Kootenays, BC, Canada
    Calm down anza. I believe what Daniel says is, if you formulated your statement in post #5 in this thread:
    "Which most American GMO Farmers believe is a fraud and hoax as being caused by humans"
    in more positive way:
    "Which only 8% American GMO Farmers believe as being caused mostly by humans",
    all would be all right, and, without generalizations, (that, in general ;-), are not always justified) your statement would be only stronger.

    It looks like the discussion is getting overheated here, too. :-)
     

Share This Page