• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Founder of the anti-genetically modified crops movement repudiates all past claims

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
:hmm: So maybe you just strongly dislike them? You are quibbling over a word.
No in a previous post you stated I hate them, I responded and told you I didn't hate them that I had some business practices I don't like.

So you knew my position and wanted to put words in my mouth as its the only way you know how to debate a point.

Trust me that will be my last attempt to actually have real dialogue with you. I've long suspected you are incapable but figured with the new year and all, I'd give it another shot.
 

crashtestdummy

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2010
2,894
0
0
At the core of the beliefs of a lot of the anti-GMO people I know is that they believe that genetically modifying food is "unnatural". The thing is, all farming is unnatural. Every bit of land that is a farm now would not be a farm if there were not humans on it. A farm is about as natural as a city block. If you really want to preserve nature, the best way is to minimize our footprint by a combination of increasing farm yields, minimizing outside pesticide exposure, and maximizing the nutritional content (i.e. calorie, vitamin and protein content) of crops.

I'm not here as a Monsanto apologist: some of what they do works towards these goals, some doesn't. They respond to what the market demands of them. Instead of obsessing over a few implementations of genetic technology, I'd suggest looking at that broader possibilities that are currently being shot down by the anti-GMO crowd.

45 years ago, there was widespread prediction of massive famine that would kill off a billion or more people. It likely would have happened, too, had Norman Borlaug not almost single-handledly introduced modern farming to the developing world. For all of our first-world complaints about the damage of pesticides, they have saved the lives of over a billion people. He was able to introduce these methods largely free from government interference or red tape in a way that would not now be possible.

Now, of course, we are starting to run up against the limit of these farming methods. Genetic engineering provides a way to surpass these limits in important ways. Some examples:

Golden Rice that contains high quantities of beta-carotene.

Cassava with higher quantities of protein.

Plants that accumulate arsenic from the soil, cleaning it. Alternatively, rice that doesn't accumulate arsenic from the soil, so you can grow it in bad areas.

All of these are ideas that don't come from Monsanto, but because of the anti-GMO opposition, they face a lot of resistance in their implementation. With all the red tape that people have to go through now, the only people with the resources to create and distribute these plants are the huge companies, creating the self-fulfilling prophecy that only big, evil companies do this.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
The word "Marriage" ring a bell to you? :eek:
What is your point? I think civil unions are silly idea for precisely that reason.

No in a previous post you stated I hate them, I responded and told you I didn't hate them that I had some business practices I don't like.

So you knew my position and wanted to put words in my mouth as its the only way you know how to debate a point.
You claimed not to hate them, but then made multiple posts about how you dislike them...

Actions over words.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
At the core of the beliefs of a lot of the anti-GMO people I know is that they believe that genetically modifying food is "unnatural". The thing is, all farming is unnatural. Every bit of land that is a farm now would not be a farm if there were not humans on it. A farm is about as natural as a city block. If you really want to preserve nature, the best way is to minimize our footprint by a combination of increasing farm yields, minimizing outside pesticide exposure, and maximizing the nutritional content (i.e. calorie, vitamin and protein content) of crops.

I'm not here as a Monsanto apologist: some of what they do works towards these goals, some doesn't. They respond to what the market demands of them. Instead of obsessing over a few implementations of genetic technology, I'd suggest looking at that broader possibilities that are currently being shot down by the anti-GMO crowd.

45 years ago, there was widespread prediction of massive famine that would kill off a billion or more people. It likely would have happened, too, had Norman Borlaug not almost single-handledly introduced modern farming to the developing world. For all of our first-world complaints about the damage of pesticides, they have saved the lives of over a billion people. He was able to introduce these methods largely free from government interference or red tape in a way that would not now be possible.

Now, of course, we are starting to run up against the limit of these farming methods. Genetic engineering provides a way to surpass these limits in important ways. Some examples:

Golden Rice that contains high quantities of beta-carotene.

Cassava with higher quantities of protein.

Plants that accumulate arsenic from the soil, cleaning it. Alternatively, rice that doesn't accumulate arsenic from the soil, so you can grow it in bad areas.

All of these are ideas that don't come from Monsanto, but because of the anti-GMO opposition, they face a lot of resistance in their implementation. With all the red tape that people have to go through now, the only people with the resources to create and distribute these plants are the huge companies, creating the self-fulfilling prophecy that only big, evil companies do this.
Seems like GMO has benefits to society other than enriching Monsanto.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,479
428
126
Washington state now has a proposal (or at least a campaign to put a proposal on the ballot) to label genetically modified organisms http://www.labelitwa.org/


Why not? Monsanto has billions hoarded to spend on public relations campaigns.


Think of it as karma for some of their shitty practices toward farmers that some have brought up in this thread.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
My point is you squabble of the word 'marriage' for gays. I didnt think my point would need explaining. But for you i guess it does.
I don't think gay relationships should be given government recognition. Whether its called marriage, civil unions, government-recognized-sex-partners, etc.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,038
20
81
I don't think gay relationships should be given government recognition. Whether its called marriage, civil unions, government-recognized-sex-partners, etc.
I must have clicked the wrong thread, the one I subscribed to was about GMO politics. :hmm:
 
Nov 29, 2006
14,640
2,439
126
I don't think gay relationships should be given government recognition. Whether its called marriage, civil unions, government-recognized-sex-partners, etc.
I could easily say the same of hetro relationships. But in this country they need to be treated equally either with gov recognition or without gov recognition. And currently most favor gov recognition so that is the one we will go with for both.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY