21–30 of 46 posts
Rejection of GMOs and rejection of large corporations controlling food sources, are different issues that are completely tied up in each other. Most of the problems with GMOs are problems with the patenting of crops, suing farmers for ridiculous reasons. The rest of the problems are people screaming "but the chemicals!" with no real scientific basis. We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet. We most likel…
GMOs are under patent and increase prices, they do not keep the poor hungry, they are simply resistant to more pesticides. And pesticides like Roundup have been linked to neurological problems like Parkinson. If you’d want to save the poor, you’d teach them about greenhouses and irrigation and soil enrichment, which are actually the biggest issues in these poor countries
Rejection of GMOs and rejection of large corporations controlling food sources, are different issues that are completely tied up in each other. Most of the problems with GMOs are problems with the patenting of crops, suing farmers for ridiculous reasons. The rest of the problems are people screaming "but the chemicals!" with no real scientific basis. We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet. We most likel…
> We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet That, too, is debatable. Google "Do we have enough food" - we could feed 10B people with what we produce. Feeding the world is currently more a matter of donating (who pays?) and distributing it, not so much of producing the food in the first place. > namely the lack of pesticides, of which some may be dangerous (but often regulated) There is also overfertilizati…
Rejection of GMOs and rejection of large corporations controlling food sources, are different issues that are completely tied up in each other. Most of the problems with GMOs are problems with the patenting of crops, suing farmers for ridiculous reasons. The rest of the problems are people screaming "but the chemicals!" with no real scientific basis. We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet. We most likel…
Not really, for refence I'm in a rural grain growing area with farm size averaging 4500 hectares.
Grain yields can be increased by many means, as they are, along with breeding for changing climate conditions, which they are (many thousands of ANOVA plots are grown about the region here every year) but the overwhelming practical attraction of GMO crops is glyphosate resistance .. this allows the application of weedkiller during seeding times in sufficient amounts to kill all plants save the crop.
Killing every plant across hundreds of thousands of hectares (with the exception of a very few desired by humans as food for humans) isn't exactly widely considered to be an environmental plus.
Near monoculture has knock on effects on the diversity of animal life, general environmental robustness, etc.
Rejection of GMOs and rejection of large corporations controlling food sources, are different issues that are completely tied up in each other. Most of the problems with GMOs are problems with the patenting of crops, suing farmers for ridiculous reasons. The rest of the problems are people screaming "but the chemicals!" with no real scientific basis. We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet. We most likel…
I’d be interested to hear examples of large-scale industry players voluntarily accepting the costs of their externalities to any meaningful degree (i.e. more than just-enough-to-make-a-good-PR-campaign). My belief is that in the absence of regulation, the survival advantages conferred by socializing costs and privatizing losses are sufficient to eliminate larger conscientious (or so-called “socially responsible”) organizations.
Rejection of GMOs and rejection of large corporations controlling food sources, are different issues that are completely tied up in each other. Most of the problems with GMOs are problems with the patenting of crops, suing farmers for ridiculous reasons. The rest of the problems are people screaming "but the chemicals!" with no real scientific basis. We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet. We most likel…
Rejection of GMOs and rejection of large corporations controlling food sources, are different issues that are completely tied up in each other. Most of the problems with GMOs are problems with the patenting of crops, suing farmers for ridiculous reasons. The rest of the problems are people screaming "but the chemicals!" with no real scientific basis. We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet. We most likel…
> namely the lack of pesticides lack of synthetic pesticides, you can use as much organic pesticides as you want.
“Consumption of organically produced food reduces pesticide exposure and is linked to a variety of health benefits, according to multiple studies, especially according to a large study from France.
Clinical trials continue to show that people who switch from non-organic to organic foods see a rapid and dramatic reduction in their urinary pesticide concentrations, a marker of pesticide exposure.
Other studies have linked higher consumption of organic foods to lower urinary pesticide levels, improved health outcomes, including reductions in maternal obesity and pregnancy-associated preeclampsia risks, lower BMI and reduced risk of Type 2 diabetes.”
Rejection of GMOs and rejection of large corporations controlling food sources, are different issues that are completely tied up in each other. Most of the problems with GMOs are problems with the patenting of crops, suing farmers for ridiculous reasons. The rest of the problems are people screaming "but the chemicals!" with no real scientific basis. We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet. We most likel…
> organic crops use more land, more water, and produce less for sale You could say the same thing about grass grazing cows and free range chickens. But anyone who’s had fresh home grown eggs, milk, or a 1/4 cow out in the country knows how much of a difference there is. Just because something is maximally efficient, doesn’t mean it’s healthier. Just like Coca Cola isn’t healthier than Kefir.
The reality is that free range animals take up an incredible amount of resources for a small percentage of the population who can afford such luxury.
We have more than enough food for everyone. Actually, we waste most of agricultural land to grow crops to feed animals that we eat later on, which is extremely inefficient, like a 10 to 1 calorie conversion rate. It's also cruel, bad for the environment, etc.
No one agrees with this because we all like eating meat. But yes, distribution is the real problem
I don't. I understand that some people like the taste of meat and they don't want to miss out on that, but the animal and ecosystem exploitation have unfortunately serious consequences that we can't ignore. If we can create alternative products that taste just like meat (or maybe even better), then this would be beneficial to everyone.
Rejection of GMOs and rejection of large corporations controlling food sources, are different issues that are completely tied up in each other. Most of the problems with GMOs are problems with the patenting of crops, suing farmers for ridiculous reasons. The rest of the problems are people screaming "but the chemicals!" with no real scientific basis. We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet. We most likel…
> We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet That, too, is debatable. Google "Do we have enough food" - we could feed 10B people with what we produce. Feeding the world is currently more a matter of donating (who pays?) and distributing it, not so much of producing the food in the first place. > namely the lack of pesticides, of which some may be dangerous (but often regulated) There is also overfertilizati…