-
I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...
Just who does Monsanto think they are
- Thread starter fmg
- Start date
SignosaurusRex
Active Member
Oh Boy....you hit a nerve by mentioning Monsanto............
I think it best that I exercise my right to Not exercise my right to Freedom of Speech on this one!!!
I think it best that I exercise my right to Not exercise my right to Freedom of Speech on this one!!!
SignosaurusRex
Active Member
J Hill Designs
New Member
genericname
New Member
Not to mention terminator seeds. While they've pledged not to use straight-up single generation seeds, they do produce hybrid seeds that are practically useless in the second generation, and have contracts that state farmers can't plant seeds they harvest.
TheSnowman
New Member
It's all part of feeding the entire world, and putting corn in motors.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
You know, in soils class our exit exam was to find a way to organically feed the world. Not one person could make it work given the available land and what that entails to grow crops how we define organically and how we produce crops organically. And we had some smart people in there as well. The conditions that we had to work in were also known conditions at the time. We did think the deck was stacked against it, but it wasn't based on what we knew when we took the exam.
Ironically, the seeds (and plants) that people get for their garden here in the states are generally GMO as well (especially the ones that are resistant to aphids). It does occur naturally, however, not to the scale that we have in our plants and it would take a long time for natural reproduction to make those traits "dominant".
Also, if you subscribe to global warming, going to make it even harder to use organic and natural means as well. Not impossible, but it'll hurt that's for sure. Of course, the one upside you could argue is that previously unused land will now be available and hopefully, offset what was "lost" or not as fertile as it once was.
I'm not against organic foods, contrary, I would prefer it. Much better for you, but the "technology" that we have for organic growing doesn't have the same level of impact. Can't try to make food available for a huge population and have it organic at the same time at this point. There will be hurt going on.
Ironically, the seeds (and plants) that people get for their garden here in the states are generally GMO as well (especially the ones that are resistant to aphids). It does occur naturally, however, not to the scale that we have in our plants and it would take a long time for natural reproduction to make those traits "dominant".
Also, if you subscribe to global warming, going to make it even harder to use organic and natural means as well. Not impossible, but it'll hurt that's for sure. Of course, the one upside you could argue is that previously unused land will now be available and hopefully, offset what was "lost" or not as fertile as it once was.
I'm not against organic foods, contrary, I would prefer it. Much better for you, but the "technology" that we have for organic growing doesn't have the same level of impact. Can't try to make food available for a huge population and have it organic at the same time at this point. There will be hurt going on.
genericname
New Member
At this point, yeah. The problem isn't just GMO, but the overarching infrastructure needed to support it. When Monsanto and other companies got out of the chemicals-and-tanks-to-kill-people-in-wartime business, they needed a new model, and the agricultural industry was born, along with all of the fancy equipment and chemicals that go with it. We're too dependant on a series of processes now, and as a result, we're more susceptible should anything happen. Instead of attacking just Monsanto, most of the hippy types you'd run into during this kind of debate, will tell you that the monoculture is the real problem, and that Monsanto's just one of the key players in sustaining it.
I would argue with you though, about GMO food being better for you. There are studies that show we actually absorb fewer of the beneficial properties of GMO foods than otherwise, and suggestions based on animal studies that much of it is actually quite harmful to us on a genetic level. Crap in; crap out.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
I didn't say that.
I said that about organic food.
The "impact" was about how much food is able to be grown via GMO versus how much food is able to be grown organically.
"Impact" is not the same as beneficial, but in how much food is obtained via this method versus GMO.
genericname
New Member
Wow. Monday morning. Pardon my lapse there. :Oops:
Yeah, I think the impact makes sense on paper, where you get a higher yield of growth from GMO seeds versus traditional seeds, but there is a much higher cost and footprint associated with growing those seeds, not to mention that the process kills the soil. It's unfortunate that those things never factor in. Sure, buddy from Ethiopia can start a farm, but he's also going to be on the hook for tons of chemicals and equipment just to get it going, and the food he produces won't actually be nutritive.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
On some crops sure. Some crops are genetically manipulated to have "natural" poisons to eliminate the need of using external ones. BT Cotton being one.
Also you have to realize that through genetic manipulation, cotton does have the potential of a food crop now as well. The gene that is toxic to us has been taken care of. Something that can never be done naturally. What are the ramifications of this? Too soon to tell, but the potential is pretty awesome.
I think there should be a "mixed bag" approach to this. Not all or nothing. It really depends on how things are done and how things are modified.
Also, rotating, put in a legume in place of a food crop or any high demanding crop. Food crops, period rather natural or GMO can kill the soil by draining it. Some do so faster then others, but it will happen. Rotating and especially putting in a legume (just cut it before it bolts, otherwise it will then start taking away the atmospheric nitrogen that it put into the soil).
Having such a huge population and demand to feed makes it harder to be smarter about farming practices.
genericname
New Member
You said it.
Food crop yields vs. population growth
It's depressing, because we have the technology to fix this. We just need to understand that a better third quarter is not more important than feeding ourselves, and that no company should hold a monopoly to the necessities of life.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
Unfortunately, you also have to have a way to curb it on the population end as well. Either it will be done so by those that can't afford the higher food costs or in other ways, but still related to higher food costs.
There will come a point to where if the population isn't curbed that you will have to use "man-made" foods. Even though we have an impressive amount of land left, you have to realize that not all has the same yield, especially naturally. Now you can modified crops to get as good of a yield that they can get with marginal land, but doing it naturally it will peak.
Factor in global warming (if you subscribe to that) that makes it even harder to do so naturally.
To do this right, there is going to be hurt. People might want to do it, but they don't want any hurt either on the end of more hunger or on the end of their fiscal quarter. That's what people have to get beyond.