Of course it won't and neither should if for you.
Read your own article. They are all good questions about golden rice. But DO NOT disqualify it.
So there is no reason we should not go ahead and answer the questions.
But my info, on the difficulty of getting people to eat yellow colored rice, is the most persuasive.
I gave info identifying a problem for what I see as a promising crop that will have cultural difficulties.
This is an act that people who want good answers do, something that you can't fathom.
And I never stated every single GM crop was good. You stated that every GM crop was bad. I think GM food could have great promise. It's a possible step up from selective breeding which has also been rejected on grounds it could be harmful. The breeding of fighting animals that can also tear up people is not so great in many cir stances.
The selective breeding of animals that will suffer horrible skeletal abnormalities for the sake of some dog addict that likes the look is not good. Yet we have selectively bred food crops that give larger fruit and more nutritious. You can't buy a food crop in the US that has not been selectively bred. Dogs that are good at smelling have now helped us sniff out bombs and people under rubble. But it, some company might make a profit. Blinded by your hate for any big company.
Last edited by pgardn; 03-09-2014 at 01:16 PM.
I see boutons is still "educating" everyone on roundup.
Name me another weed killer that's been as effective, within similar costs, and better for the environment?
Compare it with Atrazine.
Kind of a mute point anyway being as a larger percent of the horrible atrocities of runoff actually occur from lawns anyway.
Where is the outrage of residential lawncare? Marijuanna production in california?
roundup is great because atrazine is so bad!
Name me a better method. You can't.
Non- GMO is not neccesary better for tge environment or healthier. It's certainly not viable nor a long term answer besides a niche market.
Roundup if used properly is a well thought out idea, except that it can be easily misused. This is a problem. No way they have levels build up in bottom sediments like given in Boots article unless it's used improperly, and it appears like its easy to do.roundup is great because atrazine is so bad!
Also it of course selects for weeds that can deal with, but this is expected, natural selection moves forward.
welcome back to politics, cooler girl. you can't possibly back up your own claims. your cooler talk is way too broad.
wonder how we ever survived so long as a civilization without non-GMOs. does all of human history prior to the late 20th century count as a niche market?
Can you check world population and get back to me? Thanks.
What about in 20 years?
The reason I brought up Atrazine is bc it's the chem of choice for non gmo corn.
Know your side of your argument before you mock it!
that's not a reply to me and it isn't even a claim on your own part. just more cooler girl type hand-waving.
btw, I don't take a side in this fight. but I am making fun of your overbroad cooler talk.
what's your handwaving about world population all about?
last population thread posted here suggested the problem related to worth population in the next hundred years or so isn't overpopulation, but slower population growth.
"natural"!!
Just read yesterday a corn borer worm that roundup was supposed to stop now happily chows down on roundup/GM corn
As insects, weeds, fungus develop resistance to x-icides, inevitably, the nastier has to be dumped on your food (I don't eat corn, soy, or wheat)
Also read that Monsanto wants to change the GM seeds to "stack" in more, different poisons, including a component of agent orange which is still ravaging and killing VN vets and VN people today.
GM garbage and Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer Crop Science, etc is meant to increase corporate profits by enslaving agriculture to its products.
They aren't meant to improve the nutritional value to consumers, who are distant second thought, and probably ignored completely by the corps.
Corn as the American aboriginals bred and consumed was multi-variety, multi-colored, MUCH more nutritious than the corporate, genized, synthetic mono-crop they try to feed us now.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 03-19-2014 at 12:07 PM.
Obviously I don't fit in with your clique here. Why would I?
The population issue is related to your comment about we do just fine without GMO prior to this. I told you to look up pop numbers so you can comprehend what the world fed years ago versus now.
I love how you say a thread "suggested" an answer.
So someone suggesting an idea is now a legitimate rebuttal? I would assume eventually the world will not breed so fast, after all, resources will be scarce. Like food.
I grow both gmo and non gmo. There isn't enough demand yet for a lot of on gmo. Some times there is no premium. Most people aren't willing to pay more.
LOL at buying organics. Pay twice as much for sprayed with different pesticides.
link?
the "natural" and "organic" labels have certainly been degraded, tainted by corporate lobbying, so in order not to get suckered by corporate lies, you have to shop very carefully.
what are the numbers and what do they show? and what's the twenty year projection? in short, come to the point intstead of just pointing mutely at what you mean to say.
when the point replied to is elliptical, as yours was, I think it's fair to throw out a random topical point as a conversational pivot. so yes, suggesting something -- anything really -- concrete is a valid rebuttal to hand waving.I love how you say a thread "suggested" an answer.
So someone suggesting an idea is now a legitimate rebuttal?
finally, a concrete claim. we need GMOs due to declining productivity, due to slower population growth. correct?I would assume eventually the world will not breed so fast, after all, resources will be scarce. Like food.
jeez. getting people to say what they mean is like pulling teeth sometimes.
How hard is it to understand about the population explosion? Do a little research. You seem to anticipate being able to feed more people with less technology and a shrinking water supply.
Care to clue the rest of us in on that?
Just an FYI, productivity has not declined. If you limit the technology available, then it should decrease.
Do you care to provide some concrete claims on the decline of productivity?
bull
Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to 40% Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill
http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/wasted-food-ip.pdf
All that excess food is purchased, enriching BigFood, and canned.
GMO doesn't really increase crop yield, so it's not the answer to a hungry planet.
The solution is less mammal meat, less chicken, and all the Bs of tons of water and crops and chemicals that are used to produce them, and better, more efficient overall management of food production.
I have no idea how agricultural productivity is related to "population explosion" and GMOs, but you seem to have determinate ideas about it. seems it's on you to substantiate the population explosion and the necessity of GMOs.
I was trying to guess at what you meant, not making my own claims. stating your own ideas clearly and offering some support for them might be a nice start. you haven't done that.Just an FYI, productivity has not declined. If you limit the technology available, then it should decrease.
Do you care to provide some concrete claims on the decline of productivity?
Did you notice the italics on natural Boots? Say no..."natural"!!
Just read yesterday a corn borer worm that roundup was supposed to stop now happily chows down on roundup/GM corn
As insects, weeds, fungus develop resistance to x-icides, inevitably, the nastier has to be dumped on your food (I don't eat corn, soy, or wheat)
Also read that Monsanto wants to change the GM seeds to "stack" in more, different poisons, including a component of agent orange which is still ravaging and killing VN vets and VN people today.
GM garbage and Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer Crop Science, etc is meant to increase corporate profits by enslaving agriculture to its products.
They aren't meant to improve the nutritional value to consumers, who are distant second thought, and probably ignored completely by the corps.
Corn as the American aboriginals bred and consumed was multi-variety, multi-colored, MUCH more nutritious than the corporate, genized, synthetic mono-crop they try to feed us now.
Jesus you are totally stuck. So you are telling me if there was a GM crop you could grow in salty soil where NONE could be grown before, you would not use it. Even in a place people where people were severely malnourished?
This is Boots the humanitarian.
HE does not like GM crops in his grocery store.
Does Boots realize that not everyone walks through
a produce section casually selecting their Organics...
Again a broad statement, ALL GM crops are bad, they are funded by Corporations, gets in the way of common sense.
You see GM, and it reflexively scares the out of you.
Golden Rice.... Run... And that's just one.
And boots, the worm, that's how it works with so many crops, not just GM.
You should be far more concerned with invasive species carried on Cargo ships owned by...
BIG CORPORATIONS, da duhhhhh.
The Great Boutons has butt-hurt pgardn into babbling, drooling insanity
Now to the emoticons and bail on the subject at hand.The Great Boutons has butt-hurt pgardn into babbling, drooling insanity
I understand.
Just in case you care:
http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/gm-...-developing-co
Last edited by pgardn; 03-21-2014 at 09:59 AM.
there's NOTHING ETHICAL about BigAgChem enslaving poor farmers around the world to their sterile seeds and poisoning their land and water with BigAgChem x-icides
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote