• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Monsanto

L.Y.S. said:
...GMO crops will not prevent starvation, but will make it worse in the long term. Because it will artificially keep people alive that the current African farming systems can't support.
Click to expand...
So? The point is, the people are still kept alive.

When it collapses, and it will, hundreds of millions of people will die in maybe two or three years.
Click to expand...
Where exactly is your proof that such a collapse will happen in such a short amount of time?

GMO foods are not a panacea; eventually the returns of some strains might diminish. But it will probably take decades for those problems to happen. (And you're assuming that the scientists producing genetically modified strains won't come up with new variants as the old ones become less effective.)

Still, a farmer is better off using GMO varieties with good farming practices, rather than just using those other practices by themselves.

It's a huge problem in Africa. The degraded soil is a ticking time bomb that will starve out Africa's population.
Click to expand...
Some genetic modifications might actually help preserve the soil.

For example, round-up ready crops could in theory reduce the need for tilling the soil (which can lead to erosion). Work on nitrogen-fixing crops could help soil composition.

I'm just saying there are more practical ways of solving the issue other than GMO crops.
Click to expand...
Here's a question... if its so obvious that Africa's food problems can be solved "in more practical ways", then why haven't they? Do you think that you're the only person in the world to have figured that out?

Or could it be that the problems in Africa (political, social and environmental) are so significant that they can't be solved as easily as you seem to think?
 
Jono said:
I recently found this article, citing the study; 'Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being keptin the dark?'

Have these been discussed in the thread already?
Click to expand...
I don't think that's been discussed, but a few things should be kept in mind:

- Most of this thread has been talking about genetic modifications... Round-up is a herbicide... in theory it can be used even when GM is not. (I wouldn't say its "off topic", just not quite what's been focused on.)

- The sources you provided are ... questionable. The 'red green blue' site from the first link seems to be a left-wing opinion site. The article itself has a rather alarmist title, and seems to make use of at least a few questionable sources. (If there is valid science, then you'd be better off linking to a peer reviewed journal article. Most people would have no interest trying to track down the references they provided.)

- I skimmed the abstract. The article talks about how they found birth defects in frogs/chickens exposed to roundup concentrations 'below the level used in agriculture". Here's the thing though... perhaps there can be harm if exposed to the chemical directly. But as a consumer, your exposure would probably be even less than that. Perhaps it might lead to recommendations for those handling large quantities of pesticides, but the findings are irrelevant to the rest of us.

- If you are going to discuss the "risks" of Round up, you also need to consider the risks of using the alternatives. Without roundup, farmers might be required to use alternative herbicides (which themselves could cause problems). Or they might require more soil tilling, leading to more erosion (which harms the environment in the long run)
 
Segnosaur said:
I don't think that's been discussed, but a few things should be kept in mind:

- Most of this thread has been talking about genetic modifications... Round-up is a herbicide... in theory it can be used even when GM is not. (I wouldn't say its "off topic", just not quite what's been focused on.)

- The sources you provided are ... questionable. The 'red green blue' site from the first link seems to be a left-wing opinion site. The article itself has a rather alarmist title, and seems to make use of at least a few questionable sources. (If there is valid science, then you'd be better off linking to a peer reviewed journal article. Most people would have no interest trying to track down the references they provided.)

- I skimmed the abstract. The article talks about how they found birth defects in frogs/chickens exposed to roundup concentrations 'below the level used in agriculture". Here's the thing though... perhaps there can be harm if exposed to the chemical directly. But as a consumer, your exposure would probably be even less than that. Perhaps it might lead to recommendations for those handling large quantities of pesticides, but the findings are irrelevant to the rest of us.

- If you are going to discuss the "risks" of Round up, you also need to consider the risks of using the alternatives. Without roundup, farmers might be required to use alternative herbicides (which themselves could cause problems). Or they might require more soil tilling, leading to more erosion (which harms the environment in the long run)
Click to expand...

I appreciate the reply. I have no real opinion on Round-Up myself, yet. I just thought that, having browsed the thread quite briefly, it might make for a relevant addition concerning the, seemingly, many notably different complaints against Monsanto in particular. I'd find such a discussion interesting myself anyway.
 
Segnosaur said:
- The sources you provided are ... questionable. The 'red green blue' site from the first link seems to be a left-wing opinion site. The article itself has a rather alarmist title, and seems to make use of at least a few questionable sources. ...
Click to expand...

I tried to read the study itself, then download it, but both failed and all I got was the intro. Perhaps a Firefox NoScript issue.

But one comment left on the article was “ 'How to hide behind bad science'? Artificially dose an embryo with 2,000 times the legal limit and claim you’ve identified a problem." , the opening remark referring to the next article on that site, "How to hide behind bad science".

I think we've discussed before that direct application of glyphosate to embryos is a world away from their plausible exposure in nature. Hell, expose frog embryos to stratospheric doses of Cheddar cheese and I dare say they'll grow up weird.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
I think we've discussed before that direct application of glyphosate to embryos is a world away from their plausible exposure in nature. Hell, expose frog embryos to stratospheric doses of Cheddar cheese and I dare say they'll grow up weird.
Click to expand...

The same could be said for Aspartame...which, incidentally, is also lumped into Monsanto's lap. Too much of anything will kill you, or make you a mutant.
 
L.Y.S. said:
It won't solve the issue. I wrote a long response, and then I had the fortune of not being able to post it due to internet issues. Needless to say, GMO crops will not prevent starvation, but will make it worse in the long term. Because it will artificially keep people alive that the current African farming systems can't support. When it collapses, and it will, hundreds of millions of people will die in maybe two or three years. It's a huge problem in Africa. The degraded soil is a ticking time bomb that will starve out Africa's population. So rather than solve the crisis, it will make it worse. GMOs in the long term will only neglect a much larger situation which is Africa's various infrastructures.
Click to expand...

Let's let them die now to save more in the future!
 
Brainster said:
Let's let them die now to save more in the future!
Click to expand...

Despite your witticisms and overly self-righteous bologna, that's the best option we've got. Keeping alive any more sub-Saharans will exponentially make the problem worse without first improving infrastructure. There's no way around that. Giving them the capability to grow desert food will mean nothing if they keep over grazing grass lands to feed cattle and livestock. They'll starve themselves out.
 
Segnosaur said:
So? The point is, the people are still kept alive.


Where exactly is your proof that such a collapse will happen in such a short amount of time?

GMO foods are not a panacea; eventually the returns of some strains might diminish. But it will probably take decades for those problems to happen. (And you're assuming that the scientists producing genetically modified strains won't come up with new variants as the old ones become less effective.)

Still, a farmer is better off using GMO varieties with good farming practices, rather than just using those other practices by themselves.



Some genetic modifications might actually help preserve the soil.

For example, round-up ready crops could in theory reduce the need for tilling the soil (which can lead to erosion). Work on nitrogen-fixing crops could help soil composition.


Here's a question... if its so obvious that Africa's food problems can be solved "in more practical ways", then why haven't they? Do you think that you're the only person in the world to have figured that out?

Or could it be that the problems in Africa (political, social and environmental) are so significant that they can't be solved as easily as you seem to think?
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. If we keep them alive any longer without helping them on the serious issue of infrastructure, then more will die later when the natural ecosystem collapses and fails to support so many people. In essence, more people will die because more stress was put onto the food supplies that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

Many of the proposed solutions have been implemented in poor villages in India. Many of the villages were drying up like the Sahel. Simple irrigation systems fixed many of the water shortages, and villagers actually ended up using less water after irrigation systems were built. Bottom line, without fixing how people farm, you can give them all the GMO crops you want, the ecosystem will collapse and people will still die in the millions. There is no way to prevent the inevitable. As gloom as it sounds, it's true. Without fixing the water supply, Africans will die any how.
 
L.Y.S. said:
You're missing the point. If we keep them alive any longer without helping them on the serious issue of infrastructure, then more will die later when the natural ecosystem collapses and fails to support so many people. In essence, more people will die because more stress was put onto the food supplies that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

Many of the proposed solutions have been implemented in poor villages in India. Many of the villages were drying up like the Sahel. Simple irrigation systems fixed many of the water shortages, and villagers actually ended up using less water after irrigation systems were built. Bottom line, without fixing how people farm, you can give them all the GMO crops you want, the ecosystem will collapse and people will still die in the millions. There is no way to prevent the inevitable. As gloom as it sounds, it's true. Without fixing the water supply, Africans will die any how.
Click to expand...


Are the two mutually exclusive? Why not use GMO in concert with infrastructure changes?
 
Polaris said:
No, it's great! All you have to do is think of a bigger problem than the one at hand and you never have to do anything.
Click to expand...

I just realized this is exactly how I run my own affairs. It's a loser on the practical side, but on the emotional, feel good side, it's pretty effective.
 
So....

Don't give a man a fish, he might starve tomorrow?

Don't teach a man to fish, he might have kids and they'll starve when the fish run out?

Is that the logic here?

"address all complaints to the Monsanto Corporation."
 
Does anyone have a reliable source for the Bill Gates foundation donation of Monsanto crop to African farmers? I seem to be unable to find any reliable source. So far I've found Monsanto and Eugenics.

As per the request of marsplots, no the two are not mutually exclusive. However, one has the right to be skeptical. In the past there were charitable things done in Africa which ended up backfiring, Polio vaccinations come to mind. One question about Monsanto that I have is about patent rights. Do the same patent principles practiced in America apply abroad, enforceable by international courts? I can see this as very troubling in the future if so. A lot of doubt is raised by this question. At any rate, it may ironically be much cheaper to build irrigation units than actually buy GMO crop in the long term. Cheap irrigation solutions have been used in India with extreme success.

Brainster said:
Because then evil Monsanto gets at least part of the credit for saving lives.
Click to expand...

For the record, Monsanto isn't doing anything Charitable. Bill Gates purchased Monsanto product through his foundation to donate to farmers. Bill Gates was the individual who initiated this process. That little bit I was able to find.
 
Last edited:
Well I don't know about the Bill & Melinda Gates initiatives in Africa, but there is the USAID funded ABSPII project. In these cases the technology is licensed to local universities to develop their own varieties for distribution to farmers at minimal cost.

In India, for example, Mahyco licensed the Bt technology pro bono to state universities in India to develop Bt versions of existing "varieties" which would be distributed by the universities to farmers at nearly the same price as non Bt seeds already being distributed by them.

Mahyco, the private seed company will focus on developin Bt versions of "hybrids."
 
L.Y.S. said:
As per the request of marsplots (re: GMO and better farming practices), no the two are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Yet in your earlier posts you certainly gave the impression that GMO technologies should be avoided by African nations.

However, one has the right to be skeptical.
Click to expand...
As long as you realize that around here, the term 'skeptical' does not mean "automatic doubt of all claims". It means following the evidence.

Right now, the majority of the evidence points to GMO being of net benefit (to Africa and the world). The "skeptical" thing to do is to accept the evidence.

In the past there were charitable things done in Africa which ended up backfiring, Polio vaccinations come to mind.
Click to expand...
Ummm... Polio vaccines? Tell us more. I've never heard of polio vaccines "backfiring".


One question about Monsanto that I have is about patent rights. Do the same patent principles practiced in America apply abroad
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends on the product.

I know (for example) that Monsanto is allowing the use of its patents on golden rice (modified to provide vitamin A, which will help prevent blindness) royalty free (i.e. farmers will be able to grow/replant/etc. without paying). Another poster posted other examples of GMO technology being distributed to other countries with no cost.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/865946.stm

Its possible that there may be some GMO "cash crops" that won't be royalty free... but just with agriculture in the western world, farmers will not be forced to use GMO seeds. (Only if they want whatever benefits they provide.)

I can see this as very troubling in the future if so.
Click to expand...
Errr.. not really. "Natural" seeds will still be available, if farmers don't think GMO provides enough benefit for them.

At any rate, it may ironically be much cheaper to build irrigation units than actually buy GMO crop in the long term. Cheap irrigation solutions have been used in India with extreme success.
Click to expand...
And so has GMO technology. Once study showed that a group of poor cotton farmers in India who started using GMO crops:
- Increased the amount of calories and quality of food available to them (they could afford more/better food)
- increased the level of "food security"

http://www.latimes.com/news/science...-diet-indian-farmers-20130606,0,1703252.story

For the record, Monsanto isn't doing anything Charitable.
Click to expand...
First of all, as I pointed out, Monsanto is allowing the use of some of its patents royalty-free. (So yes, it is doing something charitable.... now, maybe they find it beneficial from a public-relations point of view, but they're still donating.)

Secondly, its an irrelevant point. Even if each and every Monsanto employee was a completely greedy bugger, who sits and twirls their long moustaches while dreaming of drowning kittens, that doesn't necessarily mean that GMO technology is bad. There are farmers out there who, despite the fact that they have to pay, still find their improved crop yields justify the added expense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom